<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_27_1811253</id>
	<title>Engaging With Climate Skeptics</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259308920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>In the wake of the <a href="//politics.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1747257/Climatic-Research-Unit-Hacked-Files-Leaked">CRU "climategate" leak</a>, reader Geoffrey.landis sends along a New York Times blog <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?hp">profile of Judith Curry</a>, a climate scientist at <a href="http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html">Georgia Tech</a>. <i>"Curry &mdash; unlike many climate scientists &mdash; does not simply dismiss the arguments of 'climate skeptics,' but attempts to engage them in dialogue. She can, as well, be rather pointed in criticizing her colleagues, as in a <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7826">post on the skeptic site climateaudit</a> where she argues for greater transparency for climate data and calculations (<a href="http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/">mirrored here</a>). In this post she makes a point that tribalism in science is the main culprit here &mdash;- that when scientists 'circle the wagons' to defend against what they perceive to be unfair (and unscientific) attacks, the result can be damaging to the actual science being defended. Is it still possible to conduct a dialogue, or is there no possible common ground?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the wake of the CRU " climategate " leak , reader Geoffrey.landis sends along a New York Times blog profile of Judith Curry , a climate scientist at Georgia Tech .
" Curry    unlike many climate scientists    does not simply dismiss the arguments of 'climate skeptics, ' but attempts to engage them in dialogue .
She can , as well , be rather pointed in criticizing her colleagues , as in a post on the skeptic site climateaudit where she argues for greater transparency for climate data and calculations ( mirrored here ) .
In this post she makes a point that tribalism in science is the main culprit here    - that when scientists 'circle the wagons ' to defend against what they perceive to be unfair ( and unscientific ) attacks , the result can be damaging to the actual science being defended .
Is it still possible to conduct a dialogue , or is there no possible common ground ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the wake of the CRU "climategate" leak, reader Geoffrey.landis sends along a New York Times blog profile of Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech.
"Curry — unlike many climate scientists — does not simply dismiss the arguments of 'climate skeptics,' but attempts to engage them in dialogue.
She can, as well, be rather pointed in criticizing her colleagues, as in a post on the skeptic site climateaudit where she argues for greater transparency for climate data and calculations (mirrored here).
In this post she makes a point that tribalism in science is the main culprit here —- that when scientists 'circle the wagons' to defend against what they perceive to be unfair (and unscientific) attacks, the result can be damaging to the actual science being defended.
Is it still possible to conduct a dialogue, or is there no possible common ground?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252128</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a climate sceptic, but not how you think...</title>
	<author>Rozine</author>
	<datestamp>1259338500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you might not have considered some of the impact of the rising temperatures.  Since you seem like you're being fairly open-minded about this, and since I agree with some of your conclusions (particularly about technology), I don't mind pointing this out.  In a lot of places a few more degrees would be nice.  Unfortunately, humans tend to like water.  They settle on rivers, floodplains, and low-lying coastal areas.  Even more unfortunately, these also tend to be high-density, low-income regions.  For instance, the nation of Bangladesh, which has 140 million people generally living in poverty is mostly &lt;10m above sea level.  (http://countrystudies.us/bangladesh/23.htm).  Worse, the entire coastal area is essentially at sea level.  A small increase in temperature would cause a small increase in sea levels, which would immediately displace millions of indigent people.  Of course, this is only one small country.  While  not every country will have nearly the same scale of problems, it's clear that the human toll in some areas at least could be severe.
<p>
The environmental impact on wildlife is also actually rather interesting.  I don't have any links or handy info available, but there have been a number of fascinating studies done on how life is adjusting or not adjusting to these issues.  The warming that's happened so far has illuminated some interesting things that we might not have discovered otherwise.  We stand to lose a great deal of biodiversity, however, at least in the short term (geologically speaking of course).
</p><p>
So, not all change is bad, man-made change can sometimes be really good...but I don't think that's the case on balance here.  YMMV, though.  Did you have anything concrete that you'd like to point out to support what you were saying?  I would be interested to hear it (and not just as a rhetorical point, either).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't take this the wrong way , but I think you might not have considered some of the impact of the rising temperatures .
Since you seem like you 're being fairly open-minded about this , and since I agree with some of your conclusions ( particularly about technology ) , I do n't mind pointing this out .
In a lot of places a few more degrees would be nice .
Unfortunately , humans tend to like water .
They settle on rivers , floodplains , and low-lying coastal areas .
Even more unfortunately , these also tend to be high-density , low-income regions .
For instance , the nation of Bangladesh , which has 140 million people generally living in poverty is mostly The environmental impact on wildlife is also actually rather interesting .
I do n't have any links or handy info available , but there have been a number of fascinating studies done on how life is adjusting or not adjusting to these issues .
The warming that 's happened so far has illuminated some interesting things that we might not have discovered otherwise .
We stand to lose a great deal of biodiversity , however , at least in the short term ( geologically speaking of course ) .
So , not all change is bad , man-made change can sometimes be really good...but I do n't think that 's the case on balance here .
YMMV , though .
Did you have anything concrete that you 'd like to point out to support what you were saying ?
I would be interested to hear it ( and not just as a rhetorical point , either ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you might not have considered some of the impact of the rising temperatures.
Since you seem like you're being fairly open-minded about this, and since I agree with some of your conclusions (particularly about technology), I don't mind pointing this out.
In a lot of places a few more degrees would be nice.
Unfortunately, humans tend to like water.
They settle on rivers, floodplains, and low-lying coastal areas.
Even more unfortunately, these also tend to be high-density, low-income regions.
For instance, the nation of Bangladesh, which has 140 million people generally living in poverty is mostly 
The environmental impact on wildlife is also actually rather interesting.
I don't have any links or handy info available, but there have been a number of fascinating studies done on how life is adjusting or not adjusting to these issues.
The warming that's happened so far has illuminated some interesting things that we might not have discovered otherwise.
We stand to lose a great deal of biodiversity, however, at least in the short term (geologically speaking of course).
So, not all change is bad, man-made change can sometimes be really good...but I don't think that's the case on balance here.
YMMV, though.
Did you have anything concrete that you'd like to point out to support what you were saying?
I would be interested to hear it (and not just as a rhetorical point, either).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252294</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259340900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you should work on the ability to explain it clearly. Saying you can't explain it to a layperson is your failing, not theirs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should work on the ability to explain it clearly .
Saying you ca n't explain it to a layperson is your failing , not theirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should work on the ability to explain it clearly.
Saying you can't explain it to a layperson is your failing, not theirs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251098</id>
	<title>Re:Don't argue with the science</title>
	<author>Kohath</author>
	<datestamp>1259328120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PhDs can't lie?  PhDs can't defraud?  Climate scientists' FORTRAN code is immune to bugs?  Or mistakes?  Or manipulation?</p><p>Do these PhDs ever get revoked?</p><p>Your statement is silly.</p><p>I know lots of PhDs.  I work with them.  They sometimes make mistakes.  (But it gets discovered because I'm in a field where predictions get tested.  We don't just come to a consensus and then tell everyone else to shut up.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PhDs ca n't lie ?
PhDs ca n't defraud ?
Climate scientists ' FORTRAN code is immune to bugs ?
Or mistakes ?
Or manipulation ? Do these PhDs ever get revoked ? Your statement is silly.I know lots of PhDs .
I work with them .
They sometimes make mistakes .
( But it gets discovered because I 'm in a field where predictions get tested .
We do n't just come to a consensus and then tell everyone else to shut up .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PhDs can't lie?
PhDs can't defraud?
Climate scientists' FORTRAN code is immune to bugs?
Or mistakes?
Or manipulation?Do these PhDs ever get revoked?Your statement is silly.I know lots of PhDs.
I work with them.
They sometimes make mistakes.
(But it gets discovered because I'm in a field where predictions get tested.
We don't just come to a consensus and then tell everyone else to shut up.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248500</id>
	<title>Their time is up</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1259314140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find the comments to the newest piece of gore's intellectual diarrhea (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b1067b2-dacd-11de-933d-00144feabdc0.html) indicative of the public opinion on him ang his AGW scam cronies following the climategate. Too bad, so many of you guys here are entrenched in the leftist agenda because of FSF ideology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the comments to the newest piece of gore 's intellectual diarrhea ( http : //www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b1067b2-dacd-11de-933d-00144feabdc0.html ) indicative of the public opinion on him ang his AGW scam cronies following the climategate .
Too bad , so many of you guys here are entrenched in the leftist agenda because of FSF ideology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the comments to the newest piece of gore's intellectual diarrhea (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b1067b2-dacd-11de-933d-00144feabdc0.html) indicative of the public opinion on him ang his AGW scam cronies following the climategate.
Too bad, so many of you guys here are entrenched in the leftist agenda because of FSF ideology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256678</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259401980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They demand the power to do this, but they refuse to release their data. They refuse to publish the code for their computer models. They refuse to rationally refute skepticism. They refuse to understand human behavior as described by the discipline of Economics</i> <br> <br>

Yet those of us questioning get modded down, and yes, shouted down. I wonder why that is, slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They demand the power to do this , but they refuse to release their data .
They refuse to publish the code for their computer models .
They refuse to rationally refute skepticism .
They refuse to understand human behavior as described by the discipline of Economics Yet those of us questioning get modded down , and yes , shouted down .
I wonder why that is , slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They demand the power to do this, but they refuse to release their data.
They refuse to publish the code for their computer models.
They refuse to rationally refute skepticism.
They refuse to understand human behavior as described by the discipline of Economics  

Yet those of us questioning get modded down, and yes, shouted down.
I wonder why that is, slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256018</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1259439120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Depends, what kind of scientist are you? are you a climatologist? the please present an alternative hypothesis, and propose a way to test it.</i></p><p>Supposedly Lindzen is about to publish a paper that shows something opposite of the greenhouse effect on Earth based on a multi-year study from one of the recent NASA satellites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends , what kind of scientist are you ?
are you a climatologist ?
the please present an alternative hypothesis , and propose a way to test it.Supposedly Lindzen is about to publish a paper that shows something opposite of the greenhouse effect on Earth based on a multi-year study from one of the recent NASA satellites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends, what kind of scientist are you?
are you a climatologist?
the please present an alternative hypothesis, and propose a way to test it.Supposedly Lindzen is about to publish a paper that shows something opposite of the greenhouse effect on Earth based on a multi-year study from one of the recent NASA satellites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249140</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are not Politicians</title>
	<author>kholburn</author>
	<datestamp>1259317440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's up to representatives of industries worth trillions of dollars to lobby and create a climate of denial and for the rest of us who don't want anything to change to pretend it's not happening</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's up to representatives of industries worth trillions of dollars to lobby and create a climate of denial and for the rest of us who do n't want anything to change to pretend it 's not happening</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's up to representatives of industries worth trillions of dollars to lobby and create a climate of denial and for the rest of us who don't want anything to change to pretend it's not happening</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254420</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259422620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Depends, what kind of scientist are you? are you a climatologist?</p> </div><p>
Climatologist eh.. what do you suppose a climatologist does that is scientific?<br>
<br>
See, scientists perform this thing called the Scientific Method. They set up experiments, collect results, and all those nifty things.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, a climatologist does not perform the Scientific Method. Instead they process data collected by real scientists, such as Geologists and Oceanographers, in a statistical manner. So the really important degree that they should have is one in STATISTICS.<br>
<br>
I trust a statistician more than some half-baked earth scientist who couldn't or wouldn't hack it performing actual science. Did you know that these guys hide their data, methods, and results, from people with degrees in statistics? Thats what climatologists do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends , what kind of scientist are you ?
are you a climatologist ?
Climatologist eh.. what do you suppose a climatologist does that is scientific ?
See , scientists perform this thing called the Scientific Method .
They set up experiments , collect results , and all those nifty things .
On the other hand , a climatologist does not perform the Scientific Method .
Instead they process data collected by real scientists , such as Geologists and Oceanographers , in a statistical manner .
So the really important degree that they should have is one in STATISTICS .
I trust a statistician more than some half-baked earth scientist who could n't or would n't hack it performing actual science .
Did you know that these guys hide their data , methods , and results , from people with degrees in statistics ?
Thats what climatologists do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends, what kind of scientist are you?
are you a climatologist?
Climatologist eh.. what do you suppose a climatologist does that is scientific?
See, scientists perform this thing called the Scientific Method.
They set up experiments, collect results, and all those nifty things.
On the other hand, a climatologist does not perform the Scientific Method.
Instead they process data collected by real scientists, such as Geologists and Oceanographers, in a statistical manner.
So the really important degree that they should have is one in STATISTICS.
I trust a statistician more than some half-baked earth scientist who couldn't or wouldn't hack it performing actual science.
Did you know that these guys hide their data, methods, and results, from people with degrees in statistics?
Thats what climatologists do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253208</id>
	<title>Re:Common Ground?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259400000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... which leads me to wonder if you (or Dr. Jones for that matter) knows much at all about philosophy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... which leads me to wonder if you ( or Dr. Jones for that matter ) knows much at all about philosophy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... which leads me to wonder if you (or Dr. Jones for that matter) knows much at all about philosophy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251390</id>
	<title>i'm still waiting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259330160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for the 'population bomb'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for the 'population bomb'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for the 'population bomb'...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251492</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1259331360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs. We all seemed to agree as a planet that they were bad.</i></p><p>Quite the contrary. Arguments, not to dissimilar to the ones we here now about climate change were all the rage at the time. The internet wasn't as pervasive so there as a lot less noise about it, but it was there. You can run a few searches on CFC skeptic and the like.</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs .
We all seemed to agree as a planet that they were bad.Quite the contrary .
Arguments , not to dissimilar to the ones we here now about climate change were all the rage at the time .
The internet was n't as pervasive so there as a lot less noise about it , but it was there .
You can run a few searches on CFC skeptic and the like. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs.
We all seemed to agree as a planet that they were bad.Quite the contrary.
Arguments, not to dissimilar to the ones we here now about climate change were all the rage at the time.
The internet wasn't as pervasive so there as a lot less noise about it, but it was there.
You can run a few searches on CFC skeptic and the like.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For twenty years, it's been "stop asking questions, the science is settled, you're evil people for questioning our well-established and peer-reviewed science!"</p><p>Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam, it's "you're still evil for asking all of those questions (even though they turned out to have a good foundation for skepticism, and you were pretty much right about the weak science), but we're now very willing to work with you to find out what the REAL science is.  And, by the way, we're still going to want to control the debate, and the peer review is going to be under our control, but feel free to submit any questions you may have to our Web page..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For twenty years , it 's been " stop asking questions , the science is settled , you 're evil people for questioning our well-established and peer-reviewed science !
" Now , after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam , it 's " you 're still evil for asking all of those questions ( even though they turned out to have a good foundation for skepticism , and you were pretty much right about the weak science ) , but we 're now very willing to work with you to find out what the REAL science is .
And , by the way , we 're still going to want to control the debate , and the peer review is going to be under our control , but feel free to submit any questions you may have to our Web page... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For twenty years, it's been "stop asking questions, the science is settled, you're evil people for questioning our well-established and peer-reviewed science!
"Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam, it's "you're still evil for asking all of those questions (even though they turned out to have a good foundation for skepticism, and you were pretty much right about the weak science), but we're now very willing to work with you to find out what the REAL science is.
And, by the way, we're still going to want to control the debate, and the peer review is going to be under our control, but feel free to submit any questions you may have to our Web page..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251728</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259333460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say we perform an experiment.  We should set up an accurate measurement system, pump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atomspher for 50 years and record the results.  That, my friends, is science.  Everything else is just politics and economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we perform an experiment .
We should set up an accurate measurement system , pump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atomspher for 50 years and record the results .
That , my friends , is science .
Everything else is just politics and economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we perform an experiment.
We should set up an accurate measurement system, pump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atomspher for 50 years and record the results.
That, my friends, is science.
Everything else is just politics and economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249380</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259318760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, there are not that many of them. I am thinking that more and more, they belong with those that claim that the earth is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, that God created the earth 5000 years ago, that man could NOT be derived from other primates, and that the vast majority of AIDs is not caused by HIV. In fact, I tend to think that it is about 95\% those against GW as well as AGW ARE THE SAME SET OF SCIENTISTS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there are not that many of them .
I am thinking that more and more , they belong with those that claim that the earth is flat , that the earth is the center of the universe , that God created the earth 5000 years ago , that man could NOT be derived from other primates , and that the vast majority of AIDs is not caused by HIV .
In fact , I tend to think that it is about 95 \ % those against GW as well as AGW ARE THE SAME SET OF SCIENTISTS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there are not that many of them.
I am thinking that more and more, they belong with those that claim that the earth is flat, that the earth is the center of the universe, that God created the earth 5000 years ago, that man could NOT be derived from other primates, and that the vast majority of AIDs is not caused by HIV.
In fact, I tend to think that it is about 95\% those against GW as well as AGW ARE THE SAME SET OF SCIENTISTS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249150</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>frogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1259317560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, single or small numbers of events like this don't prove anything.  We need to accumulate more evidence of many such events.  We need longer time series to be more confident (statistically confident) in the trends.  Even then, without some physically based models, interpreting trends is always subject to not knowing the future.  Models help because they give you a way to extrapolate from the data into the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , single or small numbers of events like this do n't prove anything .
We need to accumulate more evidence of many such events .
We need longer time series to be more confident ( statistically confident ) in the trends .
Even then , without some physically based models , interpreting trends is always subject to not knowing the future .
Models help because they give you a way to extrapolate from the data into the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, single or small numbers of events like this don't prove anything.
We need to accumulate more evidence of many such events.
We need longer time series to be more confident (statistically confident) in the trends.
Even then, without some physically based models, interpreting trends is always subject to not knowing the future.
Models help because they give you a way to extrapolate from the data into the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251692</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a climate sceptic, but not how you think...</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1259333040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view, it is this: while I'm willing to accept that substantial data shows that mankind's activities have resulted in atmospheric change - and while I'm willing to believe that this influences climate, I've one key question: is the change for the worse? Really? How can you be so sure?</p></div></blockquote><p>And if prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view, it is this: while I'm willing to accept that fossil fuels have had a dramatic effect on human society for the better, I've one key question: is changing the climate of the entire Earth without knowing the consequences acceptable?  Really?  How can you be so sure?</p><p>I dislike the doom-laden 'changing our dependence on fossil fuels will wreck human society' crowd for one key reason: they can't provide any evidence that we won't suffer those consequences anyways given fossil fuels aren't renewable. There have been multiple radical shifts in fuel sources by mankind throughout history.  Why not work towards yet another shift using a more sustainable power source?  Yes, perhaps economics will inherently fix the problem in the long-term, but what's wrong with working towards fixing the problem now?  If the survival of humanity is truly desired for the long-term, new power sources being developed sooner is better.  It greatly increases our ability to multiply on other planets/moons to survive otherwise plant-scale cataclysmic events.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view , it is this : while I 'm willing to accept that substantial data shows that mankind 's activities have resulted in atmospheric change - and while I 'm willing to believe that this influences climate , I 've one key question : is the change for the worse ?
Really ? How can you be so sure ? And if prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view , it is this : while I 'm willing to accept that fossil fuels have had a dramatic effect on human society for the better , I 've one key question : is changing the climate of the entire Earth without knowing the consequences acceptable ?
Really ? How can you be so sure ? I dislike the doom-laden 'changing our dependence on fossil fuels will wreck human society ' crowd for one key reason : they ca n't provide any evidence that we wo n't suffer those consequences anyways given fossil fuels are n't renewable .
There have been multiple radical shifts in fuel sources by mankind throughout history .
Why not work towards yet another shift using a more sustainable power source ?
Yes , perhaps economics will inherently fix the problem in the long-term , but what 's wrong with working towards fixing the problem now ?
If the survival of humanity is truly desired for the long-term , new power sources being developed sooner is better .
It greatly increases our ability to multiply on other planets/moons to survive otherwise plant-scale cataclysmic events .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view, it is this: while I'm willing to accept that substantial data shows that mankind's activities have resulted in atmospheric change - and while I'm willing to believe that this influences climate, I've one key question: is the change for the worse?
Really? How can you be so sure?And if prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view, it is this: while I'm willing to accept that fossil fuels have had a dramatic effect on human society for the better, I've one key question: is changing the climate of the entire Earth without knowing the consequences acceptable?
Really?  How can you be so sure?I dislike the doom-laden 'changing our dependence on fossil fuels will wreck human society' crowd for one key reason: they can't provide any evidence that we won't suffer those consequences anyways given fossil fuels aren't renewable.
There have been multiple radical shifts in fuel sources by mankind throughout history.
Why not work towards yet another shift using a more sustainable power source?
Yes, perhaps economics will inherently fix the problem in the long-term, but what's wrong with working towards fixing the problem now?
If the survival of humanity is truly desired for the long-term, new power sources being developed sooner is better.
It greatly increases our ability to multiply on other planets/moons to survive otherwise plant-scale cataclysmic events.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30349688</id>
	<title>Here, have some clmate models</title>
	<author>freejung</author>
	<datestamp>1260125700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm coming late to this discussion, but I have to comment on this. It is simply not true that climate scientists in general don't want to reveal their models. In fact, many of them are publicly available, as is much of the actual data. Here have a look at this <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/" title="realclimate.org">collection of climate model code and data</a> [realclimate.org].</p><p>
Incidentally, you are also incorrect about climate science not being esoteric. You think global average temperature is a simple quantity to calculate? Yeah, the result is just a number, but a vast amount of data and calculation goes into getting that number. I think a lot of critics of climate science don't appreciate the degree to which climate scientists have bent over backward to try to make their results accessible to laypeople, although the details are actually quite complicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm coming late to this discussion , but I have to comment on this .
It is simply not true that climate scientists in general do n't want to reveal their models .
In fact , many of them are publicly available , as is much of the actual data .
Here have a look at this collection of climate model code and data [ realclimate.org ] .
Incidentally , you are also incorrect about climate science not being esoteric .
You think global average temperature is a simple quantity to calculate ?
Yeah , the result is just a number , but a vast amount of data and calculation goes into getting that number .
I think a lot of critics of climate science do n't appreciate the degree to which climate scientists have bent over backward to try to make their results accessible to laypeople , although the details are actually quite complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm coming late to this discussion, but I have to comment on this.
It is simply not true that climate scientists in general don't want to reveal their models.
In fact, many of them are publicly available, as is much of the actual data.
Here have a look at this collection of climate model code and data [realclimate.org].
Incidentally, you are also incorrect about climate science not being esoteric.
You think global average temperature is a simple quantity to calculate?
Yeah, the result is just a number, but a vast amount of data and calculation goes into getting that number.
I think a lot of critics of climate science don't appreciate the degree to which climate scientists have bent over backward to try to make their results accessible to laypeople, although the details are actually quite complicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520</id>
	<title>Engaging with whom exactly?</title>
	<author>openfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1259314200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Engaging with skeptics" is an approach that I find improvised and naive at best.</p><p>First on the list of naivete is accepting their self-description as skeptics without any second-thought. They are anything but skeptics. They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective. Their self-description as skeptics and their talking points have been carefully laid out by PR firms working for powerful vested interests.</p><p>Theirs is a concerted strategy to influence public opinion and the last salvo with this "hacking" thing happens just before the Copenhagen summit. She does not even question the legitimacy of those emails.</p><p>Engaging with the public and with legitimate political representatives is what climate scientists must do. "Skeptics" doing disinformation should be exposed, not engaged with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Engaging with skeptics " is an approach that I find improvised and naive at best.First on the list of naivete is accepting their self-description as skeptics without any second-thought .
They are anything but skeptics .
They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective .
Their self-description as skeptics and their talking points have been carefully laid out by PR firms working for powerful vested interests.Theirs is a concerted strategy to influence public opinion and the last salvo with this " hacking " thing happens just before the Copenhagen summit .
She does not even question the legitimacy of those emails.Engaging with the public and with legitimate political representatives is what climate scientists must do .
" Skeptics " doing disinformation should be exposed , not engaged with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Engaging with skeptics" is an approach that I find improvised and naive at best.First on the list of naivete is accepting their self-description as skeptics without any second-thought.
They are anything but skeptics.
They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective.
Their self-description as skeptics and their talking points have been carefully laid out by PR firms working for powerful vested interests.Theirs is a concerted strategy to influence public opinion and the last salvo with this "hacking" thing happens just before the Copenhagen summit.
She does not even question the legitimacy of those emails.Engaging with the public and with legitimate political representatives is what climate scientists must do.
"Skeptics" doing disinformation should be exposed, not engaged with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249174</id>
	<title>As soon as scientist believe in UFOs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259317740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll start believing in man-made-climate-change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll start believing in man-made-climate-change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll start believing in man-made-climate-change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336</id>
	<title>I'm a climate sceptic, but not how you think...</title>
	<author>shic</author>
	<datestamp>1259318520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the whole 'climate change' debate is bizarre, and I am deeply sceptical about those who use climate change to push tenuously related political agendas.</p><p>If prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view, it is this:  while I'm willing to accept that substantial data shows that mankind's activities have resulted in atmospheric change - and while I'm willing to believe that this influences climate, I've one key question:  is the change for the worse?  Really?  How can you be so sure?</p><p>I dislike the doom-laden 'climate change will wreck our environment' crowd for one key reason:  they can't provide any evidence that I wouldn't prefer the climate after it has changed.  Lots of things have been affected by mankind - and, frankly, I prefer to live in the world in which these changes have been made.</p><p>While I applaud being economical - and dislike pollution as much as the next sane person... I also think mankind belongs on earth... and I'm not willing to blindly jump on the change implies disaster bandwagon.  I'd like the scientific debate to be, erm, more scientific... science can't tell us what we should chose for our future - it only illuminates mechanisms... if we want to engage in a debate about what influence we should exert on our own futures, maybe we need to bring in philosophy and ethics.  All I can assure you is that I expect no clear cut answers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the whole 'climate change ' debate is bizarre , and I am deeply sceptical about those who use climate change to push tenuously related political agendas.If prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view , it is this : while I 'm willing to accept that substantial data shows that mankind 's activities have resulted in atmospheric change - and while I 'm willing to believe that this influences climate , I 've one key question : is the change for the worse ?
Really ? How can you be so sure ? I dislike the doom-laden 'climate change will wreck our environment ' crowd for one key reason : they ca n't provide any evidence that I would n't prefer the climate after it has changed .
Lots of things have been affected by mankind - and , frankly , I prefer to live in the world in which these changes have been made.While I applaud being economical - and dislike pollution as much as the next sane person... I also think mankind belongs on earth... and I 'm not willing to blindly jump on the change implies disaster bandwagon .
I 'd like the scientific debate to be , erm , more scientific... science ca n't tell us what we should chose for our future - it only illuminates mechanisms... if we want to engage in a debate about what influence we should exert on our own futures , maybe we need to bring in philosophy and ethics .
All I can assure you is that I expect no clear cut answers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the whole 'climate change' debate is bizarre, and I am deeply sceptical about those who use climate change to push tenuously related political agendas.If prompted for my strongest climate-sceptic view, it is this:  while I'm willing to accept that substantial data shows that mankind's activities have resulted in atmospheric change - and while I'm willing to believe that this influences climate, I've one key question:  is the change for the worse?
Really?  How can you be so sure?I dislike the doom-laden 'climate change will wreck our environment' crowd for one key reason:  they can't provide any evidence that I wouldn't prefer the climate after it has changed.
Lots of things have been affected by mankind - and, frankly, I prefer to live in the world in which these changes have been made.While I applaud being economical - and dislike pollution as much as the next sane person... I also think mankind belongs on earth... and I'm not willing to blindly jump on the change implies disaster bandwagon.
I'd like the scientific debate to be, erm, more scientific... science can't tell us what we should chose for our future - it only illuminates mechanisms... if we want to engage in a debate about what influence we should exert on our own futures, maybe we need to bring in philosophy and ethics.
All I can assure you is that I expect no clear cut answers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30262524</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259520060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. Most of that loss in the arctic was thanks to winds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Most of that loss in the arctic was thanks to winds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Most of that loss in the arctic was thanks to winds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30309116</id>
	<title>You surely can run 100m</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1259845440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if you don't do it in 5 seconds or less I declare you officially a liar.</p><p>I hope you understand my allegory.</p><p>Rate of change matters, because we poor humans (and living things in general) can't react to global sudden changes very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you do n't do it in 5 seconds or less I declare you officially a liar.I hope you understand my allegory.Rate of change matters , because we poor humans ( and living things in general ) ca n't react to global sudden changes very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you don't do it in 5 seconds or less I declare you officially a liar.I hope you understand my allegory.Rate of change matters, because we poor humans (and living things in general) can't react to global sudden changes very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296</id>
	<title>ESR said it very well - Open Source Science</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1259312760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1436" title="ibiblio.org">Open-sourcing the Global Warming Debate</a> [ibiblio.org]:</p><blockquote><div><p>AGW true believers and "denialists" should be able to agree on this: the data get the last word, because without them theory is groundless. The only way for the CRU researchers to clear themselves of the imputation of serious error or fraud is full disclosure of the <b>measurement techniques</b>, the <b>raw primary data sets</b>, the <b>code used to reduce them</b>, and of their <b>decisions during the process of interpretation</b>. They should have nothing to hide; let them so demonstrate by hiding nothing.</p></div></blockquote><p>In short, if computer models are the primary tool in making all sorts of climate predictions, then let's have transparency in building the models and getting conclusions from them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open-sourcing the Global Warming Debate [ ibiblio.org ] : AGW true believers and " denialists " should be able to agree on this : the data get the last word , because without them theory is groundless .
The only way for the CRU researchers to clear themselves of the imputation of serious error or fraud is full disclosure of the measurement techniques , the raw primary data sets , the code used to reduce them , and of their decisions during the process of interpretation .
They should have nothing to hide ; let them so demonstrate by hiding nothing.In short , if computer models are the primary tool in making all sorts of climate predictions , then let 's have transparency in building the models and getting conclusions from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open-sourcing the Global Warming Debate [ibiblio.org]:AGW true believers and "denialists" should be able to agree on this: the data get the last word, because without them theory is groundless.
The only way for the CRU researchers to clear themselves of the imputation of serious error or fraud is full disclosure of the measurement techniques, the raw primary data sets, the code used to reduce them, and of their decisions during the process of interpretation.
They should have nothing to hide; let them so demonstrate by hiding nothing.In short, if computer models are the primary tool in making all sorts of climate predictions, then let's have transparency in building the models and getting conclusions from them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254284</id>
	<title>Re:But it goes beyond the computer models.</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259421060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The talking head of the NOAA is most definitely in on some sort of conspiracy. Hansen is the ridiculous mother fucker who was publicly saying how McIntyre was just out to get him, that his data was perfect, that McIntyre's observation that there was a problem with the NOAA data sets was unscientific bullshit.<br>
<br>
A year later the NOAA was backtracking and thanking McIntyre for finding Hansens fucking retarded mistakes.<br>
<br>
Lets not mention the DECADE of statistical studies that were all based on that bad data, that are still taken as gospel.<br>
<br>
Let me repeat that. The NOAA had been passing out bad data to climate scientists, data that greatly exaggerated the recent warming. Climate scientists used this data to support the AGW and Global Warming theories. Two years ago, after a decade of this bad data being used, it was discovered how bad it was. But all of the studied based on the bad data are STILL CITED AS PROOF OF AGW.<br>
<br>
Hansen of course claims that the bad data was "inconsequential" and that the results of those studies would be the same with the good data, even though they had to admit that 1998 is NOT actually the warmest year on record. The hottest year on record is actually 1934. Thats right. 1934. Plenty of hot years back then, as it turns out.<br>
<br>
These guys are hacks with an agenda.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The talking head of the NOAA is most definitely in on some sort of conspiracy .
Hansen is the ridiculous mother fucker who was publicly saying how McIntyre was just out to get him , that his data was perfect , that McIntyre 's observation that there was a problem with the NOAA data sets was unscientific bullshit .
A year later the NOAA was backtracking and thanking McIntyre for finding Hansens fucking retarded mistakes .
Lets not mention the DECADE of statistical studies that were all based on that bad data , that are still taken as gospel .
Let me repeat that .
The NOAA had been passing out bad data to climate scientists , data that greatly exaggerated the recent warming .
Climate scientists used this data to support the AGW and Global Warming theories .
Two years ago , after a decade of this bad data being used , it was discovered how bad it was .
But all of the studied based on the bad data are STILL CITED AS PROOF OF AGW .
Hansen of course claims that the bad data was " inconsequential " and that the results of those studies would be the same with the good data , even though they had to admit that 1998 is NOT actually the warmest year on record .
The hottest year on record is actually 1934 .
Thats right .
1934. Plenty of hot years back then , as it turns out .
These guys are hacks with an agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The talking head of the NOAA is most definitely in on some sort of conspiracy.
Hansen is the ridiculous mother fucker who was publicly saying how McIntyre was just out to get him, that his data was perfect, that McIntyre's observation that there was a problem with the NOAA data sets was unscientific bullshit.
A year later the NOAA was backtracking and thanking McIntyre for finding Hansens fucking retarded mistakes.
Lets not mention the DECADE of statistical studies that were all based on that bad data, that are still taken as gospel.
Let me repeat that.
The NOAA had been passing out bad data to climate scientists, data that greatly exaggerated the recent warming.
Climate scientists used this data to support the AGW and Global Warming theories.
Two years ago, after a decade of this bad data being used, it was discovered how bad it was.
But all of the studied based on the bad data are STILL CITED AS PROOF OF AGW.
Hansen of course claims that the bad data was "inconsequential" and that the results of those studies would be the same with the good data, even though they had to admit that 1998 is NOT actually the warmest year on record.
The hottest year on record is actually 1934.
Thats right.
1934. Plenty of hot years back then, as it turns out.
These guys are hacks with an agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251712</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259333280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kohath: Try looking at some facts before you present your uninformed politically and selfishly based opinions. Let's make sure you understand some basic facts the last decade would mean the last 10 years from 2009 ie. the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001,2001-2002, 2002-2003 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 2008-2009. The FACTS show that 2008 and 2001 were the eighth warmest years in the 130 year long US temperature record. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009 was the sixth warmest on record, with an anomaly of 0.57C (1.03F) above the 20th century average of 14.0C (57.1F). For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7 C (58.4 F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest January-through-October period on record. This value is 0.56C (1.01F) above the 20th century average. The northern hemisphere annual land temperature record was set in 2003, while the Northern Hemisphere observed ocean temperature record was set in 2006. 2009 was the sixth warmest land temperature and the fifth warmest combined land/ocean temperature.</p><p>There is not a single piece of data that supports your claim that "that it hasn't warmed in the last decade." You continue to foster the lie that "They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder. They refuse to identify the "correct" temperature, let alone describe how they arrived at that temperature." When a simple google  and google-scholar will show not only the method, but the source code and raw data. Try looking at www.ncdc.noaa.gov. To me you are just one more of the "I've got mine screw you" generation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kohath : Try looking at some facts before you present your uninformed politically and selfishly based opinions .
Let 's make sure you understand some basic facts the last decade would mean the last 10 years from 2009 ie .
the years 1999-2000 , 2000-2001,2001-2002 , 2002-2003 2003-2004 , 2004-2005 , 2005-2006 , 2006-2007 , 2007-2008 2008-2009 .
The FACTS show that 2008 and 2001 were the eighth warmest years in the 130 year long US temperature record .
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009 was the sixth warmest on record , with an anomaly of 0.57C ( 1.03F ) above the 20th century average of 14.0C ( 57.1F ) .
For the year to date , the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7 C ( 58.4 F ) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest January-through-October period on record .
This value is 0.56C ( 1.01F ) above the 20th century average .
The northern hemisphere annual land temperature record was set in 2003 , while the Northern Hemisphere observed ocean temperature record was set in 2006 .
2009 was the sixth warmest land temperature and the fifth warmest combined land/ocean temperature.There is not a single piece of data that supports your claim that " that it has n't warmed in the last decade .
" You continue to foster the lie that " They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder .
They refuse to identify the " correct " temperature , let alone describe how they arrived at that temperature .
" When a simple google and google-scholar will show not only the method , but the source code and raw data .
Try looking at www.ncdc.noaa.gov .
To me you are just one more of the " I 've got mine screw you " generation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kohath: Try looking at some facts before you present your uninformed politically and selfishly based opinions.
Let's make sure you understand some basic facts the last decade would mean the last 10 years from 2009 ie.
the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001,2001-2002, 2002-2003 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 2008-2009.
The FACTS show that 2008 and 2001 were the eighth warmest years in the 130 year long US temperature record.
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009 was the sixth warmest on record, with an anomaly of 0.57C (1.03F) above the 20th century average of 14.0C (57.1F).
For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7 C (58.4 F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest January-through-October period on record.
This value is 0.56C (1.01F) above the 20th century average.
The northern hemisphere annual land temperature record was set in 2003, while the Northern Hemisphere observed ocean temperature record was set in 2006.
2009 was the sixth warmest land temperature and the fifth warmest combined land/ocean temperature.There is not a single piece of data that supports your claim that "that it hasn't warmed in the last decade.
" You continue to foster the lie that "They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder.
They refuse to identify the "correct" temperature, let alone describe how they arrived at that temperature.
" When a simple google  and google-scholar will show not only the method, but the source code and raw data.
Try looking at www.ncdc.noaa.gov.
To me you are just one more of the "I've got mine screw you" generation</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248798</id>
	<title>Climatology software is not an OS kernel</title>
	<author>liquiddark</author>
	<datestamp>1259315820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Computer models composed by incredibly specialized scientists who've got Ph.Ds in the area under study aren't exactly the same as "software" in a general, loosey-goosey way.  You wouldn't open source most business applications precisely because their operation relies on very strict sets of assumptions that work (or don't work) because the people who are building and configuring the systems for that business know (or don't know) precisely how the business should work</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer models composed by incredibly specialized scientists who 've got Ph.Ds in the area under study are n't exactly the same as " software " in a general , loosey-goosey way .
You would n't open source most business applications precisely because their operation relies on very strict sets of assumptions that work ( or do n't work ) because the people who are building and configuring the systems for that business know ( or do n't know ) precisely how the business should work</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer models composed by incredibly specialized scientists who've got Ph.Ds in the area under study aren't exactly the same as "software" in a general, loosey-goosey way.
You wouldn't open source most business applications precisely because their operation relies on very strict sets of assumptions that work (or don't work) because the people who are building and configuring the systems for that business know (or don't know) precisely how the business should work</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248568</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/executive\_summary.html" title="copenhagendiagnosis.org" rel="nofollow">Here you go.</a> [copenhagendiagnosis.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go .
[ copenhagendiagnosis.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go.
[copenhagendiagnosis.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251510</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are not Politicians</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1259331480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suppose your science uncovers imminent doom, just around the corner. You find a solution, publish the doom and solution, and then.....nothing. All the powers that be don't do shit. Do you go back to your research, or do you try to play politics as well? It's a shitty position to be in, for sure.<br>
&nbsp; <br>From a climate standpoint, this is somewhat the case. In the modeling I've done, there's clearly a long feedback cycle. Far longer than an average politician's time in office. As a scientist, do you just ignore that nobody is following your research, and that a lot of people are going to be fucked in 20-40 years, due to decisions being made now?<br>
&nbsp; <br>Now, this is merely an explanation for how some scientists end up trying to play politics. It's not an excuse for shitty science. It's not an apology for scientists who put more weight on politics than the actual science they are doing. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Provided that the scientist in question is still following standard scientific procedures, ego and self-interest can't blind them to what they're observing. Either it's undergone a solid statistical examination or it hasn't. The good scientists, no matter their politics, do this. You can do both. And being political does NOT mean you're doing shitty science. However, if you're doing shitty science to begin with, it may look far more promising push the politics rather than the science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose your science uncovers imminent doom , just around the corner .
You find a solution , publish the doom and solution , and then.....nothing .
All the powers that be do n't do shit .
Do you go back to your research , or do you try to play politics as well ?
It 's a shitty position to be in , for sure .
  From a climate standpoint , this is somewhat the case .
In the modeling I 've done , there 's clearly a long feedback cycle .
Far longer than an average politician 's time in office .
As a scientist , do you just ignore that nobody is following your research , and that a lot of people are going to be fucked in 20-40 years , due to decisions being made now ?
  Now , this is merely an explanation for how some scientists end up trying to play politics .
It 's not an excuse for shitty science .
It 's not an apology for scientists who put more weight on politics than the actual science they are doing .
  Provided that the scientist in question is still following standard scientific procedures , ego and self-interest ca n't blind them to what they 're observing .
Either it 's undergone a solid statistical examination or it has n't .
The good scientists , no matter their politics , do this .
You can do both .
And being political does NOT mean you 're doing shitty science .
However , if you 're doing shitty science to begin with , it may look far more promising push the politics rather than the science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose your science uncovers imminent doom, just around the corner.
You find a solution, publish the doom and solution, and then.....nothing.
All the powers that be don't do shit.
Do you go back to your research, or do you try to play politics as well?
It's a shitty position to be in, for sure.
  From a climate standpoint, this is somewhat the case.
In the modeling I've done, there's clearly a long feedback cycle.
Far longer than an average politician's time in office.
As a scientist, do you just ignore that nobody is following your research, and that a lot of people are going to be fucked in 20-40 years, due to decisions being made now?
  Now, this is merely an explanation for how some scientists end up trying to play politics.
It's not an excuse for shitty science.
It's not an apology for scientists who put more weight on politics than the actual science they are doing.
  Provided that the scientist in question is still following standard scientific procedures, ego and self-interest can't blind them to what they're observing.
Either it's undergone a solid statistical examination or it hasn't.
The good scientists, no matter their politics, do this.
You can do both.
And being political does NOT mean you're doing shitty science.
However, if you're doing shitty science to begin with, it may look far more promising push the politics rather than the science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250042</id>
	<title>Uh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259322000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not at all how I read that (IMHO interesting) comment. What I read is: lack of expertise on in a field robs you of <i>both</i> the ability to form an accurate opinion, and the ability to perceive the holes in your reasoning that led you that that inaccurate opinion. Ignorance begetting confidence, in all good faith. Which is <a href="http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf" title="apa.org">nothing new at all</a> [apa.org] (one of the most enlightening psychology paper I've ever read -- do check it out). It has nothing to do with being a 'moron', and that you read it as such possibly tells more about you than it does about the original poster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not at all how I read that ( IMHO interesting ) comment .
What I read is : lack of expertise on in a field robs you of both the ability to form an accurate opinion , and the ability to perceive the holes in your reasoning that led you that that inaccurate opinion .
Ignorance begetting confidence , in all good faith .
Which is nothing new at all [ apa.org ] ( one of the most enlightening psychology paper I 've ever read -- do check it out ) .
It has nothing to do with being a 'moron ' , and that you read it as such possibly tells more about you than it does about the original poster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not at all how I read that (IMHO interesting) comment.
What I read is: lack of expertise on in a field robs you of both the ability to form an accurate opinion, and the ability to perceive the holes in your reasoning that led you that that inaccurate opinion.
Ignorance begetting confidence, in all good faith.
Which is nothing new at all [apa.org] (one of the most enlightening psychology paper I've ever read -- do check it out).
It has nothing to do with being a 'moron', and that you read it as such possibly tells more about you than it does about the original poster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249840</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>Dantoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259321100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, for the life of me, I cannot think of a better definition of scientist than "sceptic".  Recording observations and organising them in a logical sequence in order to disprove a theoretical construct used to be known as science when I was a lad.  At the end of your writings, you listed chapters of all your inaccuracies and published with the humblest appeal:  "I have failed to disprove this notion.  Please review my data and model and assist me to disprove it.  I am sceptical of the conclusions."</p><p>I admit openly that I am sceptical of everything I have read on climate.  Should I report somewhere for a lynching?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , for the life of me , I can not think of a better definition of scientist than " sceptic " .
Recording observations and organising them in a logical sequence in order to disprove a theoretical construct used to be known as science when I was a lad .
At the end of your writings , you listed chapters of all your inaccuracies and published with the humblest appeal : " I have failed to disprove this notion .
Please review my data and model and assist me to disprove it .
I am sceptical of the conclusions .
" I admit openly that I am sceptical of everything I have read on climate .
Should I report somewhere for a lynching ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, for the life of me, I cannot think of a better definition of scientist than "sceptic".
Recording observations and organising them in a logical sequence in order to disprove a theoretical construct used to be known as science when I was a lad.
At the end of your writings, you listed chapters of all your inaccuracies and published with the humblest appeal:  "I have failed to disprove this notion.
Please review my data and model and assist me to disprove it.
I am sceptical of the conclusions.
"I admit openly that I am sceptical of everything I have read on climate.
Should I report somewhere for a lynching?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</id>
	<title>Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>Kohath</author>
	<datestamp>1259316900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real AGW arguments (and the motivation of all the parties involved) seem to be about the remedies rather than the climate.  The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.  Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.</p><p>They demand the power to do this, but they refuse to release their data.  They refuse to publish the code for their computer models.  They refuse to rationally refute skepticism.  They refuse to understand human behavior as described by the discipline of Economics.  They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder.  They refuse to identify the "correct" temperature, let alone describe how they arrived at that temperature.  They refuse to close the loop on their proposed remedies to objectively weigh the benefits against the cost.</p><p>If Global Warming was simply an academic question rather than a life-or-death political struggle for power (or against power and for freedom), then it could be discussed as such.</p><p>AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate.  It was already reeling from the fact that it hasn't warmed in the last decade.  And it faced an uphill battle due to the depression: rich people can afford to pay for environmental spirituality, poor people can't.  If the political struggle ends, this can go back to being about whether carbon release causes warming, and how much, and what it really means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real AGW arguments ( and the motivation of all the parties involved ) seem to be about the remedies rather than the climate .
The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives .
Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.They demand the power to do this , but they refuse to release their data .
They refuse to publish the code for their computer models .
They refuse to rationally refute skepticism .
They refuse to understand human behavior as described by the discipline of Economics .
They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder .
They refuse to identify the " correct " temperature , let alone describe how they arrived at that temperature .
They refuse to close the loop on their proposed remedies to objectively weigh the benefits against the cost.If Global Warming was simply an academic question rather than a life-or-death political struggle for power ( or against power and for freedom ) , then it could be discussed as such.AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate .
It was already reeling from the fact that it has n't warmed in the last decade .
And it faced an uphill battle due to the depression : rich people can afford to pay for environmental spirituality , poor people ca n't .
If the political struggle ends , this can go back to being about whether carbon release causes warming , and how much , and what it really means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real AGW arguments (and the motivation of all the parties involved) seem to be about the remedies rather than the climate.
The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.
Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.They demand the power to do this, but they refuse to release their data.
They refuse to publish the code for their computer models.
They refuse to rationally refute skepticism.
They refuse to understand human behavior as described by the discipline of Economics.
They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder.
They refuse to identify the "correct" temperature, let alone describe how they arrived at that temperature.
They refuse to close the loop on their proposed remedies to objectively weigh the benefits against the cost.If Global Warming was simply an academic question rather than a life-or-death political struggle for power (or against power and for freedom), then it could be discussed as such.AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate.
It was already reeling from the fact that it hasn't warmed in the last decade.
And it faced an uphill battle due to the depression: rich people can afford to pay for environmental spirituality, poor people can't.
If the political struggle ends, this can go back to being about whether carbon release causes warming, and how much, and what it really means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248370</id>
	<title>What's the point?</title>
	<author>yerktoader</author>
	<datestamp>1259313180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both sides are entrenched and doing what is probably irreparable damage to this debate with their quaint little antics.  Unless they are replaced we'll continue to have to deal with a public that is either educated by CNN or Fox News.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both sides are entrenched and doing what is probably irreparable damage to this debate with their quaint little antics .
Unless they are replaced we 'll continue to have to deal with a public that is either educated by CNN or Fox News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both sides are entrenched and doing what is probably irreparable damage to this debate with their quaint little antics.
Unless they are replaced we'll continue to have to deal with a public that is either educated by CNN or Fox News.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249580</id>
	<title>Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259319720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need not only transparency of models, but transparency of data as well. The 'Climategate' emails make it clear how hard the scientists involved have fought against both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need not only transparency of models , but transparency of data as well .
The 'Climategate ' emails make it clear how hard the scientists involved have fought against both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need not only transparency of models, but transparency of data as well.
The 'Climategate' emails make it clear how hard the scientists involved have fought against both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398</id>
	<title>Scientists are not Politicians</title>
	<author>Rollgunner</author>
	<datestamp>1259313420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is the job of scientists to observe impartially, test, and provide us with facts and data. <br> <br>

It is up to the politicians to use (or misuse) those facts and data.
<br> <br>

But once the scientist sees himself as a politician, it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing, instead of what they wish to observe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the job of scientists to observe impartially , test , and provide us with facts and data .
It is up to the politicians to use ( or misuse ) those facts and data .
But once the scientist sees himself as a politician , it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing , instead of what they wish to observe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the job of scientists to observe impartially, test, and provide us with facts and data.
It is up to the politicians to use (or misuse) those facts and data.
But once the scientist sees himself as a politician, it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing, instead of what they wish to observe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255014</id>
	<title>Re:Good faith and bad faith</title>
	<author>jstults</author>
	<datestamp>1259429160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've got access to four climate models, from four competing organizations, ranging from middle-school simple to research grade. And they all give about the same results.</p></div><p>'Should we believe model predictions of future climate change':
</p><p>http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08ptrs.pdf

</p><p>'Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill?':
</p><p>http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038082.pdf

</p><p>I'd encourage you to check out P.J. Roache's work on model verification / validation.  Comparing a bunch of models to each-other is not validation (it's not even verification).

</p><p>In my field verification = checking that the code is correct, validation = checking that you picked the right governing equations. Your terminology may vary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got access to four climate models , from four competing organizations , ranging from middle-school simple to research grade .
And they all give about the same results .
'Should we believe model predictions of future climate change ' : http : //www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08ptrs.pdf 'Climate projections : Past performance no guarantee of future skill ?
' : http : //www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038082.pdf I 'd encourage you to check out P.J .
Roache 's work on model verification / validation .
Comparing a bunch of models to each-other is not validation ( it 's not even verification ) .
In my field verification = checking that the code is correct , validation = checking that you picked the right governing equations .
Your terminology may vary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got access to four climate models, from four competing organizations, ranging from middle-school simple to research grade.
And they all give about the same results.
'Should we believe model predictions of future climate change':
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08ptrs.pdf

'Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill?
':
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038082.pdf

I'd encourage you to check out P.J.
Roache's work on model verification / validation.
Comparing a bunch of models to each-other is not validation (it's not even verification).
In my field verification = checking that the code is correct, validation = checking that you picked the right governing equations.
Your terminology may vary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251822</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1259334720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you're an asshat. <br>
&nbsp; <br>The data is freely available for your perusal. Not that you're educated well enough to understand it. <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/home.html" title="ornl.gov">here you go</a> [ornl.gov]. That should start you off - once you've analyzed that and published a couple dozen papers on it, I'll shoot you the super-secret links to more data. <br>
&nbsp; <br>God, who the hell got mod points today? There are a shitton of retarded posts marked up as insightful in this article. While there are a small percentage of shithead scientists, by and large this isn't some grand conspiracy. The data is largely accessible, and the methodology is pretty clear. <br>
&nbsp; <br>If I can do anything for the cause of science, it's to repeat this: Scientists get famous by ripping the shit out of other scientists' work. The famous scientists you've heard of got famous by demolishing the work of others. As scientists, we know that. And we're always looking for some schmuck to use as a stepping stone. I know if I do bad science, I'll be a stepping stone. I know if I find bad science, I can use IT as a stepping stone. That keeps most scientists pretty damn honest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you 're an asshat .
  The data is freely available for your perusal .
Not that you 're educated well enough to understand it .
here you go [ ornl.gov ] .
That should start you off - once you 've analyzed that and published a couple dozen papers on it , I 'll shoot you the super-secret links to more data .
  God , who the hell got mod points today ?
There are a shitton of retarded posts marked up as insightful in this article .
While there are a small percentage of shithead scientists , by and large this is n't some grand conspiracy .
The data is largely accessible , and the methodology is pretty clear .
  If I can do anything for the cause of science , it 's to repeat this : Scientists get famous by ripping the shit out of other scientists ' work .
The famous scientists you 've heard of got famous by demolishing the work of others .
As scientists , we know that .
And we 're always looking for some schmuck to use as a stepping stone .
I know if I do bad science , I 'll be a stepping stone .
I know if I find bad science , I can use IT as a stepping stone .
That keeps most scientists pretty damn honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you're an asshat.
  The data is freely available for your perusal.
Not that you're educated well enough to understand it.
here you go [ornl.gov].
That should start you off - once you've analyzed that and published a couple dozen papers on it, I'll shoot you the super-secret links to more data.
  God, who the hell got mod points today?
There are a shitton of retarded posts marked up as insightful in this article.
While there are a small percentage of shithead scientists, by and large this isn't some grand conspiracy.
The data is largely accessible, and the methodology is pretty clear.
  If I can do anything for the cause of science, it's to repeat this: Scientists get famous by ripping the shit out of other scientists' work.
The famous scientists you've heard of got famous by demolishing the work of others.
As scientists, we know that.
And we're always looking for some schmuck to use as a stepping stone.
I know if I do bad science, I'll be a stepping stone.
I know if I find bad science, I can use IT as a stepping stone.
That keeps most scientists pretty damn honest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252162</id>
	<title>I say...</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1259338980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/q137450.html" title="brainyquote.com">I say no.</a> [brainyquote.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say no .
[ brainyquote.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say no.
[brainyquote.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248722</id>
	<title>Risk / reward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To look at the subject from a risk/reward point of view. If we do nothing and the global warming proponents are wrong, life goes on like normal. If we do nothing and the global warming proponents are right, millions of people die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To look at the subject from a risk/reward point of view .
If we do nothing and the global warming proponents are wrong , life goes on like normal .
If we do nothing and the global warming proponents are right , millions of people die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To look at the subject from a risk/reward point of view.
If we do nothing and the global warming proponents are wrong, life goes on like normal.
If we do nothing and the global warming proponents are right, millions of people die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250534</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>rgigger</author>
	<datestamp>1259324880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.  In this case there are companies (not to mention the economy as a whole) that would lose enormous amounts of money if we start to crack down on carbon emissions.  There are also people who are set up to profit both politically and financially from "proving" the science behind climate change.</p><p>The other problem is that the public isn't being asked to believe in this stuff because believing in it will magically fix the problem, the public is being asked to believe in it because the government is asking for our money.  They are asking for us to pay higher prices for EVERYTHING because everything we do requires energy.  The cheapest way to get energy right now is to burn fossil fuels.  On the other hand if New York is indeed going to be buried in water in 50 years then it's going to be cheaper and better all around to do something about it now while we still can.  It is very important to get this right and saying "trust me I'm an expert" just isn't good enough.</p><p>The proposed solution to this problem is of course to declare that there is a consensus among all scientists who matter.  But of course as a lay person the process of deciding who gets to decide which scientists matter and which one's don't is no easier than deciding which experts are correct in the first place.</p><p>Establishing the truth about anything is simply a difficult problem and pretending that because someone is an "expert" that they can't be wrong is just stupid.  Certain things are just very complicated.  Fields that study complex systems evolve more rapidly and have less stable elements than those that study simpler more easily observable phenomena.  For instance, if you told me that you were an expert on Newtonian physics, and you told me that you could launch a canon ball and tell me where it was going to land I would believe you.  If you were an expert in quantum physics and you told me you knew exactly how, given the proper equipment, to produce a Higgs Boson, I would assume that you understood what the theories said but that in your excitement you might be a little overly confident since no one has ever done such a thing and the theories could be wrong.  If you were an expert in psychology and you told me you could tell me what I was going to eat for breakfast in the morning I would call you a quack.</p><p>If you were a doctor telling me that the surgery you were recommending had an 98\% chance of killing me I would get a second opinion.  Even if I thought you were the best most "expert" doctor in the world and you told me that the alternative to the surgery was certain death, I would get a second opinion.  And probably a 3rd, and a 4th and a 5th opinion as well.  Why?  Because the cost of getting the opinions of 4 doctors is way, way more acceptable than the possibility of dying on the operating table and there is some chance that my doctor made a mistake.</p><p>The impression that I get after looking into the situation with these leaked emails, and please correct me if I'm wrong because I would very much like to wrong, but the impression that I get is that no one, outside of the research teams that developed these models has ever seen this code or been able to duplicate it themselves.  I don't know what happens in the peer review process but it appears that actually looking at the code and validating that it works properly is not part of it.  And even if it is, why not let other scientists look at it?  Why not let other "experts" look at it?  I feel like you are telling me that once the first doctor has done a diagnosis that he has the right to hide all of the data related to it, not let anyone, except a self-chosen peer, look at it, and that I should believe that anyone who comes up with a different diagnosis could only be wrong and I shouldn't listen to anything they say.</p><p>You say:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Research gets published in journals for everyone to see, etc. It's not like we're keeping it a big secret</p></div><p>But the impression people are getting from this incident is that only part of the research gets published and that some parts are hidden and that scientists are even committing illegal acts such as deleting information that could be requested as part of a Freedom of Information Act in order to keep things hidden.  When I read accounts of other climate scientists trying to duplicate the results and being unable to and then requesting information on how it was done in the first place and that request for information being denied what am I supposed to think?  That the man working in secret is right because the UN published his results and that the man who appears to be working out in the open is a villain?  When I read that after their models are revealed they produce the same charts regardless of whether they are fed real data or noise am I just supposed to assume that they were correct because the were created by experts?</p><p>Your right, as a lay person it is hard to understand the arguments of experts.  But in a situation where determining who is correct is vital to our future prosperity there is a larger burden than just doing good science.  In situations where the only thing that matters is the opinions of other scientists I would say that you are right to not waste your time arguing with idiots.  But when science influences policy there is an additional responsibility to make a convincing case that those idiots can understand.  Is it a lot more work.  Yes.  Am I asking you personally to sit down and tutor every one of them?  Obviously not.  If you go to <a href="http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/" title="copenhagendiagnosis.org" rel="nofollow">http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/</a> [copenhagendiagnosis.org] you will see the following:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The report has been purposefully written with a target readership of policy-makers, stakeholders, the media and the broader public.</p></div><p>This is because these people are not idiots.  They know that they are asking for major changes to be made with regard to how our economy functions and that the burden for those changes will be paid for by "the broader public".  Hence they are willing to engage with said public.  And that report in fact, I believe does a very good job of that.  More is required however.  The report makes sense.  But if the codes and raw data sets used to come to these conclusions are secret and cannot be duplicated by others how am I to have confidence in them?  If skeptics, even lay skeptics, raise concerns they should be addressed and communicated to the public in as clear a manner as possible.  The burden of proof is in fact extraordinarily high.  The following must be determined with a very high degree of certainty before we can be confident that we are making the right policy choices:</p><p>1. The earth is getting hotter<br>2. The warming is a long term trend<br>3. The warming is caused by humans<br>4. The warming is caused by human produced CO2<br>5. How much warming is going to occur?<br>6. What is the effect of the warming?<br>7. What is the best way to deal with the effects of the warming?<br>8. What is the best way to stop the warming?</p><p>The answer to all of these questions involves the analysis of very, very complex systems.  If you are trying to say that a doctorate level degree equals expert equals trust everything they say without question, then you are in fact the idiot.  My experience with medical doctors is that they are wrong more times than they are right when it comes to anything that falls outside of the normal situations that they regularly run into.  Do I assume that there is a conspiracy amongst doctors to harm my body.  No, that would be just as stupid.  They are wrong because the human body is very complicated and despite the fact that we have been studying it for a long time there is still much that we don't understand.  To assume that someone with a Ph.D in a much younger science such as climate science, studying a much more complicated system, the earth, of which we only have one specimen rather than billions, is automatically right to the degree that we are willing to institute programs that cost billions of dollars, is just crazy talk.  I'm not saying that the science is not good only that much skepticism should be applied.  Essentially:</p><p>1. The burden of proof is high.  Doing a couple of peer reviews per study is not enough.<br>2. The entire process should all be done out in the open where all "experts" and consequently lay people have equal access to all data and code so that every expert can make his/her case.</p><p>If I go to you and demand your time to explain to me your job because I am curious than, yeah, I am the arrogant one.  But if you take the results of your work and come to me and demand that I change my lifestyle and spend my money in a certain way and that I shouldn't question you or ask for you to explain yourself or show other scientists how you arrived at your conclusions then your arrogance is just stupefying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert .
In this case there are companies ( not to mention the economy as a whole ) that would lose enormous amounts of money if we start to crack down on carbon emissions .
There are also people who are set up to profit both politically and financially from " proving " the science behind climate change.The other problem is that the public is n't being asked to believe in this stuff because believing in it will magically fix the problem , the public is being asked to believe in it because the government is asking for our money .
They are asking for us to pay higher prices for EVERYTHING because everything we do requires energy .
The cheapest way to get energy right now is to burn fossil fuels .
On the other hand if New York is indeed going to be buried in water in 50 years then it 's going to be cheaper and better all around to do something about it now while we still can .
It is very important to get this right and saying " trust me I 'm an expert " just is n't good enough.The proposed solution to this problem is of course to declare that there is a consensus among all scientists who matter .
But of course as a lay person the process of deciding who gets to decide which scientists matter and which one 's do n't is no easier than deciding which experts are correct in the first place.Establishing the truth about anything is simply a difficult problem and pretending that because someone is an " expert " that they ca n't be wrong is just stupid .
Certain things are just very complicated .
Fields that study complex systems evolve more rapidly and have less stable elements than those that study simpler more easily observable phenomena .
For instance , if you told me that you were an expert on Newtonian physics , and you told me that you could launch a canon ball and tell me where it was going to land I would believe you .
If you were an expert in quantum physics and you told me you knew exactly how , given the proper equipment , to produce a Higgs Boson , I would assume that you understood what the theories said but that in your excitement you might be a little overly confident since no one has ever done such a thing and the theories could be wrong .
If you were an expert in psychology and you told me you could tell me what I was going to eat for breakfast in the morning I would call you a quack.If you were a doctor telling me that the surgery you were recommending had an 98 \ % chance of killing me I would get a second opinion .
Even if I thought you were the best most " expert " doctor in the world and you told me that the alternative to the surgery was certain death , I would get a second opinion .
And probably a 3rd , and a 4th and a 5th opinion as well .
Why ? Because the cost of getting the opinions of 4 doctors is way , way more acceptable than the possibility of dying on the operating table and there is some chance that my doctor made a mistake.The impression that I get after looking into the situation with these leaked emails , and please correct me if I 'm wrong because I would very much like to wrong , but the impression that I get is that no one , outside of the research teams that developed these models has ever seen this code or been able to duplicate it themselves .
I do n't know what happens in the peer review process but it appears that actually looking at the code and validating that it works properly is not part of it .
And even if it is , why not let other scientists look at it ?
Why not let other " experts " look at it ?
I feel like you are telling me that once the first doctor has done a diagnosis that he has the right to hide all of the data related to it , not let anyone , except a self-chosen peer , look at it , and that I should believe that anyone who comes up with a different diagnosis could only be wrong and I should n't listen to anything they say.You say : Research gets published in journals for everyone to see , etc .
It 's not like we 're keeping it a big secretBut the impression people are getting from this incident is that only part of the research gets published and that some parts are hidden and that scientists are even committing illegal acts such as deleting information that could be requested as part of a Freedom of Information Act in order to keep things hidden .
When I read accounts of other climate scientists trying to duplicate the results and being unable to and then requesting information on how it was done in the first place and that request for information being denied what am I supposed to think ?
That the man working in secret is right because the UN published his results and that the man who appears to be working out in the open is a villain ?
When I read that after their models are revealed they produce the same charts regardless of whether they are fed real data or noise am I just supposed to assume that they were correct because the were created by experts ? Your right , as a lay person it is hard to understand the arguments of experts .
But in a situation where determining who is correct is vital to our future prosperity there is a larger burden than just doing good science .
In situations where the only thing that matters is the opinions of other scientists I would say that you are right to not waste your time arguing with idiots .
But when science influences policy there is an additional responsibility to make a convincing case that those idiots can understand .
Is it a lot more work .
Yes. Am I asking you personally to sit down and tutor every one of them ?
Obviously not .
If you go to http : //copenhagendiagnosis.org/ [ copenhagendiagnosis.org ] you will see the following : The report has been purposefully written with a target readership of policy-makers , stakeholders , the media and the broader public.This is because these people are not idiots .
They know that they are asking for major changes to be made with regard to how our economy functions and that the burden for those changes will be paid for by " the broader public " .
Hence they are willing to engage with said public .
And that report in fact , I believe does a very good job of that .
More is required however .
The report makes sense .
But if the codes and raw data sets used to come to these conclusions are secret and can not be duplicated by others how am I to have confidence in them ?
If skeptics , even lay skeptics , raise concerns they should be addressed and communicated to the public in as clear a manner as possible .
The burden of proof is in fact extraordinarily high .
The following must be determined with a very high degree of certainty before we can be confident that we are making the right policy choices : 1 .
The earth is getting hotter2 .
The warming is a long term trend3 .
The warming is caused by humans4 .
The warming is caused by human produced CO25 .
How much warming is going to occur ? 6 .
What is the effect of the warming ? 7 .
What is the best way to deal with the effects of the warming ? 8 .
What is the best way to stop the warming ? The answer to all of these questions involves the analysis of very , very complex systems .
If you are trying to say that a doctorate level degree equals expert equals trust everything they say without question , then you are in fact the idiot .
My experience with medical doctors is that they are wrong more times than they are right when it comes to anything that falls outside of the normal situations that they regularly run into .
Do I assume that there is a conspiracy amongst doctors to harm my body .
No , that would be just as stupid .
They are wrong because the human body is very complicated and despite the fact that we have been studying it for a long time there is still much that we do n't understand .
To assume that someone with a Ph.D in a much younger science such as climate science , studying a much more complicated system , the earth , of which we only have one specimen rather than billions , is automatically right to the degree that we are willing to institute programs that cost billions of dollars , is just crazy talk .
I 'm not saying that the science is not good only that much skepticism should be applied .
Essentially : 1. The burden of proof is high .
Doing a couple of peer reviews per study is not enough.2 .
The entire process should all be done out in the open where all " experts " and consequently lay people have equal access to all data and code so that every expert can make his/her case.If I go to you and demand your time to explain to me your job because I am curious than , yeah , I am the arrogant one .
But if you take the results of your work and come to me and demand that I change my lifestyle and spend my money in a certain way and that I should n't question you or ask for you to explain yourself or show other scientists how you arrived at your conclusions then your arrogance is just stupefying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.
In this case there are companies (not to mention the economy as a whole) that would lose enormous amounts of money if we start to crack down on carbon emissions.
There are also people who are set up to profit both politically and financially from "proving" the science behind climate change.The other problem is that the public isn't being asked to believe in this stuff because believing in it will magically fix the problem, the public is being asked to believe in it because the government is asking for our money.
They are asking for us to pay higher prices for EVERYTHING because everything we do requires energy.
The cheapest way to get energy right now is to burn fossil fuels.
On the other hand if New York is indeed going to be buried in water in 50 years then it's going to be cheaper and better all around to do something about it now while we still can.
It is very important to get this right and saying "trust me I'm an expert" just isn't good enough.The proposed solution to this problem is of course to declare that there is a consensus among all scientists who matter.
But of course as a lay person the process of deciding who gets to decide which scientists matter and which one's don't is no easier than deciding which experts are correct in the first place.Establishing the truth about anything is simply a difficult problem and pretending that because someone is an "expert" that they can't be wrong is just stupid.
Certain things are just very complicated.
Fields that study complex systems evolve more rapidly and have less stable elements than those that study simpler more easily observable phenomena.
For instance, if you told me that you were an expert on Newtonian physics, and you told me that you could launch a canon ball and tell me where it was going to land I would believe you.
If you were an expert in quantum physics and you told me you knew exactly how, given the proper equipment, to produce a Higgs Boson, I would assume that you understood what the theories said but that in your excitement you might be a little overly confident since no one has ever done such a thing and the theories could be wrong.
If you were an expert in psychology and you told me you could tell me what I was going to eat for breakfast in the morning I would call you a quack.If you were a doctor telling me that the surgery you were recommending had an 98\% chance of killing me I would get a second opinion.
Even if I thought you were the best most "expert" doctor in the world and you told me that the alternative to the surgery was certain death, I would get a second opinion.
And probably a 3rd, and a 4th and a 5th opinion as well.
Why?  Because the cost of getting the opinions of 4 doctors is way, way more acceptable than the possibility of dying on the operating table and there is some chance that my doctor made a mistake.The impression that I get after looking into the situation with these leaked emails, and please correct me if I'm wrong because I would very much like to wrong, but the impression that I get is that no one, outside of the research teams that developed these models has ever seen this code or been able to duplicate it themselves.
I don't know what happens in the peer review process but it appears that actually looking at the code and validating that it works properly is not part of it.
And even if it is, why not let other scientists look at it?
Why not let other "experts" look at it?
I feel like you are telling me that once the first doctor has done a diagnosis that he has the right to hide all of the data related to it, not let anyone, except a self-chosen peer, look at it, and that I should believe that anyone who comes up with a different diagnosis could only be wrong and I shouldn't listen to anything they say.You say:Research gets published in journals for everyone to see, etc.
It's not like we're keeping it a big secretBut the impression people are getting from this incident is that only part of the research gets published and that some parts are hidden and that scientists are even committing illegal acts such as deleting information that could be requested as part of a Freedom of Information Act in order to keep things hidden.
When I read accounts of other climate scientists trying to duplicate the results and being unable to and then requesting information on how it was done in the first place and that request for information being denied what am I supposed to think?
That the man working in secret is right because the UN published his results and that the man who appears to be working out in the open is a villain?
When I read that after their models are revealed they produce the same charts regardless of whether they are fed real data or noise am I just supposed to assume that they were correct because the were created by experts?Your right, as a lay person it is hard to understand the arguments of experts.
But in a situation where determining who is correct is vital to our future prosperity there is a larger burden than just doing good science.
In situations where the only thing that matters is the opinions of other scientists I would say that you are right to not waste your time arguing with idiots.
But when science influences policy there is an additional responsibility to make a convincing case that those idiots can understand.
Is it a lot more work.
Yes.  Am I asking you personally to sit down and tutor every one of them?
Obviously not.
If you go to http://copenhagendiagnosis.org/ [copenhagendiagnosis.org] you will see the following:The report has been purposefully written with a target readership of policy-makers, stakeholders, the media and the broader public.This is because these people are not idiots.
They know that they are asking for major changes to be made with regard to how our economy functions and that the burden for those changes will be paid for by "the broader public".
Hence they are willing to engage with said public.
And that report in fact, I believe does a very good job of that.
More is required however.
The report makes sense.
But if the codes and raw data sets used to come to these conclusions are secret and cannot be duplicated by others how am I to have confidence in them?
If skeptics, even lay skeptics, raise concerns they should be addressed and communicated to the public in as clear a manner as possible.
The burden of proof is in fact extraordinarily high.
The following must be determined with a very high degree of certainty before we can be confident that we are making the right policy choices:1.
The earth is getting hotter2.
The warming is a long term trend3.
The warming is caused by humans4.
The warming is caused by human produced CO25.
How much warming is going to occur?6.
What is the effect of the warming?7.
What is the best way to deal with the effects of the warming?8.
What is the best way to stop the warming?The answer to all of these questions involves the analysis of very, very complex systems.
If you are trying to say that a doctorate level degree equals expert equals trust everything they say without question, then you are in fact the idiot.
My experience with medical doctors is that they are wrong more times than they are right when it comes to anything that falls outside of the normal situations that they regularly run into.
Do I assume that there is a conspiracy amongst doctors to harm my body.
No, that would be just as stupid.
They are wrong because the human body is very complicated and despite the fact that we have been studying it for a long time there is still much that we don't understand.
To assume that someone with a Ph.D in a much younger science such as climate science, studying a much more complicated system, the earth, of which we only have one specimen rather than billions, is automatically right to the degree that we are willing to institute programs that cost billions of dollars, is just crazy talk.
I'm not saying that the science is not good only that much skepticism should be applied.
Essentially:1. The burden of proof is high.
Doing a couple of peer reviews per study is not enough.2.
The entire process should all be done out in the open where all "experts" and consequently lay people have equal access to all data and code so that every expert can make his/her case.If I go to you and demand your time to explain to me your job because I am curious than, yeah, I am the arrogant one.
But if you take the results of your work and come to me and demand that I change my lifestyle and spend my money in a certain way and that I shouldn't question you or ask for you to explain yourself or show other scientists how you arrived at your conclusions then your arrogance is just stupefying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248800</id>
	<title>hold on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you need to look at the science and I think many of you put on some blinders and consider yourself educated in the matter bucause you watched Gore's film.</p><p>Before you buy into this, consider the what you are really getting on board with. There are many issues that do not reconcile.</p><p>For instance, every farmer knows the level of c02 is barely sustainable. This is why greenhouses must augment with c02 injection. The higher the temp, the more c02 needed. This is a fact that can be proven and replicated. Low co2 harms plants.</p><p>AGW trys to tell you something different. They say, c02 is harmful. You can reduce heat by lowering c02 and plants will flourish. Try replicating this in a lab. Im telling you now, it will fail and the plants will suffer.</p><p>The science they promote is flawed. c02 has zero impact on heat. AGW cant be substantiated. Its made up. Try it for yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you need to look at the science and I think many of you put on some blinders and consider yourself educated in the matter bucause you watched Gore 's film.Before you buy into this , consider the what you are really getting on board with .
There are many issues that do not reconcile.For instance , every farmer knows the level of c02 is barely sustainable .
This is why greenhouses must augment with c02 injection .
The higher the temp , the more c02 needed .
This is a fact that can be proven and replicated .
Low co2 harms plants.AGW trys to tell you something different .
They say , c02 is harmful .
You can reduce heat by lowering c02 and plants will flourish .
Try replicating this in a lab .
Im telling you now , it will fail and the plants will suffer.The science they promote is flawed .
c02 has zero impact on heat .
AGW cant be substantiated .
Its made up .
Try it for yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you need to look at the science and I think many of you put on some blinders and consider yourself educated in the matter bucause you watched Gore's film.Before you buy into this, consider the what you are really getting on board with.
There are many issues that do not reconcile.For instance, every farmer knows the level of c02 is barely sustainable.
This is why greenhouses must augment with c02 injection.
The higher the temp, the more c02 needed.
This is a fact that can be proven and replicated.
Low co2 harms plants.AGW trys to tell you something different.
They say, c02 is harmful.
You can reduce heat by lowering c02 and plants will flourish.
Try replicating this in a lab.
Im telling you now, it will fail and the plants will suffer.The science they promote is flawed.
c02 has zero impact on heat.
AGW cant be substantiated.
Its made up.
Try it for yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249988</id>
	<title>it's also geting dark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259321760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>over one half of the earth's surface.</p><p>night must be man-made.<br>algore said so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>over one half of the earth 's surface.night must be man-made.algore said so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>over one half of the earth's surface.night must be man-made.algore said so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248640</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1259314860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... require extraordinary evidence.

The global-warmists, or climate change proponents need to pony-up some real evidence for all the wild, alarmist claims about doomsday they've been making for the past 20 years... not just anecdotal bunk like misc. ice sleets falling off Antarctica, etc.</p></div><p>I agree with your subject statement but I disagree with that very last part.  Apparently the West antarctic ice sheet was the part with "ice sheets falling off it" while the East side remained relatively stable.  That's <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071\_1929070\_1943136,00.html" title="time.com">recently changed</a> [time.com].  I don't think this proves anything but I admit it's alarming to me that we might just be sitting on our hands while Antarctica breaks apart.  Hell, we're already <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0225\_050225\_arctic\_landrush.html" title="nationalgeographic.com">opening up shipping lanes through the north pole</a> [nationalgeographic.com].  It's true, I am just another internet moron but I would really prefer we don't have to find out what results from Antarctica breaking apart or melting.  At this point, I'm open to suggestions and theories<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... although for any of them to be unquestionably valid, I refer to your first statement.  <br> <br>

No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs.  We all seemed to agree as a planet that they were bad.  And so on and so forth you can look back historically at man negatively altering his environment to varying degrees.  I think more than sufficient evidence has been provided to prove that we need to get a better grip on what emissions and carbon proliferation mean for the Earth and -- most importantly -- us.  I'm a small government kind of guy but if that means more government funding being dumped into unbiased investigations than so be it.  I don't want Earth to end up like Easter Island.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... require extraordinary evidence .
The global-warmists , or climate change proponents need to pony-up some real evidence for all the wild , alarmist claims about doomsday they 've been making for the past 20 years... not just anecdotal bunk like misc .
ice sleets falling off Antarctica , etc.I agree with your subject statement but I disagree with that very last part .
Apparently the West antarctic ice sheet was the part with " ice sheets falling off it " while the East side remained relatively stable .
That 's recently changed [ time.com ] .
I do n't think this proves anything but I admit it 's alarming to me that we might just be sitting on our hands while Antarctica breaks apart .
Hell , we 're already opening up shipping lanes through the north pole [ nationalgeographic.com ] .
It 's true , I am just another internet moron but I would really prefer we do n't have to find out what results from Antarctica breaking apart or melting .
At this point , I 'm open to suggestions and theories ... although for any of them to be unquestionably valid , I refer to your first statement .
No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs .
We all seemed to agree as a planet that they were bad .
And so on and so forth you can look back historically at man negatively altering his environment to varying degrees .
I think more than sufficient evidence has been provided to prove that we need to get a better grip on what emissions and carbon proliferation mean for the Earth and -- most importantly -- us .
I 'm a small government kind of guy but if that means more government funding being dumped into unbiased investigations than so be it .
I do n't want Earth to end up like Easter Island .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... require extraordinary evidence.
The global-warmists, or climate change proponents need to pony-up some real evidence for all the wild, alarmist claims about doomsday they've been making for the past 20 years... not just anecdotal bunk like misc.
ice sleets falling off Antarctica, etc.I agree with your subject statement but I disagree with that very last part.
Apparently the West antarctic ice sheet was the part with "ice sheets falling off it" while the East side remained relatively stable.
That's recently changed [time.com].
I don't think this proves anything but I admit it's alarming to me that we might just be sitting on our hands while Antarctica breaks apart.
Hell, we're already opening up shipping lanes through the north pole [nationalgeographic.com].
It's true, I am just another internet moron but I would really prefer we don't have to find out what results from Antarctica breaking apart or melting.
At this point, I'm open to suggestions and theories ... although for any of them to be unquestionably valid, I refer to your first statement.
No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs.
We all seemed to agree as a planet that they were bad.
And so on and so forth you can look back historically at man negatively altering his environment to varying degrees.
I think more than sufficient evidence has been provided to prove that we need to get a better grip on what emissions and carbon proliferation mean for the Earth and -- most importantly -- us.
I'm a small government kind of guy but if that means more government funding being dumped into unbiased investigations than so be it.
I don't want Earth to end up like Easter Island.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251316</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259329560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the position is more properly characterized as we can pour as many greenhouse gasses into the atomsphere, and suffer the consequences for a lower cost than the cost of fixing the problem. So its not a science problem at all, in the end its an economic/policy problem. As noted in other posts, if you believe the costs (NPV) of letting climate change happen are less than the costs of mitigating greenhouse gas emmission you have a valid economic point. However since everyone is fear mongering to a high degree thru the media whose job appears to be as fear mongers (see H1N1 coverage...) It makes have a rational economic discussion impossible. Climate change has likley reached a stage where the evidence is clear and convincing, but has not and will never reach a beyond a reasonable doubt stage. So do the economics assuming Climate Change is real and then decide which set of costs you wish to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the position is more properly characterized as we can pour as many greenhouse gasses into the atomsphere , and suffer the consequences for a lower cost than the cost of fixing the problem .
So its not a science problem at all , in the end its an economic/policy problem .
As noted in other posts , if you believe the costs ( NPV ) of letting climate change happen are less than the costs of mitigating greenhouse gas emmission you have a valid economic point .
However since everyone is fear mongering to a high degree thru the media whose job appears to be as fear mongers ( see H1N1 coverage... ) It makes have a rational economic discussion impossible .
Climate change has likley reached a stage where the evidence is clear and convincing , but has not and will never reach a beyond a reasonable doubt stage .
So do the economics assuming Climate Change is real and then decide which set of costs you wish to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the position is more properly characterized as we can pour as many greenhouse gasses into the atomsphere, and suffer the consequences for a lower cost than the cost of fixing the problem.
So its not a science problem at all, in the end its an economic/policy problem.
As noted in other posts, if you believe the costs (NPV) of letting climate change happen are less than the costs of mitigating greenhouse gas emmission you have a valid economic point.
However since everyone is fear mongering to a high degree thru the media whose job appears to be as fear mongers (see H1N1 coverage...) It makes have a rational economic discussion impossible.
Climate change has likley reached a stage where the evidence is clear and convincing, but has not and will never reach a beyond a reasonable doubt stage.
So do the economics assuming Climate Change is real and then decide which set of costs you wish to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249456</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259319120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You come off as an arrogant bastard. No lay person could possibly understand what you do because you're just so much smarter than they are? Or is it that you spent 40 years poring over data day and night? Are you THAT smart? Give me a break. Anyone who has the hubris to think that their work can only be understood by those in their field is just aching to be smacked down by some un-educated smarty. Look, its attitudes like yours that make the rest of us 'non-scientists' think you're an idiot. Give people some credit, we're not all morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You come off as an arrogant bastard .
No lay person could possibly understand what you do because you 're just so much smarter than they are ?
Or is it that you spent 40 years poring over data day and night ?
Are you THAT smart ?
Give me a break .
Anyone who has the hubris to think that their work can only be understood by those in their field is just aching to be smacked down by some un-educated smarty .
Look , its attitudes like yours that make the rest of us 'non-scientists ' think you 're an idiot .
Give people some credit , we 're not all morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You come off as an arrogant bastard.
No lay person could possibly understand what you do because you're just so much smarter than they are?
Or is it that you spent 40 years poring over data day and night?
Are you THAT smart?
Give me a break.
Anyone who has the hubris to think that their work can only be understood by those in their field is just aching to be smacked down by some un-educated smarty.
Look, its attitudes like yours that make the rest of us 'non-scientists' think you're an idiot.
Give people some credit, we're not all morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251302</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Curunir\_wolf</author>
	<datestamp>1259329500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may not like having to talk down to the ignorant masses, but you're not likely to get very far with your agenda with that kind of attitude.  When you are trying to convince people that they need to change their lifestyle, pay massive new taxes and fees for everything, and essentially live like paupers, you have to do better than "You won't understand the issues - just trust us experts that this is what you have to do."
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may not like having to talk down to the ignorant masses , but you 're not likely to get very far with your agenda with that kind of attitude .
When you are trying to convince people that they need to change their lifestyle , pay massive new taxes and fees for everything , and essentially live like paupers , you have to do better than " You wo n't understand the issues - just trust us experts that this is what you have to do .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may not like having to talk down to the ignorant masses, but you're not likely to get very far with your agenda with that kind of attitude.
When you are trying to convince people that they need to change their lifestyle, pay massive new taxes and fees for everything, and essentially live like paupers, you have to do better than "You won't understand the issues - just trust us experts that this is what you have to do.
"
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253616</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1259409180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Experience does not equal ability.</p><p>It never has and it never will.</p><p>It tends to be a good indicator of ability, but only when no other indicator is available.</p><p>The truth is that climate research is not very complicated.</p><p>They may be experts, but they certainly dont actually know very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Experience does not equal ability.It never has and it never will.It tends to be a good indicator of ability , but only when no other indicator is available.The truth is that climate research is not very complicated.They may be experts , but they certainly dont actually know very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Experience does not equal ability.It never has and it never will.It tends to be a good indicator of ability, but only when no other indicator is available.The truth is that climate research is not very complicated.They may be experts, but they certainly dont actually know very much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248970</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1259316660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say the position of:</p><p>"we can pour as much greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as we want and it will affect nothing"</p><p>is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. It flies in the face of reason. It's like saying "When you add 1+1, it equals 2, expect when one of the 1s is anthropogenic, then 1+1=1."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say the position of : " we can pour as much greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as we want and it will affect nothing " is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence .
It flies in the face of reason .
It 's like saying " When you add 1 + 1 , it equals 2 , expect when one of the 1s is anthropogenic , then 1 + 1 = 1 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say the position of:"we can pour as much greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as we want and it will affect nothing"is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
It flies in the face of reason.
It's like saying "When you add 1+1, it equals 2, expect when one of the 1s is anthropogenic, then 1+1=1.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332</id>
	<title>Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1259313000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...<b>tribalism</b> in science is the main culprit here..."</p><p>Funny, the old word used to be 'fraud'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...tribalism in science is the main culprit here... " Funny , the old word used to be 'fraud' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...tribalism in science is the main culprit here..."Funny, the old word used to be 'fraud'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248980</id>
	<title>Sceptics? More like believers to me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259316660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The socalled sceptics should in truth be called believers, because they seem to believe there is a global conspiracy of nearly all climate scientists, that this conspiracy has been there for years, fiddling with data to make it fit their objective, with all of their data published, all of their models published without anyone being able to refute the science in these, for what evil goal? To make humans more responsible in how we treat our environment? What an evil and nefarious plan!</p><p>The IPCC reports are public, they are based upon peer reviewed articles. There may be some data which is protected by copyright, but in general it is all public, data, models and conclusions.<br>This is FUD of the worst kind, because the "sceptics" know that most "sceptics" will not bother to look into it for themselves.</p><p>Let me repeat, it is all publicly available, except for certain pieces of data which may be protected by copyright - after all there are institutions living of selling the data they collect.</p><p>If you disagree, then look into what has been published and show us the errors, don't try the old propaganda trick of trying to undermine the scientists, undermine their science if it is wrong</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The socalled sceptics should in truth be called believers , because they seem to believe there is a global conspiracy of nearly all climate scientists , that this conspiracy has been there for years , fiddling with data to make it fit their objective , with all of their data published , all of their models published without anyone being able to refute the science in these , for what evil goal ?
To make humans more responsible in how we treat our environment ?
What an evil and nefarious plan ! The IPCC reports are public , they are based upon peer reviewed articles .
There may be some data which is protected by copyright , but in general it is all public , data , models and conclusions.This is FUD of the worst kind , because the " sceptics " know that most " sceptics " will not bother to look into it for themselves.Let me repeat , it is all publicly available , except for certain pieces of data which may be protected by copyright - after all there are institutions living of selling the data they collect.If you disagree , then look into what has been published and show us the errors , do n't try the old propaganda trick of trying to undermine the scientists , undermine their science if it is wrong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The socalled sceptics should in truth be called believers, because they seem to believe there is a global conspiracy of nearly all climate scientists, that this conspiracy has been there for years, fiddling with data to make it fit their objective, with all of their data published, all of their models published without anyone being able to refute the science in these, for what evil goal?
To make humans more responsible in how we treat our environment?
What an evil and nefarious plan!The IPCC reports are public, they are based upon peer reviewed articles.
There may be some data which is protected by copyright, but in general it is all public, data, models and conclusions.This is FUD of the worst kind, because the "sceptics" know that most "sceptics" will not bother to look into it for themselves.Let me repeat, it is all publicly available, except for certain pieces of data which may be protected by copyright - after all there are institutions living of selling the data they collect.If you disagree, then look into what has been published and show us the errors, don't try the old propaganda trick of trying to undermine the scientists, undermine their science if it is wrong</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252568</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>wzph</author>
	<datestamp>1259344920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take this opportunity to ask the expert.</p><p>When I took the various science courses in high school and college, it was stressed that a critical part of doing science is coming up with repeatable experiments.  I.E., no repeatable experiments = no science.  So when I read about the science of AGW, it strikes me as odd, since it's something we can't repeat.  There's only one earth, and we can't take it back in time.</p><p>I've asked other people about this, and they say that computer models act as substitute experiments.  And I think to myself, sure, as far as those programs accurately model the universe.</p><p>Is this a naive understanding of science?  Can you do science without repeatable experiments?  Have I been lied to all these years?!</p><p>And does it matter if climate research is actually science?</p><p>Please, educate me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take this opportunity to ask the expert.When I took the various science courses in high school and college , it was stressed that a critical part of doing science is coming up with repeatable experiments .
I.E. , no repeatable experiments = no science .
So when I read about the science of AGW , it strikes me as odd , since it 's something we ca n't repeat .
There 's only one earth , and we ca n't take it back in time.I 've asked other people about this , and they say that computer models act as substitute experiments .
And I think to myself , sure , as far as those programs accurately model the universe.Is this a naive understanding of science ?
Can you do science without repeatable experiments ?
Have I been lied to all these years ?
! And does it matter if climate research is actually science ? Please , educate me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take this opportunity to ask the expert.When I took the various science courses in high school and college, it was stressed that a critical part of doing science is coming up with repeatable experiments.
I.E., no repeatable experiments = no science.
So when I read about the science of AGW, it strikes me as odd, since it's something we can't repeat.
There's only one earth, and we can't take it back in time.I've asked other people about this, and they say that computer models act as substitute experiments.
And I think to myself, sure, as far as those programs accurately model the universe.Is this a naive understanding of science?
Can you do science without repeatable experiments?
Have I been lied to all these years?
!And does it matter if climate research is actually science?Please, educate me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250372</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this is about *policy*, not science</title>
	<author>Rufty</author>
	<datestamp>1259323980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah. We can deny that too - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic\_petroleum\_origin" title="wikipedia.org">abiotic oil</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah .
We can deny that too - abiotic oil [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah.
We can deny that too - abiotic oil [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249912</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1259321340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>material belongings and happiness is not 1:1, no matter what the corporate marketing machine wants us to believe...</p><p>as for economics, well it have not yet cracked the "what money" question yet, and missing that, the validity seems questionable...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>material belongings and happiness is not 1 : 1 , no matter what the corporate marketing machine wants us to believe...as for economics , well it have not yet cracked the " what money " question yet , and missing that , the validity seems questionable.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>material belongings and happiness is not 1:1, no matter what the corporate marketing machine wants us to believe...as for economics, well it have not yet cracked the "what money" question yet, and missing that, the validity seems questionable...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249224</id>
	<title>Don't argue with the science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259318040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unless you have a PhD or M.Sc. in a relevant scientific field.</p><p>You are just making yourself look like an idiot.</p><p>You are free to argue about what should be done about it, as that is a values-based political judgement.</p><p>Keep the distinction straight, and we're all good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unless you have a PhD or M.Sc .
in a relevant scientific field.You are just making yourself look like an idiot.You are free to argue about what should be done about it , as that is a values-based political judgement.Keep the distinction straight , and we 're all good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless you have a PhD or M.Sc.
in a relevant scientific field.You are just making yourself look like an idiot.You are free to argue about what should be done about it, as that is a values-based political judgement.Keep the distinction straight, and we're all good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249892</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259321280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends, what kind of scientist are you? are you a climatologist? the please present an alternative hypothesis, and propose a way to test it.</p><p>Otherwise, shut the fuck up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends , what kind of scientist are you ?
are you a climatologist ?
the please present an alternative hypothesis , and propose a way to test it.Otherwise , shut the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends, what kind of scientist are you?
are you a climatologist?
the please present an alternative hypothesis, and propose a way to test it.Otherwise, shut the fuck up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252124</id>
	<title>I just feel like I need to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm really sick of this arguing.</p><p>What annoys me is that the science behind climate change is so simple ( well, relatively simple. *cough*LHC*cough* xD ) : the greenhouse effect being 'enhanced' by tonnes upon tonnes of greenhouse gases (being methane, carbon dioxide etc.) being released by us, along with the depletion of the ozone layer around the poles caused by chloroflourocarbons, which are byproducts of aerosols among other things.</p><p>If you're in a grumpy mood and feel like denying that the greenhouse effect even exists then please note one thing: Venus - Venus' temperature is higher than Mercury's despite the fact that it's much further from the sun than Mercury, Mercury has virtually no atmosphere whereas Venus has a very thick atmosphere somewhat like our's made up of ~96.5\% carbon dioxide, 3.5\% Nitrogen and traces of other gases I don't care to name, Venus' much higher temperature than Mercury is attributed to this.</p><p>By the way, I have noticed a temperature increase; I live in NSW Australia, close enough to the South Pole to be able to blame the highest rate of skin cancer in the world on the big fat lack of an ozone layer above Antarctica, anyway: where I live around 20 years ago in the middle of Winter frost in the morning was a regular site, over the past 11 or so years I have never seen frost in Winter on any day.</p><p>Feel free to yell at me for whatever reason but if you really want to deny anything that I've said at least provide evidence, this isn't a religious debate based on dogma afterall unless you really want to drag in that $\%\%!'d political debate based on money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really sick of this arguing.What annoys me is that the science behind climate change is so simple ( well , relatively simple .
* cough * LHC * cough * xD ) : the greenhouse effect being 'enhanced ' by tonnes upon tonnes of greenhouse gases ( being methane , carbon dioxide etc .
) being released by us , along with the depletion of the ozone layer around the poles caused by chloroflourocarbons , which are byproducts of aerosols among other things.If you 're in a grumpy mood and feel like denying that the greenhouse effect even exists then please note one thing : Venus - Venus ' temperature is higher than Mercury 's despite the fact that it 's much further from the sun than Mercury , Mercury has virtually no atmosphere whereas Venus has a very thick atmosphere somewhat like our 's made up of ~ 96.5 \ % carbon dioxide , 3.5 \ % Nitrogen and traces of other gases I do n't care to name , Venus ' much higher temperature than Mercury is attributed to this.By the way , I have noticed a temperature increase ; I live in NSW Australia , close enough to the South Pole to be able to blame the highest rate of skin cancer in the world on the big fat lack of an ozone layer above Antarctica , anyway : where I live around 20 years ago in the middle of Winter frost in the morning was a regular site , over the past 11 or so years I have never seen frost in Winter on any day.Feel free to yell at me for whatever reason but if you really want to deny anything that I 've said at least provide evidence , this is n't a religious debate based on dogma afterall unless you really want to drag in that $ \ % \ % !
'd political debate based on money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really sick of this arguing.What annoys me is that the science behind climate change is so simple ( well, relatively simple.
*cough*LHC*cough* xD ) : the greenhouse effect being 'enhanced' by tonnes upon tonnes of greenhouse gases (being methane, carbon dioxide etc.
) being released by us, along with the depletion of the ozone layer around the poles caused by chloroflourocarbons, which are byproducts of aerosols among other things.If you're in a grumpy mood and feel like denying that the greenhouse effect even exists then please note one thing: Venus - Venus' temperature is higher than Mercury's despite the fact that it's much further from the sun than Mercury, Mercury has virtually no atmosphere whereas Venus has a very thick atmosphere somewhat like our's made up of ~96.5\% carbon dioxide, 3.5\% Nitrogen and traces of other gases I don't care to name, Venus' much higher temperature than Mercury is attributed to this.By the way, I have noticed a temperature increase; I live in NSW Australia, close enough to the South Pole to be able to blame the highest rate of skin cancer in the world on the big fat lack of an ozone layer above Antarctica, anyway: where I live around 20 years ago in the middle of Winter frost in the morning was a regular site, over the past 11 or so years I have never seen frost in Winter on any day.Feel free to yell at me for whatever reason but if you really want to deny anything that I've said at least provide evidence, this isn't a religious debate based on dogma afterall unless you really want to drag in that $\%\%!
'd political debate based on money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252632</id>
	<title>don't feed the climate trolls</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1259346000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EOM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EOM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EOM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250338</id>
	<title>Re:It's the blind men and the elephant</title>
	<author>emilper</author>
	<datestamp>1259323740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are we assuming that a volcano that spews billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can affect weather but us doing the same every year has no affect?</p></div><p>the ash spewed by the volcano affects the weather, not the CO2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we assuming that a volcano that spews billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can affect weather but us doing the same every year has no affect ? the ash spewed by the volcano affects the weather , not the CO2 .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we assuming that a volcano that spews billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can affect weather but us doing the same every year has no affect?the ash spewed by the volcano affects the weather, not the CO2 ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248444</id>
	<title>The downside of trying to help the environment is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259313780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is what ?<br>Being more efficient ?<br>Where is the downside of improving efficiency of devices and ourselves ?<br>Whatever happens to the climate, the resources we currently use are limited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is what ? Being more efficient ? Where is the downside of improving efficiency of devices and ourselves ? Whatever happens to the climate , the resources we currently use are limited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is what ?Being more efficient ?Where is the downside of improving efficiency of devices and ourselves ?Whatever happens to the climate, the resources we currently use are limited.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248612</id>
	<title>Re:Common Ground?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.</p></div><p><a href="http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm" title="numberwatch.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Global Warming as Religion and not Science</a> [numberwatch.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the common labels , " believers " and " deniers " , are ridiculous ; they have more of a place in religious debate.Global Warming as Religion and not Science [ numberwatch.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.Global Warming as Religion and not Science [numberwatch.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255052</id>
	<title>The answer to the question is...</title>
	<author>rochrist</author>
	<datestamp>1259429520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. The can be no common ground because one side is arguing from a political point of view when the other side is arguing from a scientific point of view.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
The can be no common ground because one side is arguing from a political point of view when the other side is arguing from a scientific point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
The can be no common ground because one side is arguing from a political point of view when the other side is arguing from a scientific point of view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255730</id>
	<title>Re:Good faith and bad faith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259436180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a TV documentary about the solar neutrino problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_neutrino\_problem), they said the physicists who discovered the discrepancy were severely criticized by the academic community from the 1960's to 2002 when they won the Nobel Prize.  The criticism was because their measurements disagreed with the Standard Solar Model.  This provides experimental evidence that the scientific consensus can be wrong for up to 42 or so years.  I read a Time Life book on weather and climate which was written in the 1970's which explained the causes of coral reef bleaching and the effects of melting the ice due to global warming. So a scientific consensus does not mean the theory is correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a TV documentary about the solar neutrino problem ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar \ _neutrino \ _problem ) , they said the physicists who discovered the discrepancy were severely criticized by the academic community from the 1960 's to 2002 when they won the Nobel Prize .
The criticism was because their measurements disagreed with the Standard Solar Model .
This provides experimental evidence that the scientific consensus can be wrong for up to 42 or so years .
I read a Time Life book on weather and climate which was written in the 1970 's which explained the causes of coral reef bleaching and the effects of melting the ice due to global warming .
So a scientific consensus does not mean the theory is correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a TV documentary about the solar neutrino problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_neutrino\_problem), they said the physicists who discovered the discrepancy were severely criticized by the academic community from the 1960's to 2002 when they won the Nobel Prize.
The criticism was because their measurements disagreed with the Standard Solar Model.
This provides experimental evidence that the scientific consensus can be wrong for up to 42 or so years.
I read a Time Life book on weather and climate which was written in the 1970's which explained the causes of coral reef bleaching and the effects of melting the ice due to global warming.
So a scientific consensus does not mean the theory is correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248704</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>realcoolguy425</author>
	<datestamp>1259315400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite Anecdotal to me.  The Antarctic has 90\% of the earth's ice anyway.  The eastern half of Antarctica is 4x the size of the western half, and is cooling/growing.
<br>
<br>
It seems climate fear mongers only want to point to both the Arctic and the western Antarctic, where the west is somewhat unstable at the moment.  They never seem to take into account the growing ice sheet on the eastern Antarctic, and the fact that it offsets other ice losses.  I'm sure in another 30 years that part of the Antarctic may be decreasing, while another large area of ice is forming somewhere else.  Normal cycles, should not be made into an international crisis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite Anecdotal to me .
The Antarctic has 90 \ % of the earth 's ice anyway .
The eastern half of Antarctica is 4x the size of the western half , and is cooling/growing .
It seems climate fear mongers only want to point to both the Arctic and the western Antarctic , where the west is somewhat unstable at the moment .
They never seem to take into account the growing ice sheet on the eastern Antarctic , and the fact that it offsets other ice losses .
I 'm sure in another 30 years that part of the Antarctic may be decreasing , while another large area of ice is forming somewhere else .
Normal cycles , should not be made into an international crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite Anecdotal to me.
The Antarctic has 90\% of the earth's ice anyway.
The eastern half of Antarctica is 4x the size of the western half, and is cooling/growing.
It seems climate fear mongers only want to point to both the Arctic and the western Antarctic, where the west is somewhat unstable at the moment.
They never seem to take into account the growing ice sheet on the eastern Antarctic, and the fact that it offsets other ice losses.
I'm sure in another 30 years that part of the Antarctic may be decreasing, while another large area of ice is forming somewhere else.
Normal cycles, should not be made into an international crisis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30257002</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this is about *policy*, not science</title>
	<author>Idiot with a gun</author>
	<datestamp>1259406480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much proof would it take to convince you that the whole AGW thing was merely a power grab by those who would strongly curb every westerners lifestyle except their own? Not saying that's necessarily the truth, but you're missing the massive amount of hypocrisy in your little rant there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much proof would it take to convince you that the whole AGW thing was merely a power grab by those who would strongly curb every westerners lifestyle except their own ?
Not saying that 's necessarily the truth , but you 're missing the massive amount of hypocrisy in your little rant there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much proof would it take to convince you that the whole AGW thing was merely a power grab by those who would strongly curb every westerners lifestyle except their own?
Not saying that's necessarily the truth, but you're missing the massive amount of hypocrisy in your little rant there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255302</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>earrame</author>
	<datestamp>1259431920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thank you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249160</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259317560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's an obvious money-trail here and a lot of people smell a skunk</p></div></blockquote><p>So obvious yet you apparently can't actually see it - the denialist industry has considerably more resources behind it than the academics and research scientists.  A few piffly grant monies versus the vested interests of the current energy industry?  Those avaricious scientists are clearly prepared to invent any kind of lie or distraction to maintain their current position of wealth and power eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an obvious money-trail here and a lot of people smell a skunkSo obvious yet you apparently ca n't actually see it - the denialist industry has considerably more resources behind it than the academics and research scientists .
A few piffly grant monies versus the vested interests of the current energy industry ?
Those avaricious scientists are clearly prepared to invent any kind of lie or distraction to maintain their current position of wealth and power eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an obvious money-trail here and a lot of people smell a skunkSo obvious yet you apparently can't actually see it - the denialist industry has considerably more resources behind it than the academics and research scientists.
A few piffly grant monies versus the vested interests of the current energy industry?
Those avaricious scientists are clearly prepared to invent any kind of lie or distraction to maintain their current position of wealth and power eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255830</id>
	<title>Re:Good faith and bad faith</title>
	<author>mrosgood</author>
	<datestamp>1259437500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Decide there's global warming and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.</p></div><p>You are worse than wrong. There are no alternative explanations.</p><p>Scientists follow the principles of Popperianism.</p><p>Theories must be falsifiable. Each theory must have tests for which if false, disprove the theory.</p><p>Further, for a theory to be accepted, it must do a better job of explaining reality.</p><p>You can't merely say something is wrong. You have to say how it's wrong AND have a better explanation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a big pseudo-scientific world out there.</p></div><p>Um, no. And this cute belief system of yours disqualifies you from the discussion.</p><p>So, please, run back to your cave and resume banging the rocks together. See how far that gets you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Decide there 's global warming and go look for evidence to support your theory , and ignore all other explanations.You are worse than wrong .
There are no alternative explanations.Scientists follow the principles of Popperianism.Theories must be falsifiable .
Each theory must have tests for which if false , disprove the theory.Further , for a theory to be accepted , it must do a better job of explaining reality.You ca n't merely say something is wrong .
You have to say how it 's wrong AND have a better explanation.It 's a big pseudo-scientific world out there.Um , no .
And this cute belief system of yours disqualifies you from the discussion.So , please , run back to your cave and resume banging the rocks together .
See how far that gets you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decide there's global warming and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.You are worse than wrong.
There are no alternative explanations.Scientists follow the principles of Popperianism.Theories must be falsifiable.
Each theory must have tests for which if false, disprove the theory.Further, for a theory to be accepted, it must do a better job of explaining reality.You can't merely say something is wrong.
You have to say how it's wrong AND have a better explanation.It's a big pseudo-scientific world out there.Um, no.
And this cute belief system of yours disqualifies you from the discussion.So, please, run back to your cave and resume banging the rocks together.
See how far that gets you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248636</id>
	<title>Eric Raymond's take on this</title>
	<author>TheCodeFoundry</author>
	<datestamp>1259314800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, ESR has gotten in on the discussion and is a little more damning in his condemnation of the entire Climategate ordeal</p><p><a href="http://rebootcongress.blogspot.com/2009/11/eric-s-raymond-on-east-anglia-crus.html" title="blogspot.com">http://rebootcongress.blogspot.com/2009/11/eric-s-raymond-on-east-anglia-crus.html</a> [blogspot.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is only one way to cut through all of the conflicting claims and agendas about the CRU's research: open-source it all. Publish the primary data sets, publish the programs used to interpret them and create graphs like the well-known global-temperature "hockey stick", publish everything. Let the code and the data speak for itself; let the facts trump speculation and interpretation.</p><p>We know, from experience with software, that secrecy is the enemy of quality -- that software bugs, like cockroaches, shun light and flourish in darkness. So, too. with mistakes in the interpretation of scientific data; neither deliberate fraud nor inadvertent error can long survive the skeptical scrutiny of millions. The same remedy we have found in the open-source community applies - unsurprisingly, since we learned it from science in the first place. Abolish the secrecy, let in the sunlight.</p><p><div class="quote"></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , ESR has gotten in on the discussion and is a little more damning in his condemnation of the entire Climategate ordealhttp : //rebootcongress.blogspot.com/2009/11/eric-s-raymond-on-east-anglia-crus.html [ blogspot.com ] There is only one way to cut through all of the conflicting claims and agendas about the CRU 's research : open-source it all .
Publish the primary data sets , publish the programs used to interpret them and create graphs like the well-known global-temperature " hockey stick " , publish everything .
Let the code and the data speak for itself ; let the facts trump speculation and interpretation.We know , from experience with software , that secrecy is the enemy of quality -- that software bugs , like cockroaches , shun light and flourish in darkness .
So , too .
with mistakes in the interpretation of scientific data ; neither deliberate fraud nor inadvertent error can long survive the skeptical scrutiny of millions .
The same remedy we have found in the open-source community applies - unsurprisingly , since we learned it from science in the first place .
Abolish the secrecy , let in the sunlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, ESR has gotten in on the discussion and is a little more damning in his condemnation of the entire Climategate ordealhttp://rebootcongress.blogspot.com/2009/11/eric-s-raymond-on-east-anglia-crus.html [blogspot.com] There is only one way to cut through all of the conflicting claims and agendas about the CRU's research: open-source it all.
Publish the primary data sets, publish the programs used to interpret them and create graphs like the well-known global-temperature "hockey stick", publish everything.
Let the code and the data speak for itself; let the facts trump speculation and interpretation.We know, from experience with software, that secrecy is the enemy of quality -- that software bugs, like cockroaches, shun light and flourish in darkness.
So, too.
with mistakes in the interpretation of scientific data; neither deliberate fraud nor inadvertent error can long survive the skeptical scrutiny of millions.
The same remedy we have found in the open-source community applies - unsurprisingly, since we learned it from science in the first place.
Abolish the secrecy, let in the sunlight.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250136</id>
	<title>Re:But it goes beyond the computer models.</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1259322600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You linked to a Hartland Institute report and got modded up? Seriously? <br>
&nbsp; <br>Apparently the mods don't realize who that group is....or you've got some help trolling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You linked to a Hartland Institute report and got modded up ?
Seriously ?   Apparently the mods do n't realize who that group is....or you 've got some help trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You linked to a Hartland Institute report and got modded up?
Seriously? 
  Apparently the mods don't realize who that group is....or you've got some help trolling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492</id>
	<title>Good faith and bad faith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259319300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should climate skeptics be asked to make a good faith effort when the climate scientists have been so clearly and obviously shown to be acting in bad faith?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And it's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.</p></div><p>Decide there's global warming and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.</p><p>It's a big pseudo-scientific world out there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should climate skeptics be asked to make a good faith effort when the climate scientists have been so clearly and obviously shown to be acting in bad faith ? And it 's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action : Decide there 's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change , and go look for evidence to support your theory , and ignore all other explanations.Decide there 's global warming and go look for evidence to support your theory , and ignore all other explanations.It 's a big pseudo-scientific world out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should climate skeptics be asked to make a good faith effort when the climate scientists have been so clearly and obviously shown to be acting in bad faith?And it's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.Decide there's global warming and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.It's a big pseudo-scientific world out there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249170</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259317740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's more:</p><p>"Analysis of the new record shows that ***since a peak in 1980, sea ice thickness has declined 53 percent***. "It's an astonishing number," Kwok said. The study, published online August 6 in Geophysical Research Letters, shows that the current thinning of Arctic sea ice has actually been going on for quite some time."<br>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901143321.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's more : " Analysis of the new record shows that * * * since a peak in 1980 , sea ice thickness has declined 53 percent * * * .
" It 's an astonishing number , " Kwok said .
The study , published online August 6 in Geophysical Research Letters , shows that the current thinning of Arctic sea ice has actually been going on for quite some time .
" http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901143321.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's more:"Analysis of the new record shows that ***since a peak in 1980, sea ice thickness has declined 53 percent***.
"It's an astonishing number," Kwok said.
The study, published online August 6 in Geophysical Research Letters, shows that the current thinning of Arctic sea ice has actually been going on for quite some time.
"http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901143321.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255778</id>
	<title>Re:Common Ground?</title>
	<author>mrosgood</author>
	<datestamp>1259436840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.</p></div><p>Our opponents are not interested in reality. Data, facts, logic, reason be damned.</p><p>These are the culture wars. The battle lines have been drawn. Long ago. One side wants the best outcome for the most people. The other side wants to win. At all costs.</p><p>I don't mean to be catty, but where have you been these last 30 years, especially the 8 years of Bush The Lesser?</p><p>As a progressive I used to think that we could all sit down, have a reasonable chat, sort all this shit out. Fail at that enough times, and you'll (hopefully) learn that the only thing the troglodytes respect is power. It's distasteful. But the alternative is plutocracy, theologians, and the continued descent downwards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.Our opponents are not interested in reality .
Data , facts , logic , reason be damned.These are the culture wars .
The battle lines have been drawn .
Long ago .
One side wants the best outcome for the most people .
The other side wants to win .
At all costs.I do n't mean to be catty , but where have you been these last 30 years , especially the 8 years of Bush The Lesser ? As a progressive I used to think that we could all sit down , have a reasonable chat , sort all this shit out .
Fail at that enough times , and you 'll ( hopefully ) learn that the only thing the troglodytes respect is power .
It 's distasteful .
But the alternative is plutocracy , theologians , and the continued descent downwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.Our opponents are not interested in reality.
Data, facts, logic, reason be damned.These are the culture wars.
The battle lines have been drawn.
Long ago.
One side wants the best outcome for the most people.
The other side wants to win.
At all costs.I don't mean to be catty, but where have you been these last 30 years, especially the 8 years of Bush The Lesser?As a progressive I used to think that we could all sit down, have a reasonable chat, sort all this shit out.
Fail at that enough times, and you'll (hopefully) learn that the only thing the troglodytes respect is power.
It's distasteful.
But the alternative is plutocracy, theologians, and the continued descent downwards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250742</id>
	<title>That's not the biggest problem.</title>
	<author>SeaDuck79</author>
	<datestamp>1259325960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the problem is that the entire process replicates a circular argument.  A study is done, and peer reviewed by scientists who already agree with the premise, making it pretty likely that they won't have major problems with the conclusion or the methods used to achieve it, since they use the same ones.  The study is blessed as long as it agrees with the accepted conclusion.</p><p>So rather than a rigorous winnowing process, we end up with a mutual admiration society, or a secret scientists club to which only those in one camp are allowed full membership.</p><p>This interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, a former expert reviewer for the IPCC, illustrates other problems with the IPCC's "scientific method".  They wouldn't know objectivity if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.  Couple that with the U.N.'s statements that AGW is really just a means to a global governance end, and it's difficult to see an unadulterated, pure, trustable process here.</p><p><a href="http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32" title="financialpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32</a> [financialpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the problem is that the entire process replicates a circular argument .
A study is done , and peer reviewed by scientists who already agree with the premise , making it pretty likely that they wo n't have major problems with the conclusion or the methods used to achieve it , since they use the same ones .
The study is blessed as long as it agrees with the accepted conclusion.So rather than a rigorous winnowing process , we end up with a mutual admiration society , or a secret scientists club to which only those in one camp are allowed full membership.This interview with Dr. Vincent Gray , a former expert reviewer for the IPCC , illustrates other problems with the IPCC 's " scientific method " .
They would n't know objectivity if it jumped up and bit them in the ass .
Couple that with the U.N. 's statements that AGW is really just a means to a global governance end , and it 's difficult to see an unadulterated , pure , trustable process here.http : //www.financialpost.com/story.html ? id = 55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32 [ financialpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the problem is that the entire process replicates a circular argument.
A study is done, and peer reviewed by scientists who already agree with the premise, making it pretty likely that they won't have major problems with the conclusion or the methods used to achieve it, since they use the same ones.
The study is blessed as long as it agrees with the accepted conclusion.So rather than a rigorous winnowing process, we end up with a mutual admiration society, or a secret scientists club to which only those in one camp are allowed full membership.This interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, a former expert reviewer for the IPCC, illustrates other problems with the IPCC's "scientific method".
They wouldn't know objectivity if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.
Couple that with the U.N.'s statements that AGW is really just a means to a global governance end, and it's difficult to see an unadulterated, pure, trustable process here.http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32 [financialpost.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249808</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>pnot</author>
	<datestamp>1259320920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives. Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.</i></p><p>And the great thing about the leaked CRU emails is that you should now be able to provide evidence for this otherwise unbelievable claim! Surely, from that enormous heap, you will be able to pull out many internal communications along the lines of "our evil plan to make people lead poorer lives is advancing apace".</p><p>So, er, go on then. Where's the evidence? Come on, you've got a goldmine of source material now from those conspirators: I'm sure you can find something more damning than a tenuous, out-of-context usage of the word "trick" in a discussion about combining tree-ring datasets. If these people have a hidden agenda, presumably they've alluded to it at some point in all those internal emails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives .
Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.And the great thing about the leaked CRU emails is that you should now be able to provide evidence for this otherwise unbelievable claim !
Surely , from that enormous heap , you will be able to pull out many internal communications along the lines of " our evil plan to make people lead poorer lives is advancing apace " .So , er , go on then .
Where 's the evidence ?
Come on , you 've got a goldmine of source material now from those conspirators : I 'm sure you can find something more damning than a tenuous , out-of-context usage of the word " trick " in a discussion about combining tree-ring datasets .
If these people have a hidden agenda , presumably they 've alluded to it at some point in all those internal emails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.
Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.And the great thing about the leaked CRU emails is that you should now be able to provide evidence for this otherwise unbelievable claim!
Surely, from that enormous heap, you will be able to pull out many internal communications along the lines of "our evil plan to make people lead poorer lives is advancing apace".So, er, go on then.
Where's the evidence?
Come on, you've got a goldmine of source material now from those conspirators: I'm sure you can find something more damning than a tenuous, out-of-context usage of the word "trick" in a discussion about combining tree-ring datasets.
If these people have a hidden agenda, presumably they've alluded to it at some point in all those internal emails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248646</id>
	<title>this isn't just about beliefs</title>
	<author>abarrieris5eV</author>
	<datestamp>1259314920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this were any other scientific theory this wouldn't be happening.  Politicians are in on this, politically deciding which evidence is valid and which is not, on both sides of the issue.  The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't even strictly necessary most of the time.  If this were string theory I wouldn't care.  The problem is that this is being used to advocate drastic changes in public policy.  Policies Al Gore supports would end factory farming and dramatically drive up energy prices.  The only possible outcome of this is an immediate and severe increase in the price of food, and famine in much of the undeveloped world.  It would lead to millions perhaps billions of deaths over the next several decades.  If you're asking me to standby and let our politicians kill millions through famine, because the alternative is even more devastating destruction, you better have some evidence that: A) Your doomsday scenario is fairly certain B) the policy changes you suggest will definitely prevent it.  While the evidence for A is getting slightly more convincing, all the evidence seems to be against B.  When DDT was banned millions died of malaria, I don't want my generation being responsible for another such well meaning, naive, indirect mass murder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this were any other scientific theory this would n't be happening .
Politicians are in on this , politically deciding which evidence is valid and which is not , on both sides of the issue .
The " extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence " is n't even strictly necessary most of the time .
If this were string theory I would n't care .
The problem is that this is being used to advocate drastic changes in public policy .
Policies Al Gore supports would end factory farming and dramatically drive up energy prices .
The only possible outcome of this is an immediate and severe increase in the price of food , and famine in much of the undeveloped world .
It would lead to millions perhaps billions of deaths over the next several decades .
If you 're asking me to standby and let our politicians kill millions through famine , because the alternative is even more devastating destruction , you better have some evidence that : A ) Your doomsday scenario is fairly certain B ) the policy changes you suggest will definitely prevent it .
While the evidence for A is getting slightly more convincing , all the evidence seems to be against B. When DDT was banned millions died of malaria , I do n't want my generation being responsible for another such well meaning , naive , indirect mass murder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this were any other scientific theory this wouldn't be happening.
Politicians are in on this, politically deciding which evidence is valid and which is not, on both sides of the issue.
The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't even strictly necessary most of the time.
If this were string theory I wouldn't care.
The problem is that this is being used to advocate drastic changes in public policy.
Policies Al Gore supports would end factory farming and dramatically drive up energy prices.
The only possible outcome of this is an immediate and severe increase in the price of food, and famine in much of the undeveloped world.
It would lead to millions perhaps billions of deaths over the next several decades.
If you're asking me to standby and let our politicians kill millions through famine, because the alternative is even more devastating destruction, you better have some evidence that: A) Your doomsday scenario is fairly certain B) the policy changes you suggest will definitely prevent it.
While the evidence for A is getting slightly more convincing, all the evidence seems to be against B.  When DDT was banned millions died of malaria, I don't want my generation being responsible for another such well meaning, naive, indirect mass murder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250910</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this is about *policy*, not science</title>
	<author>2PAIRofACES</author>
	<datestamp>1259327040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This really is a GREAT question, probably the best I've ever seen on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. in regards to GW/AGW, it should probably get its own poll.  I invite you to suggest it as an article/poll.  But since that probably wouldn't happen, I'm going to answer here.  For me it'd be 3 things.</p><p>First the other side would have to quit using the word denier(s) to describe their opponents in the debate.  It's not the fucking holocaust, it hasn't happened yet, labeling people sets off my bullshitometer.</p><p>Second, and most importantly I'd have to see some demonstrable results.  Point to the prediction in 1990 and show me the results in 2002. Point to the prediction in 1991 and show me the results in 2003. I've seen too many articles detailing 1998/2000 as the hottest years on record but nothing since.  I'm not trying to turn a blind eye, I understand that in any given year or two even if agw is real, the temperatures might go down for a variety of reasons.  What I have a problem with is 8-10 years of cooling that's 10\% of the time some predictions are calling for a 10c increase in temperatures.</p><p>Third, and this is my personal biggest issue, if the hystericals (hey they call me a denier) would quit saying the debate is over.  I NEVER HEARD A DEBATE. How can something be over if it never happened?  Admit that you may be wrong , show me the respect of having a reasoned debate on the issue, and I could be convinced agw is real.</p><p>As an aside to your question, really dovetailing with the cost/benefit of AGW/GW that you brought up in the main body of your post, wasn't their an article recently on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. about the engineering of reversing global warming? (this would have been a HORRIBLE year to do that btw, we'da had snow in michigan in JULY if the temps dropped another 3 degrees).  Why don't the Deniers and the Hystericals get together, come up with a plan to reduce global temperature through science &amp; engineering if it's needed, grab some popcorn and wait to see who was right?  If temps do go up, reduce them with the Trillions of Dollars saved by not having this cap and tax bullshit.</p><p>At this point I know I'm rambling, but why the huge push for NOW? Everything has to be NOW. I get that there is a perceived problem, but steamrolling NEVER works in the U.S. If it's that goddamn important, take your time, convince people with predictions that come true, and quit insulting your critics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This really is a GREAT question , probably the best I 've ever seen on / .
in regards to GW/AGW , it should probably get its own poll .
I invite you to suggest it as an article/poll .
But since that probably would n't happen , I 'm going to answer here .
For me it 'd be 3 things.First the other side would have to quit using the word denier ( s ) to describe their opponents in the debate .
It 's not the fucking holocaust , it has n't happened yet , labeling people sets off my bullshitometer.Second , and most importantly I 'd have to see some demonstrable results .
Point to the prediction in 1990 and show me the results in 2002 .
Point to the prediction in 1991 and show me the results in 2003 .
I 've seen too many articles detailing 1998/2000 as the hottest years on record but nothing since .
I 'm not trying to turn a blind eye , I understand that in any given year or two even if agw is real , the temperatures might go down for a variety of reasons .
What I have a problem with is 8-10 years of cooling that 's 10 \ % of the time some predictions are calling for a 10c increase in temperatures.Third , and this is my personal biggest issue , if the hystericals ( hey they call me a denier ) would quit saying the debate is over .
I NEVER HEARD A DEBATE .
How can something be over if it never happened ?
Admit that you may be wrong , show me the respect of having a reasoned debate on the issue , and I could be convinced agw is real.As an aside to your question , really dovetailing with the cost/benefit of AGW/GW that you brought up in the main body of your post , was n't their an article recently on / .
about the engineering of reversing global warming ?
( this would have been a HORRIBLE year to do that btw , we'da had snow in michigan in JULY if the temps dropped another 3 degrees ) .
Why do n't the Deniers and the Hystericals get together , come up with a plan to reduce global temperature through science &amp; engineering if it 's needed , grab some popcorn and wait to see who was right ?
If temps do go up , reduce them with the Trillions of Dollars saved by not having this cap and tax bullshit.At this point I know I 'm rambling , but why the huge push for NOW ?
Everything has to be NOW .
I get that there is a perceived problem , but steamrolling NEVER works in the U.S. If it 's that goddamn important , take your time , convince people with predictions that come true , and quit insulting your critics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really is a GREAT question, probably the best I've ever seen on /.
in regards to GW/AGW, it should probably get its own poll.
I invite you to suggest it as an article/poll.
But since that probably wouldn't happen, I'm going to answer here.
For me it'd be 3 things.First the other side would have to quit using the word denier(s) to describe their opponents in the debate.
It's not the fucking holocaust, it hasn't happened yet, labeling people sets off my bullshitometer.Second, and most importantly I'd have to see some demonstrable results.
Point to the prediction in 1990 and show me the results in 2002.
Point to the prediction in 1991 and show me the results in 2003.
I've seen too many articles detailing 1998/2000 as the hottest years on record but nothing since.
I'm not trying to turn a blind eye, I understand that in any given year or two even if agw is real, the temperatures might go down for a variety of reasons.
What I have a problem with is 8-10 years of cooling that's 10\% of the time some predictions are calling for a 10c increase in temperatures.Third, and this is my personal biggest issue, if the hystericals (hey they call me a denier) would quit saying the debate is over.
I NEVER HEARD A DEBATE.
How can something be over if it never happened?
Admit that you may be wrong , show me the respect of having a reasoned debate on the issue, and I could be convinced agw is real.As an aside to your question, really dovetailing with the cost/benefit of AGW/GW that you brought up in the main body of your post, wasn't their an article recently on /.
about the engineering of reversing global warming?
(this would have been a HORRIBLE year to do that btw, we'da had snow in michigan in JULY if the temps dropped another 3 degrees).
Why don't the Deniers and the Hystericals get together, come up with a plan to reduce global temperature through science &amp; engineering if it's needed, grab some popcorn and wait to see who was right?
If temps do go up, reduce them with the Trillions of Dollars saved by not having this cap and tax bullshit.At this point I know I'm rambling, but why the huge push for NOW?
Everything has to be NOW.
I get that there is a perceived problem, but steamrolling NEVER works in the U.S. If it's that goddamn important, take your time, convince people with predictions that come true, and quit insulting your critics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249092</id>
	<title>Re:What's the point?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259317200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>educated by CNN or Fox New</p></div><p>Does not parse. (And doubly so. Plus a whole extra dimension of non-parseability [because there is no such thing as right/left].)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>educated by CNN or Fox NewDoes not parse .
( And doubly so .
Plus a whole extra dimension of non-parseability [ because there is no such thing as right/left ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>educated by CNN or Fox NewDoes not parse.
(And doubly so.
Plus a whole extra dimension of non-parseability [because there is no such thing as right/left].
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256886</id>
	<title>Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science</title>
	<author>The\_Steel\_General</author>
	<datestamp>1259404620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wish I had mod points.</p><p>Open-sourcing the data and process might help with overcoming those barriers. I don't know much about climate, but I deal with big dumps of numbers, and turning them into useful graphs and charts, all the time. If I could go to a place to get the data, I could possibly leave you more time to handle the simulation processing (and understand it better), and the data-collector more time to set up/check/confirm data (and understand IT better).</p><p>(BTW, for four-dimensional arrays, do you just mean that there's a point on a map, a point in time, and a depth for each measurement? Or are you dealing with other dimensions as well?)</p><p>
&nbsp; Of the others<br>
&nbsp; 1) Computing power. Not sure how to get around this. Sure, could do some distributed computing,  which people might be more interested in with more transparency.<br>
&nbsp; 2) Big data dumps, representations of: LIke I said, possibly a good place for division of labor anyway.<br>
&nbsp; 3) This is probably where transparency is needed the most.  People might be okay with the fact that it's complicated, if they can dig in and see what the factors are, and at least come to an understanding about it.<br>
&nbsp; 4) Sounds like more of the same as 3 - assuming that analysis largely includes the stuff that was too complicated even for the model.</p><p>Your "go look for them" is easier said than done. When I look around to check my honest skepticism, I end up at sites that are, well, polarized. It seems like either they have absolutely no doubt about what's happening or they have no doubt that it's NOT happening.  In either case, it's hard to feel comfortable with their conclusions. And if someone does answer my big question ("The Vostok ice cores show previous cycles of warming, even more than we have now, soon followed by ice ages, so why is there a belief that This Time It's Different?") I have to figure whether they are biased, and how that affects their answer.</p><p>Which brings us back to TFA, and how polarization between the camps needs to be dealt with, so that everyone CAN agree on What The Science Says, regardless of policy prescriptions.</p><p>TSG</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wish I had mod points.Open-sourcing the data and process might help with overcoming those barriers .
I do n't know much about climate , but I deal with big dumps of numbers , and turning them into useful graphs and charts , all the time .
If I could go to a place to get the data , I could possibly leave you more time to handle the simulation processing ( and understand it better ) , and the data-collector more time to set up/check/confirm data ( and understand IT better ) .
( BTW , for four-dimensional arrays , do you just mean that there 's a point on a map , a point in time , and a depth for each measurement ?
Or are you dealing with other dimensions as well ?
)   Of the others   1 ) Computing power .
Not sure how to get around this .
Sure , could do some distributed computing , which people might be more interested in with more transparency .
  2 ) Big data dumps , representations of : LIke I said , possibly a good place for division of labor anyway .
  3 ) This is probably where transparency is needed the most .
People might be okay with the fact that it 's complicated , if they can dig in and see what the factors are , and at least come to an understanding about it .
  4 ) Sounds like more of the same as 3 - assuming that analysis largely includes the stuff that was too complicated even for the model.Your " go look for them " is easier said than done .
When I look around to check my honest skepticism , I end up at sites that are , well , polarized .
It seems like either they have absolutely no doubt about what 's happening or they have no doubt that it 's NOT happening .
In either case , it 's hard to feel comfortable with their conclusions .
And if someone does answer my big question ( " The Vostok ice cores show previous cycles of warming , even more than we have now , soon followed by ice ages , so why is there a belief that This Time It 's Different ?
" ) I have to figure whether they are biased , and how that affects their answer.Which brings us back to TFA , and how polarization between the camps needs to be dealt with , so that everyone CAN agree on What The Science Says , regardless of policy prescriptions.TSG</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wish I had mod points.Open-sourcing the data and process might help with overcoming those barriers.
I don't know much about climate, but I deal with big dumps of numbers, and turning them into useful graphs and charts, all the time.
If I could go to a place to get the data, I could possibly leave you more time to handle the simulation processing (and understand it better), and the data-collector more time to set up/check/confirm data (and understand IT better).
(BTW, for four-dimensional arrays, do you just mean that there's a point on a map, a point in time, and a depth for each measurement?
Or are you dealing with other dimensions as well?
)
  Of the others
  1) Computing power.
Not sure how to get around this.
Sure, could do some distributed computing,  which people might be more interested in with more transparency.
  2) Big data dumps, representations of: LIke I said, possibly a good place for division of labor anyway.
  3) This is probably where transparency is needed the most.
People might be okay with the fact that it's complicated, if they can dig in and see what the factors are, and at least come to an understanding about it.
  4) Sounds like more of the same as 3 - assuming that analysis largely includes the stuff that was too complicated even for the model.Your "go look for them" is easier said than done.
When I look around to check my honest skepticism, I end up at sites that are, well, polarized.
It seems like either they have absolutely no doubt about what's happening or they have no doubt that it's NOT happening.
In either case, it's hard to feel comfortable with their conclusions.
And if someone does answer my big question ("The Vostok ice cores show previous cycles of warming, even more than we have now, soon followed by ice ages, so why is there a belief that This Time It's Different?
") I have to figure whether they are biased, and how that affects their answer.Which brings us back to TFA, and how polarization between the camps needs to be dealt with, so that everyone CAN agree on What The Science Says, regardless of policy prescriptions.TSG</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248540</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the issue was settled, didn't you get the State Approved Memo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Comrade?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the issue was settled , did n't you get the State Approved Memo ... Comrade ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the issue was settled, didn't you get the State Approved Memo ... Comrade?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248794</id>
	<title>Re:Engaging with whom exactly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've worked on projects related to climate science, but never really held a view as to whether these is or isn't global warming (bugger all I can do about it either way).  But when I hear slimy arguments like yours I'm tempted into becoming a skeptic or denier or whatever the insult of the day is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've worked on projects related to climate science , but never really held a view as to whether these is or is n't global warming ( bugger all I can do about it either way ) .
But when I hear slimy arguments like yours I 'm tempted into becoming a skeptic or denier or whatever the insult of the day is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've worked on projects related to climate science, but never really held a view as to whether these is or isn't global warming (bugger all I can do about it either way).
But when I hear slimy arguments like yours I'm tempted into becoming a skeptic or denier or whatever the insult of the day is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248986</id>
	<title>Tye same problems plagues this as</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259316720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anu other scientific topic:</p><p>Most deniers don't stop denying even after all there points have been shot down, and the media gives them undue air time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anu other scientific topic : Most deniers do n't stop denying even after all there points have been shot down , and the media gives them undue air time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anu other scientific topic:Most deniers don't stop denying even after all there points have been shot down, and the media gives them undue air time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249534</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259319480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What  evidence is there that reducing the production of CO2 from combustion will lower temperatures?  I say practically none.  All the money desired to be spent on limiting burning of fossil fuels is completely based on faith not only in the proposition that combustion causes climate change but that reduction of combustion will reverse changes that have occurred so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What evidence is there that reducing the production of CO2 from combustion will lower temperatures ?
I say practically none .
All the money desired to be spent on limiting burning of fossil fuels is completely based on faith not only in the proposition that combustion causes climate change but that reduction of combustion will reverse changes that have occurred so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What  evidence is there that reducing the production of CO2 from combustion will lower temperatures?
I say practically none.
All the money desired to be spent on limiting burning of fossil fuels is completely based on faith not only in the proposition that combustion causes climate change but that reduction of combustion will reverse changes that have occurred so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252866</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this is about *policy*, not science</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259349960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas</i> <br> <br>
Is a "greenhouse gas" something that can be demonstrated in a lab somewhere?<br> <br>

Do you think carbon dioxide is a pollutant?<br> <br>
I really hope that you don't think Global Warming/Climate Change can be scientifically proved by a kitchen-level experiment or people plugging-in/changing enough variables into software to get the "right" output.<br> <br>
The earth's climate system is a great example of chaotic fluid dynamics in action. For someone to claim that they understand or can control it is laughable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas Is a " greenhouse gas " something that can be demonstrated in a lab somewhere ?
Do you think carbon dioxide is a pollutant ?
I really hope that you do n't think Global Warming/Climate Change can be scientifically proved by a kitchen-level experiment or people plugging-in/changing enough variables into software to get the " right " output .
The earth 's climate system is a great example of chaotic fluid dynamics in action .
For someone to claim that they understand or can control it is laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas  
Is a "greenhouse gas" something that can be demonstrated in a lab somewhere?
Do you think carbon dioxide is a pollutant?
I really hope that you don't think Global Warming/Climate Change can be scientifically proved by a kitchen-level experiment or people plugging-in/changing enough variables into software to get the "right" output.
The earth's climate system is a great example of chaotic fluid dynamics in action.
For someone to claim that they understand or can control it is laughable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</id>
	<title>A question</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1259312880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252010</id>
	<title>RE: Theological Climate Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259337060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What goes for "science" in Climate Science is mearly exercises in Theology.</p><p>The Prediction of an Arctic Ocean without sea ice in year 2012 is a tenent of Theology, Devined Knowledge ordained by God, and not subject to any principal of science.</p><p>The adherients of this Prediction, a.k.a. Outlook, are Theologists, and their "science" a form of astrology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What goes for " science " in Climate Science is mearly exercises in Theology.The Prediction of an Arctic Ocean without sea ice in year 2012 is a tenent of Theology , Devined Knowledge ordained by God , and not subject to any principal of science.The adherients of this Prediction , a.k.a .
Outlook , are Theologists , and their " science " a form of astrology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What goes for "science" in Climate Science is mearly exercises in Theology.The Prediction of an Arctic Ocean without sea ice in year 2012 is a tenent of Theology, Devined Knowledge ordained by God, and not subject to any principal of science.The adherients of this Prediction, a.k.a.
Outlook, are Theologists, and their "science" a form of astrology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249692</id>
	<title>Re:Engaging with whom exactly?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259320320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea of engaging the enemy might appear naive and improvised, but it's a winning strategy. That is, unless your side would lose anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of engaging the enemy might appear naive and improvised , but it 's a winning strategy .
That is , unless your side would lose anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of engaging the enemy might appear naive and improvised, but it's a winning strategy.
That is, unless your side would lose anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30260716</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259502780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives."</p><p>We'll I don't know about anyone else here on slashdot but to me this seems a bit tin-foil-hatty... Should we perhaps replace the "AGW believers" with the "Men in Black"? Sure, there may be relevant criticism from well founded sources, but coming from people who simply feels that Global Warming/Climate Change (take your pick) is uncomfortable and doesn't fit their world view is, well unscientific to say the least. Btw, where has it been stated that "everyone will be \_forced\_ to lead objectively poorer lives"? To me, as an "technological optimist", that seems a bit hostile towards technological advances. Yes, we will need to do some things differently but that's life for you; it isn't static, things changes as life progresses.</p><p>For the record, I do think that the climate data and models should be opened up for all to see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives .
" We 'll I do n't know about anyone else here on slashdot but to me this seems a bit tin-foil-hatty... Should we perhaps replace the " AGW believers " with the " Men in Black " ?
Sure , there may be relevant criticism from well founded sources , but coming from people who simply feels that Global Warming/Climate Change ( take your pick ) is uncomfortable and does n't fit their world view is , well unscientific to say the least .
Btw , where has it been stated that " everyone will be \ _forced \ _ to lead objectively poorer lives " ?
To me , as an " technological optimist " , that seems a bit hostile towards technological advances .
Yes , we will need to do some things differently but that 's life for you ; it is n't static , things changes as life progresses.For the record , I do think that the climate data and models should be opened up for all to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.
"We'll I don't know about anyone else here on slashdot but to me this seems a bit tin-foil-hatty... Should we perhaps replace the "AGW believers" with the "Men in Black"?
Sure, there may be relevant criticism from well founded sources, but coming from people who simply feels that Global Warming/Climate Change (take your pick) is uncomfortable and doesn't fit their world view is, well unscientific to say the least.
Btw, where has it been stated that "everyone will be \_forced\_ to lead objectively poorer lives"?
To me, as an "technological optimist", that seems a bit hostile towards technological advances.
Yes, we will need to do some things differently but that's life for you; it isn't static, things changes as life progresses.For the record, I do think that the climate data and models should be opened up for all to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248732</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>six11</author>
	<datestamp>1259315520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think she's talking about garden variety fraud. She defines tribalism thusly:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one&rsquo;s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty and regarding other groups differing from the tribe&rsquo;s defining characteristics as inferior. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally.</p></div><p>Her sense of tribalism is more in tune with the scientific Old Boys' Network that Kuhn warned us about. Scientists are human, and they are subject to social prejudices and bias just like the rest of the species. It's understandable, but that doesn't mean it is something we should tolerate on an ongoing basis. Science is supposed to be ego-free. She's just pointing out there these ego-driven turf wars are not only harmful to the field, but given the topic, also harmful to the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think she 's talking about garden variety fraud .
She defines tribalism thusly : Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one    s group from members of another group , characterized by strong in-group loyalty and regarding other groups differing from the tribe    s defining characteristics as inferior .
In the context of scientific research , tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally.Her sense of tribalism is more in tune with the scientific Old Boys ' Network that Kuhn warned us about .
Scientists are human , and they are subject to social prejudices and bias just like the rest of the species .
It 's understandable , but that does n't mean it is something we should tolerate on an ongoing basis .
Science is supposed to be ego-free .
She 's just pointing out there these ego-driven turf wars are not only harmful to the field , but given the topic , also harmful to the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think she's talking about garden variety fraud.
She defines tribalism thusly:Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty and regarding other groups differing from the tribe’s defining characteristics as inferior.
In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally.Her sense of tribalism is more in tune with the scientific Old Boys' Network that Kuhn warned us about.
Scientists are human, and they are subject to social prejudices and bias just like the rest of the species.
It's understandable, but that doesn't mean it is something we should tolerate on an ongoing basis.
Science is supposed to be ego-free.
She's just pointing out there these ego-driven turf wars are not only harmful to the field, but given the topic, also harmful to the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248824</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>MrEd</author>
	<datestamp>1259315940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global\_warming\_skeptic#Individual\_skeptics" title="sourcewatch.org">54 prominent skeptics</a> [sourcewatch.org] on the record, only eight of them have any relevant scientific qualification: Tim Ball, Robert C Balling, Bill Gray, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Garth Paltridge, Roy Spencer and Wolfgang Thune.  So I guess they could fit in one New York Yankees box seat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , of the 54 prominent skeptics [ sourcewatch.org ] on the record , only eight of them have any relevant scientific qualification : Tim Ball , Robert C Balling , Bill Gray , Richard Lindzen , Patrick Michaels , Garth Paltridge , Roy Spencer and Wolfgang Thune .
So I guess they could fit in one New York Yankees box seat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, of the 54 prominent skeptics [sourcewatch.org] on the record, only eight of them have any relevant scientific qualification: Tim Ball, Robert C Balling, Bill Gray, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Garth Paltridge, Roy Spencer and Wolfgang Thune.
So I guess they could fit in one New York Yankees box seat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about</p><p>"Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press."<br>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/13/tech/main3613698.shtml</p><p>Or is that to anecdotal for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " Greenland 's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark , and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer 's end was half what it was just four years earlier , according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press .
" http : //www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/13/tech/main3613698.shtmlOr is that to anecdotal for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about"Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press.
"http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/13/tech/main3613698.shtmlOr is that to anecdotal for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249212</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259317980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound very intelligent.  Maybe you can see how (if you read what you wrote), the average layperson will hear you saying:</p><p>1. I'm smarter than you, you're an idiot, go away.</p><p>2. Scientists get to have a dialogue that excludes everybody that doesn't have enough letters after their names.</p><p>3. I'm arrogant, and that's okay, it's part of how we do science.</p><p>Warren</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound very intelligent .
Maybe you can see how ( if you read what you wrote ) , the average layperson will hear you saying : 1 .
I 'm smarter than you , you 're an idiot , go away.2 .
Scientists get to have a dialogue that excludes everybody that does n't have enough letters after their names.3 .
I 'm arrogant , and that 's okay , it 's part of how we do science.Warren</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound very intelligent.
Maybe you can see how (if you read what you wrote), the average layperson will hear you saying:1.
I'm smarter than you, you're an idiot, go away.2.
Scientists get to have a dialogue that excludes everybody that doesn't have enough letters after their names.3.
I'm arrogant, and that's okay, it's part of how we do science.Warren</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249984</id>
	<title>Re:Engaging with whom exactly?</title>
	<author>K. S. Van Horn</author>
	<datestamp>1259321760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Successfully surviving the attacks of critics and skeptics is what makes a successful theory.  This is science we're talking about, not religion; scientists are supposed to be skeptical, to look for every possible way in which a theory, experiment, or data analysis could be flawed.  That's how we weed out false hypotheses.  It's only the ones that survive all attempts to disprove them that deserve any belief.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Successfully surviving the attacks of critics and skeptics is what makes a successful theory .
This is science we 're talking about , not religion ; scientists are supposed to be skeptical , to look for every possible way in which a theory , experiment , or data analysis could be flawed .
That 's how we weed out false hypotheses .
It 's only the ones that survive all attempts to disprove them that deserve any belief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Successfully surviving the attacks of critics and skeptics is what makes a successful theory.
This is science we're talking about, not religion; scientists are supposed to be skeptical, to look for every possible way in which a theory, experiment, or data analysis could be flawed.
That's how we weed out false hypotheses.
It's only the ones that survive all attempts to disprove them that deserve any belief.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684</id>
	<title>Re:Good faith and bad faith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259332920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should climate skeptics be asked to make a good faith effort when the climate scientists have been so clearly and obviously shown to be acting in bad faith?</p></div><p>Can you cite a source for that?<br>
&nbsp; <br>I'm dead serious. Show me a solid, scientific study that shows a concerted effort by climate scientists to be acting in bad faith. <br>
&nbsp; <br>The fact that you got moderated interesting is ridiculous. There's this big uproar about climate science in ONE place. Where? In the media. Why? Because nothing sells like scandal or death. <br>
&nbsp; <br>I'm working on a PhD directly related to climate modeling. I've got access to four climate models, from four competing organizations, ranging from middle-school simple to research grade. And they all give about the same results. In my office, I have a poster from a paper presentation where my research group compared seven different climate models, and looked at how well they agreed. There were differences, for sure. But they all were similar. Why are they all similar?<br>
&nbsp; <br>IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY BY THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!!!!!<br>
&nbsp; <br>Well, except for the fact that we would love to rip the shit out of another organizations research. In that seven-model comparison, we were looking to rip apart some of the models. Where they were different, we did. Had we found one that was totally different from the rest, we would have figured out why, and published that. The fact of the matter is that the science is well settled. <br>
&nbsp; <br>While I think you're an asshat, I do agree with your last statement. It is a big pseudo-scientific world out there, provided you define "out there" as "in the media". Those of us actually involved in science know that it's not. You get ahead in science by taking heads. We know Darwin's name because he wiped out hundreds of scientists' work on biological diversity. We know Einstein's name because he wiped out hundreds of theories on atomic interaction and the nature of space-time. We know Maxwell's name because he invented coffee. <br>
&nbsp; <br>As a scientist, surrounded with scientists, and friends with a lot of scientists, I can tell you, there's nothing any of us would like to do than destroy the establishment. If I could disprove evolution, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I could prove General Relativity wrong, I wouldn't hesitate. It would put me in the text books. It would make me famous. If I could prove climate change wrong, I'd do the same. <br>
&nbsp; <br>But I'm in the middle of that science. And I can't. It's solid, despite what the media makes it out to be. If it wasn't, I'd be famous. You have to realize that most scientists want to know the truth. And as humans, we like nothing better than to be able to yell, DUMBASS in a very loud voice, while pointing at the dumbass so everyone notices. I believe in science because if I screw up, that will happen to me. So I try really hard not to screw up. As do all scientists. The ridicule of your peers is a very good tool to keep you honest. While there are some bad scientists, we all know who they are. They're the ones that we watched get called a dumbass at the last conference. They're the ones who published an article last year, which was utterly demolished by one this year. I've been to those conferences. I've read those articles. Scientists are blood-thirsty, brutal individuals. If you do poor science, you'll be ripped to shreds. That's how scientists advance in levels.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should climate skeptics be asked to make a good faith effort when the climate scientists have been so clearly and obviously shown to be acting in bad faith ? Can you cite a source for that ?
  I 'm dead serious .
Show me a solid , scientific study that shows a concerted effort by climate scientists to be acting in bad faith .
  The fact that you got moderated interesting is ridiculous .
There 's this big uproar about climate science in ONE place .
Where ? In the media .
Why ? Because nothing sells like scandal or death .
  I 'm working on a PhD directly related to climate modeling .
I 've got access to four climate models , from four competing organizations , ranging from middle-school simple to research grade .
And they all give about the same results .
In my office , I have a poster from a paper presentation where my research group compared seven different climate models , and looked at how well they agreed .
There were differences , for sure .
But they all were similar .
Why are they all similar ?
  IT 'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY BY THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ! ! ! ! !
  Well , except for the fact that we would love to rip the shit out of another organizations research .
In that seven-model comparison , we were looking to rip apart some of the models .
Where they were different , we did .
Had we found one that was totally different from the rest , we would have figured out why , and published that .
The fact of the matter is that the science is well settled .
  While I think you 're an asshat , I do agree with your last statement .
It is a big pseudo-scientific world out there , provided you define " out there " as " in the media " .
Those of us actually involved in science know that it 's not .
You get ahead in science by taking heads .
We know Darwin 's name because he wiped out hundreds of scientists ' work on biological diversity .
We know Einstein 's name because he wiped out hundreds of theories on atomic interaction and the nature of space-time .
We know Maxwell 's name because he invented coffee .
  As a scientist , surrounded with scientists , and friends with a lot of scientists , I can tell you , there 's nothing any of us would like to do than destroy the establishment .
If I could disprove evolution , I 'd do it in a heartbeat .
If I could prove General Relativity wrong , I would n't hesitate .
It would put me in the text books .
It would make me famous .
If I could prove climate change wrong , I 'd do the same .
  But I 'm in the middle of that science .
And I ca n't .
It 's solid , despite what the media makes it out to be .
If it was n't , I 'd be famous .
You have to realize that most scientists want to know the truth .
And as humans , we like nothing better than to be able to yell , DUMBASS in a very loud voice , while pointing at the dumbass so everyone notices .
I believe in science because if I screw up , that will happen to me .
So I try really hard not to screw up .
As do all scientists .
The ridicule of your peers is a very good tool to keep you honest .
While there are some bad scientists , we all know who they are .
They 're the ones that we watched get called a dumbass at the last conference .
They 're the ones who published an article last year , which was utterly demolished by one this year .
I 've been to those conferences .
I 've read those articles .
Scientists are blood-thirsty , brutal individuals .
If you do poor science , you 'll be ripped to shreds .
That 's how scientists advance in levels .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should climate skeptics be asked to make a good faith effort when the climate scientists have been so clearly and obviously shown to be acting in bad faith?Can you cite a source for that?
  I'm dead serious.
Show me a solid, scientific study that shows a concerted effort by climate scientists to be acting in bad faith.
  The fact that you got moderated interesting is ridiculous.
There's this big uproar about climate science in ONE place.
Where? In the media.
Why? Because nothing sells like scandal or death.
  I'm working on a PhD directly related to climate modeling.
I've got access to four climate models, from four competing organizations, ranging from middle-school simple to research grade.
And they all give about the same results.
In my office, I have a poster from a paper presentation where my research group compared seven different climate models, and looked at how well they agreed.
There were differences, for sure.
But they all were similar.
Why are they all similar?
  IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY BY THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!!!!!
  Well, except for the fact that we would love to rip the shit out of another organizations research.
In that seven-model comparison, we were looking to rip apart some of the models.
Where they were different, we did.
Had we found one that was totally different from the rest, we would have figured out why, and published that.
The fact of the matter is that the science is well settled.
  While I think you're an asshat, I do agree with your last statement.
It is a big pseudo-scientific world out there, provided you define "out there" as "in the media".
Those of us actually involved in science know that it's not.
You get ahead in science by taking heads.
We know Darwin's name because he wiped out hundreds of scientists' work on biological diversity.
We know Einstein's name because he wiped out hundreds of theories on atomic interaction and the nature of space-time.
We know Maxwell's name because he invented coffee.
  As a scientist, surrounded with scientists, and friends with a lot of scientists, I can tell you, there's nothing any of us would like to do than destroy the establishment.
If I could disprove evolution, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
If I could prove General Relativity wrong, I wouldn't hesitate.
It would put me in the text books.
It would make me famous.
If I could prove climate change wrong, I'd do the same.
  But I'm in the middle of that science.
And I can't.
It's solid, despite what the media makes it out to be.
If it wasn't, I'd be famous.
You have to realize that most scientists want to know the truth.
And as humans, we like nothing better than to be able to yell, DUMBASS in a very loud voice, while pointing at the dumbass so everyone notices.
I believe in science because if I screw up, that will happen to me.
So I try really hard not to screw up.
As do all scientists.
The ridicule of your peers is a very good tool to keep you honest.
While there are some bad scientists, we all know who they are.
They're the ones that we watched get called a dumbass at the last conference.
They're the ones who published an article last year, which was utterly demolished by one this year.
I've been to those conferences.
I've read those articles.
Scientists are blood-thirsty, brutal individuals.
If you do poor science, you'll be ripped to shreds.
That's how scientists advance in levels.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251640</id>
	<title>Damn!  There is a great deal of thought going on!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259332560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every third post on this difficult and complex subject is about eight vertical text inches of solid and earnest thinking.  The brain cells are firing nicely and people are really considering this issue.  It's nice to see so many varied ideas.</p><p>I have my own opinions, which in a nutshell are these. . .</p><p>Man-Bear-Pig was unfair, thanks Parker &amp; Stone.  You try hard, your contributions to rational debate are appreciated, but you take rather too many over-the-counter no-doze drugs to be entirely reliable and effective researchers.  You also have accumulated rather too many barnacles on the ship of your public opinion to back down from opinions you might later realize are incomplete or outright misinformed.  Basically, you are human.</p><p>Even at the end of, "An Inconvenient Truth" the notion was laid out that too much glacial melt stops the ocean convection currents and turns on the planetary big freeze.  So Global Warming isn't global warming at all.  It's Global Cooling.  I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary and so I don't really understand why everybody is pissed off with whatshisname. . , Gore and his video.  Despite imperfect data, he's basically right to be concerned about climate change.  The weather is totally messed up.  Anybody with a balcony window and a memory which goes back more than twenty years can (and will) tell you as much.)</p><p>It's the governments and political maneuvering which are annoying.  Everybody with a stick in the fire is trying to take advantage of the situation.  Fuck that.  I don't think anything can actually be done.  The cattle will be eaten.  It's not in our hands anymore.  We're too stupid and ignorant and easily manipulated as a race.  Too bad.  The blood will flow.  But thankfully, that's just one step in a much larger program of existence.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every third post on this difficult and complex subject is about eight vertical text inches of solid and earnest thinking .
The brain cells are firing nicely and people are really considering this issue .
It 's nice to see so many varied ideas.I have my own opinions , which in a nutshell are these .
. .Man-Bear-Pig was unfair , thanks Parker &amp; Stone .
You try hard , your contributions to rational debate are appreciated , but you take rather too many over-the-counter no-doze drugs to be entirely reliable and effective researchers .
You also have accumulated rather too many barnacles on the ship of your public opinion to back down from opinions you might later realize are incomplete or outright misinformed .
Basically , you are human.Even at the end of , " An Inconvenient Truth " the notion was laid out that too much glacial melt stops the ocean convection currents and turns on the planetary big freeze .
So Global Warming is n't global warming at all .
It 's Global Cooling .
I 've yet to see any evidence to the contrary and so I do n't really understand why everybody is pissed off with whatshisname .
. , Gore and his video .
Despite imperfect data , he 's basically right to be concerned about climate change .
The weather is totally messed up .
Anybody with a balcony window and a memory which goes back more than twenty years can ( and will ) tell you as much .
) It 's the governments and political maneuvering which are annoying .
Everybody with a stick in the fire is trying to take advantage of the situation .
Fuck that .
I do n't think anything can actually be done .
The cattle will be eaten .
It 's not in our hands anymore .
We 're too stupid and ignorant and easily manipulated as a race .
Too bad .
The blood will flow .
But thankfully , that 's just one step in a much larger program of existence.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every third post on this difficult and complex subject is about eight vertical text inches of solid and earnest thinking.
The brain cells are firing nicely and people are really considering this issue.
It's nice to see so many varied ideas.I have my own opinions, which in a nutshell are these.
. .Man-Bear-Pig was unfair, thanks Parker &amp; Stone.
You try hard, your contributions to rational debate are appreciated, but you take rather too many over-the-counter no-doze drugs to be entirely reliable and effective researchers.
You also have accumulated rather too many barnacles on the ship of your public opinion to back down from opinions you might later realize are incomplete or outright misinformed.
Basically, you are human.Even at the end of, "An Inconvenient Truth" the notion was laid out that too much glacial melt stops the ocean convection currents and turns on the planetary big freeze.
So Global Warming isn't global warming at all.
It's Global Cooling.
I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary and so I don't really understand why everybody is pissed off with whatshisname.
. , Gore and his video.
Despite imperfect data, he's basically right to be concerned about climate change.
The weather is totally messed up.
Anybody with a balcony window and a memory which goes back more than twenty years can (and will) tell you as much.
)It's the governments and political maneuvering which are annoying.
Everybody with a stick in the fire is trying to take advantage of the situation.
Fuck that.
I don't think anything can actually be done.
The cattle will be eaten.
It's not in our hands anymore.
We're too stupid and ignorant and easily manipulated as a race.
Too bad.
The blood will flow.
But thankfully, that's just one step in a much larger program of existence.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249452</id>
	<title>Dirty tricks</title>
	<author>bobbuck</author>
	<datestamp>1259319120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Trying to review data and analysis is a dirty trick???</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to review data and analysis is a dirty trick ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to review data and analysis is a dirty trick??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249050</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259316960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think all scientists are skeptics.  That's what scientists do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think all scientists are skeptics .
That 's what scientists do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think all scientists are skeptics.
That's what scientists do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660</id>
	<title>Actually this is about *policy*, not science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, while we'd all feel better if science was going to determine the policy outcome, I think we're all aware here that the truth about global warming is only a secondary factor in the success or failure of enacting policy to prevent it.</p><p>This is true for both sides, and *both* sides know it. Simply put, the issue is way too important to be left to mere science.</p><p>AGW is only a secondary issue to many of the non-scientists in the game. The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society's materialistic, high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed, and AGW provides a convenient club.</p><p>Likewise, many of the anti-AGW would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of poor people in geographically challenged areas if the only alternative was strict curbs on their lifestyle, but would prefer not to have to actually say it. So they'd deny the science rather than admit the underlying sentiment.</p><p>I strongly suspect that among the voters, there's only a small minority for whom the science is the principal factor in determining the preferred policy.</p><p>Proof?  For all those who hold a strong opinion on AGW in one direction or the other, ask yourself this. What proof would it take for you to accept that the opposite position was actually the correct one?  Exactly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , while we 'd all feel better if science was going to determine the policy outcome , I think we 're all aware here that the truth about global warming is only a secondary factor in the success or failure of enacting policy to prevent it.This is true for both sides , and * both * sides know it .
Simply put , the issue is way too important to be left to mere science.AGW is only a secondary issue to many of the non-scientists in the game .
The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society 's materialistic , high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed , and AGW provides a convenient club.Likewise , many of the anti-AGW would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of poor people in geographically challenged areas if the only alternative was strict curbs on their lifestyle , but would prefer not to have to actually say it .
So they 'd deny the science rather than admit the underlying sentiment.I strongly suspect that among the voters , there 's only a small minority for whom the science is the principal factor in determining the preferred policy.Proof ?
For all those who hold a strong opinion on AGW in one direction or the other , ask yourself this .
What proof would it take for you to accept that the opposite position was actually the correct one ?
Exactly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, while we'd all feel better if science was going to determine the policy outcome, I think we're all aware here that the truth about global warming is only a secondary factor in the success or failure of enacting policy to prevent it.This is true for both sides, and *both* sides know it.
Simply put, the issue is way too important to be left to mere science.AGW is only a secondary issue to many of the non-scientists in the game.
The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society's materialistic, high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed, and AGW provides a convenient club.Likewise, many of the anti-AGW would be willing to sacrifice hundreds of millions of poor people in geographically challenged areas if the only alternative was strict curbs on their lifestyle, but would prefer not to have to actually say it.
So they'd deny the science rather than admit the underlying sentiment.I strongly suspect that among the voters, there's only a small minority for whom the science is the principal factor in determining the preferred policy.Proof?
For all those who hold a strong opinion on AGW in one direction or the other, ask yourself this.
What proof would it take for you to accept that the opposite position was actually the correct one?
Exactly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252908</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>Robin47</author>
	<datestamp>1259350740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean other than the IPCC treaty draft? Which I did happen to download and read, btw...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean other than the IPCC treaty draft ?
Which I did happen to download and read , btw.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean other than the IPCC treaty draft?
Which I did happen to download and read, btw...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250234</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a climate sceptic, but not how you think...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1259323080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>belongs, as in have a inherent right to be here?</p><p>there is a old guy called darwin that wants to have a talk with you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>belongs , as in have a inherent right to be here ? there is a old guy called darwin that wants to have a talk with you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>belongs, as in have a inherent right to be here?there is a old guy called darwin that wants to have a talk with you...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248958</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are not Politicians</title>
	<author>Yokaze</author>
	<datestamp>1259316600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; But once the scientist sees himself as a politician, it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing, instead of what they wish to observe.</p><p>Sorry, that is only an ad hominem argument.<br>A scientist is always challenged by that problem, regardless whether one is politically active or not:<br>You can try to leave out important data to make your methods look more successful or your results more exciting.<br>It happened in the past even if it was not the topic of current events in probably any scientific field.</p><p>And why do we know about it? Because other people will scrutinise the results, and the higher the impact of the results, the more scrutinising people will be.</p><p>Finally: I'd argue all went down, when people left politics to the politicians.<br>Since when did it become unappropriate for educated persons to act for a change in the field they are actually experts in.<br>Leave it to the politician, yeah, great idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; But once the scientist sees himself as a politician , it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing , instead of what they wish to observe.Sorry , that is only an ad hominem argument.A scientist is always challenged by that problem , regardless whether one is politically active or not : You can try to leave out important data to make your methods look more successful or your results more exciting.It happened in the past even if it was not the topic of current events in probably any scientific field.And why do we know about it ?
Because other people will scrutinise the results , and the higher the impact of the results , the more scrutinising people will be.Finally : I 'd argue all went down , when people left politics to the politicians.Since when did it become unappropriate for educated persons to act for a change in the field they are actually experts in.Leave it to the politician , yeah , great idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; But once the scientist sees himself as a politician, it is far too easy for ego and self-interest to blind them to what they should be observing, instead of what they wish to observe.Sorry, that is only an ad hominem argument.A scientist is always challenged by that problem, regardless whether one is politically active or not:You can try to leave out important data to make your methods look more successful or your results more exciting.It happened in the past even if it was not the topic of current events in probably any scientific field.And why do we know about it?
Because other people will scrutinise the results, and the higher the impact of the results, the more scrutinising people will be.Finally: I'd argue all went down, when people left politics to the politicians.Since when did it become unappropriate for educated persons to act for a change in the field they are actually experts in.Leave it to the politician, yeah, great idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249060</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259317020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam...</i></p><p>This line of argument, I think, is one reason why climate scientists find it hard to engage with skeptics. "It's a scam" is an argument that can't be debated scientifically, since it presents no specific data or reasoned argument. Specific scientific claims can be debated scientifically; conspiracy theories are immortal, because any evidence <i>against</i> the conspiracy is clearly evidence of a cover-up.</p><p>I note you don't provide any references for "it's actually a scam". Oh, of course there are no references, because every scientific journal is controlled by the conspiracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam...This line of argument , I think , is one reason why climate scientists find it hard to engage with skeptics .
" It 's a scam " is an argument that ca n't be debated scientifically , since it presents no specific data or reasoned argument .
Specific scientific claims can be debated scientifically ; conspiracy theories are immortal , because any evidence against the conspiracy is clearly evidence of a cover-up.I note you do n't provide any references for " it 's actually a scam " .
Oh , of course there are no references , because every scientific journal is controlled by the conspiracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam...This line of argument, I think, is one reason why climate scientists find it hard to engage with skeptics.
"It's a scam" is an argument that can't be debated scientifically, since it presents no specific data or reasoned argument.
Specific scientific claims can be debated scientifically; conspiracy theories are immortal, because any evidence against the conspiracy is clearly evidence of a cover-up.I note you don't provide any references for "it's actually a scam".
Oh, of course there are no references, because every scientific journal is controlled by the conspiracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249922</id>
	<title>Re:Engaging with whom exactly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259321400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective.</p></div><p>Like pressuring journals to not publish papers that go against their beliefs? Like trying to get editors sacked? Like badgering the BBC because they published an article that you didn't agree with? Those kinds of dirty tricks? Oh no wait.....those dirty tricks weren't used by the 'skeptics', they were used by the 'believers'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective.Like pressuring journals to not publish papers that go against their beliefs ?
Like trying to get editors sacked ?
Like badgering the BBC because they published an article that you did n't agree with ?
Those kinds of dirty tricks ?
Oh no wait.....those dirty tricks were n't used by the 'skeptics ' , they were used by the 'believers' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective.Like pressuring journals to not publish papers that go against their beliefs?
Like trying to get editors sacked?
Like badgering the BBC because they published an article that you didn't agree with?
Those kinds of dirty tricks?
Oh no wait.....those dirty tricks weren't used by the 'skeptics', they were used by the 'believers'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30309096</id>
	<title>Re:Good faith and bad faith</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1259845020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assumptions?</p><p>How do you assume readings from thermometers?</p><p>How do you assume massive chunks of ice that are no longer there?</p><p>Denialists are really getting desperate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assumptions ? How do you assume readings from thermometers ? How do you assume massive chunks of ice that are no longer there ? Denialists are really getting desperate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assumptions?How do you assume readings from thermometers?How do you assume massive chunks of ice that are no longer there?Denialists are really getting desperate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30258658</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this is about *policy*, not science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259424600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple.</p><p>IANACS so if the IPCC, Royal Society, NASA, NOAA and other trusted scientific bodies one day declare We Got It All Wrong I'd be inclined to believe them. I don't take the word of any single scientist on it. People could have got it wrong but it is much more difficult to fool entire scientific bodies. However, this won't happen because measurements which have been taken for decades by thousands of independent scientists all over the world lead to the same conclusion. We can still argue on the intensity of what's happening but as to the causes and its dangers, there's no more serious debate anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple.IANACS so if the IPCC , Royal Society , NASA , NOAA and other trusted scientific bodies one day declare We Got It All Wrong I 'd be inclined to believe them .
I do n't take the word of any single scientist on it .
People could have got it wrong but it is much more difficult to fool entire scientific bodies .
However , this wo n't happen because measurements which have been taken for decades by thousands of independent scientists all over the world lead to the same conclusion .
We can still argue on the intensity of what 's happening but as to the causes and its dangers , there 's no more serious debate anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple.IANACS so if the IPCC, Royal Society, NASA, NOAA and other trusted scientific bodies one day declare We Got It All Wrong I'd be inclined to believe them.
I don't take the word of any single scientist on it.
People could have got it wrong but it is much more difficult to fool entire scientific bodies.
However, this won't happen because measurements which have been taken for decades by thousands of independent scientists all over the world lead to the same conclusion.
We can still argue on the intensity of what's happening but as to the causes and its dangers, there's no more serious debate anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254378</id>
	<title>Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1259422080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Climate modeling is god damn hard.</p> </div><p>No doubt about it.  So what policy should be pursued?  Should we kill the global economy in order to stop CO2 emissions? Should we ignore CO2 emissions in the belief that someone, somewhere, soon enough, will invent a technique to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere without affecting industrial output? Should we take the wheat-farmer-in-Saskatchewan approach and welcome the global warming?<br> <br>Are any of the models good enough to stake our grandchildren's lives on?  Because this is the real crux of the problem, and why people care about AGW at all (you'll notice, for example, that the public and media do not give a damn about the latest models in physical chemistry).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate modeling is god damn hard .
No doubt about it .
So what policy should be pursued ?
Should we kill the global economy in order to stop CO2 emissions ?
Should we ignore CO2 emissions in the belief that someone , somewhere , soon enough , will invent a technique to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere without affecting industrial output ?
Should we take the wheat-farmer-in-Saskatchewan approach and welcome the global warming ?
Are any of the models good enough to stake our grandchildren 's lives on ?
Because this is the real crux of the problem , and why people care about AGW at all ( you 'll notice , for example , that the public and media do not give a damn about the latest models in physical chemistry ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate modeling is god damn hard.
No doubt about it.
So what policy should be pursued?
Should we kill the global economy in order to stop CO2 emissions?
Should we ignore CO2 emissions in the belief that someone, somewhere, soon enough, will invent a technique to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere without affecting industrial output?
Should we take the wheat-farmer-in-Saskatchewan approach and welcome the global warming?
Are any of the models good enough to stake our grandchildren's lives on?
Because this is the real crux of the problem, and why people care about AGW at all (you'll notice, for example, that the public and media do not give a damn about the latest models in physical chemistry).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250664</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259325600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... not so much.  If it was only people with  'religious reasons or ideological reasons or crank personality'  that were questioning, you would have a point.  But questionable methodology and seemingly outright fraud have forced regular, intelligent people to question what is going on.  The second those 'scientists' stepped away from absolutely scientific motives they caused their own mess --- even if they are correct; which is the sad part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... not so much .
If it was only people with 'religious reasons or ideological reasons or crank personality ' that were questioning , you would have a point .
But questionable methodology and seemingly outright fraud have forced regular , intelligent people to question what is going on .
The second those 'scientists ' stepped away from absolutely scientific motives they caused their own mess --- even if they are correct ; which is the sad part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... not so much.
If it was only people with  'religious reasons or ideological reasons or crank personality'  that were questioning, you would have a point.
But questionable methodology and seemingly outright fraud have forced regular, intelligent people to question what is going on.
The second those 'scientists' stepped away from absolutely scientific motives they caused their own mess --- even if they are correct; which is the sad part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30258312</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>NockPoint</author>
	<datestamp>1259421420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.</i>
<p>
So most of 'them' must be much older than a hundred plus years... Global warming has been around since 1895 or older.
</p><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante\_Arrhenius" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante\_Arrhenius</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>
<i>They demand the power to do this, but they refuse to release their data.</i>
</p><p>
This should do for a start:
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/</a> [realclimate.org]
</p><p>
<i>They refuse to publish the code for their computer models</i>
</p><p>
Really. Did you try SourceForge? And why not??
</p><p>
http://sourceforge.net/projects/climate-model/&gt;
</p><p>
And this one has been public since 1983. 1983 was a long time ago...
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/" title="ucar.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/</a> [ucar.edu]
</p><p>
<i>They refuse to rationally refute skepticism.</i>
</p><p>
You mean like giving pointers to climate data and climate models that you claim are not public? Or pointing out that this isn't an new theory?
</p><p>
<i>They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder.</i>
</p><p>
Ah yes. A little warmer might very well be better. You have a point. The problem is that we are unlikely to stop at a little warmer.
</p><p>
--
</p><p>
This is not a sig. If this was a sig, the "--" would be closer. If it was a sig, it would say something witty. If it was a sig, it would be meaningful. If it was a sig, it wouldn't be nearly this long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized .
So most of 'them ' must be much older than a hundred plus years... Global warming has been around since 1895 or older .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante \ _Arrhenius [ wikipedia.org ] They demand the power to do this , but they refuse to release their data .
This should do for a start : http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ [ realclimate.org ] They refuse to publish the code for their computer models Really .
Did you try SourceForge ?
And why not ? ?
http : //sourceforge.net/projects/climate-model/ &gt; And this one has been public since 1983 .
1983 was a long time ago.. . http : //www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/ [ ucar.edu ] They refuse to rationally refute skepticism .
You mean like giving pointers to climate data and climate models that you claim are not public ?
Or pointing out that this is n't an new theory ?
They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder .
Ah yes .
A little warmer might very well be better .
You have a point .
The problem is that we are unlikely to stop at a little warmer .
-- This is not a sig .
If this was a sig , the " -- " would be closer .
If it was a sig , it would say something witty .
If it was a sig , it would be meaningful .
If it was a sig , it would n't be nearly this long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.
So most of 'them' must be much older than a hundred plus years... Global warming has been around since 1895 or older.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante\_Arrhenius [wikipedia.org]

They demand the power to do this, but they refuse to release their data.
This should do for a start:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ [realclimate.org]

They refuse to publish the code for their computer models

Really.
Did you try SourceForge?
And why not??
http://sourceforge.net/projects/climate-model/&gt;

And this one has been public since 1983.
1983 was a long time ago...

http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/ [ucar.edu]

They refuse to rationally refute skepticism.
You mean like giving pointers to climate data and climate models that you claim are not public?
Or pointing out that this isn't an new theory?
They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder.
Ah yes.
A little warmer might very well be better.
You have a point.
The problem is that we are unlikely to stop at a little warmer.
--

This is not a sig.
If this was a sig, the "--" would be closer.
If it was a sig, it would say something witty.
If it was a sig, it would be meaningful.
If it was a sig, it wouldn't be nearly this long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249482</id>
	<title>Re: Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1259319300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails, pore over them for some choice quotes (which didn't even look incriminating to me out of context), blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it, and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval' of global warming (which wouldn't have been the case even if they were right), just goes to show that they're simply not interested in either learning the science, or engaging in a real debate. And it's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.</p></div><p>The skeptics have been trumpeting a new "proof" that it's all a fraud about once a year lately.</p><p>Kind of like the discovery of Atlantis and Noah's Ark...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails , pore over them for some choice quotes ( which did n't even look incriminating to me out of context ) , blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it , and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval ' of global warming ( which would n't have been the case even if they were right ) , just goes to show that they 're simply not interested in either learning the science , or engaging in a real debate .
And it 's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action : Decide there 's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change , and go look for evidence to support your theory , and ignore all other explanations.The skeptics have been trumpeting a new " proof " that it 's all a fraud about once a year lately.Kind of like the discovery of Atlantis and Noah 's Ark.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails, pore over them for some choice quotes (which didn't even look incriminating to me out of context), blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it, and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval' of global warming (which wouldn't have been the case even if they were right), just goes to show that they're simply not interested in either learning the science, or engaging in a real debate.
And it's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.The skeptics have been trumpeting a new "proof" that it's all a fraud about once a year lately.Kind of like the discovery of Atlantis and Noah's Ark...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248694</id>
	<title>Re:What's the point?</title>
	<author>thane777</author>
	<datestamp>1259315340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better to be educated via Fox News or CNN than that climate scare-master algore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better to be educated via Fox News or CNN than that climate scare-master algore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better to be educated via Fox News or CNN than that climate scare-master algore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249586</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259319720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being a scientist but not of the climate variety, I've got to say 'No'.
In a lot of cases, if not most, dialogue on the merits of your scientific work is simply impossible with a layperson.</p></div><p>The question here is does it matter if a layperson understands your science or not? In climate science it matters. That layperson (as part of a large voting block) is being asked to make decisions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a scientist but not of the climate variety , I 've got to say 'No' .
In a lot of cases , if not most , dialogue on the merits of your scientific work is simply impossible with a layperson.The question here is does it matter if a layperson understands your science or not ?
In climate science it matters .
That layperson ( as part of a large voting block ) is being asked to make decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a scientist but not of the climate variety, I've got to say 'No'.
In a lot of cases, if not most, dialogue on the merits of your scientific work is simply impossible with a layperson.The question here is does it matter if a layperson understands your science or not?
In climate science it matters.
That layperson (as part of a large voting block) is being asked to make decisions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372</id>
	<title>Common Ground?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259313240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There very much is a common ground.  Truth.  Because people disagree doesn't mean that both aren't seeking to know the truth; really, both might have reasonable positions, given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date.  Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.<br> <br>

There may be people on either side of the debate that aren't interested in the truth... in fact, there clearly are, in both camps.  Those aren't scientists, though, and they aren't doing science.  They're just people interfering with science.  Best to publish all data, and keep discussion reasonable and non-accusatory.  The amount of political and activist cruft attaching to the believers and deniers are harming the TRUE cause, which is to find out the truth.<br> <br>

Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There very much is a common ground .
Truth. Because people disagree does n't mean that both are n't seeking to know the truth ; really , both might have reasonable positions , given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date .
Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct .
There may be people on either side of the debate that are n't interested in the truth... in fact , there clearly are , in both camps .
Those are n't scientists , though , and they are n't doing science .
They 're just people interfering with science .
Best to publish all data , and keep discussion reasonable and non-accusatory .
The amount of political and activist cruft attaching to the believers and deniers are harming the TRUE cause , which is to find out the truth .
Even the common labels , " believers " and " deniers " , are ridiculous ; they have more of a place in religious debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There very much is a common ground.
Truth.  Because people disagree doesn't mean that both aren't seeking to know the truth; really, both might have reasonable positions, given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date.
Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.
There may be people on either side of the debate that aren't interested in the truth... in fact, there clearly are, in both camps.
Those aren't scientists, though, and they aren't doing science.
They're just people interfering with science.
Best to publish all data, and keep discussion reasonable and non-accusatory.
The amount of political and activist cruft attaching to the believers and deniers are harming the TRUE cause, which is to find out the truth.
Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248700</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in?</p></div><p>All scientists are skeptics. Where there's consensus on the other hand, there's no science going on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in ? All scientists are skeptics .
Where there 's consensus on the other hand , there 's no science going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in?All scientists are skeptics.
Where there's consensus on the other hand, there's no science going on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249650</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259320020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you even bother to read the science?  It *has* warmed in the last decade.</p><p>Remember, this is climate not weather.  Year by year shifts aren't as important as the total area under the curve for the past decade when looking at something like this, and since something like 9 out of the 10 hottest years ever were in the last decade Im pretty sure its still warming.  Check out places like climate.nasa.gov or realclimate.org if you want a good idea what the scientists currently believe to be the case.  At least read the Copenhagen report that just came out a few days ago.</p><p>(I can see why climate scientists get frustrated dealing with this - I've taken a few hours to read and try to understand the basic science - you clearly haven't even gone that far - repeating what the so called skeptics say isn't the same as finding what the true arguments the scientists are making are)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you even bother to read the science ?
It * has * warmed in the last decade.Remember , this is climate not weather .
Year by year shifts are n't as important as the total area under the curve for the past decade when looking at something like this , and since something like 9 out of the 10 hottest years ever were in the last decade Im pretty sure its still warming .
Check out places like climate.nasa.gov or realclimate.org if you want a good idea what the scientists currently believe to be the case .
At least read the Copenhagen report that just came out a few days ago .
( I can see why climate scientists get frustrated dealing with this - I 've taken a few hours to read and try to understand the basic science - you clearly have n't even gone that far - repeating what the so called skeptics say is n't the same as finding what the true arguments the scientists are making are )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you even bother to read the science?
It *has* warmed in the last decade.Remember, this is climate not weather.
Year by year shifts aren't as important as the total area under the curve for the past decade when looking at something like this, and since something like 9 out of the 10 hottest years ever were in the last decade Im pretty sure its still warming.
Check out places like climate.nasa.gov or realclimate.org if you want a good idea what the scientists currently believe to be the case.
At least read the Copenhagen report that just came out a few days ago.
(I can see why climate scientists get frustrated dealing with this - I've taken a few hours to read and try to understand the basic science - you clearly haven't even gone that far - repeating what the so called skeptics say isn't the same as finding what the true arguments the scientists are making are)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249866</id>
	<title>Re:But it goes beyond the computer models.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259321160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if he can find away to twist and lie about satellite data, you'll be set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if he can find away to twist and lie about satellite data , you 'll be set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if he can find away to twist and lie about satellite data, you'll be set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249688</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>yerktoader</author>
	<datestamp>1259320320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr1AFLxC7z4&amp;feature=player\_embedded" title="youtube.com">0 + 2 = 1</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>0 + 2 = 1 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0 + 2 = 1 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249128</id>
	<title>Downside: Poverty, death, tyranny, despair, etc.</title>
	<author>Kohath</author>
	<datestamp>1259317380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The downsides are poverty, death, government tyranny, despair, hunger, loss of cultural heritage, loss of the ability to technically advance, and a general sense of hopelessness about the future.</p><p>Every human action must be tested against thousands of pessimistic "what if" scenarios, often by people with selfish or political motives.  And even if you slip past the tests, any gain you receive from your actions will be largely taken from you to pay the salaries of the bureaucrats that tried to stand in your way.</p><p>Why bother doing anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The downsides are poverty , death , government tyranny , despair , hunger , loss of cultural heritage , loss of the ability to technically advance , and a general sense of hopelessness about the future.Every human action must be tested against thousands of pessimistic " what if " scenarios , often by people with selfish or political motives .
And even if you slip past the tests , any gain you receive from your actions will be largely taken from you to pay the salaries of the bureaucrats that tried to stand in your way.Why bother doing anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The downsides are poverty, death, government tyranny, despair, hunger, loss of cultural heritage, loss of the ability to technically advance, and a general sense of hopelessness about the future.Every human action must be tested against thousands of pessimistic "what if" scenarios, often by people with selfish or political motives.
And even if you slip past the tests, any gain you receive from your actions will be largely taken from you to pay the salaries of the bureaucrats that tried to stand in your way.Why bother doing anything?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250900</id>
	<title>Faith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259326980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Said the priest to his followers, "follow my lead and you shall arrive in heaven."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Said the priest to his followers , " follow my lead and you shall arrive in heaven .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Said the priest to his followers, "follow my lead and you shall arrive in heaven.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249194</id>
	<title>Re:No way...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259317860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm not sure if it's possible for the two sides to have a logical, non-handwavey-gloom-and-doom conversation."</p><p>they did, for over 30 years. Each year more evidence adding weight to one side until consensus was reached.</p><p>At this point there is little debate. Occasionally a new hypothesis is introduced, but so far CO2 is the only one standing. Sadly, the media, in an attempt to generate controversy for rating, gives a nonsensical side recurring air time which put doubt into peoples minds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm not sure if it 's possible for the two sides to have a logical , non-handwavey-gloom-and-doom conversation .
" they did , for over 30 years .
Each year more evidence adding weight to one side until consensus was reached.At this point there is little debate .
Occasionally a new hypothesis is introduced , but so far CO2 is the only one standing .
Sadly , the media , in an attempt to generate controversy for rating , gives a nonsensical side recurring air time which put doubt into peoples minds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm not sure if it's possible for the two sides to have a logical, non-handwavey-gloom-and-doom conversation.
"they did, for over 30 years.
Each year more evidence adding weight to one side until consensus was reached.At this point there is little debate.
Occasionally a new hypothesis is introduced, but so far CO2 is the only one standing.
Sadly, the media, in an attempt to generate controversy for rating, gives a nonsensical side recurring air time which put doubt into peoples minds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252768</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Robin47</author>
	<datestamp>1259348040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree. According to Newsweek, it seems that the global warming industry gets $50 billion and the skeptics have a bit over $19 million.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
According to Newsweek , it seems that the global warming industry gets $ 50 billion and the skeptics have a bit over $ 19 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
According to Newsweek, it seems that the global warming industry gets $50 billion and the skeptics have a bit over $19 million.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248450</id>
	<title>Climate Change is real.</title>
	<author>Daswolfen</author>
	<datestamp>1259313780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man made Climate change is a political tool to further the agenda of the greens. That large flaming ball of gas at the center of our solar system has more impact on the Earths climate than man does.</p><p>Its been hotter than now, its been colder than now. Life goes on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man made Climate change is a political tool to further the agenda of the greens .
That large flaming ball of gas at the center of our solar system has more impact on the Earths climate than man does.Its been hotter than now , its been colder than now .
Life goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man made Climate change is a political tool to further the agenda of the greens.
That large flaming ball of gas at the center of our solar system has more impact on the Earths climate than man does.Its been hotter than now, its been colder than now.
Life goes on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249354</id>
	<title>I think you misunderstand burder of proof</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1259318640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially in science. The burden is always on the claimant of the theory. You come up with a theory as to how something works, you then need to provide proof that is in fact the case. They way you do is by showing it is not false over and over. What I mean by that is you can't conduct a single test to show it is true, that isn't possible. What you can do is try to falsify it. You say "Well my theory predicts that Y will happen in X conditions, so if Y fails to happen it is wrong." You then try that, when Y happens, well you are a little more convinced it is true. You also test alternative explanations "My theory predicts Y happens because of X, but it could also be because of Z," so you then test Z and Y doesn't happen, but you test X and Y does. You are now a little more sure.</p><p>As you and others repeatedly fail to be able to falsify your theory, you have good evidence it is true. As you try every alternate explanation, as you redo tests over and over to make sure that no mistakes are made, you become certain of your theory.</p><p>However it is on you to prove your theory. You don't get to say "This is my theory, it is now accepted as right until someone can show it is wrong." That is the kind of crap the ID people pull. They say "God designed everything and you have to accept that until you can prove it false." No, sorry, in fact that's not how it works. YOU need to prove it true before we accept it, or rather repeatedly test it and show that it isn't false. Can't do that, of course, since god isn't testable (supposing god is real), but that's how it has to work.</p><p>So you don't get to say "The burden of proof should be on the other guys." No, the burden of proof is on the person who proposes the theory. Science is a position of disbelief by default. We don't believe things are true until they've been tested, and even then we always have to accept that they could be still possibly be wrong. All scientific theories MUST be falsifiable, otherwise they aren't scientific theories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially in science .
The burden is always on the claimant of the theory .
You come up with a theory as to how something works , you then need to provide proof that is in fact the case .
They way you do is by showing it is not false over and over .
What I mean by that is you ca n't conduct a single test to show it is true , that is n't possible .
What you can do is try to falsify it .
You say " Well my theory predicts that Y will happen in X conditions , so if Y fails to happen it is wrong .
" You then try that , when Y happens , well you are a little more convinced it is true .
You also test alternative explanations " My theory predicts Y happens because of X , but it could also be because of Z , " so you then test Z and Y does n't happen , but you test X and Y does .
You are now a little more sure.As you and others repeatedly fail to be able to falsify your theory , you have good evidence it is true .
As you try every alternate explanation , as you redo tests over and over to make sure that no mistakes are made , you become certain of your theory.However it is on you to prove your theory .
You do n't get to say " This is my theory , it is now accepted as right until someone can show it is wrong .
" That is the kind of crap the ID people pull .
They say " God designed everything and you have to accept that until you can prove it false .
" No , sorry , in fact that 's not how it works .
YOU need to prove it true before we accept it , or rather repeatedly test it and show that it is n't false .
Ca n't do that , of course , since god is n't testable ( supposing god is real ) , but that 's how it has to work.So you do n't get to say " The burden of proof should be on the other guys .
" No , the burden of proof is on the person who proposes the theory .
Science is a position of disbelief by default .
We do n't believe things are true until they 've been tested , and even then we always have to accept that they could be still possibly be wrong .
All scientific theories MUST be falsifiable , otherwise they are n't scientific theories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially in science.
The burden is always on the claimant of the theory.
You come up with a theory as to how something works, you then need to provide proof that is in fact the case.
They way you do is by showing it is not false over and over.
What I mean by that is you can't conduct a single test to show it is true, that isn't possible.
What you can do is try to falsify it.
You say "Well my theory predicts that Y will happen in X conditions, so if Y fails to happen it is wrong.
" You then try that, when Y happens, well you are a little more convinced it is true.
You also test alternative explanations "My theory predicts Y happens because of X, but it could also be because of Z," so you then test Z and Y doesn't happen, but you test X and Y does.
You are now a little more sure.As you and others repeatedly fail to be able to falsify your theory, you have good evidence it is true.
As you try every alternate explanation, as you redo tests over and over to make sure that no mistakes are made, you become certain of your theory.However it is on you to prove your theory.
You don't get to say "This is my theory, it is now accepted as right until someone can show it is wrong.
" That is the kind of crap the ID people pull.
They say "God designed everything and you have to accept that until you can prove it false.
" No, sorry, in fact that's not how it works.
YOU need to prove it true before we accept it, or rather repeatedly test it and show that it isn't false.
Can't do that, of course, since god isn't testable (supposing god is real), but that's how it has to work.So you don't get to say "The burden of proof should be on the other guys.
" No, the burden of proof is on the person who proposes the theory.
Science is a position of disbelief by default.
We don't believe things are true until they've been tested, and even then we always have to accept that they could be still possibly be wrong.
All scientific theories MUST be falsifiable, otherwise they aren't scientific theories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249342</id>
	<title>It's amazing what you can ignore.</title>
	<author>Das Auge</author>
	<datestamp>1259318580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoopdie-fucking-doo.<br>
<br>
How about the fact that Greenland used to be warm enough for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_Greenland" title="wikipedia.org">farming settlement</a> [wikipedia.org]?  <br>
<br>
Going beyond that, you're using the typical old "won't someone think of the icecaps?!"   Do you wanna know how long the Earth's been warming up?  Since the end of the <b>last</b> freakin' ice age;  About 10,000 years ago.  That's about 10,000 years before the industrial revolution (and autos) that are blamed for global warming.<br>
<br>
But don't let those facts stop you from using selective data to falsify man-made global warming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoopdie-fucking-doo .
How about the fact that Greenland used to be warm enough for farming settlement [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Going beyond that , you 're using the typical old " wo n't someone think of the icecaps ? !
" Do you wan na know how long the Earth 's been warming up ?
Since the end of the last freakin ' ice age ; About 10,000 years ago .
That 's about 10,000 years before the industrial revolution ( and autos ) that are blamed for global warming .
But do n't let those facts stop you from using selective data to falsify man-made global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoopdie-fucking-doo.
How about the fact that Greenland used to be warm enough for farming settlement [wikipedia.org]?
Going beyond that, you're using the typical old "won't someone think of the icecaps?!
"   Do you wanna know how long the Earth's been warming up?
Since the end of the last freakin' ice age;  About 10,000 years ago.
That's about 10,000 years before the industrial revolution (and autos) that are blamed for global warming.
But don't let those facts stop you from using selective data to falsify man-made global warming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251052</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1259327820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport\_spring09.pdf" title="wordpress.com">http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport\_spring09.pdf</a> [wordpress.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport \ _spring09.pdf [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport\_spring09.pdf [wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251834</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259334900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth hurts.  Suck it up and deal with some people knowing more then you.  They may not be smarter, but they have knowledge and experience you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth hurts .
Suck it up and deal with some people knowing more then you .
They may not be smarter , but they have knowledge and experience you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth hurts.
Suck it up and deal with some people knowing more then you.
They may not be smarter, but they have knowledge and experience you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250536</id>
	<title>Re:Good faith and bad faith</title>
	<author>vague disclaimer</author>
	<datestamp>1259324880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Utter dogshit.<p>

Throughout much of the 60s and 70s there were multiple and competing theories about climate change, including ones that project new ice ages.</p><p>
It was the empirical evidence that led to the theory of AGW and not the other way round. </p><p>
Come back when you have a clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utter dogshit .
Throughout much of the 60s and 70s there were multiple and competing theories about climate change , including ones that project new ice ages .
It was the empirical evidence that led to the theory of AGW and not the other way round .
Come back when you have a clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utter dogshit.
Throughout much of the 60s and 70s there were multiple and competing theories about climate change, including ones that project new ice ages.
It was the empirical evidence that led to the theory of AGW and not the other way round.
Come back when you have a clue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250156</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a climate sceptic, but not how you think...</title>
	<author>Balinares</author>
	<datestamp>1259322720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a matter of things changing or not changing. It's a matter of things changing faster than 1/ living species and 2/ civilization can adapt. Geological-scale shifts in decades is what's worrisome, not the shift in itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a matter of things changing or not changing .
It 's a matter of things changing faster than 1/ living species and 2/ civilization can adapt .
Geological-scale shifts in decades is what 's worrisome , not the shift in itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a matter of things changing or not changing.
It's a matter of things changing faster than 1/ living species and 2/ civilization can adapt.
Geological-scale shifts in decades is what's worrisome, not the shift in itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248748</id>
	<title>Re:Common Ground?</title>
	<author>Kohath</author>
	<datestamp>1259315580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I share your anachronistic devotion to truth and accuracy and reality.  But those things are out of fashion.  They've been replaced with hate and greed and envy and the self absorbtion that is called "awareness".</p><p>To care about the truth is to fail to fit into modern society.  Your "common ground" is very uncommon these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I share your anachronistic devotion to truth and accuracy and reality .
But those things are out of fashion .
They 've been replaced with hate and greed and envy and the self absorbtion that is called " awareness " .To care about the truth is to fail to fit into modern society .
Your " common ground " is very uncommon these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I share your anachronistic devotion to truth and accuracy and reality.
But those things are out of fashion.
They've been replaced with hate and greed and envy and the self absorbtion that is called "awareness".To care about the truth is to fail to fit into modern society.
Your "common ground" is very uncommon these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252686</id>
	<title>Whether global warming exists is not the question</title>
	<author>eric76</author>
	<datestamp>1259346840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The questions we should be asking, but aren't, go much further.</p><p>First, of course, is the question of whether or not it is actually happening.  The answer is far from clear.  And if we can't answer that, then it is ridiculously stupid to be paniced by a bunch of hysterical politicians spend billions or trillions of dollars to fix something that may not even be broken.  And the term "politicians" includes those so-called climate scientists who have ceased being scientists in their quest to become advocates of their own global warming religion.  Furthermore, if we can't even determine whether or not it is happening, than we have plenty of time to try to do something later if needed.</p><p>After that is the question of what, if anything, we can effectively do to slow it down or stop it.  If we don't understand the problem, then anything we do is likely to be far from ineffective and may accomplish nothing at all.  Why should we destroy our economy for little more than a hysterical nightmare?</p><p>Third is the question that hardly anyone is asking or even thinking about.  The global warming advocates all take the answer for granted without even thinking about it.  That is the question of whether or not we should do anything if global warming is happening and if there are some effective things we can do to combat it.  Global warming is likely to be overwhelmingly beneficial for most life on Earth including mankind.  Sure, if global warming occurs, there will be some people who come out behind.  But global warming means longer growing seasons, especially toward the poles.  Large expanses of land would become available for growing crops.</p><p>The real disaster would be global cooling.  If that occurs, expect billions of people to starve to death.  Remember that in the fossil record, periods of cooling, not warming, are the climatological causes of mass extinctions.  If global warming helps postpone the next ice age or lessen its effects, the benefits to mankind and other animal life are clear.</p><p>There is no reason to panic.  Far from it.  There is plenty of reason to welcome global warming.</p><p>It's time for scientists to go back to doing science.  Those who can't should go find some other work and get out of the way of the real scientists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The questions we should be asking , but are n't , go much further.First , of course , is the question of whether or not it is actually happening .
The answer is far from clear .
And if we ca n't answer that , then it is ridiculously stupid to be paniced by a bunch of hysterical politicians spend billions or trillions of dollars to fix something that may not even be broken .
And the term " politicians " includes those so-called climate scientists who have ceased being scientists in their quest to become advocates of their own global warming religion .
Furthermore , if we ca n't even determine whether or not it is happening , than we have plenty of time to try to do something later if needed.After that is the question of what , if anything , we can effectively do to slow it down or stop it .
If we do n't understand the problem , then anything we do is likely to be far from ineffective and may accomplish nothing at all .
Why should we destroy our economy for little more than a hysterical nightmare ? Third is the question that hardly anyone is asking or even thinking about .
The global warming advocates all take the answer for granted without even thinking about it .
That is the question of whether or not we should do anything if global warming is happening and if there are some effective things we can do to combat it .
Global warming is likely to be overwhelmingly beneficial for most life on Earth including mankind .
Sure , if global warming occurs , there will be some people who come out behind .
But global warming means longer growing seasons , especially toward the poles .
Large expanses of land would become available for growing crops.The real disaster would be global cooling .
If that occurs , expect billions of people to starve to death .
Remember that in the fossil record , periods of cooling , not warming , are the climatological causes of mass extinctions .
If global warming helps postpone the next ice age or lessen its effects , the benefits to mankind and other animal life are clear.There is no reason to panic .
Far from it .
There is plenty of reason to welcome global warming.It 's time for scientists to go back to doing science .
Those who ca n't should go find some other work and get out of the way of the real scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The questions we should be asking, but aren't, go much further.First, of course, is the question of whether or not it is actually happening.
The answer is far from clear.
And if we can't answer that, then it is ridiculously stupid to be paniced by a bunch of hysterical politicians spend billions or trillions of dollars to fix something that may not even be broken.
And the term "politicians" includes those so-called climate scientists who have ceased being scientists in their quest to become advocates of their own global warming religion.
Furthermore, if we can't even determine whether or not it is happening, than we have plenty of time to try to do something later if needed.After that is the question of what, if anything, we can effectively do to slow it down or stop it.
If we don't understand the problem, then anything we do is likely to be far from ineffective and may accomplish nothing at all.
Why should we destroy our economy for little more than a hysterical nightmare?Third is the question that hardly anyone is asking or even thinking about.
The global warming advocates all take the answer for granted without even thinking about it.
That is the question of whether or not we should do anything if global warming is happening and if there are some effective things we can do to combat it.
Global warming is likely to be overwhelmingly beneficial for most life on Earth including mankind.
Sure, if global warming occurs, there will be some people who come out behind.
But global warming means longer growing seasons, especially toward the poles.
Large expanses of land would become available for growing crops.The real disaster would be global cooling.
If that occurs, expect billions of people to starve to death.
Remember that in the fossil record, periods of cooling, not warming, are the climatological causes of mass extinctions.
If global warming helps postpone the next ice age or lessen its effects, the benefits to mankind and other animal life are clear.There is no reason to panic.
Far from it.
There is plenty of reason to welcome global warming.It's time for scientists to go back to doing science.
Those who can't should go find some other work and get out of the way of the real scientists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256144</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this is about *policy*, not science</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1259440080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Since the earth doesn't do crazy drastic things like that, in the span of 150 years, and we know that starting in around 1832 we've been releasing crazy amounts of previously-sequestered CO2 into the air, it follows that it's our fault.</i></p><p>The major human releases didn't start until the start of the Industrial Revolution, some 30 years later.</p><p>The seabed data I've seen says 1835, but 1832 is just as good a number.  Let's assume that the releases started then and the Earth immediately responded with warmer temperatures, which seems unlikely - then we should have seen very significant warming this past decade with China and India really coming online.</p><p>There's a lack of correlation and the current model's mechanism appears to be too sensitive in some instances and not sensitive enough in others, which suggests that the model isn't correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the earth does n't do crazy drastic things like that , in the span of 150 years , and we know that starting in around 1832 we 've been releasing crazy amounts of previously-sequestered CO2 into the air , it follows that it 's our fault.The major human releases did n't start until the start of the Industrial Revolution , some 30 years later.The seabed data I 've seen says 1835 , but 1832 is just as good a number .
Let 's assume that the releases started then and the Earth immediately responded with warmer temperatures , which seems unlikely - then we should have seen very significant warming this past decade with China and India really coming online.There 's a lack of correlation and the current model 's mechanism appears to be too sensitive in some instances and not sensitive enough in others , which suggests that the model is n't correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the earth doesn't do crazy drastic things like that, in the span of 150 years, and we know that starting in around 1832 we've been releasing crazy amounts of previously-sequestered CO2 into the air, it follows that it's our fault.The major human releases didn't start until the start of the Industrial Revolution, some 30 years later.The seabed data I've seen says 1835, but 1832 is just as good a number.
Let's assume that the releases started then and the Earth immediately responded with warmer temperatures, which seems unlikely - then we should have seen very significant warming this past decade with China and India really coming online.There's a lack of correlation and the current model's mechanism appears to be too sensitive in some instances and not sensitive enough in others, which suggests that the model isn't correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248896</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1259316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam</p></div><p>Citation please.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scamCitation please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scamCitation please.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248518</id>
	<title>Re:Common Ground?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There very much is a common ground.  Truth.</p>  </div><p>To paraphrase Dr. Henry Jones Jr...</p><p>Science is the search for FACT, Not Truth. If you want Truth, try the philosophy department.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There very much is a common ground .
Truth. To paraphrase Dr. Henry Jones Jr...Science is the search for FACT , Not Truth .
If you want Truth , try the philosophy department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There very much is a common ground.
Truth.  To paraphrase Dr. Henry Jones Jr...Science is the search for FACT, Not Truth.
If you want Truth, try the philosophy department.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248812</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, tribalism isn't fraud.  It's just being imperfect and human.</p><p>Fraud is when you publish something you know is wrong.   But, it's not fraud to publish something that might be wrong (a lot of good science happens that way).   It's not fraud to publish something in a hurry without thinking carefully (that can happen when funding agencies demand that you publish or perish, and some good science happens that way, also).</p><p>Anyhow, that sounded like a real simplistic comment from someone with an axe to grind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , tribalism is n't fraud .
It 's just being imperfect and human.Fraud is when you publish something you know is wrong .
But , it 's not fraud to publish something that might be wrong ( a lot of good science happens that way ) .
It 's not fraud to publish something in a hurry without thinking carefully ( that can happen when funding agencies demand that you publish or perish , and some good science happens that way , also ) .Anyhow , that sounded like a real simplistic comment from someone with an axe to grind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, tribalism isn't fraud.
It's just being imperfect and human.Fraud is when you publish something you know is wrong.
But, it's not fraud to publish something that might be wrong (a lot of good science happens that way).
It's not fraud to publish something in a hurry without thinking carefully (that can happen when funding agencies demand that you publish or perish, and some good science happens that way, also).Anyhow, that sounded like a real simplistic comment from someone with an axe to grind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250318</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1259323620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you find out that it was actually a scam?  Or did you just accept someone else's word that it was?</p><p>I know that I haven't read the original documents.  Did you?  If not, whose summary are you accepting?</p><p>I think that a lot of "rush to judgement" is happening, and that probably it will turn out to be much less significant than many are asserting.  I also, however, believe that global warming is, indeed, happening.  And I believe that there are lots of independent lines of evidence, to such a degree that even if the entire basis of this site turned out to be based around fraud (which I rate quite unlikely) there's still enough independent evidence of global warming.  It's possible that it isn't happening quite as rapidly as I feared, but there's so much evidence that I suspect that our current estimates UNDERSTATE the rapidity of global warming.  It would be interesting to see what would happen if the projections removed all information originating at this site.  We know that politically motivated decsions have occasionally caused climate scientists to be less alarmist in officially published reports.  I.e., a report would be submitted, and the authors would be instructed by their political managers to reduce the estimated rate and impact.  This, of course, doesn't prove that the rewrite didn't make the report more accurate, but politically motivated rewrites don't have much of a history for doing that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you find out that it was actually a scam ?
Or did you just accept someone else 's word that it was ? I know that I have n't read the original documents .
Did you ?
If not , whose summary are you accepting ? I think that a lot of " rush to judgement " is happening , and that probably it will turn out to be much less significant than many are asserting .
I also , however , believe that global warming is , indeed , happening .
And I believe that there are lots of independent lines of evidence , to such a degree that even if the entire basis of this site turned out to be based around fraud ( which I rate quite unlikely ) there 's still enough independent evidence of global warming .
It 's possible that it is n't happening quite as rapidly as I feared , but there 's so much evidence that I suspect that our current estimates UNDERSTATE the rapidity of global warming .
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the projections removed all information originating at this site .
We know that politically motivated decsions have occasionally caused climate scientists to be less alarmist in officially published reports .
I.e. , a report would be submitted , and the authors would be instructed by their political managers to reduce the estimated rate and impact .
This , of course , does n't prove that the rewrite did n't make the report more accurate , but politically motivated rewrites do n't have much of a history for doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you find out that it was actually a scam?
Or did you just accept someone else's word that it was?I know that I haven't read the original documents.
Did you?
If not, whose summary are you accepting?I think that a lot of "rush to judgement" is happening, and that probably it will turn out to be much less significant than many are asserting.
I also, however, believe that global warming is, indeed, happening.
And I believe that there are lots of independent lines of evidence, to such a degree that even if the entire basis of this site turned out to be based around fraud (which I rate quite unlikely) there's still enough independent evidence of global warming.
It's possible that it isn't happening quite as rapidly as I feared, but there's so much evidence that I suspect that our current estimates UNDERSTATE the rapidity of global warming.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the projections removed all information originating at this site.
We know that politically motivated decsions have occasionally caused climate scientists to be less alarmist in officially published reports.
I.e., a report would be submitted, and the authors would be instructed by their political managers to reduce the estimated rate and impact.
This, of course, doesn't prove that the rewrite didn't make the report more accurate, but politically motivated rewrites don't have much of a history for doing that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248334</id>
	<title>Global warming has a human factor</title>
	<author>Andrew30</author>
	<datestamp>1259313000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Testimony of Richard C. Levin
President, Yale University
Committee on the Environment and Public Works
April 3, 2008

"The Panel concluded that, in the absence of corrective measures, global temperatures are likely to rise between 1 and 6 degrees centigrade by the
end of this century, with the best estimates ranging between 2 and 4 degrees."

Actually Richard, your a bit high but very close, but I think it will be about 1.95 degrees (2.6 * 0.75);

The human contribution to global warming:

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)

densall=densall+yearlyadj</htmltext>
<tokenext>Testimony of Richard C. Levin President , Yale University Committee on the Environment and Public Works April 3 , 2008 " The Panel concluded that , in the absence of corrective measures , global temperatures are likely to rise between 1 and 6 degrees centigrade by the end of this century , with the best estimates ranging between 2 and 4 degrees .
" Actually Richard , your a bit high but very close , but I think it will be about 1.95 degrees ( 2.6 * 0.75 ) ; The human contribution to global warming : valadj = [ 0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6 ] * 0.75 ; fudge factor yearlyadj = interpol ( valadj,yrloc,x ) densall = densall + yearlyadj</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Testimony of Richard C. Levin
President, Yale University
Committee on the Environment and Public Works
April 3, 2008

"The Panel concluded that, in the absence of corrective measures, global temperatures are likely to rise between 1 and 6 degrees centigrade by the
end of this century, with the best estimates ranging between 2 and 4 degrees.
"

Actually Richard, your a bit high but very close, but I think it will be about 1.95 degrees (2.6 * 0.75);

The human contribution to global warming:

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)

densall=densall+yearlyadj</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249530</id>
	<title>climate change doesn't depend on AGW</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1259319480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a nitpick.  You talk about AGW as though it's the main issue, but it's not.  The primary question is whether the earth is warming for any reason, human or not.</p><p>It's possible that global warming is happening, but that humans had little to do with it.  If this is the case we may want to do something about it even if we had nothing to do with causing it in the first place.</p><p>There are a variety of ways of dealing with this; reduction of human production of greenhouse gasses to is certainly one possibility, but if the bulk of emissions are not anthropogenic this may not make a big dent.  Other options include capture and sequestration of greenhouse gasses, or alternately there have been proposals for various large-scale engineering projects to reduce the incoming radiation (mirrors in space, dust in the upper atmosphere, etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a nitpick .
You talk about AGW as though it 's the main issue , but it 's not .
The primary question is whether the earth is warming for any reason , human or not.It 's possible that global warming is happening , but that humans had little to do with it .
If this is the case we may want to do something about it even if we had nothing to do with causing it in the first place.There are a variety of ways of dealing with this ; reduction of human production of greenhouse gasses to is certainly one possibility , but if the bulk of emissions are not anthropogenic this may not make a big dent .
Other options include capture and sequestration of greenhouse gasses , or alternately there have been proposals for various large-scale engineering projects to reduce the incoming radiation ( mirrors in space , dust in the upper atmosphere , etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a nitpick.
You talk about AGW as though it's the main issue, but it's not.
The primary question is whether the earth is warming for any reason, human or not.It's possible that global warming is happening, but that humans had little to do with it.
If this is the case we may want to do something about it even if we had nothing to do with causing it in the first place.There are a variety of ways of dealing with this; reduction of human production of greenhouse gasses to is certainly one possibility, but if the bulk of emissions are not anthropogenic this may not make a big dent.
Other options include capture and sequestration of greenhouse gasses, or alternately there have been proposals for various large-scale engineering projects to reduce the incoming radiation (mirrors in space, dust in the upper atmosphere, etc.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248676</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know someone who has been on-and-off involved in climate modeling who made an effort to trace the root of the global warming claims back to the science. It mostly ended up in a climate model (one among many) which made one of the most dire predictions. So then he tried to track down what caused that model to make such dire predictions. Though I'm not a scientist myself and did not receive the full explanation, he was quite disappointed (he found the science, and justification for the model being as it was were rather weak). In terms of good science, it comes down to smaller scale tests and ideas of what 'should' happen on a larger scale.. but as climate is a complex beast and we've had plenty of surprises and missed predictions, it would be fair to say the climate science is weak.</p><p>Since, he has been less dismissive of theories that suggest that factors in space (ie. outside of are atmosphere... patterns in sun activity, cosmic rays, etc.) are more influential than we recognize, and that this ought to be looked at more closely (because current science is not developed enough to rule it out). He has not personally made this a target of his own research, and it is in part because it would be out of step with his colleagues and he could be branded as someone with ulterior motives and/or a crackpot just for looking into it (not everyone would necessarily feel the same way -- but you've got to remember that these people have personal lives and jobs).</p><p>There are some scientists.. I believe scientists investigating astronomical phenomena in northern europe.. perhaps the Netherlands (?) who have been looking into the space factors and comparing patterns to those seen in our weather. They have been viewed by people inside climate science as enemies, and people abetting the ignorant, oil interests, warmongers, etc. This is bad for science. Personally, (I may be a moron for believing this) I think the actions (out of Kyoto protocol) and blunt unfounded statements from the US government in recent years caused some climate scientists to attempt to fight back -- fighting fire with fire -- and it has at times gotten the better of them.</p><p>Posting anonymously (since otherwise it would be more possible to figure out who the anonymous scientist is)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know someone who has been on-and-off involved in climate modeling who made an effort to trace the root of the global warming claims back to the science .
It mostly ended up in a climate model ( one among many ) which made one of the most dire predictions .
So then he tried to track down what caused that model to make such dire predictions .
Though I 'm not a scientist myself and did not receive the full explanation , he was quite disappointed ( he found the science , and justification for the model being as it was were rather weak ) .
In terms of good science , it comes down to smaller scale tests and ideas of what 'should ' happen on a larger scale.. but as climate is a complex beast and we 've had plenty of surprises and missed predictions , it would be fair to say the climate science is weak.Since , he has been less dismissive of theories that suggest that factors in space ( ie .
outside of are atmosphere... patterns in sun activity , cosmic rays , etc .
) are more influential than we recognize , and that this ought to be looked at more closely ( because current science is not developed enough to rule it out ) .
He has not personally made this a target of his own research , and it is in part because it would be out of step with his colleagues and he could be branded as someone with ulterior motives and/or a crackpot just for looking into it ( not everyone would necessarily feel the same way -- but you 've got to remember that these people have personal lives and jobs ) .There are some scientists.. I believe scientists investigating astronomical phenomena in northern europe.. perhaps the Netherlands ( ?
) who have been looking into the space factors and comparing patterns to those seen in our weather .
They have been viewed by people inside climate science as enemies , and people abetting the ignorant , oil interests , warmongers , etc .
This is bad for science .
Personally , ( I may be a moron for believing this ) I think the actions ( out of Kyoto protocol ) and blunt unfounded statements from the US government in recent years caused some climate scientists to attempt to fight back -- fighting fire with fire -- and it has at times gotten the better of them.Posting anonymously ( since otherwise it would be more possible to figure out who the anonymous scientist is )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know someone who has been on-and-off involved in climate modeling who made an effort to trace the root of the global warming claims back to the science.
It mostly ended up in a climate model (one among many) which made one of the most dire predictions.
So then he tried to track down what caused that model to make such dire predictions.
Though I'm not a scientist myself and did not receive the full explanation, he was quite disappointed (he found the science, and justification for the model being as it was were rather weak).
In terms of good science, it comes down to smaller scale tests and ideas of what 'should' happen on a larger scale.. but as climate is a complex beast and we've had plenty of surprises and missed predictions, it would be fair to say the climate science is weak.Since, he has been less dismissive of theories that suggest that factors in space (ie.
outside of are atmosphere... patterns in sun activity, cosmic rays, etc.
) are more influential than we recognize, and that this ought to be looked at more closely (because current science is not developed enough to rule it out).
He has not personally made this a target of his own research, and it is in part because it would be out of step with his colleagues and he could be branded as someone with ulterior motives and/or a crackpot just for looking into it (not everyone would necessarily feel the same way -- but you've got to remember that these people have personal lives and jobs).There are some scientists.. I believe scientists investigating astronomical phenomena in northern europe.. perhaps the Netherlands (?
) who have been looking into the space factors and comparing patterns to those seen in our weather.
They have been viewed by people inside climate science as enemies, and people abetting the ignorant, oil interests, warmongers, etc.
This is bad for science.
Personally, (I may be a moron for believing this) I think the actions (out of Kyoto protocol) and blunt unfounded statements from the US government in recent years caused some climate scientists to attempt to fight back -- fighting fire with fire -- and it has at times gotten the better of them.Posting anonymously (since otherwise it would be more possible to figure out who the anonymous scientist is)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248584</id>
	<title>Microcosm of the discussion</title>
	<author>liquiddark</author>
	<datestamp>1259314500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All you have to do is read the replies to this article to understand why engaging in serious discussion isn't really feasible.  Exaggerated claims of falsification and completely tangential theories about motives seem to be the order of the day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All you have to do is read the replies to this article to understand why engaging in serious discussion is n't really feasible .
Exaggerated claims of falsification and completely tangential theories about motives seem to be the order of the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you have to do is read the replies to this article to understand why engaging in serious discussion isn't really feasible.
Exaggerated claims of falsification and completely tangential theories about motives seem to be the order of the day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251506</id>
	<title>I am a skeptic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259331480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, we know that there were people farming in Greenland many centuries ago.</p><p>I don't really care much about global warming. I am a skeptic. However, I do love the idea of going on with it. Why? It offers tremendous opportunities for us in the West. I believe we should impose a sort of green protectionism. We should force any country that is not a democracy and that is a heavy polluter out of our markets. We should create a green block and only trade amongst ourselves. How are we going to compete with China when companies there can populate as much as they want? Do they want to trade with us? They must buy our technology so that they can become green. Also they must become a democraticy. I believe this would work very well and it could save our economies here in the West.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , we know that there were people farming in Greenland many centuries ago.I do n't really care much about global warming .
I am a skeptic .
However , I do love the idea of going on with it .
Why ? It offers tremendous opportunities for us in the West .
I believe we should impose a sort of green protectionism .
We should force any country that is not a democracy and that is a heavy polluter out of our markets .
We should create a green block and only trade amongst ourselves .
How are we going to compete with China when companies there can populate as much as they want ?
Do they want to trade with us ?
They must buy our technology so that they can become green .
Also they must become a democraticy .
I believe this would work very well and it could save our economies here in the West .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, we know that there were people farming in Greenland many centuries ago.I don't really care much about global warming.
I am a skeptic.
However, I do love the idea of going on with it.
Why? It offers tremendous opportunities for us in the West.
I believe we should impose a sort of green protectionism.
We should force any country that is not a democracy and that is a heavy polluter out of our markets.
We should create a green block and only trade amongst ourselves.
How are we going to compete with China when companies there can populate as much as they want?
Do they want to trade with us?
They must buy our technology so that they can become green.
Also they must become a democraticy.
I believe this would work very well and it could save our economies here in the West.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251004</id>
	<title>An olive branch to climate change sceptics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259327520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been quite depressed about the state of the climate change debate. Given the CRU incident and the fresh impetus found by AGW-sceptics I've gotten tired of the same arguments that go nowhere. Now the sceptics want all the data and all the code to check. To me, that implies that climate science is effectively dead, since no science can be done unless and until it has been verified by sceptics, and if it happens that AGW is real, we will have no time to deal with it during the process of verifying AGW science itself, if we accept that 'risk management' is another canard of AGW alarmists.</p><p>But let's take AGW sceptics arguments at face value and see what that implies. I am going to make some basic statements about what I think AGW sceptics see as the core issues and the remedies they demand. Please remember that as a AGW supporter, you must view any statement I make with great caution as nothing I propose can likely be trusted due to my bias. Feel free to correct me and to suggest more correct statements; as I will explain, this is a most necessary part of the process by which we can heal this divide. I hope the foregoing will be taken in the spirit of reconciliation, but accept that my thesis must be viewed with wary suspicion. For this reason, I am putting this olive branch in the most general forum for all to take part, the better to protect against any alarmism of mine.</p><p>fact 1. AGW science is effectively a religion, therefore:<br>fact 2. AGW scientists and their supporters can not be trusted with any statement about climate science.<br>fact 3. AGW science cannot be trusted until it is verified by non-AGW scientists therefore:<br>fact 4. ALL AGW science data and code must be turned over to non-AGW scientists to verify.</p><p>Now I am not going to go into much more detail than that. I hope such a basic coverage of the state of AGW scepticism is sufficient and non-offensive. Given the logic of these 4 points, I can (from my admittedly biased standpoint) only make these implications/assumptions:</p><p>implication 1. All AGW scientists must immediately be stood down and their projects be locked down pending a full and detailed re-examination of their work.<br>implication 2. No policy can be made until the full evaluation of all climate science can be done.</p><p>I would add, if I may, two teeny tiny conditions of such a revolution, should it come to pass. You will see they are obviously implications of the previous points, if my logic is not flawed by my obvious bias.</p><p>condition 1: since, from facts 1 and 2, no AGW scientist or supporter can ever be trusted with any statement regarding climate science, all scientific methods and data collection will have to be done in clean-room conditions lest faulty assumptions distort the science. Therefore non-AGW scientists will have to work out the science themselves as per facts 3 and 4 without any help or guidance by their biased colleagues. It is no good hoping that AGW alarmists will do as they're told, by their very nature they will bias and distort the science.</p><p>condition 2: following from implications 1 and 2, we must totally rely on non-AGW scientists and their supporters for determining whether we act at all, and such decisions must be completely their responsibility, since we have so obviously abrogated ours by shameless bias. Business must be reassured that silly ideas like 'risk management' are tools of alarmism and are economically harmful. The sceptics will and should take their time with this rebuilding of climate change science regardless of the dithering masses who have been led astray by myself and my fellow conspirators.</p><p>If this program meets with your carefully sceptical approval, I will openly allow it to be promulgated far and wide: by this perhaps we can finally progress towards a happier, less alarmist future. To reiterate, corrections gladly accepted, but please, make them public to allow us all to reach consensus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been quite depressed about the state of the climate change debate .
Given the CRU incident and the fresh impetus found by AGW-sceptics I 've gotten tired of the same arguments that go nowhere .
Now the sceptics want all the data and all the code to check .
To me , that implies that climate science is effectively dead , since no science can be done unless and until it has been verified by sceptics , and if it happens that AGW is real , we will have no time to deal with it during the process of verifying AGW science itself , if we accept that 'risk management ' is another canard of AGW alarmists.But let 's take AGW sceptics arguments at face value and see what that implies .
I am going to make some basic statements about what I think AGW sceptics see as the core issues and the remedies they demand .
Please remember that as a AGW supporter , you must view any statement I make with great caution as nothing I propose can likely be trusted due to my bias .
Feel free to correct me and to suggest more correct statements ; as I will explain , this is a most necessary part of the process by which we can heal this divide .
I hope the foregoing will be taken in the spirit of reconciliation , but accept that my thesis must be viewed with wary suspicion .
For this reason , I am putting this olive branch in the most general forum for all to take part , the better to protect against any alarmism of mine.fact 1 .
AGW science is effectively a religion , therefore : fact 2 .
AGW scientists and their supporters can not be trusted with any statement about climate science.fact 3 .
AGW science can not be trusted until it is verified by non-AGW scientists therefore : fact 4 .
ALL AGW science data and code must be turned over to non-AGW scientists to verify.Now I am not going to go into much more detail than that .
I hope such a basic coverage of the state of AGW scepticism is sufficient and non-offensive .
Given the logic of these 4 points , I can ( from my admittedly biased standpoint ) only make these implications/assumptions : implication 1 .
All AGW scientists must immediately be stood down and their projects be locked down pending a full and detailed re-examination of their work.implication 2 .
No policy can be made until the full evaluation of all climate science can be done.I would add , if I may , two teeny tiny conditions of such a revolution , should it come to pass .
You will see they are obviously implications of the previous points , if my logic is not flawed by my obvious bias.condition 1 : since , from facts 1 and 2 , no AGW scientist or supporter can ever be trusted with any statement regarding climate science , all scientific methods and data collection will have to be done in clean-room conditions lest faulty assumptions distort the science .
Therefore non-AGW scientists will have to work out the science themselves as per facts 3 and 4 without any help or guidance by their biased colleagues .
It is no good hoping that AGW alarmists will do as they 're told , by their very nature they will bias and distort the science.condition 2 : following from implications 1 and 2 , we must totally rely on non-AGW scientists and their supporters for determining whether we act at all , and such decisions must be completely their responsibility , since we have so obviously abrogated ours by shameless bias .
Business must be reassured that silly ideas like 'risk management ' are tools of alarmism and are economically harmful .
The sceptics will and should take their time with this rebuilding of climate change science regardless of the dithering masses who have been led astray by myself and my fellow conspirators.If this program meets with your carefully sceptical approval , I will openly allow it to be promulgated far and wide : by this perhaps we can finally progress towards a happier , less alarmist future .
To reiterate , corrections gladly accepted , but please , make them public to allow us all to reach consensus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been quite depressed about the state of the climate change debate.
Given the CRU incident and the fresh impetus found by AGW-sceptics I've gotten tired of the same arguments that go nowhere.
Now the sceptics want all the data and all the code to check.
To me, that implies that climate science is effectively dead, since no science can be done unless and until it has been verified by sceptics, and if it happens that AGW is real, we will have no time to deal with it during the process of verifying AGW science itself, if we accept that 'risk management' is another canard of AGW alarmists.But let's take AGW sceptics arguments at face value and see what that implies.
I am going to make some basic statements about what I think AGW sceptics see as the core issues and the remedies they demand.
Please remember that as a AGW supporter, you must view any statement I make with great caution as nothing I propose can likely be trusted due to my bias.
Feel free to correct me and to suggest more correct statements; as I will explain, this is a most necessary part of the process by which we can heal this divide.
I hope the foregoing will be taken in the spirit of reconciliation, but accept that my thesis must be viewed with wary suspicion.
For this reason, I am putting this olive branch in the most general forum for all to take part, the better to protect against any alarmism of mine.fact 1.
AGW science is effectively a religion, therefore:fact 2.
AGW scientists and their supporters can not be trusted with any statement about climate science.fact 3.
AGW science cannot be trusted until it is verified by non-AGW scientists therefore:fact 4.
ALL AGW science data and code must be turned over to non-AGW scientists to verify.Now I am not going to go into much more detail than that.
I hope such a basic coverage of the state of AGW scepticism is sufficient and non-offensive.
Given the logic of these 4 points, I can (from my admittedly biased standpoint) only make these implications/assumptions:implication 1.
All AGW scientists must immediately be stood down and their projects be locked down pending a full and detailed re-examination of their work.implication 2.
No policy can be made until the full evaluation of all climate science can be done.I would add, if I may, two teeny tiny conditions of such a revolution, should it come to pass.
You will see they are obviously implications of the previous points, if my logic is not flawed by my obvious bias.condition 1: since, from facts 1 and 2, no AGW scientist or supporter can ever be trusted with any statement regarding climate science, all scientific methods and data collection will have to be done in clean-room conditions lest faulty assumptions distort the science.
Therefore non-AGW scientists will have to work out the science themselves as per facts 3 and 4 without any help or guidance by their biased colleagues.
It is no good hoping that AGW alarmists will do as they're told, by their very nature they will bias and distort the science.condition 2: following from implications 1 and 2, we must totally rely on non-AGW scientists and their supporters for determining whether we act at all, and such decisions must be completely their responsibility, since we have so obviously abrogated ours by shameless bias.
Business must be reassured that silly ideas like 'risk management' are tools of alarmism and are economically harmful.
The sceptics will and should take their time with this rebuilding of climate change science regardless of the dithering masses who have been led astray by myself and my fellow conspirators.If this program meets with your carefully sceptical approval, I will openly allow it to be promulgated far and wide: by this perhaps we can finally progress towards a happier, less alarmist future.
To reiterate, corrections gladly accepted, but please, make them public to allow us all to reach consensus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248604</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe now the debate will actually occur?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1259314620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're entirely correct.  From what I have seen, most of the denial of AGW is actually resistance to heavy government intervention.  Since most of the proposals for dealing with AGW involve significant government economic control, there is a tendency for people to link AGW with big government and act accordingly.  If you think about it, someone who is very much against government intervention would likely tend toward scepticism.  The problem as I see it is that there is such a great divide between the two political ends of the spectrum that they aren't willing to agree on even the simplist of things let alone anything like AGW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're entirely correct .
From what I have seen , most of the denial of AGW is actually resistance to heavy government intervention .
Since most of the proposals for dealing with AGW involve significant government economic control , there is a tendency for people to link AGW with big government and act accordingly .
If you think about it , someone who is very much against government intervention would likely tend toward scepticism .
The problem as I see it is that there is such a great divide between the two political ends of the spectrum that they are n't willing to agree on even the simplist of things let alone anything like AGW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're entirely correct.
From what I have seen, most of the denial of AGW is actually resistance to heavy government intervention.
Since most of the proposals for dealing with AGW involve significant government economic control, there is a tendency for people to link AGW with big government and act accordingly.
If you think about it, someone who is very much against government intervention would likely tend toward scepticism.
The problem as I see it is that there is such a great divide between the two political ends of the spectrum that they aren't willing to agree on even the simplist of things let alone anything like AGW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248820</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are not Politicians</title>
	<author>kipling</author>
	<datestamp>1259315880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a strange point of view to find on Slashdot.</p><p>Applying this "argument" to software, no-one who bangs out code would care how it was used, and therefore how it was licensed.  It would not be in their domain of interest.</p><p>Scientists are not one homogeneous group.  There will be differing views on facets of the science and differing willingness to engage with the political debate, media, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a strange point of view to find on Slashdot.Applying this " argument " to software , no-one who bangs out code would care how it was used , and therefore how it was licensed .
It would not be in their domain of interest.Scientists are not one homogeneous group .
There will be differing views on facets of the science and differing willingness to engage with the political debate , media , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a strange point of view to find on Slashdot.Applying this "argument" to software, no-one who bangs out code would care how it was used, and therefore how it was licensed.
It would not be in their domain of interest.Scientists are not one homogeneous group.
There will be differing views on facets of the science and differing willingness to engage with the political debate, media, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256278</id>
	<title>Re:Good faith and bad faith</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259441400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In my office, I have a poster from a paper presentation where my research group compared seven different climate models, and looked at how well they agreed."</p><p>That's like a creationist telling me that they have seven different models, each of which explains how the world was created 6000 years ago. It means nothing until you explain how ANY of the models are worth relying on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In my office , I have a poster from a paper presentation where my research group compared seven different climate models , and looked at how well they agreed .
" That 's like a creationist telling me that they have seven different models , each of which explains how the world was created 6000 years ago .
It means nothing until you explain how ANY of the models are worth relying on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In my office, I have a poster from a paper presentation where my research group compared seven different climate models, and looked at how well they agreed.
"That's like a creationist telling me that they have seven different models, each of which explains how the world was created 6000 years ago.
It means nothing until you explain how ANY of the models are worth relying on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248422</id>
	<title>"Curry &mdash; ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259313600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>umm, curry. AFK, food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>umm , curry .
AFK , food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>umm, curry.
AFK, food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252978</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259438580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs</i> <br> <br>
That particular decision did not have the far-reaching implications that the current plans do. You're old enough to know the difference, stop pretending.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs That particular decision did not have the far-reaching implications that the current plans do .
You 're old enough to know the difference , stop pretending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one seemed to refute our decision to stop using CFCs  
That particular decision did not have the far-reaching implications that the current plans do.
You're old enough to know the difference, stop pretending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248628</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Airdorn</author>
	<datestamp>1259314740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too anecdotal. There's all kinds of reasons that story may exist, beyond the obvious politically motivated one. Was the data obtained in a controlled, scientific manner? Are we sure about that?

I'd just like to see a stronger consensus. As it is today, the whole thing is just way too polarized. I mean, I doubt anyone denies that people (along with any other organisms put into an environment) do have some effect. That's simple action/reaction stuff. I think the argument gets heated when scientists, politicians, Al Gores, etc. showcase humans as the chief cause of widespread destruction. There's an obvious money-trail here and a lot of people smell a skunk.

So, yeah.. I need some extraordinary evidence to back up all those extraordinary claims.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too anecdotal .
There 's all kinds of reasons that story may exist , beyond the obvious politically motivated one .
Was the data obtained in a controlled , scientific manner ?
Are we sure about that ?
I 'd just like to see a stronger consensus .
As it is today , the whole thing is just way too polarized .
I mean , I doubt anyone denies that people ( along with any other organisms put into an environment ) do have some effect .
That 's simple action/reaction stuff .
I think the argument gets heated when scientists , politicians , Al Gores , etc .
showcase humans as the chief cause of widespread destruction .
There 's an obvious money-trail here and a lot of people smell a skunk .
So , yeah.. I need some extraordinary evidence to back up all those extraordinary claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too anecdotal.
There's all kinds of reasons that story may exist, beyond the obvious politically motivated one.
Was the data obtained in a controlled, scientific manner?
Are we sure about that?
I'd just like to see a stronger consensus.
As it is today, the whole thing is just way too polarized.
I mean, I doubt anyone denies that people (along with any other organisms put into an environment) do have some effect.
That's simple action/reaction stuff.
I think the argument gets heated when scientists, politicians, Al Gores, etc.
showcase humans as the chief cause of widespread destruction.
There's an obvious money-trail here and a lot of people smell a skunk.
So, yeah.. I need some extraordinary evidence to back up all those extraordinary claims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248844</id>
	<title>Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science</title>
	<author>realcoolguy425</author>
	<datestamp>1259316000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything comes down to the data, and how it is interpreted.  CO2 has been pegged as a gas that will cause positive-feedback runaway global warming, and every model has CO2 as the villain.  The data we have does not backup this model either!  So the very basis of these computer models need a lot more scrutiny.
<br>
<br>
Then again, who's going to be able to build a climate model that will be able to account for cloud formations and increased/reduced solar activity?  Which I still believe has way more affect than CO2 does on the global temperature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything comes down to the data , and how it is interpreted .
CO2 has been pegged as a gas that will cause positive-feedback runaway global warming , and every model has CO2 as the villain .
The data we have does not backup this model either !
So the very basis of these computer models need a lot more scrutiny .
Then again , who 's going to be able to build a climate model that will be able to account for cloud formations and increased/reduced solar activity ?
Which I still believe has way more affect than CO2 does on the global temperature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything comes down to the data, and how it is interpreted.
CO2 has been pegged as a gas that will cause positive-feedback runaway global warming, and every model has CO2 as the villain.
The data we have does not backup this model either!
So the very basis of these computer models need a lot more scrutiny.
Then again, who's going to be able to build a climate model that will be able to account for cloud formations and increased/reduced solar activity?
Which I still believe has way more affect than CO2 does on the global temperature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248614</id>
	<title>Re:Common Ground?</title>
	<author>Etcetera</author>
	<datestamp>1259314680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There very much is a common ground.  Truth.  Because people disagree doesn't mean that both aren't seeking to know the truth; really, both might have reasonable positions, given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date.  Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.</p></div><p>Bzzzz. Not if you're a postmodernist... where "truth" doesn't exist and science is only useful as a tool to enact social policy goals. Strangely enough, the postmoderns and the American Left (not Classic Liberals) seem to agree in this regard...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There very much is a common ground .
Truth. Because people disagree does n't mean that both are n't seeking to know the truth ; really , both might have reasonable positions , given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date .
Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.Bzzzz .
Not if you 're a postmodernist... where " truth " does n't exist and science is only useful as a tool to enact social policy goals .
Strangely enough , the postmoderns and the American Left ( not Classic Liberals ) seem to agree in this regard... : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There very much is a common ground.
Truth.  Because people disagree doesn't mean that both aren't seeking to know the truth; really, both might have reasonable positions, given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date.
Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.Bzzzz.
Not if you're a postmodernist... where "truth" doesn't exist and science is only useful as a tool to enact social policy goals.
Strangely enough, the postmoderns and the American Left (not Classic Liberals) seem to agree in this regard... :/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250022</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259321880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it somewhat arrogant that to say that just because someone does not have the particular scientific knowledge to do the work themselves means that they are beneath contempt and should be ignored. As an engineer who does a lot of initial research on technologies, convincing the person who will eventually put money behind your work is ultimately as important as the results you get. The person you are trying to convince are never as well versed in the subject as you, but your job is to convince them that your results are valid and deserve the level of trust that you have for them. In my mind anyone who can't or won't explain what they are doing to a layman usually doesn't know what they are doing in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it somewhat arrogant that to say that just because someone does not have the particular scientific knowledge to do the work themselves means that they are beneath contempt and should be ignored .
As an engineer who does a lot of initial research on technologies , convincing the person who will eventually put money behind your work is ultimately as important as the results you get .
The person you are trying to convince are never as well versed in the subject as you , but your job is to convince them that your results are valid and deserve the level of trust that you have for them .
In my mind anyone who ca n't or wo n't explain what they are doing to a layman usually does n't know what they are doing in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it somewhat arrogant that to say that just because someone does not have the particular scientific knowledge to do the work themselves means that they are beneath contempt and should be ignored.
As an engineer who does a lot of initial research on technologies, convincing the person who will eventually put money behind your work is ultimately as important as the results you get.
The person you are trying to convince are never as well versed in the subject as you, but your job is to convince them that your results are valid and deserve the level of trust that you have for them.
In my mind anyone who can't or won't explain what they are doing to a layman usually doesn't know what they are doing in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252146</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter anyway ... at least in the states</title>
	<author>pease1</author>
	<datestamp>1259338680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If AGW was proven wrong tomorrow, wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.  The Pols have discovered AGW is great cover for stealing hundreds of billions of dollars and gaining massive amounts of control.   Modern industrialists will make millions/billions off this.
<p>
Recently heard someone describe Gore as a industrialist.  This struck me odd, but come to think about it, he is little different then the robber baron industrialists of the 19th century.  He is positioned to make tens of millions off the backs of the poor and middle class.
</p><p>
Besides, AGW is everywhere.  My kid's elementary text books, the Disney Channel, the movies... everywhere.  It will take a decade to remove all this stuff and a generation to de-learn it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If AGW was proven wrong tomorrow , would n't make a hill of beans difference .
The Pols have discovered AGW is great cover for stealing hundreds of billions of dollars and gaining massive amounts of control .
Modern industrialists will make millions/billions off this .
Recently heard someone describe Gore as a industrialist .
This struck me odd , but come to think about it , he is little different then the robber baron industrialists of the 19th century .
He is positioned to make tens of millions off the backs of the poor and middle class .
Besides , AGW is everywhere .
My kid 's elementary text books , the Disney Channel , the movies... everywhere. It will take a decade to remove all this stuff and a generation to de-learn it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If AGW was proven wrong tomorrow, wouldn't make a hill of beans difference.
The Pols have discovered AGW is great cover for stealing hundreds of billions of dollars and gaining massive amounts of control.
Modern industrialists will make millions/billions off this.
Recently heard someone describe Gore as a industrialist.
This struck me odd, but come to think about it, he is little different then the robber baron industrialists of the 19th century.
He is positioned to make tens of millions off the backs of the poor and middle class.
Besides, AGW is everywhere.
My kid's elementary text books, the Disney Channel, the movies... everywhere.  It will take a decade to remove all this stuff and a generation to de-learn it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250918</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259327100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Airdorn is a perfect example of why trying to engage global warming denier is a waste of time, you might as well be trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with the dining room table. Any evidence presented is automatically dismissed as  "just anecdotal bunk". Rather believe the documented  evidence of increasing surface temperatures, they would rather believe Tony Watts and his surfacestations.org. Even though  Watts and his crew were caught forging photos by using telephoto lens with a large depth of field to make it appear that stations were miss-sited. It does not matter that NOAA used the site ratings by surfacestations.org to construct two national time series. One was the full data set, USING ALL WEATHER STATIONS, the other used ONLY THE STATIONS THAT Watts CALLED Class 1 or Class 2 weather stations, ie., what Watts classified as good or best The NEX RESULT WAS THAT THE TWO DATA SET SHOWED IDENTICAL TRENDS (NOAA 2009). Of course according to Airdorn that's just bunk. It does not matter to Airdorn that Roy Spencer and John Christy made a glaring math error in their analysis when they announced that their satellite borne measurements disproved global warming, it doesn't matter that they retracted their statement in the scientific press, but still take money from big oil/coal to claim that their data shows that global warming doesn't exist on the conservative speaking circuit. Airdorn will say that is fraud for a scientist to say in an email that that they want to use the same "trick" (now filling the in rest of the sentence that has so carefully edited out) of plotting the observed data and trends on the same graph. That's fraud, but Spencer and Christy saying one thing on the conservative speaking circuit and another in peer-reviews journals and will under oath: Nothing wrong with that!</p><p>Even though the source code for all the models and analysis tools along with all of the documentation are freely available for download (try PCMDI or NCAR), even though all of the data (try NCAR or NCDC), with the exception of the data that some countries like India that demand that their data not be be freely available (they want everyone including other governments to pay hard cold cash for) people like Airdorn will continue to claim scientists won't release their models or data. They will believe McIntyre who libeled Briffa by claiming that Briffa would release the raw data to McIntyre even though he had had the data in his possession for over five years before he libeled Briffa</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airdorn is a perfect example of why trying to engage global warming denier is a waste of time , you might as well be trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with the dining room table .
Any evidence presented is automatically dismissed as " just anecdotal bunk " .
Rather believe the documented evidence of increasing surface temperatures , they would rather believe Tony Watts and his surfacestations.org .
Even though Watts and his crew were caught forging photos by using telephoto lens with a large depth of field to make it appear that stations were miss-sited .
It does not matter that NOAA used the site ratings by surfacestations.org to construct two national time series .
One was the full data set , USING ALL WEATHER STATIONS , the other used ONLY THE STATIONS THAT Watts CALLED Class 1 or Class 2 weather stations , ie. , what Watts classified as good or best The NEX RESULT WAS THAT THE TWO DATA SET SHOWED IDENTICAL TRENDS ( NOAA 2009 ) .
Of course according to Airdorn that 's just bunk .
It does not matter to Airdorn that Roy Spencer and John Christy made a glaring math error in their analysis when they announced that their satellite borne measurements disproved global warming , it does n't matter that they retracted their statement in the scientific press , but still take money from big oil/coal to claim that their data shows that global warming does n't exist on the conservative speaking circuit .
Airdorn will say that is fraud for a scientist to say in an email that that they want to use the same " trick " ( now filling the in rest of the sentence that has so carefully edited out ) of plotting the observed data and trends on the same graph .
That 's fraud , but Spencer and Christy saying one thing on the conservative speaking circuit and another in peer-reviews journals and will under oath : Nothing wrong with that ! Even though the source code for all the models and analysis tools along with all of the documentation are freely available for download ( try PCMDI or NCAR ) , even though all of the data ( try NCAR or NCDC ) , with the exception of the data that some countries like India that demand that their data not be be freely available ( they want everyone including other governments to pay hard cold cash for ) people like Airdorn will continue to claim scientists wo n't release their models or data .
They will believe McIntyre who libeled Briffa by claiming that Briffa would release the raw data to McIntyre even though he had had the data in his possession for over five years before he libeled Briffa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airdorn is a perfect example of why trying to engage global warming denier is a waste of time, you might as well be trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with the dining room table.
Any evidence presented is automatically dismissed as  "just anecdotal bunk".
Rather believe the documented  evidence of increasing surface temperatures, they would rather believe Tony Watts and his surfacestations.org.
Even though  Watts and his crew were caught forging photos by using telephoto lens with a large depth of field to make it appear that stations were miss-sited.
It does not matter that NOAA used the site ratings by surfacestations.org to construct two national time series.
One was the full data set, USING ALL WEATHER STATIONS, the other used ONLY THE STATIONS THAT Watts CALLED Class 1 or Class 2 weather stations, ie., what Watts classified as good or best The NEX RESULT WAS THAT THE TWO DATA SET SHOWED IDENTICAL TRENDS (NOAA 2009).
Of course according to Airdorn that's just bunk.
It does not matter to Airdorn that Roy Spencer and John Christy made a glaring math error in their analysis when they announced that their satellite borne measurements disproved global warming, it doesn't matter that they retracted their statement in the scientific press, but still take money from big oil/coal to claim that their data shows that global warming doesn't exist on the conservative speaking circuit.
Airdorn will say that is fraud for a scientist to say in an email that that they want to use the same "trick" (now filling the in rest of the sentence that has so carefully edited out) of plotting the observed data and trends on the same graph.
That's fraud, but Spencer and Christy saying one thing on the conservative speaking circuit and another in peer-reviews journals and will under oath: Nothing wrong with that!Even though the source code for all the models and analysis tools along with all of the documentation are freely available for download (try PCMDI or NCAR), even though all of the data (try NCAR or NCDC), with the exception of the data that some countries like India that demand that their data not be be freely available (they want everyone including other governments to pay hard cold cash for) people like Airdorn will continue to claim scientists won't release their models or data.
They will believe McIntyre who libeled Briffa by claiming that Briffa would release the raw data to McIntyre even though he had had the data in his possession for over five years before he libeled Briffa</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250828</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Skippy\_kangaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1259326440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A common refrain is - "you are not a climatologist therefore you can not comment on anything we do". However, when one examines what is being done it immediately becomes apparent that 'climatologist' is a useless definition. Much of the more controversial stuff is pure statistics. I am a scientist and my statistical ability is greater than most of the climatologists. But, for some reason, people would claim that because I am not a 'climatologist' I can not comment.</p><p>Is that your position? That highly educated people who didn't happen to tick the 'climatologist' box when they graduated can't comment? While you might not find a physicist making a mistake about the first law of thermodynamics you can find them making a mistake about the central limit theorem or the asymptotic properties of estimators. As a person with a high level of statistical training I am shocked by how bad the statistics used in some of these climatological papers is. You then get into a bizarre situation where a statistician is telling a 'climatologist' that R-squared is an invalid statistics to use in a particular situation and the 'climatologist' saying 'I'm the expert here because the topic is the climate and I reject your criticism. Some 'climatologists' aren't prepared to defend their work against legitimate, good, criticism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A common refrain is - " you are not a climatologist therefore you can not comment on anything we do " .
However , when one examines what is being done it immediately becomes apparent that 'climatologist ' is a useless definition .
Much of the more controversial stuff is pure statistics .
I am a scientist and my statistical ability is greater than most of the climatologists .
But , for some reason , people would claim that because I am not a 'climatologist ' I can not comment.Is that your position ?
That highly educated people who did n't happen to tick the 'climatologist ' box when they graduated ca n't comment ?
While you might not find a physicist making a mistake about the first law of thermodynamics you can find them making a mistake about the central limit theorem or the asymptotic properties of estimators .
As a person with a high level of statistical training I am shocked by how bad the statistics used in some of these climatological papers is .
You then get into a bizarre situation where a statistician is telling a 'climatologist ' that R-squared is an invalid statistics to use in a particular situation and the 'climatologist ' saying 'I 'm the expert here because the topic is the climate and I reject your criticism .
Some 'climatologists ' are n't prepared to defend their work against legitimate , good , criticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A common refrain is - "you are not a climatologist therefore you can not comment on anything we do".
However, when one examines what is being done it immediately becomes apparent that 'climatologist' is a useless definition.
Much of the more controversial stuff is pure statistics.
I am a scientist and my statistical ability is greater than most of the climatologists.
But, for some reason, people would claim that because I am not a 'climatologist' I can not comment.Is that your position?
That highly educated people who didn't happen to tick the 'climatologist' box when they graduated can't comment?
While you might not find a physicist making a mistake about the first law of thermodynamics you can find them making a mistake about the central limit theorem or the asymptotic properties of estimators.
As a person with a high level of statistical training I am shocked by how bad the statistics used in some of these climatological papers is.
You then get into a bizarre situation where a statistician is telling a 'climatologist' that R-squared is an invalid statistics to use in a particular situation and the 'climatologist' saying 'I'm the expert here because the topic is the climate and I reject your criticism.
Some 'climatologists' aren't prepared to defend their work against legitimate, good, criticism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250426</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1259324220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do have to wonder how you decide what is the east side of a continent, that is centred around the magnetic pole. I'd say that it's all the northern side of the continent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>You could of course say that everything between the 0th and 180th eastern longitudes are the eastern side and that 0th to 180th western are the western side - still doesn't make much sense, when you can be standing on both sides at the same time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do have to wonder how you decide what is the east side of a continent , that is centred around the magnetic pole .
I 'd say that it 's all the northern side of the continent ; ) You could of course say that everything between the 0th and 180th eastern longitudes are the eastern side and that 0th to 180th western are the western side - still does n't make much sense , when you can be standing on both sides at the same time ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do have to wonder how you decide what is the east side of a continent, that is centred around the magnetic pole.
I'd say that it's all the northern side of the continent ;)You could of course say that everything between the 0th and 180th eastern longitudes are the eastern side and that 0th to 180th western are the western side - still doesn't make much sense, when you can be standing on both sides at the same time ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30309082</id>
	<title>Can you play the piano?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1259844720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you can, but I will assume you are just a general bum on the street that has never played the instrument.</p><p>Now, could you tell me who is a good piano player? Murray Perahia? Eugeny Kissin? Angela Hewitt?</p><p>Could you?</p><p>Well, let me tell you something, I could.</p><p>But I spend 15 years of my life studying 4 hours a day learning music and to play the piano.</p><p>This applies to any other human endeavour.</p><p>If you would come to say to a piano player of the stature of the ones mentioned that they don't know what they are doing, most likely they will not engage with you at all, if some other accomplished piano player would criticize them, they will take notice, if an unknown person like me would, I would have to make very precise arguments but I am absolutely certain that I would grab their attention as somebody with a clue after a couple of minutes.</p><p>I am always surprised how Slashdot harbours so many people that reject expertise in such a facile manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you can , but I will assume you are just a general bum on the street that has never played the instrument.Now , could you tell me who is a good piano player ?
Murray Perahia ?
Eugeny Kissin ?
Angela Hewitt ? Could you ? Well , let me tell you something , I could.But I spend 15 years of my life studying 4 hours a day learning music and to play the piano.This applies to any other human endeavour.If you would come to say to a piano player of the stature of the ones mentioned that they do n't know what they are doing , most likely they will not engage with you at all , if some other accomplished piano player would criticize them , they will take notice , if an unknown person like me would , I would have to make very precise arguments but I am absolutely certain that I would grab their attention as somebody with a clue after a couple of minutes.I am always surprised how Slashdot harbours so many people that reject expertise in such a facile manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you can, but I will assume you are just a general bum on the street that has never played the instrument.Now, could you tell me who is a good piano player?
Murray Perahia?
Eugeny Kissin?
Angela Hewitt?Could you?Well, let me tell you something, I could.But I spend 15 years of my life studying 4 hours a day learning music and to play the piano.This applies to any other human endeavour.If you would come to say to a piano player of the stature of the ones mentioned that they don't know what they are doing, most likely they will not engage with you at all, if some other accomplished piano player would criticize them, they will take notice, if an unknown person like me would, I would have to make very precise arguments but I am absolutely certain that I would grab their attention as somebody with a clue after a couple of minutes.I am always surprised how Slashdot harbours so many people that reject expertise in such a facile manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250838</id>
	<title>Re:Common Ground?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259326440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.</p></div><p>I agree. I also note that it was the "believers" who started using the term "deniers". What makes you think this isn't a religious debate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the common labels , " believers " and " deniers " , are ridiculous ; they have more of a place in religious debate.I agree .
I also note that it was the " believers " who started using the term " deniers " .
What makes you think this is n't a religious debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the common labels, "believers" and "deniers", are ridiculous; they have more of a place in religious debate.I agree.
I also note that it was the "believers" who started using the term "deniers".
What makes you think this isn't a religious debate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251660</id>
	<title>Re:Engaging with whom exactly?</title>
	<author>amilo100</author>
	<datestamp>1259332740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Engaging with skeptics" is an approach that I find improvised and naive at best.
</i> <br> <br>

You know that there are a fair amount of &ldquo;Skeptics&rdquo; with PhD degrees? (e.g. Hans von Storch, Roger A. Pielke, etc).  Skeptics in this case are scientists that dissent from the mainstream view. Gallileo was also in his time viewed as a skeptic.<br> <br>

You also ignore the fact that the skeptic which is the most hated (as the hate in the e-mails proclaim) discovered numerous errors. He discovered an error in the Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS)&rsquo;s temperature record for the USA which they corrected (this is a very big thing). He also discovered errors in a paper by Mann, et. al. which forced him to make a correction in Nature. <br> All of these actions by a &ldquo;skeptic&rdquo; helped push science forward. <br> <br>

The nature of science is supposed to be adversarial &ndash; you make a claim and others test our claim (by reproducing the results for example). That is why you &ldquo;defend&rdquo; your PhD (it is not filled with a room of yes-men who all agree with you). The Climate-Alarmist-Scientists seemed to dislike the adversarial method of science.<br> <br>

<i>They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective.</i> <br> <br>

As these emails reveal, it is the climate alarmists which used every dirty trick, including but not limited to:
1. Manipulating data.
2. Hiding data whilst breaking the law (deleting data under a Freedom of Information Act Request).
3. Deception (&ldquo;Hiding&rdquo; the decline)
4. Ensuring that results could not be reproduced by not giving data and obfusticating data.
5. Loading review boards.
6. &ldquo;Redifining&rdquo; the peer review process (as one stated).

The list goes on. What happens here is a blight on the scientific method. Popper would turn around in his grave.<br> <br>

This affair should really be reviewed by ethics review boards of the specific universities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Engaging with skeptics " is an approach that I find improvised and naive at best .
You know that there are a fair amount of    Skeptics    with PhD degrees ?
( e.g. Hans von Storch , Roger A. Pielke , etc ) .
Skeptics in this case are scientists that dissent from the mainstream view .
Gallileo was also in his time viewed as a skeptic .
You also ignore the fact that the skeptic which is the most hated ( as the hate in the e-mails proclaim ) discovered numerous errors .
He discovered an error in the Goddard Institute of Space Science ( GISS )    s temperature record for the USA which they corrected ( this is a very big thing ) .
He also discovered errors in a paper by Mann , et .
al. which forced him to make a correction in Nature .
All of these actions by a    skeptic    helped push science forward .
The nature of science is supposed to be adversarial    you make a claim and others test our claim ( by reproducing the results for example ) .
That is why you    defend    your PhD ( it is not filled with a room of yes-men who all agree with you ) .
The Climate-Alarmist-Scientists seemed to dislike the adversarial method of science .
They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective .
As these emails reveal , it is the climate alarmists which used every dirty trick , including but not limited to : 1 .
Manipulating data .
2. Hiding data whilst breaking the law ( deleting data under a Freedom of Information Act Request ) .
3. Deception (    Hiding    the decline ) 4 .
Ensuring that results could not be reproduced by not giving data and obfusticating data .
5. Loading review boards .
6.    Redifining    the peer review process ( as one stated ) .
The list goes on .
What happens here is a blight on the scientific method .
Popper would turn around in his grave .
This affair should really be reviewed by ethics review boards of the specific universities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Engaging with skeptics" is an approach that I find improvised and naive at best.
You know that there are a fair amount of “Skeptics” with PhD degrees?
(e.g. Hans von Storch, Roger A. Pielke, etc).
Skeptics in this case are scientists that dissent from the mainstream view.
Gallileo was also in his time viewed as a skeptic.
You also ignore the fact that the skeptic which is the most hated (as the hate in the e-mails proclaim) discovered numerous errors.
He discovered an error in the Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS)’s temperature record for the USA which they corrected (this is a very big thing).
He also discovered errors in a paper by Mann, et.
al. which forced him to make a correction in Nature.
All of these actions by a “skeptic” helped push science forward.
The nature of science is supposed to be adversarial – you make a claim and others test our claim (by reproducing the results for example).
That is why you “defend” your PhD (it is not filled with a room of yes-men who all agree with you).
The Climate-Alarmist-Scientists seemed to dislike the adversarial method of science.
They are out to destroy the legitimacy of climate scientists in public opinion and they use all the dirty tricks in the book toward that objective.
As these emails reveal, it is the climate alarmists which used every dirty trick, including but not limited to:
1.
Manipulating data.
2. Hiding data whilst breaking the law (deleting data under a Freedom of Information Act Request).
3. Deception (“Hiding” the decline)
4.
Ensuring that results could not be reproduced by not giving data and obfusticating data.
5. Loading review boards.
6. “Redifining” the peer review process (as one stated).
The list goes on.
What happens here is a blight on the scientific method.
Popper would turn around in his grave.
This affair should really be reviewed by ethics review boards of the specific universities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251828</id>
	<title>Re:Climatology software is not an OS kernel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259334780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Computer models composed by incredibly specialized scientists who've got Ph.Ds in the area under study aren't exactly the same as "software" in a general, loosey-goosey way.  You wouldn't open source most business applications precisely because their operation relies on very strict sets of assumptions that work (or don't work) because the people who are building and configuring the systems for that business know (or don't know) precisely how the business should work</p></div><p>Ever see code written by specialized scientists with PhD's?</p><p>I have.</p><p>I'd bet science experiments conducted by computer programmers would be just as crappy and just as credible.</p><p>But we're supposed to bet literally trillions of dollars that could literally be used for much better purposes than reengineering the entire world's economy on code that we're not allowed to see simply because it was written by people with more degrees than the thermometers they use to measure temperatures?</p><p>I say BULLSHIT.</p><p>Release the code.  <b>ALL OF IT!</b></p><p>Release the data.  <b>ALL OF IT!</b></p><p>If the science behind AGW can't withstand the light of day, we shouldn't spend another fucking dime listening to what its proponents say no matter what the hell their academic credentials are.  <b>THE SCIENCE OF AGW CAN EITHER STAND ON ITS OWN, OR IT CAN'T.</b>  Saying, "Oh, but their <b>SCIENTISTS!</b>  With <b>PhDs!</b> is a pathetic argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer models composed by incredibly specialized scientists who 've got Ph.Ds in the area under study are n't exactly the same as " software " in a general , loosey-goosey way .
You would n't open source most business applications precisely because their operation relies on very strict sets of assumptions that work ( or do n't work ) because the people who are building and configuring the systems for that business know ( or do n't know ) precisely how the business should workEver see code written by specialized scientists with PhD 's ? I have.I 'd bet science experiments conducted by computer programmers would be just as crappy and just as credible.But we 're supposed to bet literally trillions of dollars that could literally be used for much better purposes than reengineering the entire world 's economy on code that we 're not allowed to see simply because it was written by people with more degrees than the thermometers they use to measure temperatures ? I say BULLSHIT.Release the code .
ALL OF IT ! Release the data .
ALL OF IT ! If the science behind AGW ca n't withstand the light of day , we should n't spend another fucking dime listening to what its proponents say no matter what the hell their academic credentials are .
THE SCIENCE OF AGW CAN EITHER STAND ON ITS OWN , OR IT CA N'T .
Saying , " Oh , but their SCIENTISTS !
With PhDs !
is a pathetic argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer models composed by incredibly specialized scientists who've got Ph.Ds in the area under study aren't exactly the same as "software" in a general, loosey-goosey way.
You wouldn't open source most business applications precisely because their operation relies on very strict sets of assumptions that work (or don't work) because the people who are building and configuring the systems for that business know (or don't know) precisely how the business should workEver see code written by specialized scientists with PhD's?I have.I'd bet science experiments conducted by computer programmers would be just as crappy and just as credible.But we're supposed to bet literally trillions of dollars that could literally be used for much better purposes than reengineering the entire world's economy on code that we're not allowed to see simply because it was written by people with more degrees than the thermometers they use to measure temperatures?I say BULLSHIT.Release the code.
ALL OF IT!Release the data.
ALL OF IT!If the science behind AGW can't withstand the light of day, we shouldn't spend another fucking dime listening to what its proponents say no matter what the hell their academic credentials are.
THE SCIENCE OF AGW CAN EITHER STAND ON ITS OWN, OR IT CAN'T.
Saying, "Oh, but their SCIENTISTS!
With PhDs!
is a pathetic argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248556</id>
	<title>But it goes beyond the computer models.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's have some light shone on the temperature data and how it is collected:<br>From <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport\_spring09.pdf" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">Surfacestations.org</a> [wordpress.com][pdf], a project to survey all 1221 of the climate-monitoring stations in the U.S.:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically
document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.</p><p>
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads,
on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at
wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.</p><p>
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations &ndash; nearly 9 of every 10 &ndash; fail to meet the National Weather Service&rsquo;s own
siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.</p></div><p>And let's not forget the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/" title="wattsupwiththat.com" rel="nofollow">international methods</a> [wattsupwiththat.com] of survey.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's have some light shone on the temperature data and how it is collected : From Surfacestations.org [ wordpress.com ] [ pdf ] , a project to survey all 1221 of the climate-monitoring stations in the U.S. : During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations .
We were shocked by what we found .
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units , surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads , on blistering-hot rooftops , and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat .
We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants , where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas .
In fact , we found that 89 percent of the stations    nearly 9 of every 10    fail to meet the National Weather Service    s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters ( about 100 feet ) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.And let 's not forget the international methods [ wattsupwiththat.com ] of survey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's have some light shone on the temperature data and how it is collected:From Surfacestations.org [wordpress.com][pdf], a project to survey all 1221 of the climate-monitoring stations in the U.S.:
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically
document more than 860 of these temperature stations.
We were shocked by what we found.
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads,
on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat.
We found 68 stations located at
wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own
siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.And let's not forget the international methods [wattsupwiththat.com] of survey.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251794</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1259334420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I figure we can say increased climate varability. Factoids need context, usually a theory.  But the different theories compete on which best explains the facts, and hopefully on testable predictions.</p><p>Take artic melting.  I  recall a theory from the sixties that talked about artic melting as a precursor for an ice-age.  I tried to google for it, but did not find anything I considered useful.  Anyway, we can all probably say we are overdue for an ice age.</p><p>Some people are looking for astronomical causes to climate.  I guess they have found some interesting stuff.  Another poster talked about this and said AWG  people considers them enemies.</p><p>So there are problems.</p><p>Then you get to the models.  I treat climate as a complex dynamic system and I assume a lot of medium range forces.  Last I checked this sort of thing is hard to do.  And when you get done, how do you evaluate the model.  Well, one thing you do is test it against past data.  And you make a prediction.  As best I know a lot of the trumpeted models have not done very well.  Hah, I like to take the big view and insolation has increased 25\% over the past few billion years.  And on that time scale, maybe the climate has not changed much, as we can tell from the existence of the biosphere.  Now I would be impressed if  a reductionist model could deal that dataset.</p><p>looking at the data sets, there have been several posts that question the reliability of the data.  My favorite is a meterologist type who in the 70's looked at a change in weather station paint and figured that this was causing a one degree rise in temperature.  At that time, you would be hard put to treat this perjogatively. Sure he is just a meterologist, but I figure he know more about weather stations than the climategate guy. So he went on to do a survey of the noaa highest rated weather stations in the us.  looks to me that if the official government standards are meaniful,  the us temperature data is junk. And all his data is very public.  so what should we say about someone who relies on these temperature reading?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I figure we can say increased climate varability .
Factoids need context , usually a theory .
But the different theories compete on which best explains the facts , and hopefully on testable predictions.Take artic melting .
I recall a theory from the sixties that talked about artic melting as a precursor for an ice-age .
I tried to google for it , but did not find anything I considered useful .
Anyway , we can all probably say we are overdue for an ice age.Some people are looking for astronomical causes to climate .
I guess they have found some interesting stuff .
Another poster talked about this and said AWG people considers them enemies.So there are problems.Then you get to the models .
I treat climate as a complex dynamic system and I assume a lot of medium range forces .
Last I checked this sort of thing is hard to do .
And when you get done , how do you evaluate the model .
Well , one thing you do is test it against past data .
And you make a prediction .
As best I know a lot of the trumpeted models have not done very well .
Hah , I like to take the big view and insolation has increased 25 \ % over the past few billion years .
And on that time scale , maybe the climate has not changed much , as we can tell from the existence of the biosphere .
Now I would be impressed if a reductionist model could deal that dataset.looking at the data sets , there have been several posts that question the reliability of the data .
My favorite is a meterologist type who in the 70 's looked at a change in weather station paint and figured that this was causing a one degree rise in temperature .
At that time , you would be hard put to treat this perjogatively .
Sure he is just a meterologist , but I figure he know more about weather stations than the climategate guy .
So he went on to do a survey of the noaa highest rated weather stations in the us .
looks to me that if the official government standards are meaniful , the us temperature data is junk .
And all his data is very public .
so what should we say about someone who relies on these temperature reading ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figure we can say increased climate varability.
Factoids need context, usually a theory.
But the different theories compete on which best explains the facts, and hopefully on testable predictions.Take artic melting.
I  recall a theory from the sixties that talked about artic melting as a precursor for an ice-age.
I tried to google for it, but did not find anything I considered useful.
Anyway, we can all probably say we are overdue for an ice age.Some people are looking for astronomical causes to climate.
I guess they have found some interesting stuff.
Another poster talked about this and said AWG  people considers them enemies.So there are problems.Then you get to the models.
I treat climate as a complex dynamic system and I assume a lot of medium range forces.
Last I checked this sort of thing is hard to do.
And when you get done, how do you evaluate the model.
Well, one thing you do is test it against past data.
And you make a prediction.
As best I know a lot of the trumpeted models have not done very well.
Hah, I like to take the big view and insolation has increased 25\% over the past few billion years.
And on that time scale, maybe the climate has not changed much, as we can tell from the existence of the biosphere.
Now I would be impressed if  a reductionist model could deal that dataset.looking at the data sets, there have been several posts that question the reliability of the data.
My favorite is a meterologist type who in the 70's looked at a change in weather station paint and figured that this was causing a one degree rise in temperature.
At that time, you would be hard put to treat this perjogatively.
Sure he is just a meterologist, but I figure he know more about weather stations than the climategate guy.
So he went on to do a survey of the noaa highest rated weather stations in the us.
looks to me that if the official government standards are meaniful,  the us temperature data is junk.
And all his data is very public.
so what should we say about someone who relies on these temperature reading?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248294</id>
	<title>Great...</title>
	<author>Ironchew</author>
	<datestamp>1259312700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's engage with evolution skeptics and round earth skeptics while we're at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's engage with evolution skeptics and round earth skeptics while we 're at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's engage with evolution skeptics and round earth skeptics while we're at it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248542</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>thrillseeker</author>
	<datestamp>1259314320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot the word criminal.
<br> <br>
The people no longer deserve the title scientist - they were engaged in a criminal enterprise in <i>creating</i> false reports to justify the investment of others.  If this were a publicly traded company, Bernie Madoff would have a new BFF.
<br> <br>
Until the media raise holy hell about the criminal fraud, we may as well call it by the more descriptive name of Climaquiddick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the word criminal .
The people no longer deserve the title scientist - they were engaged in a criminal enterprise in creating false reports to justify the investment of others .
If this were a publicly traded company , Bernie Madoff would have a new BFF .
Until the media raise holy hell about the criminal fraud , we may as well call it by the more descriptive name of Climaquiddick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the word criminal.
The people no longer deserve the title scientist - they were engaged in a criminal enterprise in creating false reports to justify the investment of others.
If this were a publicly traded company, Bernie Madoff would have a new BFF.
Until the media raise holy hell about the criminal fraud, we may as well call it by the more descriptive name of Climaquiddick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248978</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259316660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the cracked e-mails don't reveal scientists at their best, I don't think they show that the observational data is a scam. If you have any evidence that any published data is a scam, falsified, or just plain wrong, publicize it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the cracked e-mails do n't reveal scientists at their best , I do n't think they show that the observational data is a scam .
If you have any evidence that any published data is a scam , falsified , or just plain wrong , publicize it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the cracked e-mails don't reveal scientists at their best, I don't think they show that the observational data is a scam.
If you have any evidence that any published data is a scam, falsified, or just plain wrong, publicize it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249080</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are not Politicians</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1259317140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the truth can have political implications. So you have scientists simply doing science, concluding there's serious danger of human-triggered climate change. Yes, that's danger from the "political" p.o.v. of humans, or of ecological systems. But there's nothing unscientific about assessing danger to a particular population. Say, scientists find a disease that's a danger to rabbits. Reporting the danger is within the mode and realm of pure science.</p><p>When the danger is to humans rather than rabbits, though, there are <i>political</i> interests who don't want the danger to be taken seriously, perhaps because their <i>economic</i> interests would be compromised by action to mitigate the danger the scientists have described. Then these political, economic players start attacking the scientists and their findings. Whe the scientists persist in their science, they then complain that since this has become a matter of politics, the scientists should simply bow out, on the principle that <i>"politics has no place in science"<i>.</i></i></p><p><i><i>The scientists don't recognize, surprisingly enough, that political and economic interests of others should constrain the science done, or the reports from it. So they get a bit defensive, understandably. They <i>should</i> defend the territory of science. There's no reason they should <i>surrender</i> any of it to political and economic players.</i></i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the truth can have political implications .
So you have scientists simply doing science , concluding there 's serious danger of human-triggered climate change .
Yes , that 's danger from the " political " p.o.v .
of humans , or of ecological systems .
But there 's nothing unscientific about assessing danger to a particular population .
Say , scientists find a disease that 's a danger to rabbits .
Reporting the danger is within the mode and realm of pure science.When the danger is to humans rather than rabbits , though , there are political interests who do n't want the danger to be taken seriously , perhaps because their economic interests would be compromised by action to mitigate the danger the scientists have described .
Then these political , economic players start attacking the scientists and their findings .
Whe the scientists persist in their science , they then complain that since this has become a matter of politics , the scientists should simply bow out , on the principle that " politics has no place in science " .The scientists do n't recognize , surprisingly enough , that political and economic interests of others should constrain the science done , or the reports from it .
So they get a bit defensive , understandably .
They should defend the territory of science .
There 's no reason they should surrender any of it to political and economic players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the truth can have political implications.
So you have scientists simply doing science, concluding there's serious danger of human-triggered climate change.
Yes, that's danger from the "political" p.o.v.
of humans, or of ecological systems.
But there's nothing unscientific about assessing danger to a particular population.
Say, scientists find a disease that's a danger to rabbits.
Reporting the danger is within the mode and realm of pure science.When the danger is to humans rather than rabbits, though, there are political interests who don't want the danger to be taken seriously, perhaps because their economic interests would be compromised by action to mitigate the danger the scientists have described.
Then these political, economic players start attacking the scientists and their findings.
Whe the scientists persist in their science, they then complain that since this has become a matter of politics, the scientists should simply bow out, on the principle that "politics has no place in science".The scientists don't recognize, surprisingly enough, that political and economic interests of others should constrain the science done, or the reports from it.
So they get a bit defensive, understandably.
They should defend the territory of science.
There's no reason they should surrender any of it to political and economic players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251442</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1259330760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't fit into a thimble, and I'm a scientist who is skeptical about global warming.<br> <br>

In fact, ALL scientists should be skeptical of global warming, and every other theory they come across.  Blind acceptance of ANY theory is the ticket to scientific stagnation, and eventually dogmatic quasi-religions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't fit into a thimble , and I 'm a scientist who is skeptical about global warming .
In fact , ALL scientists should be skeptical of global warming , and every other theory they come across .
Blind acceptance of ANY theory is the ticket to scientific stagnation , and eventually dogmatic quasi-religions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't fit into a thimble, and I'm a scientist who is skeptical about global warming.
In fact, ALL scientists should be skeptical of global warming, and every other theory they come across.
Blind acceptance of ANY theory is the ticket to scientific stagnation, and eventually dogmatic quasi-religions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249852</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1259321100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sadly, since about the 70s, the pendulum have swung away from science and over to spirituality...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sadly , since about the 70s , the pendulum have swung away from science and over to spirituality.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sadly, since about the 70s, the pendulum have swung away from science and over to spirituality...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248658</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>Mix+Master+Nixon</author>
	<datestamp>1259314980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in?</p></div><p>A thimble.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in ? A thimble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do all the scientists who are skeptics fit in?A thimble.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249798</id>
	<title>Re:climate change doesn't depend on AGW</title>
	<author>west</author>
	<datestamp>1259320920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You bring up a good point.  While the 'A' in AGW is immaterial to the human suffering that will occur, the 'A' is absolutely essential if there's to be any hope of seeing curbs in green-house gas related energy use. Essentially, if there's no 'A', then GW is a tragedy and millions will suffer, but "that's life", even if we could curb it.  If the 'A' is real, then it's "our fault" and the ethical requirement to curb our emissions grows exponentially.</p><p>You understand now why, for scientists who consider human lives worth more than our current consumption levels, there's an almost irresistible push to find that GW is human caused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You bring up a good point .
While the 'A ' in AGW is immaterial to the human suffering that will occur , the 'A ' is absolutely essential if there 's to be any hope of seeing curbs in green-house gas related energy use .
Essentially , if there 's no 'A ' , then GW is a tragedy and millions will suffer , but " that 's life " , even if we could curb it .
If the 'A ' is real , then it 's " our fault " and the ethical requirement to curb our emissions grows exponentially.You understand now why , for scientists who consider human lives worth more than our current consumption levels , there 's an almost irresistible push to find that GW is human caused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bring up a good point.
While the 'A' in AGW is immaterial to the human suffering that will occur, the 'A' is absolutely essential if there's to be any hope of seeing curbs in green-house gas related energy use.
Essentially, if there's no 'A', then GW is a tragedy and millions will suffer, but "that's life", even if we could curb it.
If the 'A' is real, then it's "our fault" and the ethical requirement to curb our emissions grows exponentially.You understand now why, for scientists who consider human lives worth more than our current consumption levels, there's an almost irresistible push to find that GW is human caused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248988</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259316720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We didn't "find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam". Posting something like this is *scam*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We did n't " find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam " .
Posting something like this is * scam *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We didn't "find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam".
Posting something like this is *scam*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250078</id>
	<title>Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1259322240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Transparency would be fantastic. I'd pay money if we could get such transparency. In fact, I'm doing a PhD and working with one such model right now. However, I have no idea how I would be transparent about what I'm doing. It's so complicated, and so overwhelming, that unless you're doing this for a living, it won't mean shit to you. Some general observations:<br>
 <br>1) Just about nobody has the computing power to run a real, decent climate simulation. You really need a nice cluster to crank through stuff. Running a 6 year sea temperature simulation as a test of our newest model took me 4-5 days on our cluster. That's just temperature - nothing else. No pressure, biology, or any of the stuff dissolved in the ocean. And it's only for about a quarter of one ocean. Each year is about 30gb of data, for just the temperature at the longitude and latitudes and the different depths of the ocean. A "real" run, when we do one, takes a month on our cluster, and produces about a terabyte of data. <br>
 <br>2) That data is just a big fucking dump of numbers. If you don't have an understanding of how the model works, and what the data structure is, it's meaningless. All the charts and graphs and all that other fancy stuff that people publish are the result of months and months of post-processing. Models don't dump out line graphs and pie charts - they dump out terabytes of numbers in things like four dimensional arrays. Of course, in this analysis, you run into the standard issues with statistics. What's statistically significant? How do you prove it? A lot of the conspiratorial public gets their shorts in a knot when they hear scientists discussing what's significant. It sounds like they're choosing the answers they want. In reality, most of the time, there's a lot of pressure put on publications to make absolutely sure that they can statistically prove what they're claiming. Given that you have the hardware to run a model, the chance you have the software and know-how to analyze the data is unlikely unless you do that sort of thing for a living. <br>
 <br>3) The models are complicated as all hell. I'm nowhere understanding the one I'm using, even after a couple of walkthroughs by someone who knows it fairly well. There are hundreds of checks and balances for things. There are arrays of real, measured data, to force the model to stay within certain bounds. There are estimations for various boundaries, etc. It's a lot of black magic. <br>
 <br>4) Analysis is ridiculously hard. The feedbacks within the climate system are insane. If someplace heats up, it may result in net cooling. If some other place cools, it might result in net warming. Even if you ran a model, and successfully analyzed the data, interpreting it is a bitch. So you get more clouds in your model. Do you have an understanding of how that will affect the earth? Clouds can trap heat, or reflect sunlight. It depends on the type of cloud, moisture content, and location. That's just the tip of the iceberg for climate feedback processes. <br>
 <br>In short, transparency would be nice, but how do you overcome these barriers? <br>
 <br>That said, there's plenty of transparency if you have the above things. Many models are available for download. Go look for them. Regardless of the black magic behind the models, there are plenty of studies which compare different climate models. Even if you don't know how they work under the hood, you can compare their results to each other, and to observations. Go look. There are hundreds of publications doing this. <br>
 <br>Lastly, if you want to play around with a very simple climate model, check out the <a href="http://edgcm.columbia.edu/" title="columbia.edu">EdGCM</a> [columbia.edu] from Columbia. It's missing 75\% of what real climate models do, but it can give somewhat-reliable estimates over large areas. You should be able to tear through a 150 year climate simulation in day or so on a quad core desktop. It even does some basic analysis for you. <br>
 <br>Climate modeling is god damn hard. While there are some bad eggs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Transparency would be fantastic .
I 'd pay money if we could get such transparency .
In fact , I 'm doing a PhD and working with one such model right now .
However , I have no idea how I would be transparent about what I 'm doing .
It 's so complicated , and so overwhelming , that unless you 're doing this for a living , it wo n't mean shit to you .
Some general observations : 1 ) Just about nobody has the computing power to run a real , decent climate simulation .
You really need a nice cluster to crank through stuff .
Running a 6 year sea temperature simulation as a test of our newest model took me 4-5 days on our cluster .
That 's just temperature - nothing else .
No pressure , biology , or any of the stuff dissolved in the ocean .
And it 's only for about a quarter of one ocean .
Each year is about 30gb of data , for just the temperature at the longitude and latitudes and the different depths of the ocean .
A " real " run , when we do one , takes a month on our cluster , and produces about a terabyte of data .
2 ) That data is just a big fucking dump of numbers .
If you do n't have an understanding of how the model works , and what the data structure is , it 's meaningless .
All the charts and graphs and all that other fancy stuff that people publish are the result of months and months of post-processing .
Models do n't dump out line graphs and pie charts - they dump out terabytes of numbers in things like four dimensional arrays .
Of course , in this analysis , you run into the standard issues with statistics .
What 's statistically significant ?
How do you prove it ?
A lot of the conspiratorial public gets their shorts in a knot when they hear scientists discussing what 's significant .
It sounds like they 're choosing the answers they want .
In reality , most of the time , there 's a lot of pressure put on publications to make absolutely sure that they can statistically prove what they 're claiming .
Given that you have the hardware to run a model , the chance you have the software and know-how to analyze the data is unlikely unless you do that sort of thing for a living .
3 ) The models are complicated as all hell .
I 'm nowhere understanding the one I 'm using , even after a couple of walkthroughs by someone who knows it fairly well .
There are hundreds of checks and balances for things .
There are arrays of real , measured data , to force the model to stay within certain bounds .
There are estimations for various boundaries , etc .
It 's a lot of black magic .
4 ) Analysis is ridiculously hard .
The feedbacks within the climate system are insane .
If someplace heats up , it may result in net cooling .
If some other place cools , it might result in net warming .
Even if you ran a model , and successfully analyzed the data , interpreting it is a bitch .
So you get more clouds in your model .
Do you have an understanding of how that will affect the earth ?
Clouds can trap heat , or reflect sunlight .
It depends on the type of cloud , moisture content , and location .
That 's just the tip of the iceberg for climate feedback processes .
In short , transparency would be nice , but how do you overcome these barriers ?
That said , there 's plenty of transparency if you have the above things .
Many models are available for download .
Go look for them .
Regardless of the black magic behind the models , there are plenty of studies which compare different climate models .
Even if you do n't know how they work under the hood , you can compare their results to each other , and to observations .
Go look .
There are hundreds of publications doing this .
Lastly , if you want to play around with a very simple climate model , check out the EdGCM [ columbia.edu ] from Columbia .
It 's missing 75 \ % of what real climate models do , but it can give somewhat-reliable estimates over large areas .
You should be able to tear through a 150 year climate simulation in day or so on a quad core desktop .
It even does some basic analysis for you .
Climate modeling is god damn hard .
While there are some bad eggs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Transparency would be fantastic.
I'd pay money if we could get such transparency.
In fact, I'm doing a PhD and working with one such model right now.
However, I have no idea how I would be transparent about what I'm doing.
It's so complicated, and so overwhelming, that unless you're doing this for a living, it won't mean shit to you.
Some general observations:
 1) Just about nobody has the computing power to run a real, decent climate simulation.
You really need a nice cluster to crank through stuff.
Running a 6 year sea temperature simulation as a test of our newest model took me 4-5 days on our cluster.
That's just temperature - nothing else.
No pressure, biology, or any of the stuff dissolved in the ocean.
And it's only for about a quarter of one ocean.
Each year is about 30gb of data, for just the temperature at the longitude and latitudes and the different depths of the ocean.
A "real" run, when we do one, takes a month on our cluster, and produces about a terabyte of data.
2) That data is just a big fucking dump of numbers.
If you don't have an understanding of how the model works, and what the data structure is, it's meaningless.
All the charts and graphs and all that other fancy stuff that people publish are the result of months and months of post-processing.
Models don't dump out line graphs and pie charts - they dump out terabytes of numbers in things like four dimensional arrays.
Of course, in this analysis, you run into the standard issues with statistics.
What's statistically significant?
How do you prove it?
A lot of the conspiratorial public gets their shorts in a knot when they hear scientists discussing what's significant.
It sounds like they're choosing the answers they want.
In reality, most of the time, there's a lot of pressure put on publications to make absolutely sure that they can statistically prove what they're claiming.
Given that you have the hardware to run a model, the chance you have the software and know-how to analyze the data is unlikely unless you do that sort of thing for a living.
3) The models are complicated as all hell.
I'm nowhere understanding the one I'm using, even after a couple of walkthroughs by someone who knows it fairly well.
There are hundreds of checks and balances for things.
There are arrays of real, measured data, to force the model to stay within certain bounds.
There are estimations for various boundaries, etc.
It's a lot of black magic.
4) Analysis is ridiculously hard.
The feedbacks within the climate system are insane.
If someplace heats up, it may result in net cooling.
If some other place cools, it might result in net warming.
Even if you ran a model, and successfully analyzed the data, interpreting it is a bitch.
So you get more clouds in your model.
Do you have an understanding of how that will affect the earth?
Clouds can trap heat, or reflect sunlight.
It depends on the type of cloud, moisture content, and location.
That's just the tip of the iceberg for climate feedback processes.
In short, transparency would be nice, but how do you overcome these barriers?
That said, there's plenty of transparency if you have the above things.
Many models are available for download.
Go look for them.
Regardless of the black magic behind the models, there are plenty of studies which compare different climate models.
Even if you don't know how they work under the hood, you can compare their results to each other, and to observations.
Go look.
There are hundreds of publications doing this.
Lastly, if you want to play around with a very simple climate model, check out the EdGCM [columbia.edu] from Columbia.
It's missing 75\% of what real climate models do, but it can give somewhat-reliable estimates over large areas.
You should be able to tear through a 150 year climate simulation in day or so on a quad core desktop.
It even does some basic analysis for you.
Climate modeling is god damn hard.
While there are some bad eggs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30263430</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259485440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you don't know is that a climatologist is just another Earth Scientist. In fact, it was a kind of sleepy backwater in most Earth Science departments until Global Warming exploded, and there was large money to be made. Now, basically a climatologist is just an Earth Scientist that decided to take the global warming money.</p><p>Finding an actual climatologist that believes in Global Warming is about has hard as finding a Pope that believes in Christianity.</p><p>There are tons of geologists and geophysicists, however, that are eminently qualified to discuss these issues, there are many that are skeptical about the claims of the warmists. In fact, in the aftermath of ClimateGate, we now know that there has been a successful conspiracy to delegitimize anyone that disagrees with the warmist agenda.</p><p>Climatology is kind of like fortune telling, but with less science behind it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you do n't know is that a climatologist is just another Earth Scientist .
In fact , it was a kind of sleepy backwater in most Earth Science departments until Global Warming exploded , and there was large money to be made .
Now , basically a climatologist is just an Earth Scientist that decided to take the global warming money.Finding an actual climatologist that believes in Global Warming is about has hard as finding a Pope that believes in Christianity.There are tons of geologists and geophysicists , however , that are eminently qualified to discuss these issues , there are many that are skeptical about the claims of the warmists .
In fact , in the aftermath of ClimateGate , we now know that there has been a successful conspiracy to delegitimize anyone that disagrees with the warmist agenda.Climatology is kind of like fortune telling , but with less science behind it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you don't know is that a climatologist is just another Earth Scientist.
In fact, it was a kind of sleepy backwater in most Earth Science departments until Global Warming exploded, and there was large money to be made.
Now, basically a climatologist is just an Earth Scientist that decided to take the global warming money.Finding an actual climatologist that believes in Global Warming is about has hard as finding a Pope that believes in Christianity.There are tons of geologists and geophysicists, however, that are eminently qualified to discuss these issues, there are many that are skeptical about the claims of the warmists.
In fact, in the aftermath of ClimateGate, we now know that there has been a successful conspiracy to delegitimize anyone that disagrees with the warmist agenda.Climatology is kind of like fortune telling, but with less science behind it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252868</id>
	<title>Just tell them...</title>
	<author>ryzvonusef</author>
	<datestamp>1259349960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That they will not be on the Shiva B-vaccine list. That should make all "skeptics" fall in line.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That they will not be on the Shiva B-vaccine list .
That should make all " skeptics " fall in line .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That they will not be on the Shiva B-vaccine list.
That should make all "skeptics" fall in line.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255908</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>mrosgood</author>
	<datestamp>1259438040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.</p></div><p>What you did right there is called "projection". It's when you accuse someone else of your own failings. It's a signature trait of the mentally ill.</p><p>Pretending for a moment that you have the ability to reason, let's ask a simple question:</p><p>How does using less energy make me poorer?</p><p>I insulate my house, I drive less, I buy better appliances, I eat locally grown food, and so forth means that -- wait for it -- I save money.</p><p>Living more sustainably makes me more wealthy.</p><p>I do more with less. But in your world view, being anything less than a glutton is somehow morally wrong.</p><p>Okay, lesson time's over.</p><p>Please, resume banging those rocks together. And pass the Cheetos. Ook, ook.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.What you did right there is called " projection " .
It 's when you accuse someone else of your own failings .
It 's a signature trait of the mentally ill.Pretending for a moment that you have the ability to reason , let 's ask a simple question : How does using less energy make me poorer ? I insulate my house , I drive less , I buy better appliances , I eat locally grown food , and so forth means that -- wait for it -- I save money.Living more sustainably makes me more wealthy.I do more with less .
But in your world view , being anything less than a glutton is somehow morally wrong.Okay , lesson time 's over.Please , resume banging those rocks together .
And pass the Cheetos .
Ook , ook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.What you did right there is called "projection".
It's when you accuse someone else of your own failings.
It's a signature trait of the mentally ill.Pretending for a moment that you have the ability to reason, let's ask a simple question:How does using less energy make me poorer?I insulate my house, I drive less, I buy better appliances, I eat locally grown food, and so forth means that -- wait for it -- I save money.Living more sustainably makes me more wealthy.I do more with less.
But in your world view, being anything less than a glutton is somehow morally wrong.Okay, lesson time's over.Please, resume banging those rocks together.
And pass the Cheetos.
Ook, ook.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253028</id>
	<title>Re:Good faith and bad faith</title>
	<author>mhelander</author>
	<datestamp>1259439540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But they all were similar. Why are they all similar?"</p><p>Because they were all built on the same set of assumptions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But they all were similar .
Why are they all similar ?
" Because they were all built on the same set of assumptions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But they all were similar.
Why are they all similar?
"Because they were all built on the same set of assumptions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248826</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1259315940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam</p></div><p>We did? All I've seen is a single mail about a researcher trying to make older historical data and newer more accurate data collected using different measuring methods fit, and thus had to 'hide the decline' in the gap between those. Is there any other evidence?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scamWe did ?
All I 've seen is a single mail about a researcher trying to make older historical data and newer more accurate data collected using different measuring methods fit , and thus had to 'hide the decline ' in the gap between those .
Is there any other evidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scamWe did?
All I've seen is a single mail about a researcher trying to make older historical data and newer more accurate data collected using different measuring methods fit, and thus had to 'hide the decline' in the gap between those.
Is there any other evidence?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250142</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>rho</author>
	<datestamp>1259322600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now I'm happy to defend my science against legitimate, good, criticism.</p></div></blockquote><p>Good, legitimate criticism is difficult when you find out that one side has been manipulating data, deleting data, strong-arming publications and otherwise engaging in questionable behavior in order to sabotage the opposing side.</p><blockquote><div><p>The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails, pore over them for some choice quotes (which didn't even look incriminating to me out of context), blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it, and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval' of global warming (which wouldn't have been the case even if they were right), just goes to show that they're simply not interested in either learning the science, or engaging in a real debate.</p></div></blockquote><p>Interesting, because the climate scientists who have been caught out in this scandal seem to be the ones working hard to avoid a real debate. In addition, the email quotes were the low-hanging fruit, publicized without hours of the leak/hack. There hasn't been time to properly parse the data. Will more dirt be found? Maybe, maybe not.

</p><p>While I get where you're coming from, viz. expertise, climate science isn't that esoteric. It's hard, uncertain science, but the results are not complicated. That's why they put up those graphs. Temperature? Going up! Except now we find out by peeking into the sausage factory that it's not that simple, because of a lot of statistical dodges, data massaging and other manipulations. Are they valid? Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to tell, since climate scientists don't want to reveal their models because that might impair their ability to get funding. Especially if their models aren't as robust as they want people to believe. While that's not a simple problem, it's got little to do with science and a lot to do with politics. Expertise is not required to smell a rat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I 'm happy to defend my science against legitimate , good , criticism.Good , legitimate criticism is difficult when you find out that one side has been manipulating data , deleting data , strong-arming publications and otherwise engaging in questionable behavior in order to sabotage the opposing side.The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails , pore over them for some choice quotes ( which did n't even look incriminating to me out of context ) , blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it , and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval ' of global warming ( which would n't have been the case even if they were right ) , just goes to show that they 're simply not interested in either learning the science , or engaging in a real debate.Interesting , because the climate scientists who have been caught out in this scandal seem to be the ones working hard to avoid a real debate .
In addition , the email quotes were the low-hanging fruit , publicized without hours of the leak/hack .
There has n't been time to properly parse the data .
Will more dirt be found ?
Maybe , maybe not .
While I get where you 're coming from , viz .
expertise , climate science is n't that esoteric .
It 's hard , uncertain science , but the results are not complicated .
That 's why they put up those graphs .
Temperature ? Going up !
Except now we find out by peeking into the sausage factory that it 's not that simple , because of a lot of statistical dodges , data massaging and other manipulations .
Are they valid ?
Maybe , maybe not .
It 's hard to tell , since climate scientists do n't want to reveal their models because that might impair their ability to get funding .
Especially if their models are n't as robust as they want people to believe .
While that 's not a simple problem , it 's got little to do with science and a lot to do with politics .
Expertise is not required to smell a rat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I'm happy to defend my science against legitimate, good, criticism.Good, legitimate criticism is difficult when you find out that one side has been manipulating data, deleting data, strong-arming publications and otherwise engaging in questionable behavior in order to sabotage the opposing side.The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails, pore over them for some choice quotes (which didn't even look incriminating to me out of context), blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it, and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval' of global warming (which wouldn't have been the case even if they were right), just goes to show that they're simply not interested in either learning the science, or engaging in a real debate.Interesting, because the climate scientists who have been caught out in this scandal seem to be the ones working hard to avoid a real debate.
In addition, the email quotes were the low-hanging fruit, publicized without hours of the leak/hack.
There hasn't been time to properly parse the data.
Will more dirt be found?
Maybe, maybe not.
While I get where you're coming from, viz.
expertise, climate science isn't that esoteric.
It's hard, uncertain science, but the results are not complicated.
That's why they put up those graphs.
Temperature? Going up!
Except now we find out by peeking into the sausage factory that it's not that simple, because of a lot of statistical dodges, data massaging and other manipulations.
Are they valid?
Maybe, maybe not.
It's hard to tell, since climate scientists don't want to reveal their models because that might impair their ability to get funding.
Especially if their models aren't as robust as they want people to believe.
While that's not a simple problem, it's got little to do with science and a lot to do with politics.
Expertise is not required to smell a rat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252548</id>
	<title>But still raw-data is good.</title>
	<author>spaceturtle</author>
	<datestamp>1259344680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They story suggests that scientists should present all their raw data to improve "openness". I agree that it is unlikely to inform people who are unwilling to read more than a few key phrases from one textbook. However I think this should be the norm in *all* fields of science, controversial or not (where privacy is not a concern etc.).<p>

For example, I once contacted a author of a paper basically saying "I read the paper you wrote on a utility to improve security. It seems to me that your utility could also be used to improve performance as well. Could I play with the utility?". Their response was "I wrote that a few years back. I think I lost the code." Other researchers have similar difficulties when trying to perform meta-studies based on other researchers data. This could have been avoided if submitting raw data and code was the norm. These days there would be almost zero-cost in submitting raw-data in electronic form along with almost every manuscript submitted for peer-review and publication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They story suggests that scientists should present all their raw data to improve " openness " .
I agree that it is unlikely to inform people who are unwilling to read more than a few key phrases from one textbook .
However I think this should be the norm in * all * fields of science , controversial or not ( where privacy is not a concern etc. ) .
For example , I once contacted a author of a paper basically saying " I read the paper you wrote on a utility to improve security .
It seems to me that your utility could also be used to improve performance as well .
Could I play with the utility ? " .
Their response was " I wrote that a few years back .
I think I lost the code .
" Other researchers have similar difficulties when trying to perform meta-studies based on other researchers data .
This could have been avoided if submitting raw data and code was the norm .
These days there would be almost zero-cost in submitting raw-data in electronic form along with almost every manuscript submitted for peer-review and publication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They story suggests that scientists should present all their raw data to improve "openness".
I agree that it is unlikely to inform people who are unwilling to read more than a few key phrases from one textbook.
However I think this should be the norm in *all* fields of science, controversial or not (where privacy is not a concern etc.).
For example, I once contacted a author of a paper basically saying "I read the paper you wrote on a utility to improve security.
It seems to me that your utility could also be used to improve performance as well.
Could I play with the utility?".
Their response was "I wrote that a few years back.
I think I lost the code.
" Other researchers have similar difficulties when trying to perform meta-studies based on other researchers data.
This could have been avoided if submitting raw data and code was the norm.
These days there would be almost zero-cost in submitting raw-data in electronic form along with almost every manuscript submitted for peer-review and publication.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250018</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1259321880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kiss the fattest part of my ass.</p><p>Ad homenims aside, you're absolutely unequivocally offensively wrong. AGW proponents believe, as a whole, that the earth is changing in drastic and human-caused ways. This also usually combines with the belief that we don't have the right to shit all over the earth because it's so damn easy.</p><p>Look. Done properly, we can significantly cut back emissions without killing people's quality of life. Turbines are effective, far more sunlight falls on the earth than we can ever use, etc. But why spend that little bit of time and money when we can just take another dump and hope it doesn't smell until we're dead?</p><p>You also forget that rising sea levels will flat-out destroy many people. Forget about 'objectively poorer', try needing to move, well, somewhere - but there's nowhere to go because you didn't have any money in the first place.</p><p>"Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized."</p><p>Now you're just wrong and a douchebag at the same time.</p><p>I can talk to people who have some legitimate (but imagined) problem with the science and try to explain what's going on. But you're a jackass, through and through. "Oh no, human economics and my bank account and Climategate" while forgetting that the world doesn't give two shits about this so-called debate that's festering across its surface.</p><p>Look. The world is warming. There is 35\% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in 1832. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for discussion. Unless you have some compelling way of explaining where a fuckload of CO2 got into the air, it was caused by humans burning fossil fuels - which incidentally started around 1832. Hint: the earth doesn't work that fast.</p><p>Yeah, this will probably be modded troll and I don't care. And I'm well aware that this sounds like some "religion" that people have been going on about. But people like you make me physically sick to my stomach. Let's screw around with a real problem on our hands. Do you stop and jack off in a burning building?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kiss the fattest part of my ass.Ad homenims aside , you 're absolutely unequivocally offensively wrong .
AGW proponents believe , as a whole , that the earth is changing in drastic and human-caused ways .
This also usually combines with the belief that we do n't have the right to shit all over the earth because it 's so damn easy.Look .
Done properly , we can significantly cut back emissions without killing people 's quality of life .
Turbines are effective , far more sunlight falls on the earth than we can ever use , etc .
But why spend that little bit of time and money when we can just take another dump and hope it does n't smell until we 're dead ? You also forget that rising sea levels will flat-out destroy many people .
Forget about 'objectively poorer ' , try needing to move , well , somewhere - but there 's nowhere to go because you did n't have any money in the first place .
" Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized .
" Now you 're just wrong and a douchebag at the same time.I can talk to people who have some legitimate ( but imagined ) problem with the science and try to explain what 's going on .
But you 're a jackass , through and through .
" Oh no , human economics and my bank account and Climategate " while forgetting that the world does n't give two shits about this so-called debate that 's festering across its surface.Look .
The world is warming .
There is 35 \ % more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in 1832 .
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for discussion .
Unless you have some compelling way of explaining where a fuckload of CO2 got into the air , it was caused by humans burning fossil fuels - which incidentally started around 1832 .
Hint : the earth does n't work that fast.Yeah , this will probably be modded troll and I do n't care .
And I 'm well aware that this sounds like some " religion " that people have been going on about .
But people like you make me physically sick to my stomach .
Let 's screw around with a real problem on our hands .
Do you stop and jack off in a burning building ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kiss the fattest part of my ass.Ad homenims aside, you're absolutely unequivocally offensively wrong.
AGW proponents believe, as a whole, that the earth is changing in drastic and human-caused ways.
This also usually combines with the belief that we don't have the right to shit all over the earth because it's so damn easy.Look.
Done properly, we can significantly cut back emissions without killing people's quality of life.
Turbines are effective, far more sunlight falls on the earth than we can ever use, etc.
But why spend that little bit of time and money when we can just take another dump and hope it doesn't smell until we're dead?You also forget that rising sea levels will flat-out destroy many people.
Forget about 'objectively poorer', try needing to move, well, somewhere - but there's nowhere to go because you didn't have any money in the first place.
"Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.
"Now you're just wrong and a douchebag at the same time.I can talk to people who have some legitimate (but imagined) problem with the science and try to explain what's going on.
But you're a jackass, through and through.
"Oh no, human economics and my bank account and Climategate" while forgetting that the world doesn't give two shits about this so-called debate that's festering across its surface.Look.
The world is warming.
There is 35\% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was in 1832.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for discussion.
Unless you have some compelling way of explaining where a fuckload of CO2 got into the air, it was caused by humans burning fossil fuels - which incidentally started around 1832.
Hint: the earth doesn't work that fast.Yeah, this will probably be modded troll and I don't care.
And I'm well aware that this sounds like some "religion" that people have been going on about.
But people like you make me physically sick to my stomach.
Let's screw around with a real problem on our hands.
Do you stop and jack off in a burning building?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248882</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are not Politicians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259316240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullocks. One of the main failures of modern science is that it tries to stay out of politics, leaving people who do not know anything about the science to make the important decisions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullocks .
One of the main failures of modern science is that it tries to stay out of politics , leaving people who do not know anything about the science to make the important decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullocks.
One of the main failures of modern science is that it tries to stay out of politics, leaving people who do not know anything about the science to make the important decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250878</id>
	<title>Re:Don't argue with the science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259326800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...  the vast majority were not arguing with the science until there were appearances of fraud.  If the 'scientists' are not going to be honest they will and should be questioned.  Even if they are correct the strange secrecy an missing data issues are causing normal intelligent people to want answers before they just follow along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the vast majority were not arguing with the science until there were appearances of fraud .
If the 'scientists ' are not going to be honest they will and should be questioned .
Even if they are correct the strange secrecy an missing data issues are causing normal intelligent people to want answers before they just follow along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...  the vast majority were not arguing with the science until there were appearances of fraud.
If the 'scientists' are not going to be honest they will and should be questioned.
Even if they are correct the strange secrecy an missing data issues are causing normal intelligent people to want answers before they just follow along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250004</id>
	<title>Re:Engaging with whom exactly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259321820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer aim, engage, fire myself. That usually resolves any disputes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer aim , engage , fire myself .
That usually resolves any disputes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer aim, engage, fire myself.
That usually resolves any disputes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248598</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe now the debate will actually occur?</title>
	<author>darjen</author>
	<datestamp>1259314560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not only that, but governments are pretty much the greatest cause of pollution in society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not only that , but governments are pretty much the greatest cause of pollution in society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not only that, but governments are pretty much the greatest cause of pollution in society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255356</id>
	<title>Re:Good faith and bad faith</title>
	<author>mbullock</author>
	<datestamp>1259432580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm working on a PhD directly related to climate modeling. I've got access to four climate models, from four competing organizations, ranging from middle-school simple to research grade. And they all give about the same results. In my office, I have a poster from a paper presentation where my research group compared seven different climate models, and looked at how well they agreed. There were differences, for sure. But they all were similar. Why are they all similar?</p></div><p>If I remember, the financial guys had a bunch of very complicated models that agreed as well. And where are we now? It turns out those models didn't quite match up with reality. Sure, they looked pretty good for awhile, but didn't hold up too well over time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm working on a PhD directly related to climate modeling .
I 've got access to four climate models , from four competing organizations , ranging from middle-school simple to research grade .
And they all give about the same results .
In my office , I have a poster from a paper presentation where my research group compared seven different climate models , and looked at how well they agreed .
There were differences , for sure .
But they all were similar .
Why are they all similar ? If I remember , the financial guys had a bunch of very complicated models that agreed as well .
And where are we now ?
It turns out those models did n't quite match up with reality .
Sure , they looked pretty good for awhile , but did n't hold up too well over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm working on a PhD directly related to climate modeling.
I've got access to four climate models, from four competing organizations, ranging from middle-school simple to research grade.
And they all give about the same results.
In my office, I have a poster from a paper presentation where my research group compared seven different climate models, and looked at how well they agreed.
There were differences, for sure.
But they all were similar.
Why are they all similar?If I remember, the financial guys had a bunch of very complicated models that agreed as well.
And where are we now?
It turns out those models didn't quite match up with reality.
Sure, they looked pretty good for awhile, but didn't hold up too well over time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250464</id>
	<title>Re:Common Ground?</title>
	<author>the\_one(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1259324340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.</p></div><p>Reality has a well know liberal bias and can't be trusted. Sorry</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.Reality has a well know liberal bias and ca n't be trusted .
Sorry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.Reality has a well know liberal bias and can't be trusted.
Sorry
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249440</id>
	<title>Exactly</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1259319060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Also these particular proponents doing disinformation should be exposed (then fired and possibly prosecuted.)
</p><p>
That wasn't what you ment to say?
</p><p>
Double standard espousing asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also these particular proponents doing disinformation should be exposed ( then fired and possibly prosecuted .
) That was n't what you ment to say ?
Double standard espousing asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Also these particular proponents doing disinformation should be exposed (then fired and possibly prosecuted.
)

That wasn't what you ment to say?
Double standard espousing asshole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253010</id>
	<title>Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259439060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climate on earth has been changing for billions of years. And will continue to do so for billions more. (at least until the Sun goes supernova and the earth is vaporized)</p><p>Nothing humans have done, or will do, has, or will have, any significant impact on this.</p><p>Some species will adapt/evolve, some will not. Some will survive, some may not. Some humans will adapt (and survive), some may not. Some may have to relocate, same may not.</p><p>It is certainly desirable to find sustainable sources of energy that pollute less - but it is utter foolishness  to tax existing sources energy, or make treaties restricting it. It is also utter bullshit that so-called "rich" countries should take away money their citizens work hard to earn, and give it to so-called "poor" countries so they can waste 3/4 of it on corruption and graft, and some tiny portion builds windmills and solar panels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate on earth has been changing for billions of years .
And will continue to do so for billions more .
( at least until the Sun goes supernova and the earth is vaporized ) Nothing humans have done , or will do , has , or will have , any significant impact on this.Some species will adapt/evolve , some will not .
Some will survive , some may not .
Some humans will adapt ( and survive ) , some may not .
Some may have to relocate , same may not.It is certainly desirable to find sustainable sources of energy that pollute less - but it is utter foolishness to tax existing sources energy , or make treaties restricting it .
It is also utter bullshit that so-called " rich " countries should take away money their citizens work hard to earn , and give it to so-called " poor " countries so they can waste 3/4 of it on corruption and graft , and some tiny portion builds windmills and solar panels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate on earth has been changing for billions of years.
And will continue to do so for billions more.
(at least until the Sun goes supernova and the earth is vaporized)Nothing humans have done, or will do, has, or will have, any significant impact on this.Some species will adapt/evolve, some will not.
Some will survive, some may not.
Some humans will adapt (and survive), some may not.
Some may have to relocate, same may not.It is certainly desirable to find sustainable sources of energy that pollute less - but it is utter foolishness  to tax existing sources energy, or make treaties restricting it.
It is also utter bullshit that so-called "rich" countries should take away money their citizens work hard to earn, and give it to so-called "poor" countries so they can waste 3/4 of it on corruption and graft, and some tiny portion builds windmills and solar panels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249052</id>
	<title>Anecdotal?  Really?</title>
	<author>Etrias</author>
	<datestamp>1259316960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well then here:  <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf" title="www.ipcc.ch">IPCC FAQ</a> [www.ipcc.ch] for your perusal.  Not the whole report, mind you, seeing as I'm sure that you don't have the time or patience to sort through the information.  I'm guessing that you're referring to CBS as being the "obviously politically motivated" party here?  You don't actually say, so I have to assume this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then here : IPCC FAQ [ www.ipcc.ch ] for your perusal .
Not the whole report , mind you , seeing as I 'm sure that you do n't have the time or patience to sort through the information .
I 'm guessing that you 're referring to CBS as being the " obviously politically motivated " party here ?
You do n't actually say , so I have to assume this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then here:  IPCC FAQ [www.ipcc.ch] for your perusal.
Not the whole report, mind you, seeing as I'm sure that you don't have the time or patience to sort through the information.
I'm guessing that you're referring to CBS as being the "obviously politically motivated" party here?
You don't actually say, so I have to assume this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248570</id>
	<title>It's the blind men and the elephant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cherry picking data is like the blind men and the elephant, in a sense you see what you want to see. You have to step back to see the elephant. There was a debate for decades about climate cooling or getting warmer. There is supposed to be a cooling trend but the problem is instead it appears to be warming. Let's say the data is suspect due to cherry picking, how do we know which is right? It's hard to deny Arctic melting as much as some are trying to deny it. Also people used to judge weather by animal patterns. We forgot how to read them but it worked well. Look at the animal patterns. Explosions of giant jellyfish off Japan and other areas. Numerous red tides including northern areas where they used to be rare. Starfish invading the Bering Straits where they used to be rare. A number of tropical species have been appearing in the UK and the north east coast of the US. It's happened before but it used to be rare and now it's getting commonplace. In Alaska the permafrost is melting deeper than anyone has ever seen before and worldwide the glaciers are melting fast and there are hundreds of photos to prove it. Assuming all the data is suspect there's still a lot of evidence of a sudden drastic change because much of this observational data has happened in the last ten years and it's consistent worldwide. A natural cycle? Why are we assuming that a volcano that spews billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can affect weather but us doing the same every year has no affect? You might as well say that pouring water into a rain barrel can't make it overflow only rain can make a rain barrel over flow we can't do it. It makes as much sense. A change is happening the only real questions are how much and how fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cherry picking data is like the blind men and the elephant , in a sense you see what you want to see .
You have to step back to see the elephant .
There was a debate for decades about climate cooling or getting warmer .
There is supposed to be a cooling trend but the problem is instead it appears to be warming .
Let 's say the data is suspect due to cherry picking , how do we know which is right ?
It 's hard to deny Arctic melting as much as some are trying to deny it .
Also people used to judge weather by animal patterns .
We forgot how to read them but it worked well .
Look at the animal patterns .
Explosions of giant jellyfish off Japan and other areas .
Numerous red tides including northern areas where they used to be rare .
Starfish invading the Bering Straits where they used to be rare .
A number of tropical species have been appearing in the UK and the north east coast of the US .
It 's happened before but it used to be rare and now it 's getting commonplace .
In Alaska the permafrost is melting deeper than anyone has ever seen before and worldwide the glaciers are melting fast and there are hundreds of photos to prove it .
Assuming all the data is suspect there 's still a lot of evidence of a sudden drastic change because much of this observational data has happened in the last ten years and it 's consistent worldwide .
A natural cycle ?
Why are we assuming that a volcano that spews billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can affect weather but us doing the same every year has no affect ?
You might as well say that pouring water into a rain barrel ca n't make it overflow only rain can make a rain barrel over flow we ca n't do it .
It makes as much sense .
A change is happening the only real questions are how much and how fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cherry picking data is like the blind men and the elephant, in a sense you see what you want to see.
You have to step back to see the elephant.
There was a debate for decades about climate cooling or getting warmer.
There is supposed to be a cooling trend but the problem is instead it appears to be warming.
Let's say the data is suspect due to cherry picking, how do we know which is right?
It's hard to deny Arctic melting as much as some are trying to deny it.
Also people used to judge weather by animal patterns.
We forgot how to read them but it worked well.
Look at the animal patterns.
Explosions of giant jellyfish off Japan and other areas.
Numerous red tides including northern areas where they used to be rare.
Starfish invading the Bering Straits where they used to be rare.
A number of tropical species have been appearing in the UK and the north east coast of the US.
It's happened before but it used to be rare and now it's getting commonplace.
In Alaska the permafrost is melting deeper than anyone has ever seen before and worldwide the glaciers are melting fast and there are hundreds of photos to prove it.
Assuming all the data is suspect there's still a lot of evidence of a sudden drastic change because much of this observational data has happened in the last ten years and it's consistent worldwide.
A natural cycle?
Why are we assuming that a volcano that spews billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can affect weather but us doing the same every year has no affect?
You might as well say that pouring water into a rain barrel can't make it overflow only rain can make a rain barrel over flow we can't do it.
It makes as much sense.
A change is happening the only real questions are how much and how fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251338</id>
	<title>Re:But it goes beyond the computer models.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259329740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How did this get modded up? Two links to a discredited climate blogger?</p><p> <i>On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."</i> </p><p>When the NOAA slapped him down, he suddenly became the "victim".</p><p>But of course, the NOAA is in on the climate conspiracy as well, right guys? </p><p>~X~</p></div><p>Nice to know a survey of 70 of 1221 stations refutes a survey of 1221 of 1221 stations.</p><p>Hmm, NOAA would get lots more funding if the Earth were warming 10 degrees a year, wouldn't it?  There's doesn't have to be an active conspiracy for there to be bias.  Nice strawman.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did this get modded up ?
Two links to a discredited climate blogger ?
On July 6 , 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good ' or 'best ' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time , and concluded , " clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends .
" When the NOAA slapped him down , he suddenly became the " victim " .But of course , the NOAA is in on the climate conspiracy as well , right guys ?
~ X ~ Nice to know a survey of 70 of 1221 stations refutes a survey of 1221 of 1221 stations.Hmm , NOAA would get lots more funding if the Earth were warming 10 degrees a year , would n't it ?
There 's does n't have to be an active conspiracy for there to be bias .
Nice strawman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did this get modded up?
Two links to a discredited climate blogger?
On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.
" When the NOAA slapped him down, he suddenly became the "victim".But of course, the NOAA is in on the climate conspiracy as well, right guys?
~X~Nice to know a survey of 70 of 1221 stations refutes a survey of 1221 of 1221 stations.Hmm, NOAA would get lots more funding if the Earth were warming 10 degrees a year, wouldn't it?
There's doesn't have to be an active conspiracy for there to be bias.
Nice strawman.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249220</id>
	<title>Which questions?</title>
	<author>namespan</author>
	<datestamp>1259318040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"you're still evil for asking all of those questions (even though they turned out to have a good foundation for skepticism, and you were pretty much right about the weak science)</i></p><p>Which questions had a good foundation?</p><p>My experience is that a good number of "those questions" -- at least as they filter out into popular discussion -- are either ridiculous or end up having credible responses in support of anthropocentric climate change.</p><p>"How can it be global warming if some places are getting cooler?"</p><p>"Why is no one talking about urban heat island effect on measurement?"</p><p>"The 'consensus' in the 1970s was that we were in for a new ice age! Why should we believe climate scientists now?"</p><p>"Ice is getting *thicker* in some places in Greenland. Doesn't this disprove the whole thing?"</p><p>"Aren't concerns about global warming are based largely on unreliable computer models?"</p><p>"Scientist  in  is a skeptic for reasons not clearly discussed! Doesn't that mean there's not a consensus?"</p><p>Maybe I'm strawmaning the debate, but this is seriously the level of questioning I see. I'd be happy to engage tougher questions if they exist, but as it looks to me right now, either skeptics are either largely represented by people who are poorly articulating whatever substantial objections might exist, or they deserve the scorn they're met with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" you 're still evil for asking all of those questions ( even though they turned out to have a good foundation for skepticism , and you were pretty much right about the weak science ) Which questions had a good foundation ? My experience is that a good number of " those questions " -- at least as they filter out into popular discussion -- are either ridiculous or end up having credible responses in support of anthropocentric climate change .
" How can it be global warming if some places are getting cooler ?
" " Why is no one talking about urban heat island effect on measurement ?
" " The 'consensus ' in the 1970s was that we were in for a new ice age !
Why should we believe climate scientists now ?
" " Ice is getting * thicker * in some places in Greenland .
Does n't this disprove the whole thing ?
" " Are n't concerns about global warming are based largely on unreliable computer models ?
" " Scientist in is a skeptic for reasons not clearly discussed !
Does n't that mean there 's not a consensus ?
" Maybe I 'm strawmaning the debate , but this is seriously the level of questioning I see .
I 'd be happy to engage tougher questions if they exist , but as it looks to me right now , either skeptics are either largely represented by people who are poorly articulating whatever substantial objections might exist , or they deserve the scorn they 're met with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"you're still evil for asking all of those questions (even though they turned out to have a good foundation for skepticism, and you were pretty much right about the weak science)Which questions had a good foundation?My experience is that a good number of "those questions" -- at least as they filter out into popular discussion -- are either ridiculous or end up having credible responses in support of anthropocentric climate change.
"How can it be global warming if some places are getting cooler?
""Why is no one talking about urban heat island effect on measurement?
""The 'consensus' in the 1970s was that we were in for a new ice age!
Why should we believe climate scientists now?
""Ice is getting *thicker* in some places in Greenland.
Doesn't this disprove the whole thing?
""Aren't concerns about global warming are based largely on unreliable computer models?
""Scientist  in  is a skeptic for reasons not clearly discussed!
Doesn't that mean there's not a consensus?
"Maybe I'm strawmaning the debate, but this is seriously the level of questioning I see.
I'd be happy to engage tougher questions if they exist, but as it looks to me right now, either skeptics are either largely represented by people who are poorly articulating whatever substantial objections might exist, or they deserve the scorn they're met with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250796</id>
	<title>Re:But it goes beyond the computer models.</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1259326200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did this get modded up? Two links to a discredited climate blogger?</p><p><i>On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."</i></p><p>When the NOAA slapped him down, he suddenly became the "victim".</p><p>But of course, the NOAA is in on the climate conspiracy as well, right guys? </p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did this get modded up ?
Two links to a discredited climate blogger ? On July 6 , 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good ' or 'best ' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time , and concluded , " clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends .
" When the NOAA slapped him down , he suddenly became the " victim " .But of course , the NOAA is in on the climate conspiracy as well , right guys ?
~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did this get modded up?
Two links to a discredited climate blogger?On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends.
"When the NOAA slapped him down, he suddenly became the "victim".But of course, the NOAA is in on the climate conspiracy as well, right guys?
~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248992</id>
	<title>No Amount of Evidence Will Do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259316780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        Those that do not believe that global warming is real have very real and very sick motives for their denial. No amount of evidence or proof will ever change their minds. They simply are not concerned and all that they want is to feel safe and to have their positions in this world unchanged. In addition it is part and parcel with some other idiotic conservative doctrines. Some of these doctrines are somewhat occult in that they have never been seriously defined. For example the anti abortion loonies have a deep feeling that the general morality may change if abortion remains available. Their feeling is that any change in community morality somehow endangers them. The usual nonsense that it is a moral imperative for them to stop abortions is nonsense. There is no moral duty to stop other people from using an alternative such as abortion. Trying to equate it with stopping slavery or other such tripe are symptoms of primitive minds running wild with poorly formed abilities to reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those that do not believe that global warming is real have very real and very sick motives for their denial .
No amount of evidence or proof will ever change their minds .
They simply are not concerned and all that they want is to feel safe and to have their positions in this world unchanged .
In addition it is part and parcel with some other idiotic conservative doctrines .
Some of these doctrines are somewhat occult in that they have never been seriously defined .
For example the anti abortion loonies have a deep feeling that the general morality may change if abortion remains available .
Their feeling is that any change in community morality somehow endangers them .
The usual nonsense that it is a moral imperative for them to stop abortions is nonsense .
There is no moral duty to stop other people from using an alternative such as abortion .
Trying to equate it with stopping slavery or other such tripe are symptoms of primitive minds running wild with poorly formed abilities to reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        Those that do not believe that global warming is real have very real and very sick motives for their denial.
No amount of evidence or proof will ever change their minds.
They simply are not concerned and all that they want is to feel safe and to have their positions in this world unchanged.
In addition it is part and parcel with some other idiotic conservative doctrines.
Some of these doctrines are somewhat occult in that they have never been seriously defined.
For example the anti abortion loonies have a deep feeling that the general morality may change if abortion remains available.
Their feeling is that any change in community morality somehow endangers them.
The usual nonsense that it is a moral imperative for them to stop abortions is nonsense.
There is no moral duty to stop other people from using an alternative such as abortion.
Trying to equate it with stopping slavery or other such tripe are symptoms of primitive minds running wild with poorly formed abilities to reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249540</id>
	<title>Re: Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1259319480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives. Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.</p></div><p>Evidence for that claim?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate. It was already reeling from the fact that it hasn't warmed in the last decade.</p></div><p>Let us know when we get our glaciers back...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives .
Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.Evidence for that claim ? AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate .
It was already reeling from the fact that it has n't warmed in the last decade.Let us know when we get our glaciers back.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.
Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.Evidence for that claim?AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate.
It was already reeling from the fact that it hasn't warmed in the last decade.Let us know when we get our glaciers back...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248686</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just being devil's advocate. If half the ice is gone why hasn't the sea level increased by half a meter. Don't get me wrong it's just the math does not add up to the claims. We have a problem but the exaggeration of cause and effect does nobody any good.The only thing we know is that the carbon levels have increased. What will be the consequence? Global warming, global cooling? Not yet determined and the data is not quite clear. Stop claiming it is. Bring all the data forward so we can understand and correct the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just being devil 's advocate .
If half the ice is gone why has n't the sea level increased by half a meter .
Do n't get me wrong it 's just the math does not add up to the claims .
We have a problem but the exaggeration of cause and effect does nobody any good.The only thing we know is that the carbon levels have increased .
What will be the consequence ?
Global warming , global cooling ?
Not yet determined and the data is not quite clear .
Stop claiming it is .
Bring all the data forward so we can understand and correct the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just being devil's advocate.
If half the ice is gone why hasn't the sea level increased by half a meter.
Don't get me wrong it's just the math does not add up to the claims.
We have a problem but the exaggeration of cause and effect does nobody any good.The only thing we know is that the carbon levels have increased.
What will be the consequence?
Global warming, global cooling?
Not yet determined and the data is not quite clear.
Stop claiming it is.
Bring all the data forward so we can understand and correct the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250370</id>
	<title>I'll admit right off, skeptic here</title>
	<author>ChipMonk</author>
	<datestamp>1259323980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article is using a very short-view definition of "record", both in sense of "recorded data" and "record amounts". Every year mentioned for comparison is from less than a decade earlier.<br> <br>

Also, if they do have archaeological record of ice melt/freeze, how do the past 500 years compare, especially the year after Mt. Tabora exploded (1815)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is using a very short-view definition of " record " , both in sense of " recorded data " and " record amounts " .
Every year mentioned for comparison is from less than a decade earlier .
Also , if they do have archaeological record of ice melt/freeze , how do the past 500 years compare , especially the year after Mt .
Tabora exploded ( 1815 ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is using a very short-view definition of "record", both in sense of "recorded data" and "record amounts".
Every year mentioned for comparison is from less than a decade earlier.
Also, if they do have archaeological record of ice melt/freeze, how do the past 500 years compare, especially the year after Mt.
Tabora exploded (1815)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251494</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1259331360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...there's virtually *nothing* in the way of criticism that a beginner would be able to think of that an expert hadn't thought about already.</p></div></blockquote><p>While I understand your main point, I think it's important to make the caveat that this is only true when you're talking specifically about the facts relating to your field of expertise.  But it's still possible to use true facts as a basis for an argument which itself is not sound.  (I'm sorry I can't think of a good example here.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...there 's virtually * nothing * in the way of criticism that a beginner would be able to think of that an expert had n't thought about already.While I understand your main point , I think it 's important to make the caveat that this is only true when you 're talking specifically about the facts relating to your field of expertise .
But it 's still possible to use true facts as a basis for an argument which itself is not sound .
( I 'm sorry I ca n't think of a good example here .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...there's virtually *nothing* in the way of criticism that a beginner would be able to think of that an expert hadn't thought about already.While I understand your main point, I think it's important to make the caveat that this is only true when you're talking specifically about the facts relating to your field of expertise.
But it's still possible to use true facts as a basis for an argument which itself is not sound.
(I'm sorry I can't think of a good example here.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30265232</id>
	<title>A Wonderful Life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259503500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For nearly 20 years the climate astrologers have had their way, Mickey Mike Mann et al., extolling the evils of humanity and the need for "cleansing", i.e. racial cleansing to purify the species homo sapians to return it a more "purer" i.e. Arian "White" form.</p><p>In ordr to stop anthropogenic global warming, say the astroligers -- i.e. climate scientists, about 40 percent of the Earth's populas well be "cleansed", i.e. killed.</p><p>The negotiations to be held in Copenhagen will decide the body count per country (Obama is salivating at killing "Whitie" without impunity<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hay, he da boss in dis town) and put a price tag for global markets all under the watchfull UN Overseers on the plantations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For nearly 20 years the climate astrologers have had their way , Mickey Mike Mann et al. , extolling the evils of humanity and the need for " cleansing " , i.e .
racial cleansing to purify the species homo sapians to return it a more " purer " i.e .
Arian " White " form.In ordr to stop anthropogenic global warming , say the astroligers -- i.e .
climate scientists , about 40 percent of the Earth 's populas well be " cleansed " , i.e .
killed.The negotiations to be held in Copenhagen will decide the body count per country ( Obama is salivating at killing " Whitie " without impunity ... hay , he da boss in dis town ) and put a price tag for global markets all under the watchfull UN Overseers on the plantations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For nearly 20 years the climate astrologers have had their way, Mickey Mike Mann et al., extolling the evils of humanity and the need for "cleansing", i.e.
racial cleansing to purify the species homo sapians to return it a more "purer" i.e.
Arian "White" form.In ordr to stop anthropogenic global warming, say the astroligers -- i.e.
climate scientists, about 40 percent of the Earth's populas well be "cleansed", i.e.
killed.The negotiations to be held in Copenhagen will decide the body count per country (Obama is salivating at killing "Whitie" without impunity ... hay, he da boss in dis town) and put a price tag for global markets all under the watchfull UN Overseers on the plantations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251424</id>
	<title>Re:Common Ground?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1259330520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There may be people on either side of the debate that aren't interested in the truth</p></div><p>This may include more people than you think, or as Keynes said, "in the long run we are all dead".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There may be people on either side of the debate that are n't interested in the truthThis may include more people than you think , or as Keynes said , " in the long run we are all dead " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There may be people on either side of the debate that aren't interested in the truthThis may include more people than you think, or as Keynes said, "in the long run we are all dead".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248590</id>
	<title>Re:ESR said it very well - Open Source Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moderated "Troll"?! How the hell do you justify that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moderated " Troll " ? !
How the hell do you justify that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moderated "Troll"?!
How the hell do you justify that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248600</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe now the debate will actually occur?</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1259314620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now there is a question that is often glossed over.</p><p>I am inclined to think that they are the only ones with the power to do anything. They have set themselves up as the requirers. They set regulations, and everyone else either abides by them or risks punishment. Nobody else can rightly claim that position (lest THEY find themselves on the receiving end of an assload of "justice")</p><p>That said, I would like to think that there are other ways, I just wonder if they can happen fast enough or thoroughly enough.</p><p>Then again, there are those more powerful than governments. Insurance companies.</p><p>What would happen if major insurance companies became so convinced of the need to take action (assuming there is such a need, there is little to discuss hear without the need, so we have to assume it for the purposes of this line of thought) that they simply stopped offering to sign or renew policies without commitment agreements to take measurable action to reduce pollution and carbon footprint?</p><p>Few businesses can get very far without insurance of some sort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now there is a question that is often glossed over.I am inclined to think that they are the only ones with the power to do anything .
They have set themselves up as the requirers .
They set regulations , and everyone else either abides by them or risks punishment .
Nobody else can rightly claim that position ( lest THEY find themselves on the receiving end of an assload of " justice " ) That said , I would like to think that there are other ways , I just wonder if they can happen fast enough or thoroughly enough.Then again , there are those more powerful than governments .
Insurance companies.What would happen if major insurance companies became so convinced of the need to take action ( assuming there is such a need , there is little to discuss hear without the need , so we have to assume it for the purposes of this line of thought ) that they simply stopped offering to sign or renew policies without commitment agreements to take measurable action to reduce pollution and carbon footprint ? Few businesses can get very far without insurance of some sort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now there is a question that is often glossed over.I am inclined to think that they are the only ones with the power to do anything.
They have set themselves up as the requirers.
They set regulations, and everyone else either abides by them or risks punishment.
Nobody else can rightly claim that position (lest THEY find themselves on the receiving end of an assload of "justice")That said, I would like to think that there are other ways, I just wonder if they can happen fast enough or thoroughly enough.Then again, there are those more powerful than governments.
Insurance companies.What would happen if major insurance companies became so convinced of the need to take action (assuming there is such a need, there is little to discuss hear without the need, so we have to assume it for the purposes of this line of thought) that they simply stopped offering to sign or renew policies without commitment agreements to take measurable action to reduce pollution and carbon footprint?Few businesses can get very far without insurance of some sort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255078</id>
	<title>Denialist gets mod points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>laughs</htmltext>
<tokenext>laughs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>laughs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250394</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>Dark\_MadMax666</author>
	<datestamp>1259324040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well the sad part is that 1) is true. Average layperson has no business discussing anything at all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.2) and 3) naturally flow out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the sad part is that 1 ) is true .
Average layperson has no business discussing anything at all .2 ) and 3 ) naturally flow out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the sad part is that 1) is true.
Average layperson has no business discussing anything at all .2) and 3) naturally flow out of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250100</id>
	<title>Any science discipline with less predictive power?</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1259322360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen to this. Has there ever been a scientific discipline with less predictive power than climate modelling, or one with more misplaced zeal to influence politics? I am glad the cover has been ripped off of the sewer of this discipline. Copenhagen is going to be a fiasco.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen to this .
Has there ever been a scientific discipline with less predictive power than climate modelling , or one with more misplaced zeal to influence politics ?
I am glad the cover has been ripped off of the sewer of this discipline .
Copenhagen is going to be a fiasco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen to this.
Has there ever been a scientific discipline with less predictive power than climate modelling, or one with more misplaced zeal to influence politics?
I am glad the cover has been ripped off of the sewer of this discipline.
Copenhagen is going to be a fiasco.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248378</id>
	<title>Maybe now the debate will actually occur?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259313240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This way when the debate finally <i>is</i> over, the statements about such can be true.</p><p>Of course, this does overshadow the real debate, which is whether or not Governments are the right organizations to correct any issues, which, if we look at similar historic pollution agreements, they have failed miserably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This way when the debate finally is over , the statements about such can be true.Of course , this does overshadow the real debate , which is whether or not Governments are the right organizations to correct any issues , which , if we look at similar historic pollution agreements , they have failed miserably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This way when the debate finally is over, the statements about such can be true.Of course, this does overshadow the real debate, which is whether or not Governments are the right organizations to correct any issues, which, if we look at similar historic pollution agreements, they have failed miserably.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250046</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe now the debate will actually occur?</title>
	<author>CptPicard</author>
	<datestamp>1259322000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Governments are the right organizations to correct any issues, which, if we look at similar historic pollution agreements, they have failed miserably.</p></div></blockquote><p>Care to elaborate? It is my impression that governments or similar institutions are the only instance that has ever been able to solve these kinds of issues (think CFCs) in the past. It may make use of market-style solutions, but still.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments are the right organizations to correct any issues , which , if we look at similar historic pollution agreements , they have failed miserably.Care to elaborate ?
It is my impression that governments or similar institutions are the only instance that has ever been able to solve these kinds of issues ( think CFCs ) in the past .
It may make use of market-style solutions , but still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Governments are the right organizations to correct any issues, which, if we look at similar historic pollution agreements, they have failed miserably.Care to elaborate?
It is my impression that governments or similar institutions are the only instance that has ever been able to solve these kinds of issues (think CFCs) in the past.
It may make use of market-style solutions, but still.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840</id>
	<title>Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>MoellerPlesset2</author>
	<datestamp>1259316000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being a scientist but not of the climate variety, I've got to say 'No'.<br>In a lot of cases, if not most, dialogue on the merits of your scientific work is simply impossible with a layperson.<br><br>I work with this stuff. Every day. 40 (well more like 50-60) hours a week. It took years of study for me (and everyone else)<br>just to get to the level where you can properly understand what it is, exactly, that I do. That's what being an expert at something entails.<br>Now when I get into a dispute with someone, they typically have the same level of expertise. They know more or less everything I do. I know what they're saying, and they usually know what I'm saying.<br><br>Now you bring into that situation some layperson with their religious reasons or ideological reasons or crank personality, who wants to dispute the results of my work. So they pore over it, and they simply don't understand it. (And ignorance breeds arrogance more often than humility, as Lincoln said) But they think they do. And then they formulate their criticism. Even if that criticism makes sense (often not), it's typically wrong at the most basic level. And that will practically always be the case - because there's virtually *nothing* in the way of criticism that a beginner would be able to think of that an expert hadn't thought about already. You're just not going to find a professor of physics having made a mistake of forgetting the first law of thermodynamics.<br><br>Now I'm happy to defend my science against legitimate, good, criticism. But a scientific debate is *NOT* where anybody should be TEACHING anybody science. What kind of 'debate' is it if every answer amounts to "That's not what that word means, read a damn textbook." It's not the scientists who are being arrogant then. Hell, since when didn't scientists bend over backwards to educate the public? We write textbooks, and popular-scientific accounts. Research gets published in journals for everyone to see, etc. It's not like we're keeping it a big secret - The problem is that some people are simply unwilling to learn, yet arrogant enough to believe they should be entitled to 'debate' with me, and that I should be personally burdened with educating them in the name of 'open debate'!<br><br>(Just to pick one out of the climate bag. How often haven't you seen someone say "Yeah but climate change is cyclical!" - What? As if \_climate scientists\_ didn't know that?! Refuting someone's research with arguments from an introductory textbook)<br><br>The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails, pore over them for some choice quotes (which didn't even look incriminating to me out of context), blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it, and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval' of global warming (which wouldn't have been the case even if they were right), just goes to show that they're simply not interested in either learning the science, or engaging in a real debate. And it's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a scientist but not of the climate variety , I 've got to say 'No'.In a lot of cases , if not most , dialogue on the merits of your scientific work is simply impossible with a layperson.I work with this stuff .
Every day .
40 ( well more like 50-60 ) hours a week .
It took years of study for me ( and everyone else ) just to get to the level where you can properly understand what it is , exactly , that I do .
That 's what being an expert at something entails.Now when I get into a dispute with someone , they typically have the same level of expertise .
They know more or less everything I do .
I know what they 're saying , and they usually know what I 'm saying.Now you bring into that situation some layperson with their religious reasons or ideological reasons or crank personality , who wants to dispute the results of my work .
So they pore over it , and they simply do n't understand it .
( And ignorance breeds arrogance more often than humility , as Lincoln said ) But they think they do .
And then they formulate their criticism .
Even if that criticism makes sense ( often not ) , it 's typically wrong at the most basic level .
And that will practically always be the case - because there 's virtually * nothing * in the way of criticism that a beginner would be able to think of that an expert had n't thought about already .
You 're just not going to find a professor of physics having made a mistake of forgetting the first law of thermodynamics.Now I 'm happy to defend my science against legitimate , good , criticism .
But a scientific debate is * NOT * where anybody should be TEACHING anybody science .
What kind of 'debate ' is it if every answer amounts to " That 's not what that word means , read a damn textbook .
" It 's not the scientists who are being arrogant then .
Hell , since when did n't scientists bend over backwards to educate the public ?
We write textbooks , and popular-scientific accounts .
Research gets published in journals for everyone to see , etc .
It 's not like we 're keeping it a big secret - The problem is that some people are simply unwilling to learn , yet arrogant enough to believe they should be entitled to 'debate ' with me , and that I should be personally burdened with educating them in the name of 'open debate ' !
( Just to pick one out of the climate bag .
How often have n't you seen someone say " Yeah but climate change is cyclical !
" - What ?
As if \ _climate scientists \ _ did n't know that ? !
Refuting someone 's research with arguments from an introductory textbook ) The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails , pore over them for some choice quotes ( which did n't even look incriminating to me out of context ) , blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it , and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval ' of global warming ( which would n't have been the case even if they were right ) , just goes to show that they 're simply not interested in either learning the science , or engaging in a real debate .
And it 's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action : Decide there 's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change , and go look for evidence to support your theory , and ignore all other explanations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a scientist but not of the climate variety, I've got to say 'No'.In a lot of cases, if not most, dialogue on the merits of your scientific work is simply impossible with a layperson.I work with this stuff.
Every day.
40 (well more like 50-60) hours a week.
It took years of study for me (and everyone else)just to get to the level where you can properly understand what it is, exactly, that I do.
That's what being an expert at something entails.Now when I get into a dispute with someone, they typically have the same level of expertise.
They know more or less everything I do.
I know what they're saying, and they usually know what I'm saying.Now you bring into that situation some layperson with their religious reasons or ideological reasons or crank personality, who wants to dispute the results of my work.
So they pore over it, and they simply don't understand it.
(And ignorance breeds arrogance more often than humility, as Lincoln said) But they think they do.
And then they formulate their criticism.
Even if that criticism makes sense (often not), it's typically wrong at the most basic level.
And that will practically always be the case - because there's virtually *nothing* in the way of criticism that a beginner would be able to think of that an expert hadn't thought about already.
You're just not going to find a professor of physics having made a mistake of forgetting the first law of thermodynamics.Now I'm happy to defend my science against legitimate, good, criticism.
But a scientific debate is *NOT* where anybody should be TEACHING anybody science.
What kind of 'debate' is it if every answer amounts to "That's not what that word means, read a damn textbook.
" It's not the scientists who are being arrogant then.
Hell, since when didn't scientists bend over backwards to educate the public?
We write textbooks, and popular-scientific accounts.
Research gets published in journals for everyone to see, etc.
It's not like we're keeping it a big secret - The problem is that some people are simply unwilling to learn, yet arrogant enough to believe they should be entitled to 'debate' with me, and that I should be personally burdened with educating them in the name of 'open debate'!
(Just to pick one out of the climate bag.
How often haven't you seen someone say "Yeah but climate change is cyclical!
" - What?
As if \_climate scientists\_ didn't know that?!
Refuting someone's research with arguments from an introductory textbook)The fact that these climate-skeptics were prepared to take these e-mails, pore over them for some choice quotes (which didn't even look incriminating to me out of context), blatantly misinterpret them without making any kind of good-faith effort to understand the context or the science behind it, and trumpet it all out as some kind of 'disproval' of global warming (which wouldn't have been the case even if they were right), just goes to show that they're simply not interested in either learning the science, or engaging in a real debate.
And it's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250412</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a climate sceptic, but not how you think...</title>
	<author>rainierburger</author>
	<datestamp>1259324160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may not care about the forced migration of millions of people as their land becomes blighted by drought or submerged by rising seas.  But 1/3 of the world population relies on glacial meltwater for fresh water in the dry season - when the glaciers are gone (most in much less than a century if current mass balance trends continue) we will need to either introduce desalination on a scale we are completely unprepared for, or accept the deaths of possibly billions of people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may not care about the forced migration of millions of people as their land becomes blighted by drought or submerged by rising seas .
But 1/3 of the world population relies on glacial meltwater for fresh water in the dry season - when the glaciers are gone ( most in much less than a century if current mass balance trends continue ) we will need to either introduce desalination on a scale we are completely unprepared for , or accept the deaths of possibly billions of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may not care about the forced migration of millions of people as their land becomes blighted by drought or submerged by rising seas.
But 1/3 of the world population relies on glacial meltwater for fresh water in the dry season - when the glaciers are gone (most in much less than a century if current mass balance trends continue) we will need to either introduce desalination on a scale we are completely unprepared for, or accept the deaths of possibly billions of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248610</id>
	<title>Do your research before you get conned by Al Gore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Great\_Global\_Warming\_Swindle</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Great \ _Global \ _Warming \ _Swindle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Great\_Global\_Warming\_Swindle</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251264</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this is about *policy*, not science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259329080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes look at the economic analysis of the effects of climate change or the costs of mitigation. Such simple things as the discount rate for the future differ wildly, meaning a cost in one hundred years taken back to today can vary from 1/180 to 1/5 of the cost then. If you cant have these simple economic issues decided then you can't make an apples to apples comparison of the cost benefit ratio (business case for business types) of doing nothing versus doing something. This shows up in the wildly different estimated costs for the current legislation of between $100 and $1400 a year in 2020, and the costs for the 2050 measures are completely incomparable. Once the numbers come it in a consistent fashion (don't hold your breath figures don't lie but liars do def figure) then one would be able to make an informed decision on the matter. Hiding in the discount rate is how much do we care about how our grandchildren will live?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes look at the economic analysis of the effects of climate change or the costs of mitigation .
Such simple things as the discount rate for the future differ wildly , meaning a cost in one hundred years taken back to today can vary from 1/180 to 1/5 of the cost then .
If you cant have these simple economic issues decided then you ca n't make an apples to apples comparison of the cost benefit ratio ( business case for business types ) of doing nothing versus doing something .
This shows up in the wildly different estimated costs for the current legislation of between $ 100 and $ 1400 a year in 2020 , and the costs for the 2050 measures are completely incomparable .
Once the numbers come it in a consistent fashion ( do n't hold your breath figures do n't lie but liars do def figure ) then one would be able to make an informed decision on the matter .
Hiding in the discount rate is how much do we care about how our grandchildren will live ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes look at the economic analysis of the effects of climate change or the costs of mitigation.
Such simple things as the discount rate for the future differ wildly, meaning a cost in one hundred years taken back to today can vary from 1/180 to 1/5 of the cost then.
If you cant have these simple economic issues decided then you can't make an apples to apples comparison of the cost benefit ratio (business case for business types) of doing nothing versus doing something.
This shows up in the wildly different estimated costs for the current legislation of between $100 and $1400 a year in 2020, and the costs for the 2050 measures are completely incomparable.
Once the numbers come it in a consistent fashion (don't hold your breath figures don't lie but liars do def figure) then one would be able to make an informed decision on the matter.
Hiding in the discount rate is how much do we care about how our grandchildren will live?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388</id>
	<title>Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Airdorn</author>
	<datestamp>1259313360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... require extraordinary evidence.

The global-warmists, or climate change proponents need to pony-up some real evidence for all the wild, alarmist claims about doomsday they've been making for the past 20 years... not just anecdotal bunk like misc. ice sleets falling off Antarctica, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... require extraordinary evidence .
The global-warmists , or climate change proponents need to pony-up some real evidence for all the wild , alarmist claims about doomsday they 've been making for the past 20 years... not just anecdotal bunk like misc .
ice sleets falling off Antarctica , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... require extraordinary evidence.
The global-warmists, or climate change proponents need to pony-up some real evidence for all the wild, alarmist claims about doomsday they've been making for the past 20 years... not just anecdotal bunk like misc.
ice sleets falling off Antarctica, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249868</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>uncqual</author>
	<datestamp>1259321160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But, what if AGW <i>isn't</i> the primary <i>cause</i> of such change. If so, accepting AGW as "the answer" due to faulty science motivated by political (and funding) agendas could be a big mistake. At best we would waste resources and not significantly affect the outcome; at worst, we would fail to address a problem that, had we had not erroneously attributed it to AGW, we could have mitigated or stopped.
<br> <br>
At this point, I think we should be devoting most grant money to <i>disproving</i> AGW as a significant factor in climate variations. If AGW theories and predictions stand up under the resulting scientific scrutiny we can have more confidence that AGW is, indeed, a serious problem. Unfortunately, with most funding going to further prove the premise and much research being done by "scientists" who have already made up their minds (Jones et al), it's not surprising that most research supports the premise.
<br> <br>
We need to be careful that we are not deluded by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo\_cult\_science" title="wikipedia.org">Cargo Cult Science</a> [wikipedia.org] as described by Feynman. Unfortunately, the extent of AGW isn't precisely measurable or provable and never will be - the system is too complex and there are too many external variables which can't be controlled. This makes it all the more important that the scientific debate be open and honest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , what if AGW is n't the primary cause of such change .
If so , accepting AGW as " the answer " due to faulty science motivated by political ( and funding ) agendas could be a big mistake .
At best we would waste resources and not significantly affect the outcome ; at worst , we would fail to address a problem that , had we had not erroneously attributed it to AGW , we could have mitigated or stopped .
At this point , I think we should be devoting most grant money to disproving AGW as a significant factor in climate variations .
If AGW theories and predictions stand up under the resulting scientific scrutiny we can have more confidence that AGW is , indeed , a serious problem .
Unfortunately , with most funding going to further prove the premise and much research being done by " scientists " who have already made up their minds ( Jones et al ) , it 's not surprising that most research supports the premise .
We need to be careful that we are not deluded by Cargo Cult Science [ wikipedia.org ] as described by Feynman .
Unfortunately , the extent of AGW is n't precisely measurable or provable and never will be - the system is too complex and there are too many external variables which ca n't be controlled .
This makes it all the more important that the scientific debate be open and honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, what if AGW isn't the primary cause of such change.
If so, accepting AGW as "the answer" due to faulty science motivated by political (and funding) agendas could be a big mistake.
At best we would waste resources and not significantly affect the outcome; at worst, we would fail to address a problem that, had we had not erroneously attributed it to AGW, we could have mitigated or stopped.
At this point, I think we should be devoting most grant money to disproving AGW as a significant factor in climate variations.
If AGW theories and predictions stand up under the resulting scientific scrutiny we can have more confidence that AGW is, indeed, a serious problem.
Unfortunately, with most funding going to further prove the premise and much research being done by "scientists" who have already made up their minds (Jones et al), it's not surprising that most research supports the premise.
We need to be careful that we are not deluded by Cargo Cult Science [wikipedia.org] as described by Feynman.
Unfortunately, the extent of AGW isn't precisely measurable or provable and never will be - the system is too complex and there are too many external variables which can't be controlled.
This makes it all the more important that the scientific debate be open and honest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250560</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>dark\_requiem</author>
	<datestamp>1259325000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're confusing facts and the conclusions that can be drawn from facts.<br> <br>

Fact:<blockquote><div><p>"Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press."</p></div></blockquote><p>

Invalid (or, at best unsubstantiated) conclusion: This must be the result of human activity.<br> <br>

Even if all the data pointed to an incontrovertible warming across the entirety of the globe, it doesn't necessarily follow that anthropogenic sources are the cause.  To start passing laws and regulations based on what is quite clearly still mere hypothesis, is about as chicken little as it gets.<br> <br>

I've got one for you.  I've observed that when I leave a bowl of water out exposed to the air and the sun, it disappears.  So, clearly we must block out the sun and eliminate air, or all the water on Earth will disappear!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing facts and the conclusions that can be drawn from facts .
Fact : " Greenland 's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark , and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer 's end was half what it was just four years earlier , according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press .
" Invalid ( or , at best unsubstantiated ) conclusion : This must be the result of human activity .
Even if all the data pointed to an incontrovertible warming across the entirety of the globe , it does n't necessarily follow that anthropogenic sources are the cause .
To start passing laws and regulations based on what is quite clearly still mere hypothesis , is about as chicken little as it gets .
I 've got one for you .
I 've observed that when I leave a bowl of water out exposed to the air and the sun , it disappears .
So , clearly we must block out the sun and eliminate air , or all the water on Earth will disappear !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing facts and the conclusions that can be drawn from facts.
Fact:"Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press.
"

Invalid (or, at best unsubstantiated) conclusion: This must be the result of human activity.
Even if all the data pointed to an incontrovertible warming across the entirety of the globe, it doesn't necessarily follow that anthropogenic sources are the cause.
To start passing laws and regulations based on what is quite clearly still mere hypothesis, is about as chicken little as it gets.
I've got one for you.
I've observed that when I leave a bowl of water out exposed to the air and the sun, it disappears.
So, clearly we must block out the sun and eliminate air, or all the water on Earth will disappear!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251260</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a climate sceptic, but not how you think...</title>
	<author>pnot</author>
	<datestamp>1259328960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I dislike the doom-laden 'climate change will wreck our environment' crowd for one key reason: they can't provide any evidence that I wouldn't prefer the climate after it has changed.</i></p><p>And neither can I, since I don't know your personal situation, or the climate forecasts for where you live. As to the idea that major global warming would be anything other than disastrous for most of humanity, the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/publications\_ipcc\_fourth\_assessment\_report\_wg2\_report\_impacts\_adaptation\_and\_vulnerability.htm" title="www.ipcc.ch">976-page second chapter of the IPCC 4th assessment report</a> [www.ipcc.ch] deals with it fairly comprehensively. You might want to consider that, even if the weather becomes more to your liking in your particular location, you are tied to the global economy and will feel the impact of adaptation costs in other regions, in the form of things like higher prices for goods and higher taxes. Unless of course you're living a self-sufficient off-grid lifestyle, in which case congratulations, you're probably part of the solution!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dislike the doom-laden 'climate change will wreck our environment ' crowd for one key reason : they ca n't provide any evidence that I would n't prefer the climate after it has changed.And neither can I , since I do n't know your personal situation , or the climate forecasts for where you live .
As to the idea that major global warming would be anything other than disastrous for most of humanity , the 976-page second chapter of the IPCC 4th assessment report [ www.ipcc.ch ] deals with it fairly comprehensively .
You might want to consider that , even if the weather becomes more to your liking in your particular location , you are tied to the global economy and will feel the impact of adaptation costs in other regions , in the form of things like higher prices for goods and higher taxes .
Unless of course you 're living a self-sufficient off-grid lifestyle , in which case congratulations , you 're probably part of the solution !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dislike the doom-laden 'climate change will wreck our environment' crowd for one key reason: they can't provide any evidence that I wouldn't prefer the climate after it has changed.And neither can I, since I don't know your personal situation, or the climate forecasts for where you live.
As to the idea that major global warming would be anything other than disastrous for most of humanity, the 976-page second chapter of the IPCC 4th assessment report [www.ipcc.ch] deals with it fairly comprehensively.
You might want to consider that, even if the weather becomes more to your liking in your particular location, you are tied to the global economy and will feel the impact of adaptation costs in other regions, in the form of things like higher prices for goods and higher taxes.
Unless of course you're living a self-sufficient off-grid lifestyle, in which case congratulations, you're probably part of the solution!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252088</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>FragHARD</author>
	<datestamp>1259338080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didn't fit.... that is why they were shunned, ostracized...etc. by the 'IN' croud in with the 'PC' (pol...crct...) crowd that is....</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't fit.... that is why they were shunned , ostracized...etc .
by the 'IN ' croud in with the 'PC ' ( pol...crct... ) crowd that is... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't fit.... that is why they were shunned, ostracized...etc.
by the 'IN' croud in with the 'PC' (pol...crct...) crowd that is....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30262270</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1259518440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate.</p></div></blockquote><p>
If so, that will only be because of some people's dishonesty, and other people's ignorance. I have not seen one single "damning" issue in the whole "climategate" farce. All I see is ring-wing nutcases lying about it and making up stories to make it a real "climategate".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate .
If so , that will only be because of some people 's dishonesty , and other people 's ignorance .
I have not seen one single " damning " issue in the whole " climategate " farce .
All I see is ring-wing nutcases lying about it and making up stories to make it a real " climategate " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate.
If so, that will only be because of some people's dishonesty, and other people's ignorance.
I have not seen one single "damning" issue in the whole "climategate" farce.
All I see is ring-wing nutcases lying about it and making up stories to make it a real "climategate".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249514</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1259319420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam...</p></div><p>Yes, all of it. Every single journal or proceedings containing papers relevant to global warming research is now debunked.</p><p>And for the idiots out there, that was sarcasm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam...Yes , all of it .
Every single journal or proceedings containing papers relevant to global warming research is now debunked.And for the idiots out there , that was sarcasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, after we find out that much of the experimental and observational basis for Global Warmology is actually a scam...Yes, all of it.
Every single journal or proceedings containing papers relevant to global warming research is now debunked.And for the idiots out there, that was sarcasm.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248384</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259313300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The claims of evolution skeptics and round-earth skeptics is not backed up by observation and evidence. On the other hand, the more extreme claims of anthropogenic global warming \_proponents\_ are not backed up with sufficient observation and are extrapolated from very small datasets.</p><p>Given all of this, to say the "science is settled" is a travesty, and all those who said so fully deserve what's come so far and is undoubtedly coming as there's greater public and scientific scrutiny of their methods:</p><p>a) <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">the Yamal tree-ring data</a> [telegraph.co.uk] - data from 10 trees is extrpolated into a 'trend' and finds its way into a number of papers<br>b) CRU emails - won't say much more, too much said about this already.<br>c) <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">New Zealand average temperature graphs</a> [telegraph.co.uk] - high-school style 'cooking the graph' to match expectations</p><p>At this point, climate scientists who don't open up their raw data, modelling code and assumptions/decision-making are going to look as sleazy as PHB managers who forecast self-serving weird shit to make themselves look good to their bosses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The claims of evolution skeptics and round-earth skeptics is not backed up by observation and evidence .
On the other hand , the more extreme claims of anthropogenic global warming \ _proponents \ _ are not backed up with sufficient observation and are extrapolated from very small datasets.Given all of this , to say the " science is settled " is a travesty , and all those who said so fully deserve what 's come so far and is undoubtedly coming as there 's greater public and scientific scrutiny of their methods : a ) the Yamal tree-ring data [ telegraph.co.uk ] - data from 10 trees is extrpolated into a 'trend ' and finds its way into a number of papersb ) CRU emails - wo n't say much more , too much said about this already.c ) New Zealand average temperature graphs [ telegraph.co.uk ] - high-school style 'cooking the graph ' to match expectationsAt this point , climate scientists who do n't open up their raw data , modelling code and assumptions/decision-making are going to look as sleazy as PHB managers who forecast self-serving weird shit to make themselves look good to their bosses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The claims of evolution skeptics and round-earth skeptics is not backed up by observation and evidence.
On the other hand, the more extreme claims of anthropogenic global warming \_proponents\_ are not backed up with sufficient observation and are extrapolated from very small datasets.Given all of this, to say the "science is settled" is a travesty, and all those who said so fully deserve what's come so far and is undoubtedly coming as there's greater public and scientific scrutiny of their methods:a) the Yamal tree-ring data [telegraph.co.uk] - data from 10 trees is extrpolated into a 'trend' and finds its way into a number of papersb) CRU emails - won't say much more, too much said about this already.c) New Zealand average temperature graphs [telegraph.co.uk] - high-school style 'cooking the graph' to match expectationsAt this point, climate scientists who don't open up their raw data, modelling code and assumptions/decision-making are going to look as sleazy as PHB managers who forecast self-serving weird shit to make themselves look good to their bosses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252678</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>bm\_luethke</author>
	<datestamp>1259346720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good place to start from a programmers perspective is Eric S Raymond:</p><p><a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447" title="ibiblio.org" rel="nofollow">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447</a> [ibiblio.org]</p><p>Not sure how else to take it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good place to start from a programmers perspective is Eric S Raymond : http : //esr.ibiblio.org/ ? p = 1447 [ ibiblio.org ] Not sure how else to take it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good place to start from a programmers perspective is Eric S Raymond:http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447 [ibiblio.org]Not sure how else to take it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251960</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>Squiggle</author>
	<datestamp>1259336400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real AGW arguments (and the motivation of all the parties involved) seem to be about the remedies rather than the climate.  The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.  Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.</p></div><p>What do you mean "people would lead objectively poorer lives"? By reducing energy consumption and waste?</p><p>As a bad analogy, some "poor" people are/stay poor because they can't manage their money. People grow rich by conserving and saving. Spending our energy and materials budget wisely makes us richer. Truly green products have a total cost (including externalities) of manufacture, maintenance, and disposal that is lower than non-green products. That is the definition of a green product. Reducing consumption means we can spend our energy and non-renewable materials on the most valuable and useful products.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real AGW arguments ( and the motivation of all the parties involved ) seem to be about the remedies rather than the climate .
The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives .
Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.What do you mean " people would lead objectively poorer lives " ?
By reducing energy consumption and waste ? As a bad analogy , some " poor " people are/stay poor because they ca n't manage their money .
People grow rich by conserving and saving .
Spending our energy and materials budget wisely makes us richer .
Truly green products have a total cost ( including externalities ) of manufacture , maintenance , and disposal that is lower than non-green products .
That is the definition of a green product .
Reducing consumption means we can spend our energy and non-renewable materials on the most valuable and useful products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real AGW arguments (and the motivation of all the parties involved) seem to be about the remedies rather than the climate.
The AGW believers want to use governments to force people to lead objectively poorer lives.
Many of them have wanted this since before Global Warming was even theorized.What do you mean "people would lead objectively poorer lives"?
By reducing energy consumption and waste?As a bad analogy, some "poor" people are/stay poor because they can't manage their money.
People grow rich by conserving and saving.
Spending our energy and materials budget wisely makes us richer.
Truly green products have a total cost (including externalities) of manufacture, maintenance, and disposal that is lower than non-green products.
That is the definition of a green product.
Reducing consumption means we can spend our energy and non-renewable materials on the most valuable and useful products.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249490</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this is about *policy*, not science</title>
	<author>Alef</author>
	<datestamp>1259319300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society's materialistic, high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed, and AGW provides a convenient club.</p></div></blockquote><p>
With or without convenient clubs, our materialistic lifestyle is going to be curbed eventually. Take a look at the use of pretty much any natural resource and you'll see an exponential curve. This is impossible to sustain for any long period of time. Even if we don't stop burning oil because of global warming, we're simply going to run out of oil, albeit maybe a few decades later.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society 's materialistic , high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed , and AGW provides a convenient club .
With or without convenient clubs , our materialistic lifestyle is going to be curbed eventually .
Take a look at the use of pretty much any natural resource and you 'll see an exponential curve .
This is impossible to sustain for any long period of time .
Even if we do n't stop burning oil because of global warming , we 're simply going to run out of oil , albeit maybe a few decades later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society's materialistic, high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed, and AGW provides a convenient club.
With or without convenient clubs, our materialistic lifestyle is going to be curbed eventually.
Take a look at the use of pretty much any natural resource and you'll see an exponential curve.
This is impossible to sustain for any long period of time.
Even if we don't stop burning oil because of global warming, we're simply going to run out of oil, albeit maybe a few decades later.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249340</id>
	<title>To show that we have learned...</title>
	<author>Kohath</author>
	<datestamp>1259318580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please supply:</p><p>- The data used for this analysis<br>- Any computer code used for calculations<br>- Other computer analysis tools (spreadsheets, etc)<br>- Any notes taken or emails exchanged by the scientists on the subject during the analysis<br>- The raw data from the measurements<br>- A justification of the methodology for the measurement and analysis<br>- Any additional measurements required to indicate this isn't normal<br>- A list of every person involved in this project<br>- The source of funding for this project</p><p>And for good measure:</p><p>- Please tell us what the AGW computer models predicted for this melting.  Preferably, this prediction would have occurred and been published before the melting was discovered.</p><p>Thanks.  And consider not positing it as an AC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please supply : - The data used for this analysis- Any computer code used for calculations- Other computer analysis tools ( spreadsheets , etc ) - Any notes taken or emails exchanged by the scientists on the subject during the analysis- The raw data from the measurements- A justification of the methodology for the measurement and analysis- Any additional measurements required to indicate this is n't normal- A list of every person involved in this project- The source of funding for this projectAnd for good measure : - Please tell us what the AGW computer models predicted for this melting .
Preferably , this prediction would have occurred and been published before the melting was discovered.Thanks .
And consider not positing it as an AC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please supply:- The data used for this analysis- Any computer code used for calculations- Other computer analysis tools (spreadsheets, etc)- Any notes taken or emails exchanged by the scientists on the subject during the analysis- The raw data from the measurements- A justification of the methodology for the measurement and analysis- Any additional measurements required to indicate this isn't normal- A list of every person involved in this project- The source of funding for this projectAnd for good measure:- Please tell us what the AGW computer models predicted for this melting.
Preferably, this prediction would have occurred and been published before the melting was discovered.Thanks.
And consider not positing it as an AC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251214</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a climate sceptic, but not how you think...</title>
	<author>Veggiesama</author>
	<datestamp>1259328720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, quit being obtuse.</p><p>The whole of our modern agricultural system has been built upon relatively stable climate systems observed over the last couple hundred years. If you alter rain patterns or create deserts out of former bread-baskets, then expect big agricultural changes.</p><p>The climate change crowd have never been under the belief that <i>they</i> wouldn't be able to survive. Most of us may not be upper class, but we'd probably have enough money to deal with increased food prices. More of our disposable incomes would be diverted to simply paying the bills, like when gas price hikes simply meant cutting back on extraneous consumption.</p><p>However, we <i>are</i> worried about those who barely get enough to eat right now. What happens when sustenance farmers in rural Africa and Asia can no longer simply sustain themselves because their local climate patterns are wrecked? What happens if another <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust\_Bowl" title="wikipedia.org">Dust Bowl</a> [wikipedia.org] repeats itself? Conservatives are already terrified about immigrants--are they willing to handle an emigration exodus on this scale?</p><p>But if your me-first attitude toward climate change skepticism is of any indication, then I might just be wasting my time with this reply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , quit being obtuse.The whole of our modern agricultural system has been built upon relatively stable climate systems observed over the last couple hundred years .
If you alter rain patterns or create deserts out of former bread-baskets , then expect big agricultural changes.The climate change crowd have never been under the belief that they would n't be able to survive .
Most of us may not be upper class , but we 'd probably have enough money to deal with increased food prices .
More of our disposable incomes would be diverted to simply paying the bills , like when gas price hikes simply meant cutting back on extraneous consumption.However , we are worried about those who barely get enough to eat right now .
What happens when sustenance farmers in rural Africa and Asia can no longer simply sustain themselves because their local climate patterns are wrecked ?
What happens if another Dust Bowl [ wikipedia.org ] repeats itself ?
Conservatives are already terrified about immigrants--are they willing to handle an emigration exodus on this scale ? But if your me-first attitude toward climate change skepticism is of any indication , then I might just be wasting my time with this reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, quit being obtuse.The whole of our modern agricultural system has been built upon relatively stable climate systems observed over the last couple hundred years.
If you alter rain patterns or create deserts out of former bread-baskets, then expect big agricultural changes.The climate change crowd have never been under the belief that they wouldn't be able to survive.
Most of us may not be upper class, but we'd probably have enough money to deal with increased food prices.
More of our disposable incomes would be diverted to simply paying the bills, like when gas price hikes simply meant cutting back on extraneous consumption.However, we are worried about those who barely get enough to eat right now.
What happens when sustenance farmers in rural Africa and Asia can no longer simply sustain themselves because their local climate patterns are wrecked?
What happens if another Dust Bowl [wikipedia.org] repeats itself?
Conservatives are already terrified about immigrants--are they willing to handle an emigration exodus on this scale?But if your me-first attitude toward climate change skepticism is of any indication, then I might just be wasting my time with this reply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250218</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1259323020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a separate accusation.  Tribalism is proven easily by the e-mails.  That fraud happened isn't at all clear.  It was clearly solicited, but if the outcome of the solicitation was to become an accomplice isn't clear.</p><p>That said, I'm relying on summaries provided by other people.  I didn't read the things myself.  (I deal with more e-mail than I want to each day already.)  But if you want me to accept an accusation of fraud, you'll need to point to specific evidence, not to thousands of e-mails.  (I don't even know that all the "Canadian Pharmacies with vastly reduced prices" are frauds.  I just know I'm not going to bother checking them out.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a separate accusation .
Tribalism is proven easily by the e-mails .
That fraud happened is n't at all clear .
It was clearly solicited , but if the outcome of the solicitation was to become an accomplice is n't clear.That said , I 'm relying on summaries provided by other people .
I did n't read the things myself .
( I deal with more e-mail than I want to each day already .
) But if you want me to accept an accusation of fraud , you 'll need to point to specific evidence , not to thousands of e-mails .
( I do n't even know that all the " Canadian Pharmacies with vastly reduced prices " are frauds .
I just know I 'm not going to bother checking them out .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a separate accusation.
Tribalism is proven easily by the e-mails.
That fraud happened isn't at all clear.
It was clearly solicited, but if the outcome of the solicitation was to become an accomplice isn't clear.That said, I'm relying on summaries provided by other people.
I didn't read the things myself.
(I deal with more e-mail than I want to each day already.
)  But if you want me to accept an accusation of fraud, you'll need to point to specific evidence, not to thousands of e-mails.
(I don't even know that all the "Canadian Pharmacies with vastly reduced prices" are frauds.
I just know I'm not going to bother checking them out.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249376</id>
	<title>Re:Extraordinary claims...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259318700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any science that comes from a major media outlet is by definition total crap. Yes, even Fox news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any science that comes from a major media outlet is by definition total crap .
Yes , even Fox news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any science that comes from a major media outlet is by definition total crap.
Yes, even Fox news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248576</id>
	<title>No way...</title>
	<author>pdboddy</author>
	<datestamp>1259314440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure if it's possible for the two sides to have a logical, non-handwavey-gloom-and-doom conversation.<br> <br>
When the hack became public and "climate-gate" was unfolding, people were asking on RealClimate.org (one of the sites involved somehow with climategate) for explanations about the numbers and just what the scientists and researchers were discussing when they were talking about tricks in correlating various datum.  In the first 250 comments or so, no one brought said anything about global warming/climate change not being real or if it was caused by humans or not.  People just wanted to know what the heck the numbers meant and what the various acronyms were.<br> <br>
Yet those folks were called deniers.  That we didn't "get" it, and never would. These comments weren't from site admins or the scientists involved however.<br> <br>
With the predictable responses from the other side.<br> <br>
Maybe the scientists and researchers on both sides can have a reasoned debate, but for John Q. Public, I guess we've been fed so much "doom-and-gloom" or "it's-all-nonsense" that the yelling and finger-pointing are in full tilt before the cooler heads have even opened their mouths.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if it 's possible for the two sides to have a logical , non-handwavey-gloom-and-doom conversation .
When the hack became public and " climate-gate " was unfolding , people were asking on RealClimate.org ( one of the sites involved somehow with climategate ) for explanations about the numbers and just what the scientists and researchers were discussing when they were talking about tricks in correlating various datum .
In the first 250 comments or so , no one brought said anything about global warming/climate change not being real or if it was caused by humans or not .
People just wanted to know what the heck the numbers meant and what the various acronyms were .
Yet those folks were called deniers .
That we did n't " get " it , and never would .
These comments were n't from site admins or the scientists involved however .
With the predictable responses from the other side .
Maybe the scientists and researchers on both sides can have a reasoned debate , but for John Q. Public , I guess we 've been fed so much " doom-and-gloom " or " it 's-all-nonsense " that the yelling and finger-pointing are in full tilt before the cooler heads have even opened their mouths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if it's possible for the two sides to have a logical, non-handwavey-gloom-and-doom conversation.
When the hack became public and "climate-gate" was unfolding, people were asking on RealClimate.org (one of the sites involved somehow with climategate) for explanations about the numbers and just what the scientists and researchers were discussing when they were talking about tricks in correlating various datum.
In the first 250 comments or so, no one brought said anything about global warming/climate change not being real or if it was caused by humans or not.
People just wanted to know what the heck the numbers meant and what the various acronyms were.
Yet those folks were called deniers.
That we didn't "get" it, and never would.
These comments weren't from site admins or the scientists involved however.
With the predictable responses from the other side.
Maybe the scientists and researchers on both sides can have a reasoned debate, but for John Q. Public, I guess we've been fed so much "doom-and-gloom" or "it's-all-nonsense" that the yelling and finger-pointing are in full tilt before the cooler heads have even opened their mouths.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30260228</id>
	<title>Re:Eric Raymond's take on this</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1259495880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eric S. Raymond's been pushing conspiracy theories that aren't borne out by the evidence. Specifically, he's taking a fudge factor applied to temperatures derived from tree trunk cores to make them line up with every other temperature measurement, and misrepresenting it as something that creates global warming out of nowhere.</p><p>In particular, the bit where "On 11/24, esr examined the code that, quite literally, creates the hockey stick graph in Hiding the Decline: Part 1 &ndash; The Adventure Begins" is out and out lies. Oh, and he's not allowing any comments through that point out his mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eric S. Raymond 's been pushing conspiracy theories that are n't borne out by the evidence .
Specifically , he 's taking a fudge factor applied to temperatures derived from tree trunk cores to make them line up with every other temperature measurement , and misrepresenting it as something that creates global warming out of nowhere.In particular , the bit where " On 11/24 , esr examined the code that , quite literally , creates the hockey stick graph in Hiding the Decline : Part 1    The Adventure Begins " is out and out lies .
Oh , and he 's not allowing any comments through that point out his mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eric S. Raymond's been pushing conspiracy theories that aren't borne out by the evidence.
Specifically, he's taking a fudge factor applied to temperatures derived from tree trunk cores to make them line up with every other temperature measurement, and misrepresenting it as something that creates global warming out of nowhere.In particular, the bit where "On 11/24, esr examined the code that, quite literally, creates the hockey stick graph in Hiding the Decline: Part 1 – The Adventure Begins" is out and out lies.
Oh, and he's not allowing any comments through that point out his mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248654</id>
	<title>Burden of proof</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1259314980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like the burden of proof should fall on the polluters and not the environmentalists.  I find it hard to believe a bunch of people who are arguing for greater efficiency and less waste need to be put on the defensive.  But that's politics as usual, I suppose.</p><p>How many people can the environment comfortably sustain?  We all need resources as input, and have waste products as output... should we reward people for using less, or penalize people for using much more than others?</p><p>But really, the only way to find out for sure is to stress the system until it breaks.</p><p>It would be nice to preemptively address the problem before we destroy our livelihood, but politically the naysayers will always whine about not getting the resources they're entitled to - it's in their best interests.  So just like every pollution problem we've had in the past, we won't really get legislative action until something bad happens and people die.  We just have to hope it won't be as catastrophic.  Maybe at best we could convince polluters to be responsible to pay into a fund to fix future damages... so they kinda get a short term reward for subjecting us to risk.</p><p>I feel like the current fixation on CO2 emissions is kind of silly... it's a good simplification to help focus our efforts on sustainable energy sources as opposed to burning fossil fuels, but the AGW crowd has attacked that simplification, instilling a fair dose of FUD.</p><p>Anyway, the optimist in me hopes the US / China / etc. can sort of get in line with some of the other cultures (Japanese, German) who just approach things like recycling and increased efficiency as a no-brainer... why even argue?  But the pessimist in me is investing in real estate in Alaska<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like the burden of proof should fall on the polluters and not the environmentalists .
I find it hard to believe a bunch of people who are arguing for greater efficiency and less waste need to be put on the defensive .
But that 's politics as usual , I suppose.How many people can the environment comfortably sustain ?
We all need resources as input , and have waste products as output... should we reward people for using less , or penalize people for using much more than others ? But really , the only way to find out for sure is to stress the system until it breaks.It would be nice to preemptively address the problem before we destroy our livelihood , but politically the naysayers will always whine about not getting the resources they 're entitled to - it 's in their best interests .
So just like every pollution problem we 've had in the past , we wo n't really get legislative action until something bad happens and people die .
We just have to hope it wo n't be as catastrophic .
Maybe at best we could convince polluters to be responsible to pay into a fund to fix future damages... so they kinda get a short term reward for subjecting us to risk.I feel like the current fixation on CO2 emissions is kind of silly... it 's a good simplification to help focus our efforts on sustainable energy sources as opposed to burning fossil fuels , but the AGW crowd has attacked that simplification , instilling a fair dose of FUD.Anyway , the optimist in me hopes the US / China / etc .
can sort of get in line with some of the other cultures ( Japanese , German ) who just approach things like recycling and increased efficiency as a no-brainer... why even argue ?
But the pessimist in me is investing in real estate in Alaska : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like the burden of proof should fall on the polluters and not the environmentalists.
I find it hard to believe a bunch of people who are arguing for greater efficiency and less waste need to be put on the defensive.
But that's politics as usual, I suppose.How many people can the environment comfortably sustain?
We all need resources as input, and have waste products as output... should we reward people for using less, or penalize people for using much more than others?But really, the only way to find out for sure is to stress the system until it breaks.It would be nice to preemptively address the problem before we destroy our livelihood, but politically the naysayers will always whine about not getting the resources they're entitled to - it's in their best interests.
So just like every pollution problem we've had in the past, we won't really get legislative action until something bad happens and people die.
We just have to hope it won't be as catastrophic.
Maybe at best we could convince polluters to be responsible to pay into a fund to fix future damages... so they kinda get a short term reward for subjecting us to risk.I feel like the current fixation on CO2 emissions is kind of silly... it's a good simplification to help focus our efforts on sustainable energy sources as opposed to burning fossil fuels, but the AGW crowd has attacked that simplification, instilling a fair dose of FUD.Anyway, the optimist in me hopes the US / China / etc.
can sort of get in line with some of the other cultures (Japanese, German) who just approach things like recycling and increased efficiency as a no-brainer... why even argue?
But the pessimist in me is investing in real estate in Alaska :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248998</id>
	<title>Re:Uh yeah, whatever...</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1259316780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Much of the experimental and observational basis? Citation please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Much of the experimental and observational basis ?
Citation please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much of the experimental and observational basis?
Citation please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251554</id>
	<title>Re:Forcing people into impoverished lives</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1259331720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>..rich people can afford to pay for environmental spirituality, poor people can't.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, the exact opposite is true.  Damaging the environment damages the economy.  The rich people can afford to move away, or to protect themselves from the effects of the damaged environment, but poor people can't.  For example, if a water supply is polluted with industrial toxins, rich people can afford to ship in bottled water, while poor people have to use whatever's local.  If the local fisheries are depleted, rich people can afford to eat imported meats, while poor people will just starve.
</p><p>There's a great book by Jared Diamond called "Collapse" which should be required reading for every college graduate.  Near the end of his book he addresses several "one-liners" wrt environmental care; here's the relevant one:</p><blockquote><div><p>"The environment has to be balanced against the economy." This quote portrays environmental concerns as a luxury, views measures to solve environmental problems as incurring a net cost, and considers leaving environmental problems unsolved to be a money-saving device. This one-liner puts the truth exactly backwards. Environmental messes cost us huge sums of money both in the short run and in the long run; cleaning up or preventing those messes saves us huge sums in the long run, and often in the short run as well. In caring for the health of our surroundings, just as of our bodies, it is cheaper and preferable to avoid getting sick than to try to cure illnesses after they have developed. Just think of the damage caused by agricultural weeds and pests, non-agricultural pests like water hyacinths and zebra mussels, the recurrent annual costs of combating those pests, the value of lost time when we are stuck in traffic, the financial costs resulting from people getting sick or dying from environmental toxins, cleanup costs for toxic chemicals, the steep increase in fish prices due to depletion of fish stocks, and the value of farmland damaged or ruined by erosion and salinization. It adds up to a few hundred million dollars per year here, tens of billions of dollars there, another billion dollars over here, and so on for hundreds of different problems. For instance, the value of "one statistical life" in the U.S. -- i.e., the cost to the U.S. economy resulting from the death of an average American whom society has gone to the expense of rearing and educating but who dies before a lifetime of contributing to the national economy -- is usually estimated at around $5 million. Even if one takes the conservative estimate of annual U.S. deaths due to air pollution as 130,000, then deaths due to air pollution cost us about $650 billion per year. That illustrates why the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, although its cleanup measures do cost money, has yielded estimated net health savings (benefits in excess of costs) of about $1 trillion per year, due to saved lives and reduced health costs.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..rich people can afford to pay for environmental spirituality , poor people ca n't.Actually , the exact opposite is true .
Damaging the environment damages the economy .
The rich people can afford to move away , or to protect themselves from the effects of the damaged environment , but poor people ca n't .
For example , if a water supply is polluted with industrial toxins , rich people can afford to ship in bottled water , while poor people have to use whatever 's local .
If the local fisheries are depleted , rich people can afford to eat imported meats , while poor people will just starve .
There 's a great book by Jared Diamond called " Collapse " which should be required reading for every college graduate .
Near the end of his book he addresses several " one-liners " wrt environmental care ; here 's the relevant one : " The environment has to be balanced against the economy .
" This quote portrays environmental concerns as a luxury , views measures to solve environmental problems as incurring a net cost , and considers leaving environmental problems unsolved to be a money-saving device .
This one-liner puts the truth exactly backwards .
Environmental messes cost us huge sums of money both in the short run and in the long run ; cleaning up or preventing those messes saves us huge sums in the long run , and often in the short run as well .
In caring for the health of our surroundings , just as of our bodies , it is cheaper and preferable to avoid getting sick than to try to cure illnesses after they have developed .
Just think of the damage caused by agricultural weeds and pests , non-agricultural pests like water hyacinths and zebra mussels , the recurrent annual costs of combating those pests , the value of lost time when we are stuck in traffic , the financial costs resulting from people getting sick or dying from environmental toxins , cleanup costs for toxic chemicals , the steep increase in fish prices due to depletion of fish stocks , and the value of farmland damaged or ruined by erosion and salinization .
It adds up to a few hundred million dollars per year here , tens of billions of dollars there , another billion dollars over here , and so on for hundreds of different problems .
For instance , the value of " one statistical life " in the U.S. -- i.e. , the cost to the U.S. economy resulting from the death of an average American whom society has gone to the expense of rearing and educating but who dies before a lifetime of contributing to the national economy -- is usually estimated at around $ 5 million .
Even if one takes the conservative estimate of annual U.S. deaths due to air pollution as 130,000 , then deaths due to air pollution cost us about $ 650 billion per year .
That illustrates why the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970 , although its cleanup measures do cost money , has yielded estimated net health savings ( benefits in excess of costs ) of about $ 1 trillion per year , due to saved lives and reduced health costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..rich people can afford to pay for environmental spirituality, poor people can't.Actually, the exact opposite is true.
Damaging the environment damages the economy.
The rich people can afford to move away, or to protect themselves from the effects of the damaged environment, but poor people can't.
For example, if a water supply is polluted with industrial toxins, rich people can afford to ship in bottled water, while poor people have to use whatever's local.
If the local fisheries are depleted, rich people can afford to eat imported meats, while poor people will just starve.
There's a great book by Jared Diamond called "Collapse" which should be required reading for every college graduate.
Near the end of his book he addresses several "one-liners" wrt environmental care; here's the relevant one:"The environment has to be balanced against the economy.
" This quote portrays environmental concerns as a luxury, views measures to solve environmental problems as incurring a net cost, and considers leaving environmental problems unsolved to be a money-saving device.
This one-liner puts the truth exactly backwards.
Environmental messes cost us huge sums of money both in the short run and in the long run; cleaning up or preventing those messes saves us huge sums in the long run, and often in the short run as well.
In caring for the health of our surroundings, just as of our bodies, it is cheaper and preferable to avoid getting sick than to try to cure illnesses after they have developed.
Just think of the damage caused by agricultural weeds and pests, non-agricultural pests like water hyacinths and zebra mussels, the recurrent annual costs of combating those pests, the value of lost time when we are stuck in traffic, the financial costs resulting from people getting sick or dying from environmental toxins, cleanup costs for toxic chemicals, the steep increase in fish prices due to depletion of fish stocks, and the value of farmland damaged or ruined by erosion and salinization.
It adds up to a few hundred million dollars per year here, tens of billions of dollars there, another billion dollars over here, and so on for hundreds of different problems.
For instance, the value of "one statistical life" in the U.S. -- i.e., the cost to the U.S. economy resulting from the death of an average American whom society has gone to the expense of rearing and educating but who dies before a lifetime of contributing to the national economy -- is usually estimated at around $5 million.
Even if one takes the conservative estimate of annual U.S. deaths due to air pollution as 130,000, then deaths due to air pollution cost us about $650 billion per year.
That illustrates why the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, although its cleanup measures do cost money, has yielded estimated net health savings (benefits in excess of costs) of about $1 trillion per year, due to saved lives and reduced health costs.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250284</id>
	<title>Re:Oftentimes, simply no...</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1259323440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No lay person could possibly understand what you do because you're just so much smarter than they are? Or is it that you spent 40 years poring over data day and night? Are you THAT smart? Give me a break. Anyone who has the hubris to think that their work can only be understood by those in their field is just aching to be smacked down by some un-educated smarty. Look, its attitudes like yours that make the rest of us 'non-scientists' think you're an idiot. Give people some credit, we're not all morons.</p></div><p>Then let me clarify for him.  Experts in a field, especially scientists, spend years if not DECADES studying their subject matter.  The average layperson doesn't.  They aren't necessarily SMARTER, just BETTER EDUCATED BY FAR in their field.  The letters after their name are usually a good indicator of the minimum number of YEARS they have spent pursuing knowledge and understanding in their field.</p><p>They use words that mean specific things, and they all know what they mean as opposed to just guessing from common usage.</p><p>The best example is anti-evolutionists saying "Evolution is just a <strong>theory</strong>."  They're thinking the word <em>theory</em> means <em>guess</em>, and that isn't even close.  Merriam-Webster defines theory as:</p><p>1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena </p><p>Neither mean ANYTHING close to what the layperson thinks theory means, by their usage, but is exactly what a scientist means.</p><p>The same goes for terms used in climate science.  There are going to be several that don't mean what people think they mean.  Nor are laypeople going to understand statistical methods, standard deviation, normalization of data or any other legitimate data analysis technique.  All they see is "YOU MANIPULATED THE DATA!"</p><p>I've worked with computers for over 25 years, in programming, networking and security.  I have a degree, several certificates, a few published articles and decades of experience to my name. I sometimes help family or friends with problems with their PCs and I almost ALWAYS get "the kid down at Best Buy said to try X -- why don't you do X?"  Usually it is step 1 or 2 in troubleshooting and something I examined and discarded 15 steps back but to be polite I not only have to explain that I did that, but WHY it won't work and wasn't appropriate in the first place.  Then explain every step I've done along the way to where I am now and when I fix it.</p><p>I ENJOY doing that when I know the person is INTERESTED and going to LEARN something, but many just get defensive and say "well, Betty's son works with computers after school and HE said..." Followed by a lecture on how I should take advice from someone with 1/10th my experience and no direct knowledge of the problem, other than a brief chat over the phone with someone who is clueless.  It is the equivalent of a degreed and certified mechanical engineer taking advice on building a bridge from the neighbor's kid because he has an erector set.</p><p>Which brings me back to the original discussion.  The general public is the equivalent of kids with erector sets clamoring about how the degreed, tested and certified mechanical engineers with decades of experience are all doing it wrong.  If they really want to participate in the process, they need to put in serious study on the scientific process, data analysis, data collection and the subject at hand.  YEARS, probably.  No, a quick check on Wikipedia and arguing with the guys down at the bar doesn't cut it.  A degree in the field would.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No lay person could possibly understand what you do because you 're just so much smarter than they are ?
Or is it that you spent 40 years poring over data day and night ?
Are you THAT smart ?
Give me a break .
Anyone who has the hubris to think that their work can only be understood by those in their field is just aching to be smacked down by some un-educated smarty .
Look , its attitudes like yours that make the rest of us 'non-scientists ' think you 're an idiot .
Give people some credit , we 're not all morons.Then let me clarify for him .
Experts in a field , especially scientists , spend years if not DECADES studying their subject matter .
The average layperson does n't .
They are n't necessarily SMARTER , just BETTER EDUCATED BY FAR in their field .
The letters after their name are usually a good indicator of the minimum number of YEARS they have spent pursuing knowledge and understanding in their field.They use words that mean specific things , and they all know what they mean as opposed to just guessing from common usage.The best example is anti-evolutionists saying " Evolution is just a theory .
" They 're thinking the word theory means guess , and that is n't even close .
Merriam-Webster defines theory as : 1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another ; ...5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena Neither mean ANYTHING close to what the layperson thinks theory means , by their usage , but is exactly what a scientist means.The same goes for terms used in climate science .
There are going to be several that do n't mean what people think they mean .
Nor are laypeople going to understand statistical methods , standard deviation , normalization of data or any other legitimate data analysis technique .
All they see is " YOU MANIPULATED THE DATA !
" I 've worked with computers for over 25 years , in programming , networking and security .
I have a degree , several certificates , a few published articles and decades of experience to my name .
I sometimes help family or friends with problems with their PCs and I almost ALWAYS get " the kid down at Best Buy said to try X -- why do n't you do X ?
" Usually it is step 1 or 2 in troubleshooting and something I examined and discarded 15 steps back but to be polite I not only have to explain that I did that , but WHY it wo n't work and was n't appropriate in the first place .
Then explain every step I 've done along the way to where I am now and when I fix it.I ENJOY doing that when I know the person is INTERESTED and going to LEARN something , but many just get defensive and say " well , Betty 's son works with computers after school and HE said... " Followed by a lecture on how I should take advice from someone with 1/10th my experience and no direct knowledge of the problem , other than a brief chat over the phone with someone who is clueless .
It is the equivalent of a degreed and certified mechanical engineer taking advice on building a bridge from the neighbor 's kid because he has an erector set.Which brings me back to the original discussion .
The general public is the equivalent of kids with erector sets clamoring about how the degreed , tested and certified mechanical engineers with decades of experience are all doing it wrong .
If they really want to participate in the process , they need to put in serious study on the scientific process , data analysis , data collection and the subject at hand .
YEARS , probably .
No , a quick check on Wikipedia and arguing with the guys down at the bar does n't cut it .
A degree in the field would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No lay person could possibly understand what you do because you're just so much smarter than they are?
Or is it that you spent 40 years poring over data day and night?
Are you THAT smart?
Give me a break.
Anyone who has the hubris to think that their work can only be understood by those in their field is just aching to be smacked down by some un-educated smarty.
Look, its attitudes like yours that make the rest of us 'non-scientists' think you're an idiot.
Give people some credit, we're not all morons.Then let me clarify for him.
Experts in a field, especially scientists, spend years if not DECADES studying their subject matter.
The average layperson doesn't.
They aren't necessarily SMARTER, just BETTER EDUCATED BY FAR in their field.
The letters after their name are usually a good indicator of the minimum number of YEARS they have spent pursuing knowledge and understanding in their field.They use words that mean specific things, and they all know what they mean as opposed to just guessing from common usage.The best example is anti-evolutionists saying "Evolution is just a theory.
"  They're thinking the word theory means guess, and that isn't even close.
Merriam-Webster defines theory as:1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another; ...5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena Neither mean ANYTHING close to what the layperson thinks theory means, by their usage, but is exactly what a scientist means.The same goes for terms used in climate science.
There are going to be several that don't mean what people think they mean.
Nor are laypeople going to understand statistical methods, standard deviation, normalization of data or any other legitimate data analysis technique.
All they see is "YOU MANIPULATED THE DATA!
"I've worked with computers for over 25 years, in programming, networking and security.
I have a degree, several certificates, a few published articles and decades of experience to my name.
I sometimes help family or friends with problems with their PCs and I almost ALWAYS get "the kid down at Best Buy said to try X -- why don't you do X?
"  Usually it is step 1 or 2 in troubleshooting and something I examined and discarded 15 steps back but to be polite I not only have to explain that I did that, but WHY it won't work and wasn't appropriate in the first place.
Then explain every step I've done along the way to where I am now and when I fix it.I ENJOY doing that when I know the person is INTERESTED and going to LEARN something, but many just get defensive and say "well, Betty's son works with computers after school and HE said..." Followed by a lecture on how I should take advice from someone with 1/10th my experience and no direct knowledge of the problem, other than a brief chat over the phone with someone who is clueless.
It is the equivalent of a degreed and certified mechanical engineer taking advice on building a bridge from the neighbor's kid because he has an erector set.Which brings me back to the original discussion.
The general public is the equivalent of kids with erector sets clamoring about how the degreed, tested and certified mechanical engineers with decades of experience are all doing it wrong.
If they really want to participate in the process, they need to put in serious study on the scientific process, data analysis, data collection and the subject at hand.
YEARS, probably.
No, a quick check on Wikipedia and arguing with the guys down at the bar doesn't cut it.
A degree in the field would.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254032</id>
	<title>It's not about Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259417160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about Science, except to a tiny handful of very specialized climate scientists. To the rest of us ill-educated masses (and that means YOU, Gentle Reader), it's nothing but Rhetoric, Public Relations, and Politics now. The silly actions of a few have obscured the real issues, and neither clarity nor consensus will emerge in public discourse for many years to come.</p><p>If the anthropogenic climate change "side" is correct, by that time it will be too late to do anything meaningful about the situation, and our descendants will just have to batten the hatches and hope to ride out a 100,000 year storm that will probably make current worst-case scenarios look naively optimistic.</p><p>If it's all just part of a long-term period of global warming, the consequences are still the same, and our descendants will still have to batten the hatches and hope to ride out a "X" year storm that will merely destroy civilization as we have built it.</p><p>Better hope that nothing is happening at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about Science , except to a tiny handful of very specialized climate scientists .
To the rest of us ill-educated masses ( and that means YOU , Gentle Reader ) , it 's nothing but Rhetoric , Public Relations , and Politics now .
The silly actions of a few have obscured the real issues , and neither clarity nor consensus will emerge in public discourse for many years to come.If the anthropogenic climate change " side " is correct , by that time it will be too late to do anything meaningful about the situation , and our descendants will just have to batten the hatches and hope to ride out a 100,000 year storm that will probably make current worst-case scenarios look naively optimistic.If it 's all just part of a long-term period of global warming , the consequences are still the same , and our descendants will still have to batten the hatches and hope to ride out a " X " year storm that will merely destroy civilization as we have built it.Better hope that nothing is happening at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about Science, except to a tiny handful of very specialized climate scientists.
To the rest of us ill-educated masses (and that means YOU, Gentle Reader), it's nothing but Rhetoric, Public Relations, and Politics now.
The silly actions of a few have obscured the real issues, and neither clarity nor consensus will emerge in public discourse for many years to come.If the anthropogenic climate change "side" is correct, by that time it will be too late to do anything meaningful about the situation, and our descendants will just have to batten the hatches and hope to ride out a 100,000 year storm that will probably make current worst-case scenarios look naively optimistic.If it's all just part of a long-term period of global warming, the consequences are still the same, and our descendants will still have to batten the hatches and hope to ride out a "X" year storm that will merely destroy civilization as we have built it.Better hope that nothing is happening at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254494</id>
	<title>Re:No way...</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259423400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When the hack became public and "climate-gate" was unfolding, people were asking on RealClimate.org (one of the sites involved somehow with climategate) for explanations about the numbers and just what the scientists and researchers were discussing when they were talking about tricks in correlating various datum. In the first 250 comments or so, no one brought said anything about global warming/climate change not being real or if it was caused by humans or not.</p></div><p>
Note that this is the first 250 ACCEPTED comments. Try to comment there and you will find that ALL comments are moderated, that they DO NOT get posted until going through the human censor weeding out what they don't like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the hack became public and " climate-gate " was unfolding , people were asking on RealClimate.org ( one of the sites involved somehow with climategate ) for explanations about the numbers and just what the scientists and researchers were discussing when they were talking about tricks in correlating various datum .
In the first 250 comments or so , no one brought said anything about global warming/climate change not being real or if it was caused by humans or not .
Note that this is the first 250 ACCEPTED comments .
Try to comment there and you will find that ALL comments are moderated , that they DO NOT get posted until going through the human censor weeding out what they do n't like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the hack became public and "climate-gate" was unfolding, people were asking on RealClimate.org (one of the sites involved somehow with climategate) for explanations about the numbers and just what the scientists and researchers were discussing when they were talking about tricks in correlating various datum.
In the first 250 comments or so, no one brought said anything about global warming/climate change not being real or if it was caused by humans or not.
Note that this is the first 250 ACCEPTED comments.
Try to comment there and you will find that ALL comments are moderated, that they DO NOT get posted until going through the human censor weeding out what they don't like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250070</id>
	<title>Re:Engaging with whom exactly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259322180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, that is science.</p><p>You can have as much evidence as you want to support a theory and it doesn't matter one iota when someone comes up with a counterexample that is replicatable.</p><p>That's the game and those proposing AGW can't do otherwise unless they want science by dictate.</p><p>Nick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , that is science.You can have as much evidence as you want to support a theory and it does n't matter one iota when someone comes up with a counterexample that is replicatable.That 's the game and those proposing AGW ca n't do otherwise unless they want science by dictate.Nick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, that is science.You can have as much evidence as you want to support a theory and it doesn't matter one iota when someone comes up with a counterexample that is replicatable.That's the game and those proposing AGW can't do otherwise unless they want science by dictate.Nick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249734</id>
	<title>Re:Actually this is about *policy*, not science</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1259320560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would take a lot to convince me otherwise. I'd need proof that humans were not, in fact, releasing a significant amount of greenhouse gases - and proof that this smaller amount is not enough to raise temperatures. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for debate. We also know that there is 35\% more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in 1832. It follows that with 30\% more of a greenhouse gas, the earth will be warmer now than it was in 1832.</p><p>Since the earth doesn't do crazy drastic things like that, in the span of 150 years, <i>and</i> we know that starting in around 1832 we've been releasing crazy amounts of previously-sequestered CO2 into the air, it follows that it's our fault.</p><p>The only thing that could feasibly wrong is whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we know it is. Or perhaps some drastic geological process has been happening without our knowledge for the past 150 years, but that's a big leap too.</p><p>I could be convinced otherwise, but only by a climate scientist doing credible research. And I highly doubt both scenarios. In short, I require significant implausible incontrovertible evidence, but it could theoretically happen.</p><p>Meanwhile, AGW-deniers don't change their tone in the face of piles of facts, except to say that those facts are all wrong. What would make them change their mind? More facts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would take a lot to convince me otherwise .
I 'd need proof that humans were not , in fact , releasing a significant amount of greenhouse gases - and proof that this smaller amount is not enough to raise temperatures .
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for debate .
We also know that there is 35 \ % more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in 1832 .
It follows that with 30 \ % more of a greenhouse gas , the earth will be warmer now than it was in 1832.Since the earth does n't do crazy drastic things like that , in the span of 150 years , and we know that starting in around 1832 we 've been releasing crazy amounts of previously-sequestered CO2 into the air , it follows that it 's our fault.The only thing that could feasibly wrong is whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas , but we know it is .
Or perhaps some drastic geological process has been happening without our knowledge for the past 150 years , but that 's a big leap too.I could be convinced otherwise , but only by a climate scientist doing credible research .
And I highly doubt both scenarios .
In short , I require significant implausible incontrovertible evidence , but it could theoretically happen.Meanwhile , AGW-deniers do n't change their tone in the face of piles of facts , except to say that those facts are all wrong .
What would make them change their mind ?
More facts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would take a lot to convince me otherwise.
I'd need proof that humans were not, in fact, releasing a significant amount of greenhouse gases - and proof that this smaller amount is not enough to raise temperatures.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is not open for debate.
We also know that there is 35\% more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in 1832.
It follows that with 30\% more of a greenhouse gas, the earth will be warmer now than it was in 1832.Since the earth doesn't do crazy drastic things like that, in the span of 150 years, and we know that starting in around 1832 we've been releasing crazy amounts of previously-sequestered CO2 into the air, it follows that it's our fault.The only thing that could feasibly wrong is whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we know it is.
Or perhaps some drastic geological process has been happening without our knowledge for the past 150 years, but that's a big leap too.I could be convinced otherwise, but only by a climate scientist doing credible research.
And I highly doubt both scenarios.
In short, I require significant implausible incontrovertible evidence, but it could theoretically happen.Meanwhile, AGW-deniers don't change their tone in the face of piles of facts, except to say that those facts are all wrong.
What would make them change their mind?
More facts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30257002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30309096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30349688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30258658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30262524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30260228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30309082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30260716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30258312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30309116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30263430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1811253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30262270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248978
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251052
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251684
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255356
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255730
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253028
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30309096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30309082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250284
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30349688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30260228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30258658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30257002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30309116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30263430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30253208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30258312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30262270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30260716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30254378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30256886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248628
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249160
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30255078
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252768
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30262524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30249224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30251098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30250878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30252010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1811253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1811253.30248722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
