<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_30_0152244</id>
	<title>Where the Global Warming Data Is</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259589840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Several readers noted the latest fallout from the Climate Research Unit's <a href="//politics.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1747257/Climatic-Research-Unit-Hacked-Files-Leaked">Climategate</a>: the admission by the University of East Anglia that the <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece">raw data behind important climate research was discarded</a> in the 1980s, "a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue" according to the Times (UK) article. The Telegraph <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html">quotes Phil Jones</a>, beleagured head of the CRU: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them." Some of the data behind these other results can likely be found in a new resource that <a href="mailto:jamie@slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">jamie</a> located up at the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/">Real Climate</a> site: a compilation of <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/">links to a wide variety of raw data about climate</a>. From the former link: <i>"In the aftermath of the CRU email hack, many people have come to believe that scientists are unfairly restricting access to the raw data relating to the global rise in temperature. ... We have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several readers noted the latest fallout from the Climate Research Unit 's Climategate : the admission by the University of East Anglia that the raw data behind important climate research was discarded in the 1980s , " a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue " according to the Times ( UK ) article .
The Telegraph quotes Phil Jones , beleagured head of the CRU : " Our global temperature series tallies with those of other , completely independent , groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States , among others .
Even if you were to ignore our findings , theirs show the same results .
The facts speak for themselves ; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them .
" Some of the data behind these other results can likely be found in a new resource that jamie located up at the Real Climate site : a compilation of links to a wide variety of raw data about climate .
From the former link : " In the aftermath of the CRU email hack , many people have come to believe that scientists are unfairly restricting access to the raw data relating to the global rise in temperature .
... We have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data , codes to process it , model outputs , model codes , reconstructions , paleo-records , the codes involved in reconstructions etc .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several readers noted the latest fallout from the Climate Research Unit's Climategate: the admission by the University of East Anglia that the raw data behind important climate research was discarded in the 1980s, "a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue" according to the Times (UK) article.
The Telegraph quotes Phil Jones, beleagured head of the CRU: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others.
Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results.
The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.
" Some of the data behind these other results can likely be found in a new resource that jamie located up at the Real Climate site: a compilation of links to a wide variety of raw data about climate.
From the former link: "In the aftermath of the CRU email hack, many people have come to believe that scientists are unfairly restricting access to the raw data relating to the global rise in temperature.
... We have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265676</id>
	<title>Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming</title>
	<author>reporter</author>
	<datestamp>1259508780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If global warming is, by some remote possibility, neither real nor caused by human activities, then the current convulsions about who should do what to save the planet will be much noise about nothing.
<p>
On the other hand, suppose that global warming is real and is caused by human activities.  Then, who shall be responsible for the oceans flooding nations like Great Britain and Japan, shrinking their territories to one-tenth of the original size?
</p><p>
Common sense tells us that if a nation -- e. g. , China -- pumps greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with wild abandon and if such an act causes global warming which greatly enlarges the oceans, thus flooding much of Great Britain and Japan, then such an act is essentially an act of war against the British and the Japanese.  The British and the Japanese then have the moral right to initiate war against China in order to seize Chinese territory for settlement by the Japanese and the British.
</p><p>
Losing 90\% of Japanese (or British) territory due to Chinese thoughtlessness is not a laughing matter and is an act of war.  Military force is a legitimate way to eradicate Chinese thoughtlessness and to compel the Chinese to protect the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If global warming is , by some remote possibility , neither real nor caused by human activities , then the current convulsions about who should do what to save the planet will be much noise about nothing .
On the other hand , suppose that global warming is real and is caused by human activities .
Then , who shall be responsible for the oceans flooding nations like Great Britain and Japan , shrinking their territories to one-tenth of the original size ?
Common sense tells us that if a nation -- e. g. , China -- pumps greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with wild abandon and if such an act causes global warming which greatly enlarges the oceans , thus flooding much of Great Britain and Japan , then such an act is essentially an act of war against the British and the Japanese .
The British and the Japanese then have the moral right to initiate war against China in order to seize Chinese territory for settlement by the Japanese and the British .
Losing 90 \ % of Japanese ( or British ) territory due to Chinese thoughtlessness is not a laughing matter and is an act of war .
Military force is a legitimate way to eradicate Chinese thoughtlessness and to compel the Chinese to protect the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If global warming is, by some remote possibility, neither real nor caused by human activities, then the current convulsions about who should do what to save the planet will be much noise about nothing.
On the other hand, suppose that global warming is real and is caused by human activities.
Then, who shall be responsible for the oceans flooding nations like Great Britain and Japan, shrinking their territories to one-tenth of the original size?
Common sense tells us that if a nation -- e. g. , China -- pumps greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with wild abandon and if such an act causes global warming which greatly enlarges the oceans, thus flooding much of Great Britain and Japan, then such an act is essentially an act of war against the British and the Japanese.
The British and the Japanese then have the moral right to initiate war against China in order to seize Chinese territory for settlement by the Japanese and the British.
Losing 90\% of Japanese (or British) territory due to Chinese thoughtlessness is not a laughing matter and is an act of war.
Military force is a legitimate way to eradicate Chinese thoughtlessness and to compel the Chinese to protect the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30272394</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just recreate it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259609160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not trivial at all.</p><p>Simple example:<br>1. Take a column of five numbers.<br>2. Average the five numbers.<br>3. Get rid of the five numbers.<br>4. Recreate the five numbers from the average.</p><p>Oh, I almost forgot:<br>5. Profit!<br>This is Slashdot, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not trivial at all.Simple example : 1 .
Take a column of five numbers.2 .
Average the five numbers.3 .
Get rid of the five numbers.4 .
Recreate the five numbers from the average.Oh , I almost forgot : 5 .
Profit ! This is Slashdot , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not trivial at all.Simple example:1.
Take a column of five numbers.2.
Average the five numbers.3.
Get rid of the five numbers.4.
Recreate the five numbers from the average.Oh, I almost forgot:5.
Profit!This is Slashdot, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267206</id>
	<title>DO NOT TRUST THIS DATA!!!!.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259521500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DO NOT TRUST THIS DATA!!!!.<br>The website "realclimate.org"  is a spin site from Fenton Communications based in Washington DC.<br>It is disinformation !!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DO NOT TRUST THIS DATA ! ! !
! .The website " realclimate.org " is a spin site from Fenton Communications based in Washington DC.It is disinformation ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DO NOT TRUST THIS DATA!!!
!.The website "realclimate.org"  is a spin site from Fenton Communications based in Washington DC.It is disinformation !!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266610</id>
	<title>ClimateGate: RealClimate has participants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259516340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try reading some of the 12 million articles about <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=climategate" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">ClimateGate</a> [google.com] and you'll see that RealClimate has people who participated in the peculiar "science".  You can't trust the data they point at.  They're involved in hiding and altering data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try reading some of the 12 million articles about ClimateGate [ google.com ] and you 'll see that RealClimate has people who participated in the peculiar " science " .
You ca n't trust the data they point at .
They 're involved in hiding and altering data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try reading some of the 12 million articles about ClimateGate [google.com] and you'll see that RealClimate has people who participated in the peculiar "science".
You can't trust the data they point at.
They're involved in hiding and altering data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265480</id>
	<title>Oh, hey,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259507100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where did I read that RealClimate.org was a propaganda arm of the AGW movement?  Was it in those hacked emails?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where did I read that RealClimate.org was a propaganda arm of the AGW movement ?
Was it in those hacked emails ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where did I read that RealClimate.org was a propaganda arm of the AGW movement?
Was it in those hacked emails?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269304</id>
	<title>unbelievable...</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1259592000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the evidence is right there in the emails and the code that they frigged the figures to attempt to show warming happening when cooling is actually occurring and the idiots in here are still drinking the AGW Koolaid... AGW does NOT exist...</htmltext>
<tokenext>the evidence is right there in the emails and the code that they frigged the figures to attempt to show warming happening when cooling is actually occurring and the idiots in here are still drinking the AGW Koolaid... AGW does NOT exist.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the evidence is right there in the emails and the code that they frigged the figures to attempt to show warming happening when cooling is actually occurring and the idiots in here are still drinking the AGW Koolaid... AGW does NOT exist...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30277162</id>
	<title>Re:Just another day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259585160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the Nazis would have claimed the hollocaust was "taken out of context" had that excuse been readily available.</p><p>In what context is it ok to conspire to manipulate data to support your conclusion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the Nazis would have claimed the hollocaust was " taken out of context " had that excuse been readily available.In what context is it ok to conspire to manipulate data to support your conclusion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the Nazis would have claimed the hollocaust was "taken out of context" had that excuse been readily available.In what context is it ok to conspire to manipulate data to support your conclusion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265754</id>
	<title>Did someone miss the entire discussion train?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259509440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strawman argument. Fight windmills much?</p><p>The researcher can write in a clearly visible footnote, "by the way, the data for this is unavailable to anyone as we had to sign an NDA to get it". The reader and peer-reviewers will then have to decide to view the results slightly more questioningly and rely more on the credibility of the researcher, and might when they pick a graph for the front page of their monthly magazine choose one with openly available data instead. This is the normal way to do it. In fact, it's the way anyone except trolls and disinformative idiots would do it. Would you provide an article to a peer-reviewed journal with a written policy of requiring disclosure of data, while not including such a footnote? Would anyone?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not. What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud.</p></div><p>It is clear from the discussions that being "unable to disclose" isn't the case most of the time - it's "not wanting to disclose". In your view these may be the same, but in realists' view they are not. Please ask me for quotes and references, including a couple of views provided by various professors.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly.</p></div><p>Read. Read anything, because you obviously haven't. The CRU manipulated raw data using various statistical techniques and produced very widely published results that showed an alarming trend. Others have not provided what the CRU provided. When asked, the CRU stated that the raw data AND their transformations had been deleted. Based on their internal emails it is not clear that it HAS been deleted, and quotes can be found of "I would rather delete this data than send it under an FOIA request" (literally, which would be a criminal act). This means that "signing an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly" would not be possible even though you claim to do so, because the raw data and how the CRU has transformed it isn't available.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.</p></div><p>+5 for dismissing a case as conspiracy theorists while obviously lacking knowledge about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strawman argument .
Fight windmills much ? The researcher can write in a clearly visible footnote , " by the way , the data for this is unavailable to anyone as we had to sign an NDA to get it " .
The reader and peer-reviewers will then have to decide to view the results slightly more questioningly and rely more on the credibility of the researcher , and might when they pick a graph for the front page of their monthly magazine choose one with openly available data instead .
This is the normal way to do it .
In fact , it 's the way anyone except trolls and disinformative idiots would do it .
Would you provide an article to a peer-reviewed journal with a written policy of requiring disclosure of data , while not including such a footnote ?
Would anyone ? Seriously , you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not .
What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it , that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud.It is clear from the discussions that being " unable to disclose " is n't the case most of the time - it 's " not wanting to disclose " .
In your view these may be the same , but in realists ' view they are not .
Please ask me for quotes and references , including a couple of views provided by various professors .
" Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data , never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly.Read .
Read anything , because you obviously have n't .
The CRU manipulated raw data using various statistical techniques and produced very widely published results that showed an alarming trend .
Others have not provided what the CRU provided .
When asked , the CRU stated that the raw data AND their transformations had been deleted .
Based on their internal emails it is not clear that it HAS been deleted , and quotes can be found of " I would rather delete this data than send it under an FOIA request " ( literally , which would be a criminal act ) .
This means that " signing an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly " would not be possible even though you claim to do so , because the raw data and how the CRU has transformed it is n't available.No it must all be a conspiracy , including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions. + 5 for dismissing a case as conspiracy theorists while obviously lacking knowledge about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strawman argument.
Fight windmills much?The researcher can write in a clearly visible footnote, "by the way, the data for this is unavailable to anyone as we had to sign an NDA to get it".
The reader and peer-reviewers will then have to decide to view the results slightly more questioningly and rely more on the credibility of the researcher, and might when they pick a graph for the front page of their monthly magazine choose one with openly available data instead.
This is the normal way to do it.
In fact, it's the way anyone except trolls and disinformative idiots would do it.
Would you provide an article to a peer-reviewed journal with a written policy of requiring disclosure of data, while not including such a footnote?
Would anyone?Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not.
What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud.It is clear from the discussions that being "unable to disclose" isn't the case most of the time - it's "not wanting to disclose".
In your view these may be the same, but in realists' view they are not.
Please ask me for quotes and references, including a couple of views provided by various professors.
"Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly.Read.
Read anything, because you obviously haven't.
The CRU manipulated raw data using various statistical techniques and produced very widely published results that showed an alarming trend.
Others have not provided what the CRU provided.
When asked, the CRU stated that the raw data AND their transformations had been deleted.
Based on their internal emails it is not clear that it HAS been deleted, and quotes can be found of "I would rather delete this data than send it under an FOIA request" (literally, which would be a criminal act).
This means that "signing an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly" would not be possible even though you claim to do so, because the raw data and how the CRU has transformed it isn't available.No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.+5 for dismissing a case as conspiracy theorists while obviously lacking knowledge about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360</id>
	<title>The Parent Isn't a Troll</title>
	<author>catchblue22</author>
	<datestamp>1259514120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is just another sissy-fit thrown by the denier groups that are willing to use any tactics to distract people from the real issue. If there was any substance to these email, they would've produced the evidence by now. A few sentences blown out of context from a few cherry picked emails are merely red-herring.</p></div></blockquote><p>The parent posting isn't a troll.  He is saying it like it is.  This "incident" involves four scientists.  Just four.  And I'm trying to figure out the scientific arguments being put forward by the contrarians.  Are they saying that data has been suppressed that shows the world <em>hasn't being warming significantly since the 1970's</em>?!!  Really?  Thirty five years ago, I used to skate on local lakes...they used to freeze regularly.  Those lakes haven't frozen solid for since 1977.  Glacial retreat has accelerated since the 1970's...this is undeniable.  And this isn't part of the retreat since the last ice age.  To assert that the recent glacial melting is somehow part of a linear decline that began 10000 years ago is an absurd claim that can easily be refuted by looking at measures of sea level over the past 10000 years.</p><blockquote><div><p>A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:<br>
<br>
Topic A is under discussion.<br>
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).<br>
Topic A is abandoned.<br>
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The assertions of the contrarians about these emails are irrelevant to the scientific discussion about climate change.  They do not address in any real or logical way the arguments of climate change scientists.  They are thus, a clear example of the use of the "Red Herring Falacy".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another sissy-fit thrown by the denier groups that are willing to use any tactics to distract people from the real issue .
If there was any substance to these email , they would 've produced the evidence by now .
A few sentences blown out of context from a few cherry picked emails are merely red-herring.The parent posting is n't a troll .
He is saying it like it is .
This " incident " involves four scientists .
Just four .
And I 'm trying to figure out the scientific arguments being put forward by the contrarians .
Are they saying that data has been suppressed that shows the world has n't being warming significantly since the 1970 's ? ! !
Really ? Thirty five years ago , I used to skate on local lakes...they used to freeze regularly .
Those lakes have n't frozen solid for since 1977 .
Glacial retreat has accelerated since the 1970 's...this is undeniable .
And this is n't part of the retreat since the last ice age .
To assert that the recent glacial melting is somehow part of a linear decline that began 10000 years ago is an absurd claim that can easily be refuted by looking at measures of sea level over the past 10000 years.A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue .
The basic idea is to " win " an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic .
This sort of " reasoning " has the following form : Topic A is under discussion .
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A ( when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A ) .
Topic A is abandoned .
This sort of " reasoning " is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim .
The assertions of the contrarians about these emails are irrelevant to the scientific discussion about climate change .
They do not address in any real or logical way the arguments of climate change scientists .
They are thus , a clear example of the use of the " Red Herring Falacy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another sissy-fit thrown by the denier groups that are willing to use any tactics to distract people from the real issue.
If there was any substance to these email, they would've produced the evidence by now.
A few sentences blown out of context from a few cherry picked emails are merely red-herring.The parent posting isn't a troll.
He is saying it like it is.
This "incident" involves four scientists.
Just four.
And I'm trying to figure out the scientific arguments being put forward by the contrarians.
Are they saying that data has been suppressed that shows the world hasn't being warming significantly since the 1970's?!!
Really?  Thirty five years ago, I used to skate on local lakes...they used to freeze regularly.
Those lakes haven't frozen solid for since 1977.
Glacial retreat has accelerated since the 1970's...this is undeniable.
And this isn't part of the retreat since the last ice age.
To assert that the recent glacial melting is somehow part of a linear decline that began 10000 years ago is an absurd claim that can easily be refuted by looking at measures of sea level over the past 10000 years.A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
The assertions of the contrarians about these emails are irrelevant to the scientific discussion about climate change.
They do not address in any real or logical way the arguments of climate change scientists.
They are thus, a clear example of the use of the "Red Herring Falacy".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268956</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the beef?</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259588580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the \_results\_ from the lab in question match up with other independent results, what possible grounds to laymen have to presume the data was deliberately changed? Unless they assume that all independent labs falsified their data in concert, which would be a hell of a conspiracy.</p></div><p>
Show me the independent verification of the paper Jones et al 1990.<br>
<br>
Lets get this part out of the way real quickly. Firstly is that Jones is the man who runs that Real Climate this article mentions, and is also the big climate cheese at the CRU whos emails were hacked and said all sorts of questionable things in them.<br>
<br>
Now, the paper in question is supposedly the definitive attempt the measure the Urban Heat Island effect. Almost two decades worth of Freedom Of Information requests were thwarted by Jones and one of his co-authors, Wang. Of focus here is that the paper claims that they took the raw china temperature data and weeded out the site locations which had unknown site provenance. That is, specifically, that they supposedly only used data from sites which had little to no urbanization or instrumentation changes  over the period of the study.<br>
<br>
So the site provenance data needs to be available in order to independently verify this paper. Unfortunately, IT DOES NOT EXIST ANY LONGER, and according to the DOE which produced a report (written by Zeng and *Wang*) AT THE SAME TIME as the Jones and *Wang* 1990 paper was being written, STATED EXPLICITLY THAT THIS DATA DID NOT EXIST.<br>
<br>
<b>Somebody completely made it up</b> (probably Wang) and so far, nothing has been done about the <a href="http://www.informath.org/WCWF07a.pdf" title="informath.org">allegations of outright scientific fraud.</a> [informath.org] <br>
<br>
I'll take your independent verification argument seriously when it actually becomes possible to independently verify the works of these fraudsters. Thats right, it is IMPOSSIBLE to even BEGIN to verify some of their work BECAUSE the data they claim to have had DOES NOT EXIST and PROBABLY DIDNT EVEN EXIST WHEN THE WORK WAS DONE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the \ _results \ _ from the lab in question match up with other independent results , what possible grounds to laymen have to presume the data was deliberately changed ?
Unless they assume that all independent labs falsified their data in concert , which would be a hell of a conspiracy .
Show me the independent verification of the paper Jones et al 1990 .
Lets get this part out of the way real quickly .
Firstly is that Jones is the man who runs that Real Climate this article mentions , and is also the big climate cheese at the CRU whos emails were hacked and said all sorts of questionable things in them .
Now , the paper in question is supposedly the definitive attempt the measure the Urban Heat Island effect .
Almost two decades worth of Freedom Of Information requests were thwarted by Jones and one of his co-authors , Wang .
Of focus here is that the paper claims that they took the raw china temperature data and weeded out the site locations which had unknown site provenance .
That is , specifically , that they supposedly only used data from sites which had little to no urbanization or instrumentation changes over the period of the study .
So the site provenance data needs to be available in order to independently verify this paper .
Unfortunately , IT DOES NOT EXIST ANY LONGER , and according to the DOE which produced a report ( written by Zeng and * Wang * ) AT THE SAME TIME as the Jones and * Wang * 1990 paper was being written , STATED EXPLICITLY THAT THIS DATA DID NOT EXIST .
Somebody completely made it up ( probably Wang ) and so far , nothing has been done about the allegations of outright scientific fraud .
[ informath.org ] I 'll take your independent verification argument seriously when it actually becomes possible to independently verify the works of these fraudsters .
Thats right , it is IMPOSSIBLE to even BEGIN to verify some of their work BECAUSE the data they claim to have had DOES NOT EXIST and PROBABLY DIDNT EVEN EXIST WHEN THE WORK WAS DONE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the \_results\_ from the lab in question match up with other independent results, what possible grounds to laymen have to presume the data was deliberately changed?
Unless they assume that all independent labs falsified their data in concert, which would be a hell of a conspiracy.
Show me the independent verification of the paper Jones et al 1990.
Lets get this part out of the way real quickly.
Firstly is that Jones is the man who runs that Real Climate this article mentions, and is also the big climate cheese at the CRU whos emails were hacked and said all sorts of questionable things in them.
Now, the paper in question is supposedly the definitive attempt the measure the Urban Heat Island effect.
Almost two decades worth of Freedom Of Information requests were thwarted by Jones and one of his co-authors, Wang.
Of focus here is that the paper claims that they took the raw china temperature data and weeded out the site locations which had unknown site provenance.
That is, specifically, that they supposedly only used data from sites which had little to no urbanization or instrumentation changes  over the period of the study.
So the site provenance data needs to be available in order to independently verify this paper.
Unfortunately, IT DOES NOT EXIST ANY LONGER, and according to the DOE which produced a report (written by Zeng and *Wang*) AT THE SAME TIME as the Jones and *Wang* 1990 paper was being written, STATED EXPLICITLY THAT THIS DATA DID NOT EXIST.
Somebody completely made it up (probably Wang) and so far, nothing has been done about the allegations of outright scientific fraud.
[informath.org] 

I'll take your independent verification argument seriously when it actually becomes possible to independently verify the works of these fraudsters.
Thats right, it is IMPOSSIBLE to even BEGIN to verify some of their work BECAUSE the data they claim to have had DOES NOT EXIST and PROBABLY DIDNT EVEN EXIST WHEN THE WORK WAS DONE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266130</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not denying.</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1259511840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back then, the polar ice cap extended down into modern-day Illinois.</p></div><p>Only Illinois? That's not a lot of ice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back then , the polar ice cap extended down into modern-day Illinois.Only Illinois ?
That 's not a lot of ice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back then, the polar ice cap extended down into modern-day Illinois.Only Illinois?
That's not a lot of ice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266054</id>
	<title>Shhh.... we've disturbed the Slashdotians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259511360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The religion of the Slashdot crowded is being disturbed... watch and learn from their reactions. Facts and reality be damned - AGW is "true" no matter what anyone says or how guilty they behave.</p><p>Mens Rea, indeed. (that's "guilty mind" for those who are lawyers or latin scholars)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The religion of the Slashdot crowded is being disturbed... watch and learn from their reactions .
Facts and reality be damned - AGW is " true " no matter what anyone says or how guilty they behave.Mens Rea , indeed .
( that 's " guilty mind " for those who are lawyers or latin scholars )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The religion of the Slashdot crowded is being disturbed... watch and learn from their reactions.
Facts and reality be damned - AGW is "true" no matter what anyone says or how guilty they behave.Mens Rea, indeed.
(that's "guilty mind" for those who are lawyers or latin scholars)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30279052</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259599620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i dunno where you are living the past couple years have been really cold here in los angeles. short, cool summers, cold winters.<br>i have heard that antarctic ice cover is at a decades high level. maybe earth is simply changing. there's no reason for it to be static anyway... the solar system is very dynamic. by moving some ice to the south, it's actually a blessing. if global warming really is happening it's going to be a boon for food production and resource extraction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i dunno where you are living the past couple years have been really cold here in los angeles .
short , cool summers , cold winters.i have heard that antarctic ice cover is at a decades high level .
maybe earth is simply changing .
there 's no reason for it to be static anyway... the solar system is very dynamic .
by moving some ice to the south , it 's actually a blessing .
if global warming really is happening it 's going to be a boon for food production and resource extraction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i dunno where you are living the past couple years have been really cold here in los angeles.
short, cool summers, cold winters.i have heard that antarctic ice cover is at a decades high level.
maybe earth is simply changing.
there's no reason for it to be static anyway... the solar system is very dynamic.
by moving some ice to the south, it's actually a blessing.
if global warming really is happening it's going to be a boon for food production and resource extraction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269156</id>
	<title>Re:By definition, this is no longer Science.</title>
	<author>nathanh</author>
	<datestamp>1259590740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
This is not the act of a scientist; in fact, this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice.
</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>You are wrong. I work with scientists who recently had to destroy (actually, let go) several 100 terabytes of raw data stored on ageing tape. They decided to store the summarised data instead (only 10s of terabytes on disk). Apparently this is common practise.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>
while Science concerns itself with discovering truth
</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Science is concerned with discovering facts. If you want Truth, the philosophy department is two buildings over.

</p><p>I'm constantly amazed by how many non-scientists are suddenly experts on science. Why don't you ask actual scientists?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not the act of a scientist ; in fact , this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice .
You are wrong .
I work with scientists who recently had to destroy ( actually , let go ) several 100 terabytes of raw data stored on ageing tape .
They decided to store the summarised data instead ( only 10s of terabytes on disk ) .
Apparently this is common practise .
while Science concerns itself with discovering truth Science is concerned with discovering facts .
If you want Truth , the philosophy department is two buildings over .
I 'm constantly amazed by how many non-scientists are suddenly experts on science .
Why do n't you ask actual scientists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
This is not the act of a scientist; in fact, this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice.
You are wrong.
I work with scientists who recently had to destroy (actually, let go) several 100 terabytes of raw data stored on ageing tape.
They decided to store the summarised data instead (only 10s of terabytes on disk).
Apparently this is common practise.
while Science concerns itself with discovering truth
 Science is concerned with discovering facts.
If you want Truth, the philosophy department is two buildings over.
I'm constantly amazed by how many non-scientists are suddenly experts on science.
Why don't you ask actual scientists?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266384</id>
	<title>Re:Science as Open Source</title>
	<author>diekhans</author>
	<datestamp>1259514360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You realize your criteria would put an end to almost all modern biomedical research?

Being able to replicate or not replicate results from independent data sets with independent tools is a far better test than reanalyzing the same data set.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize your criteria would put an end to almost all modern biomedical research ?
Being able to replicate or not replicate results from independent data sets with independent tools is a far better test than reanalyzing the same data set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize your criteria would put an end to almost all modern biomedical research?
Being able to replicate or not replicate results from independent data sets with independent tools is a far better test than reanalyzing the same data set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266370</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259514240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with your logic is that you think the scientists data is based on research and not $$$$$$.  It's nothing more than a chance to pull money from the masses.  I mean, who would want to be part of killing the earth, right?  Just convince the masses that's what they are doing and that the money you're going to take from them (only in the US) will save the world!</p><p>Madoff would be proud..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with your logic is that you think the scientists data is based on research and not $ $ $ $ $ $ .
It 's nothing more than a chance to pull money from the masses .
I mean , who would want to be part of killing the earth , right ?
Just convince the masses that 's what they are doing and that the money you 're going to take from them ( only in the US ) will save the world ! Madoff would be proud. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with your logic is that you think the scientists data is based on research and not $$$$$$.
It's nothing more than a chance to pull money from the masses.
I mean, who would want to be part of killing the earth, right?
Just convince the masses that's what they are doing and that the money you're going to take from them (only in the US) will save the world!Madoff would be proud..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265590</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>feedayeen</author>
	<datestamp>1259508240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.</p></div><p>Hippie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless if global warming is a problem , we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment .
Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet , BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife .
I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.Hippie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment.
Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife.
I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.Hippie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270346</id>
	<title>Re:The Parent Isn't a Troll</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1259599140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Deniers aren't denying Climate Change anymore, they are denying human activity as a cause.  This allows them to not look like idiots while news footage shows polar bears drowning and it absolves them of the financial cost of change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Deniers are n't denying Climate Change anymore , they are denying human activity as a cause .
This allows them to not look like idiots while news footage shows polar bears drowning and it absolves them of the financial cost of change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Deniers aren't denying Climate Change anymore, they are denying human activity as a cause.
This allows them to not look like idiots while news footage shows polar bears drowning and it absolves them of the financial cost of change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265946</id>
	<title>You missed the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259510700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The upshot of the emails is that the 'team' made darn sure that the data wouldn't get into the hands of 'unreliable' scientists who might come to the wrong conclusions.</p><p>We didn't need the leaked email to know than Briffa was cherry picking his dendro data to show the hockey stick.  That data got leaked when Briffa published in a journal that insisted that he release the data.  The analysis of Briffa's misuse of the data is well documented.</p><p>We have to wait a while for people to analyze the leaked data.  Whoever leaked the data leaked juicy stuff.  The truth is in the data but the analysis will take a while.  Be patient.</p><p>Worse than the emails, check out the comments in the computer code.  It makes it apparent that the modelers have no clue how the climate really works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The upshot of the emails is that the 'team ' made darn sure that the data would n't get into the hands of 'unreliable ' scientists who might come to the wrong conclusions.We did n't need the leaked email to know than Briffa was cherry picking his dendro data to show the hockey stick .
That data got leaked when Briffa published in a journal that insisted that he release the data .
The analysis of Briffa 's misuse of the data is well documented.We have to wait a while for people to analyze the leaked data .
Whoever leaked the data leaked juicy stuff .
The truth is in the data but the analysis will take a while .
Be patient.Worse than the emails , check out the comments in the computer code .
It makes it apparent that the modelers have no clue how the climate really works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The upshot of the emails is that the 'team' made darn sure that the data wouldn't get into the hands of 'unreliable' scientists who might come to the wrong conclusions.We didn't need the leaked email to know than Briffa was cherry picking his dendro data to show the hockey stick.
That data got leaked when Briffa published in a journal that insisted that he release the data.
The analysis of Briffa's misuse of the data is well documented.We have to wait a while for people to analyze the leaked data.
Whoever leaked the data leaked juicy stuff.
The truth is in the data but the analysis will take a while.
Be patient.Worse than the emails, check out the comments in the computer code.
It makes it apparent that the modelers have no clue how the climate really works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266084</id>
	<title>Correlation does NOT mean causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259511600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The data doesn't matter.  If any of you have looked at a cross section of a Redwood tree that was 2000 years old (which you can do within a 30 minute drive of the SillyCon Valley), you will see decades and even hundreds of years with small rings and large period of time with big rings.  You can see simply there that our planet (without the help or cause of man) goes through cycles and does not have a constant balance.  The climate ebbs and flows over centuries.  <br> <br>Even with data, the scientists will still admit that they cannot definitively state WHY the temperature goes up or down.  It is the rash decision of some to throw billions of dollars at a solution when they don't have confidence of the cause.  I hope my grandchildren will be able to laugh at the history books that show we had nothing to do with the temperature changes and though we take drastic steps, the temperature will raise or fall on its own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The data does n't matter .
If any of you have looked at a cross section of a Redwood tree that was 2000 years old ( which you can do within a 30 minute drive of the SillyCon Valley ) , you will see decades and even hundreds of years with small rings and large period of time with big rings .
You can see simply there that our planet ( without the help or cause of man ) goes through cycles and does not have a constant balance .
The climate ebbs and flows over centuries .
Even with data , the scientists will still admit that they can not definitively state WHY the temperature goes up or down .
It is the rash decision of some to throw billions of dollars at a solution when they do n't have confidence of the cause .
I hope my grandchildren will be able to laugh at the history books that show we had nothing to do with the temperature changes and though we take drastic steps , the temperature will raise or fall on its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The data doesn't matter.
If any of you have looked at a cross section of a Redwood tree that was 2000 years old (which you can do within a 30 minute drive of the SillyCon Valley), you will see decades and even hundreds of years with small rings and large period of time with big rings.
You can see simply there that our planet (without the help or cause of man) goes through cycles and does not have a constant balance.
The climate ebbs and flows over centuries.
Even with data, the scientists will still admit that they cannot definitively state WHY the temperature goes up or down.
It is the rash decision of some to throw billions of dollars at a solution when they don't have confidence of the cause.
I hope my grandchildren will be able to laugh at the history books that show we had nothing to do with the temperature changes and though we take drastic steps, the temperature will raise or fall on its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265772</id>
	<title>Re:Just another day</title>
	<author>inwo42</author>
	<datestamp>1259509500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it seems the real issue is who makes money off of the issue.  As long as no one brings forth evidence, the subject can be debated for as long as it's profitable.  For every claim for, you can find one against.  Politicians drool over issues with no definite answers because it wins them emotional votes.  And what happens if the evidence does materialize?  Industry fights against legislation and/or install expensive pollution management, and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.</p><p>I agree with and earlier poster.  If the governments really wanted to do something substantial, they should attempt to link pollution emissions to health.  At least that seems like it would be easier to track.  The downfall, of course, is that the trial lawyers would have a field day with all the lawsuits linking every death to Big Industry pollution.  Lawyers get rich, Big Industry fights against the legislation, and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it seems the real issue is who makes money off of the issue .
As long as no one brings forth evidence , the subject can be debated for as long as it 's profitable .
For every claim for , you can find one against .
Politicians drool over issues with no definite answers because it wins them emotional votes .
And what happens if the evidence does materialize ?
Industry fights against legislation and/or install expensive pollution management , and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.I agree with and earlier poster .
If the governments really wanted to do something substantial , they should attempt to link pollution emissions to health .
At least that seems like it would be easier to track .
The downfall , of course , is that the trial lawyers would have a field day with all the lawsuits linking every death to Big Industry pollution .
Lawyers get rich , Big Industry fights against the legislation , and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it seems the real issue is who makes money off of the issue.
As long as no one brings forth evidence, the subject can be debated for as long as it's profitable.
For every claim for, you can find one against.
Politicians drool over issues with no definite answers because it wins them emotional votes.
And what happens if the evidence does materialize?
Industry fights against legislation and/or install expensive pollution management, and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.I agree with and earlier poster.
If the governments really wanted to do something substantial, they should attempt to link pollution emissions to health.
At least that seems like it would be easier to track.
The downfall, of course, is that the trial lawyers would have a field day with all the lawsuits linking every death to Big Industry pollution.
Lawyers get rich, Big Industry fights against the legislation, and consumers pay for it all in higher prices across the board.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542</id>
	<title>Just another day</title>
	<author>Davemania</author>
	<datestamp>1259507820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just another sissy-fit thrown by the denier groups that are willing to use any tactics to distract people from the real issue. If there was any substance to these email, they would've produced the evidence by now. A few sentences blown out of context from a few cherry picked emails are merely red-herring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another sissy-fit thrown by the denier groups that are willing to use any tactics to distract people from the real issue .
If there was any substance to these email , they would 've produced the evidence by now .
A few sentences blown out of context from a few cherry picked emails are merely red-herring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another sissy-fit thrown by the denier groups that are willing to use any tactics to distract people from the real issue.
If there was any substance to these email, they would've produced the evidence by now.
A few sentences blown out of context from a few cherry picked emails are merely red-herring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268620</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it WOULD be pretty easy to make your finding agree with public research if you were cherry picking data, massaging data, etc. And then it would be impossible to prove if you never let anyone see your data. Imagine what would happen if their findings DISagreed with public research and they never released their data, would you still be so trusting of them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it WOULD be pretty easy to make your finding agree with public research if you were cherry picking data , massaging data , etc .
And then it would be impossible to prove if you never let anyone see your data .
Imagine what would happen if their findings DISagreed with public research and they never released their data , would you still be so trusting of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it WOULD be pretty easy to make your finding agree with public research if you were cherry picking data, massaging data, etc.
And then it would be impossible to prove if you never let anyone see your data.
Imagine what would happen if their findings DISagreed with public research and they never released their data, would you still be so trusting of them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274404</id>
	<title>Re:Just another day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259574420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Money rules BOTH sides of the climate debate. You simply don't get funding unless your outcome favors the people who provide the money.</p></div><p>NSF? NIH? NOAA?  I'm pretty sure those guys give out money to do BASIC RESEARCH, not push an agenda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Money rules BOTH sides of the climate debate .
You simply do n't get funding unless your outcome favors the people who provide the money.NSF ?
NIH ? NOAA ?
I 'm pretty sure those guys give out money to do BASIC RESEARCH , not push an agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money rules BOTH sides of the climate debate.
You simply don't get funding unless your outcome favors the people who provide the money.NSF?
NIH? NOAA?
I'm pretty sure those guys give out money to do BASIC RESEARCH, not push an agenda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265566</id>
	<title>kill the jews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259508060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>burn all the jews and replace israel with a nazi reich</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>burn all the jews and replace israel with a nazi reich</tokentext>
<sentencetext>burn all the jews and replace israel with a nazi reich</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269730</id>
	<title>The beauty of science is in the prediction.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1259595120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not exactly on the AGW bandwagon, but I think this scandal is now overblown.  The beauty of science is that all of this "scandal" doesn't matter.  Regardless of how the data is fudged, AGW has made some definite predictions and by virtue of testing them, for ourselves, we can see what reality is.</p><p>We are past the point, except in exotic physics, where we need scientists to confirm many test results.  Anyone can measure temperature, and share that data.  If we do not believe planetary temperature data, we can always build a network app and check it ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not exactly on the AGW bandwagon , but I think this scandal is now overblown .
The beauty of science is that all of this " scandal " does n't matter .
Regardless of how the data is fudged , AGW has made some definite predictions and by virtue of testing them , for ourselves , we can see what reality is.We are past the point , except in exotic physics , where we need scientists to confirm many test results .
Anyone can measure temperature , and share that data .
If we do not believe planetary temperature data , we can always build a network app and check it ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not exactly on the AGW bandwagon, but I think this scandal is now overblown.
The beauty of science is that all of this "scandal" doesn't matter.
Regardless of how the data is fudged, AGW has made some definite predictions and by virtue of testing them, for ourselves, we can see what reality is.We are past the point, except in exotic physics, where we need scientists to confirm many test results.
Anyone can measure temperature, and share that data.
If we do not believe planetary temperature data, we can always build a network app and check it ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270044</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259597280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know the lake shore where my parents live was under a kilometer of ice merely 20,000 years ago.</p><p>They grow grapes there now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the lake shore where my parents live was under a kilometer of ice merely 20,000 years ago.They grow grapes there now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the lake shore where my parents live was under a kilometer of ice merely 20,000 years ago.They grow grapes there now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266198</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259512320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Publish in the peer reviewed journals? No.</p><p>This isn't correct.  As long as the source of the data is provided (not sure if it was in this case), as well as the technique used to analyze it, closed datasets that others can access (perhaps for a price) should be fine.  And I'm not surprised that the data might have been thrown away.  I know some of the data I've obtained for published research no longer exists.  Even 15 years ago when I did my PhD research, it was very difficult to keep and maintain data.  I had to go to the one lab (that I knew of) that had a CD writer.  If this was the 80s, I probably would have tossed all of it and just kept the published results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Publish in the peer reviewed journals ?
No.This is n't correct .
As long as the source of the data is provided ( not sure if it was in this case ) , as well as the technique used to analyze it , closed datasets that others can access ( perhaps for a price ) should be fine .
And I 'm not surprised that the data might have been thrown away .
I know some of the data I 've obtained for published research no longer exists .
Even 15 years ago when I did my PhD research , it was very difficult to keep and maintain data .
I had to go to the one lab ( that I knew of ) that had a CD writer .
If this was the 80s , I probably would have tossed all of it and just kept the published results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Publish in the peer reviewed journals?
No.This isn't correct.
As long as the source of the data is provided (not sure if it was in this case), as well as the technique used to analyze it, closed datasets that others can access (perhaps for a price) should be fine.
And I'm not surprised that the data might have been thrown away.
I know some of the data I've obtained for published research no longer exists.
Even 15 years ago when I did my PhD research, it was very difficult to keep and maintain data.
I had to go to the one lab (that I knew of) that had a CD writer.
If this was the 80s, I probably would have tossed all of it and just kept the published results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268022</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259574900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many use the 'science' of global warming as a call to make great sacrifices. Those climate 'scientists', to be responsible, should be telling us not to take a single step until they can generate the scientific models to assure us that if, for example, we invested $100T over 50 years we would lower the temperature even a tenth of a degree. Science/math also applies to how you wisely spend money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many use the 'science ' of global warming as a call to make great sacrifices .
Those climate 'scientists ' , to be responsible , should be telling us not to take a single step until they can generate the scientific models to assure us that if , for example , we invested $ 100T over 50 years we would lower the temperature even a tenth of a degree .
Science/math also applies to how you wisely spend money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many use the 'science' of global warming as a call to make great sacrifices.
Those climate 'scientists', to be responsible, should be telling us not to take a single step until they can generate the scientific models to assure us that if, for example, we invested $100T over 50 years we would lower the temperature even a tenth of a degree.
Science/math also applies to how you wisely spend money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265726</id>
	<title>Re:Science as Open Source</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1259509320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention your predictions based on stuff you can replicate actually come true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention your predictions based on stuff you can replicate actually come true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention your predictions based on stuff you can replicate actually come true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266342</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not denying.</title>
	<author>beamdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1259513820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Of course the world is getting warmer. It has been for the last ten thousand years. You know, since the end of the last ice age.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You know, there are thousands of climate scientists all over the world who have spent a good portion of their lives studying the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate. They have like, gone to school, studied this stuff and got their Phd's and shit.

Do you think that they didn't think of the fact that we're in a long-term warming trend and take that into account?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the world is getting warmer .
It has been for the last ten thousand years .
You know , since the end of the last ice age .
You know , there are thousands of climate scientists all over the world who have spent a good portion of their lives studying the effects of human activity on the Earth 's climate .
They have like , gone to school , studied this stuff and got their Phd 's and shit .
Do you think that they did n't think of the fact that we 're in a long-term warming trend and take that into account ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the world is getting warmer.
It has been for the last ten thousand years.
You know, since the end of the last ice age.
You know, there are thousands of climate scientists all over the world who have spent a good portion of their lives studying the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate.
They have like, gone to school, studied this stuff and got their Phd's and shit.
Do you think that they didn't think of the fact that we're in a long-term warming trend and take that into account?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266808</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>Ichijo</author>
	<datestamp>1259517900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Your first paragraph seems to indicate that there are those who would actually choose smog over clean air.</p></div></blockquote><p>Indeed there are, whenever smog is free and clean air costs money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your first paragraph seems to indicate that there are those who would actually choose smog over clean air.Indeed there are , whenever smog is free and clean air costs money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your first paragraph seems to indicate that there are those who would actually choose smog over clean air.Indeed there are, whenever smog is free and clean air costs money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269856</id>
	<title>Re:My A*&amp; will be sore</title>
	<author>Rufty</author>
	<datestamp>1259596020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>What I'm saying is that if the scientific community subjected the CRU to even the most basic scrutiny they would either be forced to prove their conclusions or sent packing.</em>
The fact that they haven't been sent packing would indicate that either the entire scientific community has been asleep/hoodwinked, or that the conclusions are proven to the satisfaction of the community.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 'm saying is that if the scientific community subjected the CRU to even the most basic scrutiny they would either be forced to prove their conclusions or sent packing .
The fact that they have n't been sent packing would indicate that either the entire scientific community has been asleep/hoodwinked , or that the conclusions are proven to the satisfaction of the community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I'm saying is that if the scientific community subjected the CRU to even the most basic scrutiny they would either be forced to prove their conclusions or sent packing.
The fact that they haven't been sent packing would indicate that either the entire scientific community has been asleep/hoodwinked, or that the conclusions are proven to the satisfaction of the community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267820</id>
	<title>Political Agendas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems there's a concerted campaign by certain political groups - especially USA political groups - to push the meme that this is a "scandal". But there is no scandal because the stolen emails don't invalidate the science.

</p><p>They can't attack the science, so they attack the scientists. The science has been peer reviewed, independently verified, and the predictions made by CRU have already come to pass. The science is robust. So all they can do is attack the scientists.

</p><p>This is a smear campaign, conducted by political screechers with a clearly visible agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems there 's a concerted campaign by certain political groups - especially USA political groups - to push the meme that this is a " scandal " .
But there is no scandal because the stolen emails do n't invalidate the science .
They ca n't attack the science , so they attack the scientists .
The science has been peer reviewed , independently verified , and the predictions made by CRU have already come to pass .
The science is robust .
So all they can do is attack the scientists .
This is a smear campaign , conducted by political screechers with a clearly visible agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems there's a concerted campaign by certain political groups - especially USA political groups - to push the meme that this is a "scandal".
But there is no scandal because the stolen emails don't invalidate the science.
They can't attack the science, so they attack the scientists.
The science has been peer reviewed, independently verified, and the predictions made by CRU have already come to pass.
The science is robust.
So all they can do is attack the scientists.
This is a smear campaign, conducted by political screechers with a clearly visible agenda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269286</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259591880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent straw-man!!</p><p>The discussion was about avoiding pollution, not the validity of global warming data. His response was to someone who labelled someone as a "Hippie", simply for suggesting we should try to reduce pollution.</p><p>Nowhere does this imply that anyone who questions the data prefers pollution - it's directed at the person he replied to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent straw-man !
! The discussion was about avoiding pollution , not the validity of global warming data .
His response was to someone who labelled someone as a " Hippie " , simply for suggesting we should try to reduce pollution.Nowhere does this imply that anyone who questions the data prefers pollution - it 's directed at the person he replied to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent straw-man!
!The discussion was about avoiding pollution, not the validity of global warming data.
His response was to someone who labelled someone as a "Hippie", simply for suggesting we should try to reduce pollution.Nowhere does this imply that anyone who questions the data prefers pollution - it's directed at the person he replied to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265970</id>
	<title>Re:What would be the point...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259510760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not about releasing it to the general public, its about releasing it to ANYBODY, including OTHER SCIENTISTS.  They destroyed it, they released it to NO ONE.  NO ONE could verify it, since NO ONE had it, except for the people who created the original report.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not about releasing it to the general public , its about releasing it to ANYBODY , including OTHER SCIENTISTS .
They destroyed it , they released it to NO ONE .
NO ONE could verify it , since NO ONE had it , except for the people who created the original report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not about releasing it to the general public, its about releasing it to ANYBODY, including OTHER SCIENTISTS.
They destroyed it, they released it to NO ONE.
NO ONE could verify it, since NO ONE had it, except for the people who created the original report.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266700</id>
	<title>Re:Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1259517000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then we probably shouldn't compound the issue with CO2?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we probably should n't compound the issue with CO2 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we probably shouldn't compound the issue with CO2?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30405858</id>
	<title>Stay focused now...follow the money...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260564000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a debate on whether the climate is warming, everyone agrees that it is.  It's also not an argument against stopping ourselves from polluting...we are all for less pollution.  It's not all about the recently leaked emails, there have been arguments against AGW for years. It is not a conspiracy, it is a phenomenon where lots of scientists have gotten funding for research if they could somehow relate their research to AGW.  Try asking one of those research project scientists whos project has been approved for some GW research money if they believe in AGW. What can they say if they've gotten grant money for their project? They HAVE to say they do or else it looks like they were lying just to get grant money for their research...let me rephrase that...lying to get grant money that allows them to stay employed doing some kind of research.  A pile of money was made available for any research related to GW and lots of scientists got on board.  It's about driving urgency to put in place a system of trading carbon emission credits between companies/countries on a local and global scale.  Cap-and-trade will be another industry of trading, just like stock exchanges...BIG..BIG money.  Just ask Al Gore, who is the CEO at GIM (Generation Investment Management with his 4 ex-Goldman Sachs exec pals)that owns a 10\% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, which in turn own a 50\% stake in the European Climate Exchange.  That's right..these carbon emmission stock exchanges are already in place...ready to go.  Does Al Gore really care about the environment, or is it about money.  Hmm, let's see, he recently purchased a mansion that consumes 10 to 20 time more energy than the average household in America.  What's that?  He made "improvements" to cut down on the power it consumes? Oh...that's okay then, right?  No, not right...don't be naive.  Now, does that sound like a concerned environmentalist to you?  Any environmentalist that I know does NOT live like that.  What a laugh. Bottom line, it's about money. It's no more complex than that. Take all the computer models and ice-core data or what have you...argue it until you are blue in the face...it doesn't matter because it's just about the money.  Some will say that even if AGW turns out to be wrong...at least we will be doing the right things to limit pollution. No good, because if the earth is actually really cooling, or starts on that cycle, which is arguably worse than warming...then a lot of people will be determined to squash the cooling information because they are getting rich off the cap-and-trade industry. It's about the money. If the cap-and-trade industry gets rolling...how will it ever come to an end if we find that this warming climate indeed is NOT due to man-made CO2?  That, is the scariest thing.  Just follow the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a debate on whether the climate is warming , everyone agrees that it is .
It 's also not an argument against stopping ourselves from polluting...we are all for less pollution .
It 's not all about the recently leaked emails , there have been arguments against AGW for years .
It is not a conspiracy , it is a phenomenon where lots of scientists have gotten funding for research if they could somehow relate their research to AGW .
Try asking one of those research project scientists whos project has been approved for some GW research money if they believe in AGW .
What can they say if they 've gotten grant money for their project ?
They HAVE to say they do or else it looks like they were lying just to get grant money for their research...let me rephrase that...lying to get grant money that allows them to stay employed doing some kind of research .
A pile of money was made available for any research related to GW and lots of scientists got on board .
It 's about driving urgency to put in place a system of trading carbon emission credits between companies/countries on a local and global scale .
Cap-and-trade will be another industry of trading , just like stock exchanges...BIG..BIG money .
Just ask Al Gore , who is the CEO at GIM ( Generation Investment Management with his 4 ex-Goldman Sachs exec pals ) that owns a 10 \ % stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange , which in turn own a 50 \ % stake in the European Climate Exchange .
That 's right..these carbon emmission stock exchanges are already in place...ready to go .
Does Al Gore really care about the environment , or is it about money .
Hmm , let 's see , he recently purchased a mansion that consumes 10 to 20 time more energy than the average household in America .
What 's that ?
He made " improvements " to cut down on the power it consumes ?
Oh...that 's okay then , right ?
No , not right...do n't be naive .
Now , does that sound like a concerned environmentalist to you ?
Any environmentalist that I know does NOT live like that .
What a laugh .
Bottom line , it 's about money .
It 's no more complex than that .
Take all the computer models and ice-core data or what have you...argue it until you are blue in the face...it does n't matter because it 's just about the money .
Some will say that even if AGW turns out to be wrong...at least we will be doing the right things to limit pollution .
No good , because if the earth is actually really cooling , or starts on that cycle , which is arguably worse than warming...then a lot of people will be determined to squash the cooling information because they are getting rich off the cap-and-trade industry .
It 's about the money .
If the cap-and-trade industry gets rolling...how will it ever come to an end if we find that this warming climate indeed is NOT due to man-made CO2 ?
That , is the scariest thing .
Just follow the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a debate on whether the climate is warming, everyone agrees that it is.
It's also not an argument against stopping ourselves from polluting...we are all for less pollution.
It's not all about the recently leaked emails, there have been arguments against AGW for years.
It is not a conspiracy, it is a phenomenon where lots of scientists have gotten funding for research if they could somehow relate their research to AGW.
Try asking one of those research project scientists whos project has been approved for some GW research money if they believe in AGW.
What can they say if they've gotten grant money for their project?
They HAVE to say they do or else it looks like they were lying just to get grant money for their research...let me rephrase that...lying to get grant money that allows them to stay employed doing some kind of research.
A pile of money was made available for any research related to GW and lots of scientists got on board.
It's about driving urgency to put in place a system of trading carbon emission credits between companies/countries on a local and global scale.
Cap-and-trade will be another industry of trading, just like stock exchanges...BIG..BIG money.
Just ask Al Gore, who is the CEO at GIM (Generation Investment Management with his 4 ex-Goldman Sachs exec pals)that owns a 10\% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, which in turn own a 50\% stake in the European Climate Exchange.
That's right..these carbon emmission stock exchanges are already in place...ready to go.
Does Al Gore really care about the environment, or is it about money.
Hmm, let's see, he recently purchased a mansion that consumes 10 to 20 time more energy than the average household in America.
What's that?
He made "improvements" to cut down on the power it consumes?
Oh...that's okay then, right?
No, not right...don't be naive.
Now, does that sound like a concerned environmentalist to you?
Any environmentalist that I know does NOT live like that.
What a laugh.
Bottom line, it's about money.
It's no more complex than that.
Take all the computer models and ice-core data or what have you...argue it until you are blue in the face...it doesn't matter because it's just about the money.
Some will say that even if AGW turns out to be wrong...at least we will be doing the right things to limit pollution.
No good, because if the earth is actually really cooling, or starts on that cycle, which is arguably worse than warming...then a lot of people will be determined to squash the cooling information because they are getting rich off the cap-and-trade industry.
It's about the money.
If the cap-and-trade industry gets rolling...how will it ever come to an end if we find that this warming climate indeed is NOT due to man-made CO2?
That, is the scariest thing.
Just follow the money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275072</id>
	<title>Re:Still no nefarious behavior from where I sit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259577180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's review... The hacked emails look bad, but they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption - these emails were never "peer reviewed" so to speak. As far as I'm concerned, they are irrelevant, as tempting as it is to see some giant conspiracy in them.</p></div><p>How wonderfully convenient!</p><p>I suppose the current and previous administrations can now ignore all your shrill demands for publication of their internal emails, since they were never meant for public consumption.  They are all irrelevant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's review... The hacked emails look bad , but they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption - these emails were never " peer reviewed " so to speak .
As far as I 'm concerned , they are irrelevant , as tempting as it is to see some giant conspiracy in them.How wonderfully convenient ! I suppose the current and previous administrations can now ignore all your shrill demands for publication of their internal emails , since they were never meant for public consumption .
They are all irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's review... The hacked emails look bad, but they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption - these emails were never "peer reviewed" so to speak.
As far as I'm concerned, they are irrelevant, as tempting as it is to see some giant conspiracy in them.How wonderfully convenient!I suppose the current and previous administrations can now ignore all your shrill demands for publication of their internal emails, since they were never meant for public consumption.
They are all irrelevant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267764</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know what the rules are on your world, but on mine it isn't science if the work can't be peer reviewed, published and duplicated. </p></div><p>Well then, yes welcome. Our planet is called Earth. And what do you call your home?</p><p>You are clearly unfamiliar with the small community of biomedical researchers who regularly fail to share data.</p><p>You don't happen to actually work in academia, do you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what the rules are on your world , but on mine it is n't science if the work ca n't be peer reviewed , published and duplicated .
Well then , yes welcome .
Our planet is called Earth .
And what do you call your home ? You are clearly unfamiliar with the small community of biomedical researchers who regularly fail to share data.You do n't happen to actually work in academia , do you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what the rules are on your world, but on mine it isn't science if the work can't be peer reviewed, published and duplicated.
Well then, yes welcome.
Our planet is called Earth.
And what do you call your home?You are clearly unfamiliar with the small community of biomedical researchers who regularly fail to share data.You don't happen to actually work in academia, do you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266724</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1259517240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is all well and good but you missed my point. Lets say for a second your advice was followed. Lets say the IPCC were to reject the CRU lets say institutions like the CRU were to refuse to use data they were not at liberty to release. Now, do you think everybody would be fine and happy about that? What would happen in such a situation is that people would scream bloody murder about the IPCC not looking at all data, the CRU and institutions like it would be accused of keeping third party data out and using openness as an excuse.</p><p>This is what I mean with damned if they do,damned if they don't. Even if the CRU and IPCC had agreed with you 100\% and refused to use this data, that would not have done anything at all to reduce the criticism. The skeptics would then simply complain that they were NOT using the data, probably saying that they refused to use it because it proved them wrong or whatever.</p><p>I know it would go down this way because I've seen the exact same thing happen elsewhere. It doesn't matter which field. Stem cell research, nuclear power, evolution, teh safety of the MMR vaccine, there is always some group of people who proclaim a conspiracy typically shouting that the scientific method has been violated, but when the issues they complain about are resolved they don't stop, they just make a U-turn from their previous argument and start complaining scientists are doing exactly what they were the day before criticized for not doing.</p><p>Also, I think you have a very glorified idea of peer review. Peer review doesn't normally involve some other scientist going through the publishing researchers' entire work right down to the raw data. It typically involves them reading the paper, asking the researcher to clarify ambiguous points, explain their wording, state their assumptions more clearly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... You won't get a peer reviewer asking for a copy of a Fortran code that will take days to run on some supercomputer cluster, because the peer reviewer is usually a volunteer and isn't going to go ask for permission to run a huge job on his institution's mainframe just to confirm some findings for a peer review.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is all well and good but you missed my point .
Lets say for a second your advice was followed .
Lets say the IPCC were to reject the CRU lets say institutions like the CRU were to refuse to use data they were not at liberty to release .
Now , do you think everybody would be fine and happy about that ?
What would happen in such a situation is that people would scream bloody murder about the IPCC not looking at all data , the CRU and institutions like it would be accused of keeping third party data out and using openness as an excuse.This is what I mean with damned if they do,damned if they do n't .
Even if the CRU and IPCC had agreed with you 100 \ % and refused to use this data , that would not have done anything at all to reduce the criticism .
The skeptics would then simply complain that they were NOT using the data , probably saying that they refused to use it because it proved them wrong or whatever.I know it would go down this way because I 've seen the exact same thing happen elsewhere .
It does n't matter which field .
Stem cell research , nuclear power , evolution , teh safety of the MMR vaccine , there is always some group of people who proclaim a conspiracy typically shouting that the scientific method has been violated , but when the issues they complain about are resolved they do n't stop , they just make a U-turn from their previous argument and start complaining scientists are doing exactly what they were the day before criticized for not doing.Also , I think you have a very glorified idea of peer review .
Peer review does n't normally involve some other scientist going through the publishing researchers ' entire work right down to the raw data .
It typically involves them reading the paper , asking the researcher to clarify ambiguous points , explain their wording , state their assumptions more clearly ... You wo n't get a peer reviewer asking for a copy of a Fortran code that will take days to run on some supercomputer cluster , because the peer reviewer is usually a volunteer and is n't going to go ask for permission to run a huge job on his institution 's mainframe just to confirm some findings for a peer review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is all well and good but you missed my point.
Lets say for a second your advice was followed.
Lets say the IPCC were to reject the CRU lets say institutions like the CRU were to refuse to use data they were not at liberty to release.
Now, do you think everybody would be fine and happy about that?
What would happen in such a situation is that people would scream bloody murder about the IPCC not looking at all data, the CRU and institutions like it would be accused of keeping third party data out and using openness as an excuse.This is what I mean with damned if they do,damned if they don't.
Even if the CRU and IPCC had agreed with you 100\% and refused to use this data, that would not have done anything at all to reduce the criticism.
The skeptics would then simply complain that they were NOT using the data, probably saying that they refused to use it because it proved them wrong or whatever.I know it would go down this way because I've seen the exact same thing happen elsewhere.
It doesn't matter which field.
Stem cell research, nuclear power, evolution, teh safety of the MMR vaccine, there is always some group of people who proclaim a conspiracy typically shouting that the scientific method has been violated, but when the issues they complain about are resolved they don't stop, they just make a U-turn from their previous argument and start complaining scientists are doing exactly what they were the day before criticized for not doing.Also, I think you have a very glorified idea of peer review.
Peer review doesn't normally involve some other scientist going through the publishing researchers' entire work right down to the raw data.
It typically involves them reading the paper, asking the researcher to clarify ambiguous points, explain their wording, state their assumptions more clearly ... You won't get a peer reviewer asking for a copy of a Fortran code that will take days to run on some supercomputer cluster, because the peer reviewer is usually a volunteer and isn't going to go ask for permission to run a huge job on his institution's mainframe just to confirm some findings for a peer review.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267166</id>
	<title>Re:My A*&amp; will be sore</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1259521080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have an energy patent that will go live January 2010. Forgetting for the moment that I don't own it - more when it's live - , within about sixty seconds of it being available to read, the scientific community will rip me several new ones until every single one of them can duplicate everything that I've done with their own labs and equipment.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Why worry about the scientific community?  Just start building power plants or what not.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an energy patent that will go live January 2010 .
Forgetting for the moment that I do n't own it - more when it 's live - , within about sixty seconds of it being available to read , the scientific community will rip me several new ones until every single one of them can duplicate everything that I 've done with their own labs and equipment .
Why worry about the scientific community ?
Just start building power plants or what not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an energy patent that will go live January 2010.
Forgetting for the moment that I don't own it - more when it's live - , within about sixty seconds of it being available to read, the scientific community will rip me several new ones until every single one of them can duplicate everything that I've done with their own labs and equipment.
Why worry about the scientific community?
Just start building power plants or what not.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265606</id>
	<title>Science as Open Source</title>
	<author>rlp</author>
	<datestamp>1259508300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science was the first instance of open source.  If someone else can't freely check your data and replicate your experiments you've got nothing.  The raw data and source code for the climate models should have been available from day one.  The fact that they weren't and that large quantities of data were "lost" throws the conclusions into serious question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science was the first instance of open source .
If someone else ca n't freely check your data and replicate your experiments you 've got nothing .
The raw data and source code for the climate models should have been available from day one .
The fact that they were n't and that large quantities of data were " lost " throws the conclusions into serious question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science was the first instance of open source.
If someone else can't freely check your data and replicate your experiments you've got nothing.
The raw data and source code for the climate models should have been available from day one.
The fact that they weren't and that large quantities of data were "lost" throws the conclusions into serious question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30281578</id>
	<title>Re:Still no nefarious behavior from where I sit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259671140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, the fact that some aholes got into someones email account illegally is NOT the point.  Thank GOD they did because now it's apparent what a complete and utter SCAM global warming has become...and always has been.</p><p>I, too, am an atmospheric scientist and cannot believe the claptrap that you posted.  In fact, it is SO far off the mark that I don't believe you are an atmospheric scientist.  Heh...of course I could by lying too so we're sort of stuck.</p><p>FACT:  The 'global temperature' has been decreasing since 1998.<br>FACT:  Temperature has changed and THEN the CO2 follows.  Meaning, the years that 'supposedly' the temperature was warming, scientists found that CO2 only increased after that.  Not the other way around as it should be.<br>FACT:  Climate is cyclical.  Greenland used to be just that...green.  Polar bear skeletons have been found as far south as southern England.  Guess what...the earth's climate changes significantly through the years.</p><p>On another note, imagine gases in the atmosphere are like a football field.  From the 0 yard line to the 70 yard line approximately, we have Nitrogen.  70 yard line to 99.97 yard line is Oxygen.  The last inch on that football field would be how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.  The amount of CO2 as reported by you...ppM is NOT enough to change our temperature...water vapor? Sure, I can agree with that but not CO2.</p><p>You said, "shows over and over and over again that climate is warming and it's anthropogenic in nature due to greenhouse gas emissions".  Huh?  That makes no sense....because it's a green house emission it's anthropogenic in nature?  Faulty argument.</p><p>Baah, I could post all the usual....google this, go to that website but it's just not worth it anymore.  And yes, you'll be eating that hat my friend...I have NO doubt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the fact that some aholes got into someones email account illegally is NOT the point .
Thank GOD they did because now it 's apparent what a complete and utter SCAM global warming has become...and always has been.I , too , am an atmospheric scientist and can not believe the claptrap that you posted .
In fact , it is SO far off the mark that I do n't believe you are an atmospheric scientist .
Heh...of course I could by lying too so we 're sort of stuck.FACT : The 'global temperature ' has been decreasing since 1998.FACT : Temperature has changed and THEN the CO2 follows .
Meaning , the years that 'supposedly ' the temperature was warming , scientists found that CO2 only increased after that .
Not the other way around as it should be.FACT : Climate is cyclical .
Greenland used to be just that...green .
Polar bear skeletons have been found as far south as southern England .
Guess what...the earth 's climate changes significantly through the years.On another note , imagine gases in the atmosphere are like a football field .
From the 0 yard line to the 70 yard line approximately , we have Nitrogen .
70 yard line to 99.97 yard line is Oxygen .
The last inch on that football field would be how much CO2 is in the atmosphere .
The amount of CO2 as reported by you...ppM is NOT enough to change our temperature...water vapor ?
Sure , I can agree with that but not CO2.You said , " shows over and over and over again that climate is warming and it 's anthropogenic in nature due to greenhouse gas emissions " .
Huh ? That makes no sense....because it 's a green house emission it 's anthropogenic in nature ?
Faulty argument.Baah , I could post all the usual....google this , go to that website but it 's just not worth it anymore .
And yes , you 'll be eating that hat my friend...I have NO doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the fact that some aholes got into someones email account illegally is NOT the point.
Thank GOD they did because now it's apparent what a complete and utter SCAM global warming has become...and always has been.I, too, am an atmospheric scientist and cannot believe the claptrap that you posted.
In fact, it is SO far off the mark that I don't believe you are an atmospheric scientist.
Heh...of course I could by lying too so we're sort of stuck.FACT:  The 'global temperature' has been decreasing since 1998.FACT:  Temperature has changed and THEN the CO2 follows.
Meaning, the years that 'supposedly' the temperature was warming, scientists found that CO2 only increased after that.
Not the other way around as it should be.FACT:  Climate is cyclical.
Greenland used to be just that...green.
Polar bear skeletons have been found as far south as southern England.
Guess what...the earth's climate changes significantly through the years.On another note, imagine gases in the atmosphere are like a football field.
From the 0 yard line to the 70 yard line approximately, we have Nitrogen.
70 yard line to 99.97 yard line is Oxygen.
The last inch on that football field would be how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
The amount of CO2 as reported by you...ppM is NOT enough to change our temperature...water vapor?
Sure, I can agree with that but not CO2.You said, "shows over and over and over again that climate is warming and it's anthropogenic in nature due to greenhouse gas emissions".
Huh?  That makes no sense....because it's a green house emission it's anthropogenic in nature?
Faulty argument.Baah, I could post all the usual....google this, go to that website but it's just not worth it anymore.
And yes, you'll be eating that hat my friend...I have NO doubt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268866</id>
	<title>Where the data \_\_are\_\_</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I'm just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'm just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'm just saying...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266238</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>c\_forq</author>
	<datestamp>1259512740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And they used to have fairs in London when the river Thames froze over.  The last one was in 1814.  Climate changes, and weather changes.  This is not new, just look at the record of extinct plants and animals, and records of crops growing in areas they can no longer grow (hell the north pole used to descend into the northern United States).  I don't think anyone questions that the world is changing, that will happen with or without humans living on this planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And they used to have fairs in London when the river Thames froze over .
The last one was in 1814 .
Climate changes , and weather changes .
This is not new , just look at the record of extinct plants and animals , and records of crops growing in areas they can no longer grow ( hell the north pole used to descend into the northern United States ) .
I do n't think anyone questions that the world is changing , that will happen with or without humans living on this planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they used to have fairs in London when the river Thames froze over.
The last one was in 1814.
Climate changes, and weather changes.
This is not new, just look at the record of extinct plants and animals, and records of crops growing in areas they can no longer grow (hell the north pole used to descend into the northern United States).
I don't think anyone questions that the world is changing, that will happen with or without humans living on this planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269406</id>
	<title>Examining their cited data</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259592720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Real Climate is claiming that data is available and has this nice link and stuff (given in the slahsdot summary.)<br>
<br>
Following their link I noticed that there was no link to raw data for stratospheric temperatures but there was a link to processed data.<br>
<br>
I followed the link to the processed data in the hopes that there would be some explanation as to why only processed data was available. I discovered that the processed data wasnt available either, instead the link only pointed to a page with GIF files (graphs.)<br>
<br>
Essentially, Real Climate just <b>lied to us</b> about the stratospheric data. Not only is the raw data unavailable, the processed data isnt available either even tho it claims it is available and claims to link to it.<br>
<br>
<br>
I then clicked around most of the "raw" sites linked to and almost all are fairly devoid of data.<br>
<br>
Mr. Jones, the public may buy your bullshit because they might think a GIF file with a graph is relevant "data" but I do not. Mr. Jones, RELEASE YOUR FUCKING RAW DATA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Real Climate is claiming that data is available and has this nice link and stuff ( given in the slahsdot summary .
) Following their link I noticed that there was no link to raw data for stratospheric temperatures but there was a link to processed data .
I followed the link to the processed data in the hopes that there would be some explanation as to why only processed data was available .
I discovered that the processed data wasnt available either , instead the link only pointed to a page with GIF files ( graphs .
) Essentially , Real Climate just lied to us about the stratospheric data .
Not only is the raw data unavailable , the processed data isnt available either even tho it claims it is available and claims to link to it .
I then clicked around most of the " raw " sites linked to and almost all are fairly devoid of data .
Mr. Jones , the public may buy your bullshit because they might think a GIF file with a graph is relevant " data " but I do not .
Mr. Jones , RELEASE YOUR FUCKING RAW DATA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real Climate is claiming that data is available and has this nice link and stuff (given in the slahsdot summary.
)

Following their link I noticed that there was no link to raw data for stratospheric temperatures but there was a link to processed data.
I followed the link to the processed data in the hopes that there would be some explanation as to why only processed data was available.
I discovered that the processed data wasnt available either, instead the link only pointed to a page with GIF files (graphs.
)

Essentially, Real Climate just lied to us about the stratospheric data.
Not only is the raw data unavailable, the processed data isnt available either even tho it claims it is available and claims to link to it.
I then clicked around most of the "raw" sites linked to and almost all are fairly devoid of data.
Mr. Jones, the public may buy your bullshit because they might think a GIF file with a graph is relevant "data" but I do not.
Mr. Jones, RELEASE YOUR FUCKING RAW DATA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265696</id>
	<title>Deleted data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259508960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Jones lost the data in the 1980's, then why do many of the emails from Jones (written from 1997 to 2009) talk about deleting the data should a successful FOIA request ever materialize?  Oh well. I guess inquiring minds no longer read slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Jones lost the data in the 1980 's , then why do many of the emails from Jones ( written from 1997 to 2009 ) talk about deleting the data should a successful FOIA request ever materialize ?
Oh well .
I guess inquiring minds no longer read slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Jones lost the data in the 1980's, then why do many of the emails from Jones (written from 1997 to 2009) talk about deleting the data should a successful FOIA request ever materialize?
Oh well.
I guess inquiring minds no longer read slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265708</id>
	<title>do you really trust it....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259509080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't REALCLIMATE.ORG the website started by Dr. Mann... Go back and read the emails.   You'll see how much he's pushing avoiding using certain data, didn't like the other website and that Canadian that made him change his data once before.   All of a suddent they have "New" data.  Really,  Fell for it once, not again.</p><p>These are FRAUDSTERS.   Remember the days when COLD FUSION was proven to be a fraud!  Same style.  Dump the data and dump the lying bastards.  Start over and lets see how the new trends work.   Is it too late?  Nope, keep the current green tech but don't enter into life changing treaties on FALSE DATA!   If the green cars / solar / wind, etc work, fine... we will naturally move to that as prices drop this tech and things are developed, but we don't need it FORCED down our throats!  Especially now that most of the data can't be trusted.</p><p>And I'm serious, if I commited fraud like this in my job, I'd at least be out of a job, and maybe blacklisted.  I'm on the edge of wanting them in JAIL because of the amount of fraud that may have been perpertrated for grants / awards / prizes, etc.  On behalf of the world, I call shenanigans!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't REALCLIMATE.ORG the website started by Dr. Mann... Go back and read the emails .
You 'll see how much he 's pushing avoiding using certain data , did n't like the other website and that Canadian that made him change his data once before .
All of a suddent they have " New " data .
Really , Fell for it once , not again.These are FRAUDSTERS .
Remember the days when COLD FUSION was proven to be a fraud !
Same style .
Dump the data and dump the lying bastards .
Start over and lets see how the new trends work .
Is it too late ?
Nope , keep the current green tech but do n't enter into life changing treaties on FALSE DATA !
If the green cars / solar / wind , etc work , fine... we will naturally move to that as prices drop this tech and things are developed , but we do n't need it FORCED down our throats !
Especially now that most of the data ca n't be trusted.And I 'm serious , if I commited fraud like this in my job , I 'd at least be out of a job , and maybe blacklisted .
I 'm on the edge of wanting them in JAIL because of the amount of fraud that may have been perpertrated for grants / awards / prizes , etc .
On behalf of the world , I call shenanigans !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't REALCLIMATE.ORG the website started by Dr. Mann... Go back and read the emails.
You'll see how much he's pushing avoiding using certain data, didn't like the other website and that Canadian that made him change his data once before.
All of a suddent they have "New" data.
Really,  Fell for it once, not again.These are FRAUDSTERS.
Remember the days when COLD FUSION was proven to be a fraud!
Same style.
Dump the data and dump the lying bastards.
Start over and lets see how the new trends work.
Is it too late?
Nope, keep the current green tech but don't enter into life changing treaties on FALSE DATA!
If the green cars / solar / wind, etc work, fine... we will naturally move to that as prices drop this tech and things are developed, but we don't need it FORCED down our throats!
Especially now that most of the data can't be trusted.And I'm serious, if I commited fraud like this in my job, I'd at least be out of a job, and maybe blacklisted.
I'm on the edge of wanting them in JAIL because of the amount of fraud that may have been perpertrated for grants / awards / prizes, etc.
On behalf of the world, I call shenanigans!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270332</id>
	<title>Re:Also, look at the larger picture in motivation.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259598960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is very little historical motivation for any reputable scientist to manufacture a scare, all they want is research funding now, not research funding years from now.</p></div><p>"Manufacture a scare" implies more research funding now. In fact, it'd be counterproductive to manufacture a scare in order to secure research funding down the road. After all, sooner or later someone will prove you're wrong, then where's your funding?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is very little historical motivation for any reputable scientist to manufacture a scare , all they want is research funding now , not research funding years from now .
" Manufacture a scare " implies more research funding now .
In fact , it 'd be counterproductive to manufacture a scare in order to secure research funding down the road .
After all , sooner or later someone will prove you 're wrong , then where 's your funding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is very little historical motivation for any reputable scientist to manufacture a scare, all they want is research funding now, not research funding years from now.
"Manufacture a scare" implies more research funding now.
In fact, it'd be counterproductive to manufacture a scare in order to secure research funding down the road.
After all, sooner or later someone will prove you're wrong, then where's your funding?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268480</id>
	<title>Re:Just another day</title>
	<author>jc79</author>
	<datestamp>1259581380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-emails-stop-glaciers-from-melting-200911252254/" title="thedailymash.co.uk" rel="nofollow">
Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: "While there will always be debate over climate data, it's important to remember that the state of the world's icebergs and glaciers remains wholly dependant on which group of tedious, hectoring arseholes is currently winning the argument."</a> [thedailymash.co.uk] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Professor Henry Brubaker , of the Institute for Studies , said : " While there will always be debate over climate data , it 's important to remember that the state of the world 's icebergs and glaciers remains wholly dependant on which group of tedious , hectoring arseholes is currently winning the argument .
" [ thedailymash.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: "While there will always be debate over climate data, it's important to remember that the state of the world's icebergs and glaciers remains wholly dependant on which group of tedious, hectoring arseholes is currently winning the argument.
" [thedailymash.co.uk] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268070</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, I agree with Phil Jones.</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1259575320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever read the LKML?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever read the LKML ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever read the LKML?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30290864</id>
	<title>Re:Climate skeptics caught manipulating temp data</title>
	<author>overunderunderdone</author>
	<datestamp>1259670840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a rather loaded way to look at this controversy. The skeptics pointed out that the overall the raw data was flat and only showed warming after adjustments. The believers responded that all the adjustments were reasonable and produced their rationale for the adjustments to the Wellington series as an example.<br>
<br>
Both of these positions can be true, or may be spin. Without knowing the basis of all the adjustments (not just those at one station) can we be sure which is which. That said, it's not an insignificant issue if a trend is only apparent in the data after adjustments are made because those adjustments are often just educated guesses which introduces a larger margin for error and the possibility that subtle biases affect which way and how far that educated guess goes.<br>
<br>
In their explanation of the adjustments to Wellington they used the differential between the Airport and Kelburn to calculate the differential between Thorndon and Kelburn because they are at the same elevation. But is it really likely that elevation is the *only* factor causing the temperature difference between Kelburn and the Airport? The bits of Kelburn above 125 meters look like relatively leafy hillside suburb of Wellington, while the Airport is a pretty vast expanse of concrete. Is it really a good proxy for the Thorndon waterfront of the 1930's just on the basis that they're at the same elevation? What if we decided to make a cooling adjustment over time to account for the increasing heat-island effects of increasing urbanization?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a rather loaded way to look at this controversy .
The skeptics pointed out that the overall the raw data was flat and only showed warming after adjustments .
The believers responded that all the adjustments were reasonable and produced their rationale for the adjustments to the Wellington series as an example .
Both of these positions can be true , or may be spin .
Without knowing the basis of all the adjustments ( not just those at one station ) can we be sure which is which .
That said , it 's not an insignificant issue if a trend is only apparent in the data after adjustments are made because those adjustments are often just educated guesses which introduces a larger margin for error and the possibility that subtle biases affect which way and how far that educated guess goes .
In their explanation of the adjustments to Wellington they used the differential between the Airport and Kelburn to calculate the differential between Thorndon and Kelburn because they are at the same elevation .
But is it really likely that elevation is the * only * factor causing the temperature difference between Kelburn and the Airport ?
The bits of Kelburn above 125 meters look like relatively leafy hillside suburb of Wellington , while the Airport is a pretty vast expanse of concrete .
Is it really a good proxy for the Thorndon waterfront of the 1930 's just on the basis that they 're at the same elevation ?
What if we decided to make a cooling adjustment over time to account for the increasing heat-island effects of increasing urbanization ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a rather loaded way to look at this controversy.
The skeptics pointed out that the overall the raw data was flat and only showed warming after adjustments.
The believers responded that all the adjustments were reasonable and produced their rationale for the adjustments to the Wellington series as an example.
Both of these positions can be true, or may be spin.
Without knowing the basis of all the adjustments (not just those at one station) can we be sure which is which.
That said, it's not an insignificant issue if a trend is only apparent in the data after adjustments are made because those adjustments are often just educated guesses which introduces a larger margin for error and the possibility that subtle biases affect which way and how far that educated guess goes.
In their explanation of the adjustments to Wellington they used the differential between the Airport and Kelburn to calculate the differential between Thorndon and Kelburn because they are at the same elevation.
But is it really likely that elevation is the *only* factor causing the temperature difference between Kelburn and the Airport?
The bits of Kelburn above 125 meters look like relatively leafy hillside suburb of Wellington, while the Airport is a pretty vast expanse of concrete.
Is it really a good proxy for the Thorndon waterfront of the 1930's just on the basis that they're at the same elevation?
What if we decided to make a cooling adjustment over time to account for the increasing heat-island effects of increasing urbanization?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267094</id>
	<title>Losing data considered normal?</title>
	<author>OFnow</author>
	<datestamp>1259520420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watching NOVA about climate a university guy shows us his warehouse full<br>of ice cores.      Best site of ice cores in the world.    I know he's considered the risks,<br>but how much money does he really have to protect it?  One wonders.<br>We just have to expect vital data to go missing from time to time.</p><p>We won't recover the great library at Alexandria either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watching NOVA about climate a university guy shows us his warehouse fullof ice cores .
Best site of ice cores in the world .
I know he 's considered the risks,but how much money does he really have to protect it ?
One wonders.We just have to expect vital data to go missing from time to time.We wo n't recover the great library at Alexandria either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watching NOVA about climate a university guy shows us his warehouse fullof ice cores.
Best site of ice cores in the world.
I know he's considered the risks,but how much money does he really have to protect it?
One wonders.We just have to expect vital data to go missing from time to time.We won't recover the great library at Alexandria either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267860</id>
	<title>Where the Global Warming Data Are</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The word "data" is plural, while "datum" is the singular form.  How about:  Where the Global Warming Data Are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The word " data " is plural , while " datum " is the singular form .
How about : Where the Global Warming Data Are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word "data" is plural, while "datum" is the singular form.
How about:  Where the Global Warming Data Are?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265852</id>
	<title>Yes, good.  Call names.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259509980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:</p><p>"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!"</p><p>If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:</p><p>"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!"</p><p>Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not. What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud. Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly. No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.</p><p>The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:</p><p>"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!"</p><p>If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:</p><p>"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!"</p><p>Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not. What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud. Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly. No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.</p><p>The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.</p></div><p>That'll do wonders for the impression that climate science is overrun with rabid ideologues that would rather trade insults (and fists?) than data.</p><p>Keep up the good work.</p><p>-- Your Friends at Chevron.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they ca n't release it : " They are cherry picking their data , the met data shows there is no cooling , it 's all a fraud ! ! !
" If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA : " They do n't release the data , they cover it up , it 's all a conspiracy ! ! ! !
" Seriously , you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not .
What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it , that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud .
Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data , never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly .
No it must all be a conspiracy , including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.The more I hear from climate " skeptics " the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they ca n't release it : " They are cherry picking their data , the met data shows there is no cooling , it 's all a fraud ! ! !
" If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA : " They do n't release the data , they cover it up , it 's all a conspiracy ! ! ! !
" Seriously , you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not .
What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it , that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud .
Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data , never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly .
No it must all be a conspiracy , including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.The more I hear from climate " skeptics " the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.That 'll do wonders for the impression that climate science is overrun with rabid ideologues that would rather trade insults ( and fists ?
) than data.Keep up the good work.-- Your Friends at Chevron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!
"If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!
"Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not.
What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud.
Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly.
No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!
"If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!
"Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not.
What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud.
Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly.
No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.That'll do wonders for the impression that climate science is overrun with rabid ideologues that would rather trade insults (and fists?
) than data.Keep up the good work.-- Your Friends at Chevron.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266640</id>
	<title>Re:My A*&amp; will be sore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259516520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting? Pah. The bloody poster didn't even get the names right. It's just a string of faux outrages, with no real meaning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting ?
Pah. The bloody poster did n't even get the names right .
It 's just a string of faux outrages , with no real meaning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting?
Pah. The bloody poster didn't even get the names right.
It's just a string of faux outrages, with no real meaning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266660</id>
	<title>How convenient...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259516640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So moments after questions have been raised about the CRU "scientists" miraculously new "never before seen" data just somehow appears??  Wow... how  convenient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So moments after questions have been raised about the CRU " scientists " miraculously new " never before seen " data just somehow appears ? ?
Wow... how convenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So moments after questions have been raised about the CRU "scientists" miraculously new "never before seen" data just somehow appears??
Wow... how  convenient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270308</id>
	<title>Re:Political Agendas</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259598840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But there is no scandal because the stolen emails don't invalidate the science.</p> </div><p>What is the "science" here? And why can't you bring yourself say what it is? My view is that we have some modest evidence of recent global warming through solar warming and possibly other causes including human activity (via release of greenhouse gasses). We have strong evidence of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and a pretty solid link to human activity. What we don't have is a good link demonstrating significant correlation between human CO2 releasing activity and global warming.<br> <br>

What we have lost? First, we apparently lost our certainty that the current temperatures are the warmest that Earth has been since the end of the last ice age. For example, the Medieval Warm Period has been claimed by some AGW skeptics to be warmer than present. The CRU dataset can no longer be used to counter that argument.<br> <br>

Second, please recall the climate model used in the recent CRU study which predicted a 6C rise in global temperature. This model appears to be calibrated using bad data. That renders the current worst case predictions invalid until someone can back the claim with an uncorrupted dataset.<br> <br>

Third, a key scientist, Dr. Phil Jones (who apparently is the head of the CRU) appears to have deleted data in order to foil a FOIA request (as I found out, the UK also has a Freedom of Information Act). He discusses deleting the data (precising to foil the FOIA request) and subsequently he claims the raw data turns out to have been deleted in the 80's. The only question is whether that deletion of data occurred in the 80s or after that email (say within the last couple of years). That's a crime (though apparently not one that requires jail time).<br> <br>

Finally, all these shenanigans occur in an organization with considerable influence on the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) which is supposed to be the definitive source for deciding the effects of global warming. Given that a few CRU members and friends were boasting of excluding rival research from the IPCC (in the emails), how much distortion was in the science presented there?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a smear campaign, conducted by political screechers with a clearly visible agenda.</p></div><p>So what? The most effective propaganda has partial truth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But there is no scandal because the stolen emails do n't invalidate the science .
What is the " science " here ?
And why ca n't you bring yourself say what it is ?
My view is that we have some modest evidence of recent global warming through solar warming and possibly other causes including human activity ( via release of greenhouse gasses ) .
We have strong evidence of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and a pretty solid link to human activity .
What we do n't have is a good link demonstrating significant correlation between human CO2 releasing activity and global warming .
What we have lost ?
First , we apparently lost our certainty that the current temperatures are the warmest that Earth has been since the end of the last ice age .
For example , the Medieval Warm Period has been claimed by some AGW skeptics to be warmer than present .
The CRU dataset can no longer be used to counter that argument .
Second , please recall the climate model used in the recent CRU study which predicted a 6C rise in global temperature .
This model appears to be calibrated using bad data .
That renders the current worst case predictions invalid until someone can back the claim with an uncorrupted dataset .
Third , a key scientist , Dr. Phil Jones ( who apparently is the head of the CRU ) appears to have deleted data in order to foil a FOIA request ( as I found out , the UK also has a Freedom of Information Act ) .
He discusses deleting the data ( precising to foil the FOIA request ) and subsequently he claims the raw data turns out to have been deleted in the 80 's .
The only question is whether that deletion of data occurred in the 80s or after that email ( say within the last couple of years ) .
That 's a crime ( though apparently not one that requires jail time ) .
Finally , all these shenanigans occur in an organization with considerable influence on the IPCC ( International Panel on Climate Change ) which is supposed to be the definitive source for deciding the effects of global warming .
Given that a few CRU members and friends were boasting of excluding rival research from the IPCC ( in the emails ) , how much distortion was in the science presented there ? This is a smear campaign , conducted by political screechers with a clearly visible agenda.So what ?
The most effective propaganda has partial truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there is no scandal because the stolen emails don't invalidate the science.
What is the "science" here?
And why can't you bring yourself say what it is?
My view is that we have some modest evidence of recent global warming through solar warming and possibly other causes including human activity (via release of greenhouse gasses).
We have strong evidence of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and a pretty solid link to human activity.
What we don't have is a good link demonstrating significant correlation between human CO2 releasing activity and global warming.
What we have lost?
First, we apparently lost our certainty that the current temperatures are the warmest that Earth has been since the end of the last ice age.
For example, the Medieval Warm Period has been claimed by some AGW skeptics to be warmer than present.
The CRU dataset can no longer be used to counter that argument.
Second, please recall the climate model used in the recent CRU study which predicted a 6C rise in global temperature.
This model appears to be calibrated using bad data.
That renders the current worst case predictions invalid until someone can back the claim with an uncorrupted dataset.
Third, a key scientist, Dr. Phil Jones (who apparently is the head of the CRU) appears to have deleted data in order to foil a FOIA request (as I found out, the UK also has a Freedom of Information Act).
He discusses deleting the data (precising to foil the FOIA request) and subsequently he claims the raw data turns out to have been deleted in the 80's.
The only question is whether that deletion of data occurred in the 80s or after that email (say within the last couple of years).
That's a crime (though apparently not one that requires jail time).
Finally, all these shenanigans occur in an organization with considerable influence on the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) which is supposed to be the definitive source for deciding the effects of global warming.
Given that a few CRU members and friends were boasting of excluding rival research from the IPCC (in the emails), how much distortion was in the science presented there?This is a smear campaign, conducted by political screechers with a clearly visible agenda.So what?
The most effective propaganda has partial truth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265648</id>
	<title>Climate change was NO issue in the 80s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259508660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was not "not as pressing". It was no issue. No, wait, before you mod me flamebait, I don't mean really no issue. It was politically no issue. It was deemed something people don't give half a shit about, but that they do give a lot about the question whether they have jobs, whether these jobs are endangered by eco-friendly regulation laws and to make matters worse the eco movement was forming and people started to care about ecology and environment, and that their nature was going the way of the dodo (which eventually led to the formation of green parties and, to make matters REALLY worse for the leading politic figure heads, to them entering the parlaments of Europe).</p><p>You can see a similar development now with privacy and overreaching surveillance, and politicians lacking the foresight to see that people care about it, the founding of parties that ride almost exclusively on the privacy ticket and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, let's hope history repeats itself.</p><p>But back on topic. It was simply not politically interesting to publish or even push this information. It was not "withheld". It was just not interesting, neither for any political party nor for any media outlet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was not " not as pressing " .
It was no issue .
No , wait , before you mod me flamebait , I do n't mean really no issue .
It was politically no issue .
It was deemed something people do n't give half a shit about , but that they do give a lot about the question whether they have jobs , whether these jobs are endangered by eco-friendly regulation laws and to make matters worse the eco movement was forming and people started to care about ecology and environment , and that their nature was going the way of the dodo ( which eventually led to the formation of green parties and , to make matters REALLY worse for the leading politic figure heads , to them entering the parlaments of Europe ) .You can see a similar development now with privacy and overreaching surveillance , and politicians lacking the foresight to see that people care about it , the founding of parties that ride almost exclusively on the privacy ticket and ... well , let 's hope history repeats itself.But back on topic .
It was simply not politically interesting to publish or even push this information .
It was not " withheld " .
It was just not interesting , neither for any political party nor for any media outlet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was not "not as pressing".
It was no issue.
No, wait, before you mod me flamebait, I don't mean really no issue.
It was politically no issue.
It was deemed something people don't give half a shit about, but that they do give a lot about the question whether they have jobs, whether these jobs are endangered by eco-friendly regulation laws and to make matters worse the eco movement was forming and people started to care about ecology and environment, and that their nature was going the way of the dodo (which eventually led to the formation of green parties and, to make matters REALLY worse for the leading politic figure heads, to them entering the parlaments of Europe).You can see a similar development now with privacy and overreaching surveillance, and politicians lacking the foresight to see that people care about it, the founding of parties that ride almost exclusively on the privacy ticket and ... well, let's hope history repeats itself.But back on topic.
It was simply not politically interesting to publish or even push this information.
It was not "withheld".
It was just not interesting, neither for any political party nor for any media outlet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266684</id>
	<title>Actually, I agree with Phil Jones.</title>
	<author>Hawthorne01</author>
	<datestamp>1259516880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The facts do speak for themselves.</p><p>From the "HARRY\_READ\_ME.txt" file of the CRU emails, in the words of the CRU's own programmer, with page numbers annotated: <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p><p>- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." (Page 17)</p><p>- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)</p><p>- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)</p><p>- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)</p><p>- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)</p><p>- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)</p><p>- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)</p><p>- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)</p><p>- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)</p><p>- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." (98)</p><p>- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." (98-9)</p><p>- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).</p><p>- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." (266)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The facts do speak for themselves.From the " HARRY \ _READ \ _ME.txt " file of the CRU emails , in the words of the CRU 's own programmer , with page numbers annotated : http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ [ wattsupwiththat.com ] - " But what are all those monthly files ?
DO N'T KNOW , UNDOCUMENTED .
Wherever I look , there are data files , no info about what they are other than their names .
And that 's useless ... " ( Page 17 ) - " It 's botch after botch after botch .
" ( 18 ) - " The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour 's edits to the program , when the network died ... no explanation from anyone , I hope it 's not a return to last year 's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I 've ever attempted .
Eeeek. " ( 31 ) - " Oh , GOD , if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite .
" ( 37 ) - " ... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago !
" ( 45 ) - " Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order ? ! !
" ( 47 ) - " As far as I can see , this renders the ( weather ) station counts totally meaningless .
" ( 57 ) - " COBAR AIRPORT AWS ( data from an Australian weather station ) can not start in 1962 , it did n't open until 1993 !
" ( 71 ) - " What the hell is supposed to happen here ?
Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed, ' I can make it up .
So I have : - ) " ( 98 ) - " You ca n't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO ( World Meteorological Organization ) codes ! !
But what else is there in such situations ?
Especially when dealing with a 'Master ' database of dubious provenance ... " ( 98 ) - " So with a somewhat cynical shrug , I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible , and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do .
It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed , and good databases to become bad ... " ( 98-9 ) - " OH F--- THIS .
It 's Sunday evening , I 've worked all weekend , and just when I thought it was done , I 'm hitting yet another problem that 's based on the hopeless state of our databases .
" ( 241 ) .- " This whole project is SUCH A MESS ... " ( 266 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The facts do speak for themselves.From the "HARRY\_READ\_ME.txt" file of the CRU emails, in the words of the CRU's own programmer, with page numbers annotated: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ [wattsupwiththat.com]- "But what are all those monthly files?
DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED.
Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names.
And that's useless ..." (Page 17)- "It's botch after botch after botch.
" (18)- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted.
Eeeek." (31)- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite.
" (37)- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!
" (45)- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
" (47)- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.
" (57)- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!
" (71)- "What the hell is supposed to happen here?
Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up.
So I have : - )" (98)- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!!
But what else is there in such situations?
Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do.
It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)- "OH F--- THIS.
It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases.
" (241).- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266422</id>
	<title>Re:Just another day</title>
	<author>dcavanaugh</author>
	<datestamp>1259514840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The deliberate coverup in response to an FOI request pretty much blows the climatologists out of the water.  Kaboom!  Game over.  The British press is all over the issue while the American press ignores it, hoping it will go away.  It won't.</p><p>Money rules BOTH sides of the climate debate.  You simply don't get funding unless your outcome favors the people who provide the money.  If Microsoft funds an "independent study" and the outcome favors Microsoft products (as it always does), we understand, laugh, and life goes on.   Why is this climatology such a mystery? If Rob Enderle, Laura DiDio, and the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute opened a climatology division, Slashdot would be challenging them in about 10 minutes.  What's taking so long with the climatologists?</p><p>The clues are everywhere.  Notice how the "cap and trade" money grab is absolutely essential to solving the problem, while consuming less meat or zero population growth are given hardly any consideration at all.  Without the money grab and subsidies for the third world, the sense urgency goes right down the toilet.   Things we could be doing at zero cost get zero attention.  This doesn't prove climatology is a scam, but it sure looks that way.</p><p>Meanwhile, we had better hope global warming a scam.  During the years since Kyoto, China has become the number 1 generator of CO2.  And they have far more growth potential than the US does.  So do Brazil, Russia, and India for that matter.   I have actually visited Shanghai and have seen the pollution first hand.  Complex measurements were not required; coughing in the smog was more than enough for me.  If anyone claims China is serious about controlling pollution, it's total BS.</p><p>The reality is that Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the BRIC nations) offer to do essentially nothing, while they hide behind the number 2 generator of CO2 - the US.   I have news for you folks - the US government is broke.    Obama views "cap and trade" as a palatable source of tax revenue that will throw off so much cash, he can distribute it all over the world.  Problem is, cap and trade is NOT palatable.  The production of CO2 will simply migrate to the countries with the least enforcement or the heaviest subsidies.  Obama's Democrats will be "wiped off the map" in large sections of the US if they expect Americans to subsidize [even more] offshoring of jobs.  There is a very real possibility that a mismanaged implementation of cap and trade would be both ineffective and indistinguishable from economic suicide.   In such a scenario, the Democrats would become a regional party with no real power outside of California and Massachusetts.</p><p>Fortunately, we have been saved by Russian hackers.  No deal in Copenhagen, no cap and trade.  No support in Congress; it's dead with a capital "D".   Obama is already looking for excuses to cancel the trip!  Perhaps they can mail him his Nobel Peace Prize.  The countries that were determined to do nothing will be joined by all the others, so that we can all continue to do nothing on an equitable basis.   This may not be the best outcome, but it is infinitely better than a naive Obama getting hoodwinked into picking up the costs of everyone else's pollution controls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The deliberate coverup in response to an FOI request pretty much blows the climatologists out of the water .
Kaboom ! Game over .
The British press is all over the issue while the American press ignores it , hoping it will go away .
It wo n't.Money rules BOTH sides of the climate debate .
You simply do n't get funding unless your outcome favors the people who provide the money .
If Microsoft funds an " independent study " and the outcome favors Microsoft products ( as it always does ) , we understand , laugh , and life goes on .
Why is this climatology such a mystery ?
If Rob Enderle , Laura DiDio , and the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute opened a climatology division , Slashdot would be challenging them in about 10 minutes .
What 's taking so long with the climatologists ? The clues are everywhere .
Notice how the " cap and trade " money grab is absolutely essential to solving the problem , while consuming less meat or zero population growth are given hardly any consideration at all .
Without the money grab and subsidies for the third world , the sense urgency goes right down the toilet .
Things we could be doing at zero cost get zero attention .
This does n't prove climatology is a scam , but it sure looks that way.Meanwhile , we had better hope global warming a scam .
During the years since Kyoto , China has become the number 1 generator of CO2 .
And they have far more growth potential than the US does .
So do Brazil , Russia , and India for that matter .
I have actually visited Shanghai and have seen the pollution first hand .
Complex measurements were not required ; coughing in the smog was more than enough for me .
If anyone claims China is serious about controlling pollution , it 's total BS.The reality is that Brazil , Russia , India , and China ( the BRIC nations ) offer to do essentially nothing , while they hide behind the number 2 generator of CO2 - the US .
I have news for you folks - the US government is broke .
Obama views " cap and trade " as a palatable source of tax revenue that will throw off so much cash , he can distribute it all over the world .
Problem is , cap and trade is NOT palatable .
The production of CO2 will simply migrate to the countries with the least enforcement or the heaviest subsidies .
Obama 's Democrats will be " wiped off the map " in large sections of the US if they expect Americans to subsidize [ even more ] offshoring of jobs .
There is a very real possibility that a mismanaged implementation of cap and trade would be both ineffective and indistinguishable from economic suicide .
In such a scenario , the Democrats would become a regional party with no real power outside of California and Massachusetts.Fortunately , we have been saved by Russian hackers .
No deal in Copenhagen , no cap and trade .
No support in Congress ; it 's dead with a capital " D " .
Obama is already looking for excuses to cancel the trip !
Perhaps they can mail him his Nobel Peace Prize .
The countries that were determined to do nothing will be joined by all the others , so that we can all continue to do nothing on an equitable basis .
This may not be the best outcome , but it is infinitely better than a naive Obama getting hoodwinked into picking up the costs of everyone else 's pollution controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The deliberate coverup in response to an FOI request pretty much blows the climatologists out of the water.
Kaboom!  Game over.
The British press is all over the issue while the American press ignores it, hoping it will go away.
It won't.Money rules BOTH sides of the climate debate.
You simply don't get funding unless your outcome favors the people who provide the money.
If Microsoft funds an "independent study" and the outcome favors Microsoft products (as it always does), we understand, laugh, and life goes on.
Why is this climatology such a mystery?
If Rob Enderle, Laura DiDio, and the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute opened a climatology division, Slashdot would be challenging them in about 10 minutes.
What's taking so long with the climatologists?The clues are everywhere.
Notice how the "cap and trade" money grab is absolutely essential to solving the problem, while consuming less meat or zero population growth are given hardly any consideration at all.
Without the money grab and subsidies for the third world, the sense urgency goes right down the toilet.
Things we could be doing at zero cost get zero attention.
This doesn't prove climatology is a scam, but it sure looks that way.Meanwhile, we had better hope global warming a scam.
During the years since Kyoto, China has become the number 1 generator of CO2.
And they have far more growth potential than the US does.
So do Brazil, Russia, and India for that matter.
I have actually visited Shanghai and have seen the pollution first hand.
Complex measurements were not required; coughing in the smog was more than enough for me.
If anyone claims China is serious about controlling pollution, it's total BS.The reality is that Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the BRIC nations) offer to do essentially nothing, while they hide behind the number 2 generator of CO2 - the US.
I have news for you folks - the US government is broke.
Obama views "cap and trade" as a palatable source of tax revenue that will throw off so much cash, he can distribute it all over the world.
Problem is, cap and trade is NOT palatable.
The production of CO2 will simply migrate to the countries with the least enforcement or the heaviest subsidies.
Obama's Democrats will be "wiped off the map" in large sections of the US if they expect Americans to subsidize [even more] offshoring of jobs.
There is a very real possibility that a mismanaged implementation of cap and trade would be both ineffective and indistinguishable from economic suicide.
In such a scenario, the Democrats would become a regional party with no real power outside of California and Massachusetts.Fortunately, we have been saved by Russian hackers.
No deal in Copenhagen, no cap and trade.
No support in Congress; it's dead with a capital "D".
Obama is already looking for excuses to cancel the trip!
Perhaps they can mail him his Nobel Peace Prize.
The countries that were determined to do nothing will be joined by all the others, so that we can all continue to do nothing on an equitable basis.
This may not be the best outcome, but it is infinitely better than a naive Obama getting hoodwinked into picking up the costs of everyone else's pollution controls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</id>
	<title>Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259508120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:</p><p>"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!"</p><p>If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:</p><p>"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!"</p><p>Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not. What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud. Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly. No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.</p><p>The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they ca n't release it : " They are cherry picking their data , the met data shows there is no cooling , it 's all a fraud ! ! !
" If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA : " They do n't release the data , they cover it up , it 's all a conspiracy ! ! ! !
" Seriously , you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not .
What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it , that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud .
Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data , never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly .
No it must all be a conspiracy , including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.The more I hear from climate " skeptics " the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If climate scientists refuse to look at proprietary data on the grounds that they can't release it:"They are cherry picking their data, the met data shows there is no cooling, it's all a fraud!!!
"If instead they decide to agree accept the offer to see it by signing a NDA:"They don't release the data, they cover it up, it's all a conspiracy!!!!
"Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not.
What the so called skeptics are arguing is that because SOME scientists decided the benefits of using more data outweigh the cons of being unable to disclose it, that means the entire field of climate science is a fraud.
Never mind that their findings agree with research done with open data, never mind that you could in principle go sign an NDA yourself if you mistrust the CRU so badly.
No it must all be a conspiracy, including the research that were made with open data that achieved the same conclusions.The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274026</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest part of this debate isn't whether we are experiencing global warming, its whether the CO2 is causing it.  Just because its warming doesn't necessarily mean that it will continue to increase, nor prove that man caused it.  Those things may be true of course but what your saying and countless others have doesn't answer all the questions being debated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest part of this debate is n't whether we are experiencing global warming , its whether the CO2 is causing it .
Just because its warming does n't necessarily mean that it will continue to increase , nor prove that man caused it .
Those things may be true of course but what your saying and countless others have does n't answer all the questions being debated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest part of this debate isn't whether we are experiencing global warming, its whether the CO2 is causing it.
Just because its warming doesn't necessarily mean that it will continue to increase, nor prove that man caused it.
Those things may be true of course but what your saying and countless others have doesn't answer all the questions being debated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266952</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>Addisonhype</author>
	<datestamp>1259519100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even I think the same.


<a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2257792" title="goarticles.com" rel="nofollow">AcaiCleanse</a> [goarticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even I think the same .
AcaiCleanse [ goarticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even I think the same.
AcaiCleanse [goarticles.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265668</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259508780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is the general creed that conservation and restriction is good, as long as <i>you</i> do it and leave <i>me</i> alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the general creed that conservation and restriction is good , as long as you do it and leave me alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the general creed that conservation and restriction is good, as long as you do it and leave me alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</id>
	<title>First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259509680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outside of the science, all I know is that the climate zone in my local area has changed.  Plants which you could not grow before, you can grow now.  I hear from Innuit that there are plants and animals in the North which they have not seen before.  I know that tornadoes dot the German Rhine where no tornadoes were seen before, I know hurricanes on the Eastern seaboard are behaving differently, I know that Crete was so dry when I saw it that I couldn't imagine olive trees growing there without irrigation, I know that our highways are a half kilometer wide and countless kilometers long, with thousands upon thousands of idling cars sitting on them, ten times a week for as long as I've been alive, and I know that sea captains don't want to traverse the Indian ocean because the almanacs are no longer reasonable guides to chart how long a given voyage from one port to the next might take.

</p><p>Everything else is told to me by strangers.  Maybe the arctic is intact, maybe the rainforests never actually existed.  Maybe Mt. Kilamajaro doesn't exist, maybe it's all a mind control plot.  All plausible answers I suppose from people telling me that climate change is a myth.

</p><p>Has anyone here seen a rainforest?  Have you seen the clearcutting?  Maybe none of this is real.  Right now, the temperature where I am is 6 Celcius.  Is my thermometer tampered with by some global warming co-conspirators?  If I wrote it down, would somebody question it 100 years from now?  Maybe the celcius scale has been tampered with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outside of the science , all I know is that the climate zone in my local area has changed .
Plants which you could not grow before , you can grow now .
I hear from Innuit that there are plants and animals in the North which they have not seen before .
I know that tornadoes dot the German Rhine where no tornadoes were seen before , I know hurricanes on the Eastern seaboard are behaving differently , I know that Crete was so dry when I saw it that I could n't imagine olive trees growing there without irrigation , I know that our highways are a half kilometer wide and countless kilometers long , with thousands upon thousands of idling cars sitting on them , ten times a week for as long as I 've been alive , and I know that sea captains do n't want to traverse the Indian ocean because the almanacs are no longer reasonable guides to chart how long a given voyage from one port to the next might take .
Everything else is told to me by strangers .
Maybe the arctic is intact , maybe the rainforests never actually existed .
Maybe Mt .
Kilamajaro does n't exist , maybe it 's all a mind control plot .
All plausible answers I suppose from people telling me that climate change is a myth .
Has anyone here seen a rainforest ?
Have you seen the clearcutting ?
Maybe none of this is real .
Right now , the temperature where I am is 6 Celcius .
Is my thermometer tampered with by some global warming co-conspirators ?
If I wrote it down , would somebody question it 100 years from now ?
Maybe the celcius scale has been tampered with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outside of the science, all I know is that the climate zone in my local area has changed.
Plants which you could not grow before, you can grow now.
I hear from Innuit that there are plants and animals in the North which they have not seen before.
I know that tornadoes dot the German Rhine where no tornadoes were seen before, I know hurricanes on the Eastern seaboard are behaving differently, I know that Crete was so dry when I saw it that I couldn't imagine olive trees growing there without irrigation, I know that our highways are a half kilometer wide and countless kilometers long, with thousands upon thousands of idling cars sitting on them, ten times a week for as long as I've been alive, and I know that sea captains don't want to traverse the Indian ocean because the almanacs are no longer reasonable guides to chart how long a given voyage from one port to the next might take.
Everything else is told to me by strangers.
Maybe the arctic is intact, maybe the rainforests never actually existed.
Maybe Mt.
Kilamajaro doesn't exist, maybe it's all a mind control plot.
All plausible answers I suppose from people telling me that climate change is a myth.
Has anyone here seen a rainforest?
Have you seen the clearcutting?
Maybe none of this is real.
Right now, the temperature where I am is 6 Celcius.
Is my thermometer tampered with by some global warming co-conspirators?
If I wrote it down, would somebody question it 100 years from now?
Maybe the celcius scale has been tampered with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30293414</id>
	<title>Re:Political Agendas</title>
	<author>zkiwi34</author>
	<datestamp>1259688360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What science?

So far from the leaked stuff we have deleted data, that apparently can't be resurrected, massively fudged code, on up to the withholding of data requested under the FOI act as well as massive amounts of unethical and vindictive behaviour towards anyone who would hold an opposing, or even differing view.

Science is supposed to be open, not this closed "trust us" we're cleverer than you and/or the "deniers" BS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What science ?
So far from the leaked stuff we have deleted data , that apparently ca n't be resurrected , massively fudged code , on up to the withholding of data requested under the FOI act as well as massive amounts of unethical and vindictive behaviour towards anyone who would hold an opposing , or even differing view .
Science is supposed to be open , not this closed " trust us " we 're cleverer than you and/or the " deniers " BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What science?
So far from the leaked stuff we have deleted data, that apparently can't be resurrected, massively fudged code, on up to the withholding of data requested under the FOI act as well as massive amounts of unethical and vindictive behaviour towards anyone who would hold an opposing, or even differing view.
Science is supposed to be open, not this closed "trust us" we're cleverer than you and/or the "deniers" BS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266446</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not denying.</title>
	<author>some\_guy\_88</author>
	<datestamp>1259515140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up. There's way too many people here talking about climate science who know <em>nothing</em> about climate science. We would expect people to listen to us and trust us about computer science related issues so we should listen to climate scientists about climate related issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
There 's way too many people here talking about climate science who know nothing about climate science .
We would expect people to listen to us and trust us about computer science related issues so we should listen to climate scientists about climate related issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
There's way too many people here talking about climate science who know nothing about climate science.
We would expect people to listen to us and trust us about computer science related issues so we should listen to climate scientists about climate related issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265654</id>
	<title>Re:Science as Open Source</title>
	<author>Philip K Dickhead</author>
	<datestamp>1259508720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>32-bit Epoch Neanderthal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>32-bit Epoch Neanderthal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>32-bit Epoch Neanderthal!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269920</id>
	<title>Re:The Parent Isn't a Troll</title>
	<author>Burnhard</author>
	<datestamp>1259596500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This "incident" involves four scientists. Just four.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

I guess the number 4 you've written above has been adjusted by a Climate Scientist:<br>
<br>
Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Wigley, Ben Santer, Rob Wilson, Jonathan Overpeck, Gary Funkhouser, Grant Foster, David Parker, Giorgio Filippo, John Mitchell, (got bored searching... and others).  These are all top people in the field.  It isn't a small-town bible class, it's a major league scientific fiasco.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This " incident " involves four scientists .
Just four .
I guess the number 4 you 've written above has been adjusted by a Climate Scientist : Gavin Schmidt , Michael Mann , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley , Ben Santer , Rob Wilson , Jonathan Overpeck , Gary Funkhouser , Grant Foster , David Parker , Giorgio Filippo , John Mitchell , ( got bored searching... and others ) .
These are all top people in the field .
It is n't a small-town bible class , it 's a major league scientific fiasco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This "incident" involves four scientists.
Just four.
I guess the number 4 you've written above has been adjusted by a Climate Scientist:

Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Wigley, Ben Santer, Rob Wilson, Jonathan Overpeck, Gary Funkhouser, Grant Foster, David Parker, Giorgio Filippo, John Mitchell, (got bored searching... and others).
These are all top people in the field.
It isn't a small-town bible class, it's a major league scientific fiasco.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268364</id>
	<title>Won't convince anyone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The so-called "climate skeptics" won't change their opinion no matter what scientists do. It's like talking with a creationist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The so-called " climate skeptics " wo n't change their opinion no matter what scientists do .
It 's like talking with a creationist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The so-called "climate skeptics" won't change their opinion no matter what scientists do.
It's like talking with a creationist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266874</id>
	<title>hi</title>
	<author>barbara789</author>
	<datestamp>1259518380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with above thoughts.
Elenora
<a href="http://www.divineflowers.ca/" title="divineflowers.ca" rel="nofollow">Vancouver Flowers</a> [divineflowers.ca]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with above thoughts .
Elenora Vancouver Flowers [ divineflowers.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with above thoughts.
Elenora
Vancouver Flowers [divineflowers.ca]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266860</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>bongey</author>
	<datestamp>1259518320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your nerd card has been revoked.<p><div class="quote"><p>all I know</p></div><p>
So your knowledge  somehow leads to scientific fact? Somehow your personal experience of the climate is a good scientific study? <br>
Just take any simple science class with a little stats and then please come back.(sorry for the ad hominem, but I cannot resist)  <br>
Problems in your personal knowledge experiment. First there are few random variables, of which your sample size is very small. Did you record any data for your experiment? The duration of your experiment is perfect length. If  something that you know didn't occur in your lifetime or grandpas lifetime, thus it must have not occurred in the earths history.<br>
<br>
Finally you pull a dam red herring at the end about global warming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/climate change. You attack whether someone accepts there is climate change/warming or whether it is man made, totally two different arguments, but you have already gone ahead an smeared the blood across the path.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your nerd card has been revoked.all I know So your knowledge somehow leads to scientific fact ?
Somehow your personal experience of the climate is a good scientific study ?
Just take any simple science class with a little stats and then please come back .
( sorry for the ad hominem , but I can not resist ) Problems in your personal knowledge experiment .
First there are few random variables , of which your sample size is very small .
Did you record any data for your experiment ?
The duration of your experiment is perfect length .
If something that you know did n't occur in your lifetime or grandpas lifetime , thus it must have not occurred in the earths history .
Finally you pull a dam red herring at the end about global warming /climate change .
You attack whether someone accepts there is climate change/warming or whether it is man made , totally two different arguments , but you have already gone ahead an smeared the blood across the path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your nerd card has been revoked.all I know
So your knowledge  somehow leads to scientific fact?
Somehow your personal experience of the climate is a good scientific study?
Just take any simple science class with a little stats and then please come back.
(sorry for the ad hominem, but I cannot resist)  
Problems in your personal knowledge experiment.
First there are few random variables, of which your sample size is very small.
Did you record any data for your experiment?
The duration of your experiment is perfect length.
If  something that you know didn't occur in your lifetime or grandpas lifetime, thus it must have not occurred in the earths history.
Finally you pull a dam red herring at the end about global warming /climate change.
You attack whether someone accepts there is climate change/warming or whether it is man made, totally two different arguments, but you have already gone ahead an smeared the blood across the path.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268374</id>
	<title>Re:Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1259579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then we rewrite the physics books. God knows with what.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we rewrite the physics books .
God knows with what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we rewrite the physics books.
God knows with what.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259509380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not.</p><p>I don't know what the rules are on your world, but on mine it isn't science if the work can't be peer reviewed, published and duplicated.  If you basing results on datasets that can't be released none of that is possible.  Seriously, how would you peer review a paper based on data you can't look at?  How did 'respected' journals publish papers that they couldn't ask another serious scientist to do a proper review of?  Why is work that, even if it COULD in theory be duplicated, in fact never will (and wasn't) be given any weight in the high councils of the world's leaders?</p><p>Should a scientist use a closed dataset to help his company decide which research line to pursue?  Yes.  Decide where to drill for oil?  Yes.  Publish in the peer reviewed journals?  No.  Make recommendations to world leaders with trillion dollar consequences?  No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Seriously , you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not.I do n't know what the rules are on your world , but on mine it is n't science if the work ca n't be peer reviewed , published and duplicated .
If you basing results on datasets that ca n't be released none of that is possible .
Seriously , how would you peer review a paper based on data you ca n't look at ?
How did 'respected ' journals publish papers that they could n't ask another serious scientist to do a proper review of ?
Why is work that , even if it COULD in theory be duplicated , in fact never will ( and was n't ) be given any weight in the high councils of the world 's leaders ? Should a scientist use a closed dataset to help his company decide which research line to pursue ?
Yes. Decide where to drill for oil ?
Yes. Publish in the peer reviewed journals ?
No. Make recommendations to world leaders with trillion dollar consequences ?
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Seriously, you will get some scientists that are fine with using proprietary data and some who are not.I don't know what the rules are on your world, but on mine it isn't science if the work can't be peer reviewed, published and duplicated.
If you basing results on datasets that can't be released none of that is possible.
Seriously, how would you peer review a paper based on data you can't look at?
How did 'respected' journals publish papers that they couldn't ask another serious scientist to do a proper review of?
Why is work that, even if it COULD in theory be duplicated, in fact never will (and wasn't) be given any weight in the high councils of the world's leaders?Should a scientist use a closed dataset to help his company decide which research line to pursue?
Yes.  Decide where to drill for oil?
Yes.  Publish in the peer reviewed journals?
No.  Make recommendations to world leaders with trillion dollar consequences?
No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274430</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>orangedan</author>
	<datestamp>1259574540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Climate change is not a myth.  That is not the matter at hand.  I think most people will agree climate does change: the earth is not static.  The argument is whether or not humans are really the cause and if it is really as bad as certain "closed source" researchers have claimed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate change is not a myth .
That is not the matter at hand .
I think most people will agree climate does change : the earth is not static .
The argument is whether or not humans are really the cause and if it is really as bad as certain " closed source " researchers have claimed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate change is not a myth.
That is not the matter at hand.
I think most people will agree climate does change: the earth is not static.
The argument is whether or not humans are really the cause and if it is really as bad as certain "closed source" researchers have claimed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30341078</id>
	<title>This is interesting</title>
	<author>AgNO3</author>
	<datestamp>1260034140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dont' know.  but when I read stuff like this it makes me wonder.   I am not a scientist and I dont' trust them on either side.

but this is interesting <a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous\_climate.html" title="geocraft.com">http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous\_climate.html</a> [geocraft.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont ' know .
but when I read stuff like this it makes me wonder .
I am not a scientist and I dont ' trust them on either side .
but this is interesting http : //www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous \ _climate.html [ geocraft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont' know.
but when I read stuff like this it makes me wonder.
I am not a scientist and I dont' trust them on either side.
but this is interesting http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous\_climate.html [geocraft.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266056</id>
	<title>All data still available</title>
	<author>ssk77077</author>
	<datestamp>1259511360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In response to the data loss claim, CRU states that only 5\% of data was removed but it is still available from NOAA.
<a href="http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3" title="eenews.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3</a> [eenews.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>In response to the data loss claim , CRU states that only 5 \ % of data was removed but it is still available from NOAA .
http : //www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3 [ eenews.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In response to the data loss claim, CRU states that only 5\% of data was removed but it is still available from NOAA.
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3 [eenews.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266042</id>
	<title>Global Warming Ate My Homework</title>
	<author>theodp</author>
	<datestamp>1259511240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/1552" title="computerworld.com">CDs, Lies, and Magnetic Tapes</a> [computerworld.com]: "...but there are other considerations related to magnetic tape also.  Tape is very sensitive to heat..." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon\_Lovitz" title="wikipedia.org">Yeah, that's the ticket!</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CDs , Lies , and Magnetic Tapes [ computerworld.com ] : " ...but there are other considerations related to magnetic tape also .
Tape is very sensitive to heat... " Yeah , that 's the ticket !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CDs, Lies, and Magnetic Tapes [computerworld.com]: "...but there are other considerations related to magnetic tape also.
Tape is very sensitive to heat..." Yeah, that's the ticket!
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30291718</id>
	<title>Re:Still no nefarious behavior from where I sit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259675220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those 9 track tapes were still probably readable.  Not easy, but they still will probably work.  A place I used to work at in the 90s was doing some data recovery on 20+ year old tapes (older format than 9 track).  Getting the old machines that could read the tapes was a hassle and a process had to be discovered to "cook" the tapes to make the media stable enough to be fed into the equipment.  But it was done and process was put in place to migrate a basement full of these tapes to current media.  This data migration process is still in place to make sure that old data, formats, etc are continually copied on to new media so that it will always be available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those 9 track tapes were still probably readable .
Not easy , but they still will probably work .
A place I used to work at in the 90s was doing some data recovery on 20 + year old tapes ( older format than 9 track ) .
Getting the old machines that could read the tapes was a hassle and a process had to be discovered to " cook " the tapes to make the media stable enough to be fed into the equipment .
But it was done and process was put in place to migrate a basement full of these tapes to current media .
This data migration process is still in place to make sure that old data , formats , etc are continually copied on to new media so that it will always be available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those 9 track tapes were still probably readable.
Not easy, but they still will probably work.
A place I used to work at in the 90s was doing some data recovery on 20+ year old tapes (older format than 9 track).
Getting the old machines that could read the tapes was a hassle and a process had to be discovered to "cook" the tapes to make the media stable enough to be fed into the equipment.
But it was done and process was put in place to migrate a basement full of these tapes to current media.
This data migration process is still in place to make sure that old data, formats, etc are continually copied on to new media so that it will always be available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270232</id>
	<title>Re:Still no nefarious behavior from where I sit</title>
	<author>mrcaseyj</author>
	<datestamp>1259598300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they said they would delete the data rather than give it up. And the said they would hide behind non-disclosure agreements so they wouldn't have to give up the data. And they said they got other universities and government agencies to go along with hiding the data. But you think we should still give them the benefit of the doubt and believe their story that they just accidentally lost the data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they said they would delete the data rather than give it up .
And the said they would hide behind non-disclosure agreements so they would n't have to give up the data .
And they said they got other universities and government agencies to go along with hiding the data .
But you think we should still give them the benefit of the doubt and believe their story that they just accidentally lost the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they said they would delete the data rather than give it up.
And the said they would hide behind non-disclosure agreements so they wouldn't have to give up the data.
And they said they got other universities and government agencies to go along with hiding the data.
But you think we should still give them the benefit of the doubt and believe their story that they just accidentally lost the data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478</id>
	<title>Still no nefarious behavior from where I sit</title>
	<author>Orp</author>
	<datestamp>1259515380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's review... The hacked emails look bad, but they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption - these emails were never "peer reviewed" so to speak. As far as I'm concerned, they are irrelevant, as tempting as it is to see some giant conspiracy in them.</p><p>Concerning the data that was tossed out: This was probably due to something as humdrum as cleaning out a room to make space for new equipment or office space or something similar. I remember in the 90s when I was working at a R1 university our group needed more space for new hardware, and we got money to convert a storage room to a cold room where we could stick our hardware. There were rows and rows of old 9-track tape (probably the same kind of tape that was tossed out from the climate research group in question). Nobody claimed them, nobody wanted them, so we threw them out (not before unravelling one and playing with it first though). Had someone actually wanted to retrieve data off of those 9-track tapes, they probably would have been unsuccessful anyway since magnetic tape degrades with time and tar files don't have any error correction built in.</p><p>So even if these tapes from the 80s were still around they would likely be useless. Unless some sort of data migration plan had been in place, they were probably destined to decay.</p><p>Concerning the paper records, they would likely be just fine assuming they didn't get eaten away from the acid assuming it wasn't acid-free paper. But those were tossed too.</p><p>So, to review: Some asshole gets into the private email system of a university, does who-knows-what to it (we don't know for sure whether the emails were filtered, cherrypicked, manipulated, etc.) and releases it to the world. The text of the email appears to contain some language which could be interpreted as a bit dodgy, but honestly if you think science is all fun and games and doesn't involve egos, power struggles, rivalries, and colossal asshattery, well, surprise, it does. Now we have the data loss issue, which is easily explained and is likely due to cleaning up stored crap to make room for office space (I am guessing but that is not an unreasonable scenario).</p><p>Meanwhile, hundreds of other independent studies from dozens of different sources of instrumentation and other proxies shows over and over and over again that climate is warming and it's anthropogenic in nature due to greenhouse gas emissions. Is anyone arguing that humans are NOT responsible for 280 ppm going to, what is it now, 385 ppm of CO2 over the past 150 years? Is anyone arguing that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas and that all else being equal, a shift in the earth's radiative equilibrium temperature upward would NOT be expected with this increase?</p><p>As an atmospheric scientist it's crazy for me to think that anyone would even need to mess with climate data as it doesn't need to be massaged to show the obvious. The fact that there is interdecadal variability (things have flattened out a bit over the past few years) is really nothing too shocking and fits well within the range of predictions.</p><p>So wake me up in 20 years an let me know how this whole "conspiracy" worked out. If we're back to temperatures from the 1960s well, I'll eat my hat or whatever serves as headwear in the 2030s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's review... The hacked emails look bad , but they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption - these emails were never " peer reviewed " so to speak .
As far as I 'm concerned , they are irrelevant , as tempting as it is to see some giant conspiracy in them.Concerning the data that was tossed out : This was probably due to something as humdrum as cleaning out a room to make space for new equipment or office space or something similar .
I remember in the 90s when I was working at a R1 university our group needed more space for new hardware , and we got money to convert a storage room to a cold room where we could stick our hardware .
There were rows and rows of old 9-track tape ( probably the same kind of tape that was tossed out from the climate research group in question ) .
Nobody claimed them , nobody wanted them , so we threw them out ( not before unravelling one and playing with it first though ) .
Had someone actually wanted to retrieve data off of those 9-track tapes , they probably would have been unsuccessful anyway since magnetic tape degrades with time and tar files do n't have any error correction built in.So even if these tapes from the 80s were still around they would likely be useless .
Unless some sort of data migration plan had been in place , they were probably destined to decay.Concerning the paper records , they would likely be just fine assuming they did n't get eaten away from the acid assuming it was n't acid-free paper .
But those were tossed too.So , to review : Some asshole gets into the private email system of a university , does who-knows-what to it ( we do n't know for sure whether the emails were filtered , cherrypicked , manipulated , etc .
) and releases it to the world .
The text of the email appears to contain some language which could be interpreted as a bit dodgy , but honestly if you think science is all fun and games and does n't involve egos , power struggles , rivalries , and colossal asshattery , well , surprise , it does .
Now we have the data loss issue , which is easily explained and is likely due to cleaning up stored crap to make room for office space ( I am guessing but that is not an unreasonable scenario ) .Meanwhile , hundreds of other independent studies from dozens of different sources of instrumentation and other proxies shows over and over and over again that climate is warming and it 's anthropogenic in nature due to greenhouse gas emissions .
Is anyone arguing that humans are NOT responsible for 280 ppm going to , what is it now , 385 ppm of CO2 over the past 150 years ?
Is anyone arguing that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas and that all else being equal , a shift in the earth 's radiative equilibrium temperature upward would NOT be expected with this increase ? As an atmospheric scientist it 's crazy for me to think that anyone would even need to mess with climate data as it does n't need to be massaged to show the obvious .
The fact that there is interdecadal variability ( things have flattened out a bit over the past few years ) is really nothing too shocking and fits well within the range of predictions.So wake me up in 20 years an let me know how this whole " conspiracy " worked out .
If we 're back to temperatures from the 1960s well , I 'll eat my hat or whatever serves as headwear in the 2030s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's review... The hacked emails look bad, but they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption - these emails were never "peer reviewed" so to speak.
As far as I'm concerned, they are irrelevant, as tempting as it is to see some giant conspiracy in them.Concerning the data that was tossed out: This was probably due to something as humdrum as cleaning out a room to make space for new equipment or office space or something similar.
I remember in the 90s when I was working at a R1 university our group needed more space for new hardware, and we got money to convert a storage room to a cold room where we could stick our hardware.
There were rows and rows of old 9-track tape (probably the same kind of tape that was tossed out from the climate research group in question).
Nobody claimed them, nobody wanted them, so we threw them out (not before unravelling one and playing with it first though).
Had someone actually wanted to retrieve data off of those 9-track tapes, they probably would have been unsuccessful anyway since magnetic tape degrades with time and tar files don't have any error correction built in.So even if these tapes from the 80s were still around they would likely be useless.
Unless some sort of data migration plan had been in place, they were probably destined to decay.Concerning the paper records, they would likely be just fine assuming they didn't get eaten away from the acid assuming it wasn't acid-free paper.
But those were tossed too.So, to review: Some asshole gets into the private email system of a university, does who-knows-what to it (we don't know for sure whether the emails were filtered, cherrypicked, manipulated, etc.
) and releases it to the world.
The text of the email appears to contain some language which could be interpreted as a bit dodgy, but honestly if you think science is all fun and games and doesn't involve egos, power struggles, rivalries, and colossal asshattery, well, surprise, it does.
Now we have the data loss issue, which is easily explained and is likely due to cleaning up stored crap to make room for office space (I am guessing but that is not an unreasonable scenario).Meanwhile, hundreds of other independent studies from dozens of different sources of instrumentation and other proxies shows over and over and over again that climate is warming and it's anthropogenic in nature due to greenhouse gas emissions.
Is anyone arguing that humans are NOT responsible for 280 ppm going to, what is it now, 385 ppm of CO2 over the past 150 years?
Is anyone arguing that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas and that all else being equal, a shift in the earth's radiative equilibrium temperature upward would NOT be expected with this increase?As an atmospheric scientist it's crazy for me to think that anyone would even need to mess with climate data as it doesn't need to be massaged to show the obvious.
The fact that there is interdecadal variability (things have flattened out a bit over the past few years) is really nothing too shocking and fits well within the range of predictions.So wake me up in 20 years an let me know how this whole "conspiracy" worked out.
If we're back to temperatures from the 1960s well, I'll eat my hat or whatever serves as headwear in the 2030s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266386</id>
	<title>Well, I'm glad we cleared that up!</title>
	<author>bkeahl</author>
	<datestamp>1259514360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So we're supposed to trust these guys now?  Back in the 60's-70's it was going to be Global Ice Age as a result of CFCs.  Now it's Global Warming. The fact is, we can't predict a hurricane track or weather a week in advance with current methods.

Assuming they're even telling us the truth about the data, we have no idea what it means for the future because the variables involved are so varied and poorly understood that the accuracy of the data is virtually meaningless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So we 're supposed to trust these guys now ?
Back in the 60 's-70 's it was going to be Global Ice Age as a result of CFCs .
Now it 's Global Warming .
The fact is , we ca n't predict a hurricane track or weather a week in advance with current methods .
Assuming they 're even telling us the truth about the data , we have no idea what it means for the future because the variables involved are so varied and poorly understood that the accuracy of the data is virtually meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we're supposed to trust these guys now?
Back in the 60's-70's it was going to be Global Ice Age as a result of CFCs.
Now it's Global Warming.
The fact is, we can't predict a hurricane track or weather a week in advance with current methods.
Assuming they're even telling us the truth about the data, we have no idea what it means for the future because the variables involved are so varied and poorly understood that the accuracy of the data is virtually meaningless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266296</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1259513340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has anyone here seen a rainforest?  Have you seen the clearcutting?</p></div><p>Yes, the one in British Columbia. It's not a jungle, but it is a rain forest. And I saw where it stopped. And I saw the giant trees that the wind threw down because the forest isn't there to soften the wind anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone here seen a rainforest ?
Have you seen the clearcutting ? Yes , the one in British Columbia .
It 's not a jungle , but it is a rain forest .
And I saw where it stopped .
And I saw the giant trees that the wind threw down because the forest is n't there to soften the wind anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone here seen a rainforest?
Have you seen the clearcutting?Yes, the one in British Columbia.
It's not a jungle, but it is a rain forest.
And I saw where it stopped.
And I saw the giant trees that the wind threw down because the forest isn't there to soften the wind anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269962</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1259596740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny you mentioned your local climate changing. I've noticed my local climate has changed over the past 25-30 years as well. For the colder. The summers don't get nearly as hot as they used to. When I was a kid we used to get 2-3 week heatwaves of 90+ degree heat. I haven't seen that in 15 years. Augusts get a lot colder at night than they used to. I've noticed snow falling later into the year and starting up sooner. This year took the cake with snow in October.</p><p>Tornados can happen anywhere in the world, although some parts of the world certainly provide more favorable conditions, the midwest and parts of India being prime examples. Tornados are not unusual in Europe at all, and it's not possible that people in Germany have never seen them. Hurricanes are not behaving any differently along the Eastern seaboard. In fact, with the exception of the year that gave us Katrina hurricane seasons have been milder than normal. And up in my area the last time I saw a hurricane pass through was the early 80s.</p><p>And having family and friends in Europe and Asia I can attest to the fact that there haven't been unusual rises in temperatures. In fact, in some parts of Asia people have told me of unusually cold weather, although I do admit that has been more the case over the past decade or so.</p><p>That said, I guarantee you ask anyone going back as long as there have been humans and they'll all regale you with stories of how the climate is nothing like it was in previous years.</p><p>This is not to say that people shouldn't conserve more and pollute less. Absolutely they should. But I'm tired of all the alarmist claims and I don't want to see policies forced down everyone's throat. There certainly are things that need to be regulated, but progress generally will bring about more less wasteful technologies, as we've been seeing over the past few decades. And with further development a lot of these things will become affordable to the average person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny you mentioned your local climate changing .
I 've noticed my local climate has changed over the past 25-30 years as well .
For the colder .
The summers do n't get nearly as hot as they used to .
When I was a kid we used to get 2-3 week heatwaves of 90 + degree heat .
I have n't seen that in 15 years .
Augusts get a lot colder at night than they used to .
I 've noticed snow falling later into the year and starting up sooner .
This year took the cake with snow in October.Tornados can happen anywhere in the world , although some parts of the world certainly provide more favorable conditions , the midwest and parts of India being prime examples .
Tornados are not unusual in Europe at all , and it 's not possible that people in Germany have never seen them .
Hurricanes are not behaving any differently along the Eastern seaboard .
In fact , with the exception of the year that gave us Katrina hurricane seasons have been milder than normal .
And up in my area the last time I saw a hurricane pass through was the early 80s.And having family and friends in Europe and Asia I can attest to the fact that there have n't been unusual rises in temperatures .
In fact , in some parts of Asia people have told me of unusually cold weather , although I do admit that has been more the case over the past decade or so.That said , I guarantee you ask anyone going back as long as there have been humans and they 'll all regale you with stories of how the climate is nothing like it was in previous years.This is not to say that people should n't conserve more and pollute less .
Absolutely they should .
But I 'm tired of all the alarmist claims and I do n't want to see policies forced down everyone 's throat .
There certainly are things that need to be regulated , but progress generally will bring about more less wasteful technologies , as we 've been seeing over the past few decades .
And with further development a lot of these things will become affordable to the average person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny you mentioned your local climate changing.
I've noticed my local climate has changed over the past 25-30 years as well.
For the colder.
The summers don't get nearly as hot as they used to.
When I was a kid we used to get 2-3 week heatwaves of 90+ degree heat.
I haven't seen that in 15 years.
Augusts get a lot colder at night than they used to.
I've noticed snow falling later into the year and starting up sooner.
This year took the cake with snow in October.Tornados can happen anywhere in the world, although some parts of the world certainly provide more favorable conditions, the midwest and parts of India being prime examples.
Tornados are not unusual in Europe at all, and it's not possible that people in Germany have never seen them.
Hurricanes are not behaving any differently along the Eastern seaboard.
In fact, with the exception of the year that gave us Katrina hurricane seasons have been milder than normal.
And up in my area the last time I saw a hurricane pass through was the early 80s.And having family and friends in Europe and Asia I can attest to the fact that there haven't been unusual rises in temperatures.
In fact, in some parts of Asia people have told me of unusually cold weather, although I do admit that has been more the case over the past decade or so.That said, I guarantee you ask anyone going back as long as there have been humans and they'll all regale you with stories of how the climate is nothing like it was in previous years.This is not to say that people shouldn't conserve more and pollute less.
Absolutely they should.
But I'm tired of all the alarmist claims and I don't want to see policies forced down everyone's throat.
There certainly are things that need to be regulated, but progress generally will bring about more less wasteful technologies, as we've been seeing over the past few decades.
And with further development a lot of these things will become affordable to the average person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30289050</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course the climate is changing... It's been changing for millions of years... It gets hotter and colder, and the largest fluctuations seem to have occurred before humans even walked the earth... If looking at a rainforest for a day or two is all the proof you need, then I'd suggest that this is a matter of faith for you and not a matter of science.</p><p>Instead of falling all over yourself and hyperventilating because your faith in AGW is being challenged consider this: Leaked emails from the CRU showed that the most important climate scientists in the world have been manipulating data, subverting the peer-review process, and conspiring to delete information requested FOIA rather than turn it over.</p><p>Anyone and I mean ANYONE who doesn't stop to think and ask for an analysis and corroboration of these discredited scientists findings is either a fool or a fanatic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the climate is changing... It 's been changing for millions of years... It gets hotter and colder , and the largest fluctuations seem to have occurred before humans even walked the earth... If looking at a rainforest for a day or two is all the proof you need , then I 'd suggest that this is a matter of faith for you and not a matter of science.Instead of falling all over yourself and hyperventilating because your faith in AGW is being challenged consider this : Leaked emails from the CRU showed that the most important climate scientists in the world have been manipulating data , subverting the peer-review process , and conspiring to delete information requested FOIA rather than turn it over.Anyone and I mean ANYONE who does n't stop to think and ask for an analysis and corroboration of these discredited scientists findings is either a fool or a fanatic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the climate is changing... It's been changing for millions of years... It gets hotter and colder, and the largest fluctuations seem to have occurred before humans even walked the earth... If looking at a rainforest for a day or two is all the proof you need, then I'd suggest that this is a matter of faith for you and not a matter of science.Instead of falling all over yourself and hyperventilating because your faith in AGW is being challenged consider this: Leaked emails from the CRU showed that the most important climate scientists in the world have been manipulating data, subverting the peer-review process, and conspiring to delete information requested FOIA rather than turn it over.Anyone and I mean ANYONE who doesn't stop to think and ask for an analysis and corroboration of these discredited scientists findings is either a fool or a fanatic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268714</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1259584800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They had the data, and willfully ignored FOIA requests to release it, saying they could only release the "massaged" data, not the raw data. They wouldn't even release raw data for places which had no NDA (which is the vast majority of stations).</p></div><p>Actually, at least one of the leaked e-mails suggests they were considering that as an option. Of course, that wouldn't satisfy the anti-AGW people demanding the data anyway...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They had the data , and willfully ignored FOIA requests to release it , saying they could only release the " massaged " data , not the raw data .
They would n't even release raw data for places which had no NDA ( which is the vast majority of stations ) .Actually , at least one of the leaked e-mails suggests they were considering that as an option .
Of course , that would n't satisfy the anti-AGW people demanding the data anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had the data, and willfully ignored FOIA requests to release it, saying they could only release the "massaged" data, not the raw data.
They wouldn't even release raw data for places which had no NDA (which is the vast majority of stations).Actually, at least one of the leaked e-mails suggests they were considering that as an option.
Of course, that wouldn't satisfy the anti-AGW people demanding the data anyway...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265602</id>
	<title>Global warming cover-up</title>
	<author>Cr0vv</author>
	<datestamp>1259508240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."

       Why would there be a cover-up in the first place?  Much is reported in the news about it, who or why would you cover up data on Global warming?

My opinion is that there is a cover-up because there is something to cover-up.  It exists, "it" is the true cause of the Global warming, something that has been covered up since NASA discovered a rogue planet heading for our solar system in 1983.  Don't give me no crap on this, it's documented in the Washington Post.
Crow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The facts speak for themselves ; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them .
" Why would there be a cover-up in the first place ?
Much is reported in the news about it , who or why would you cover up data on Global warming ?
My opinion is that there is a cover-up because there is something to cover-up .
It exists , " it " is the true cause of the Global warming , something that has been covered up since NASA discovered a rogue planet heading for our solar system in 1983 .
Do n't give me no crap on this , it 's documented in the Washington Post .
Crow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.
"

       Why would there be a cover-up in the first place?
Much is reported in the news about it, who or why would you cover up data on Global warming?
My opinion is that there is a cover-up because there is something to cover-up.
It exists, "it" is the true cause of the Global warming, something that has been covered up since NASA discovered a rogue planet heading for our solar system in 1983.
Don't give me no crap on this, it's documented in the Washington Post.
Crow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274630</id>
	<title>Industrial genocide</title>
	<author>thtrgremlin</author>
	<datestamp>1259575260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like Climate change is just the issue being used to promote world government. Doesn't really matter what the issue so long as it helps justify the objective. Controlling Carbon Dioxide is NO different than the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax, other than DHMO was meant from the beginning to make a point... which evidently most people still don't seem to get.<br> <br>Even Al Gore has come out recently to say that "It isn't Global Warming, it is about Global Climate Change".<br> <br>Yes, ice has been melting AND ice has been forming. Overall, there is MORE ice. The past decade has seen significant cooling just like there should have been based on solar cycles as people have known and understood for hundreds of years.<br> <br>I am sorry you can't go outside and ice skate any more, but how is a comparison of a generalization of a lake near your house as a kid versus a generalization of it as an adult evidence for or against anthropogenic global climate change? Also, nothing you have said shows any evidence that any of this change would be bad. Directly related, there were many predictions made in the 90's about "global warming". Storms, rising sea levels, droughts, floods, and <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/02/turner-iraqi-insurgents-patriots-inaction-warming-cannibalism" title="newsbusters.org">cannibals</a> [newsbusters.org]. None of these predictions have even remotely come true, not to mention strong evidence that the people that made the "predictions" never believed them in the first place (Ok, maybe they did it for the insurance policy). 4 Dead polar bears and some broken ice prompted book signings more than anything else.<br> <br>The only real truth to come out of this is what we already knew: The climate is really weird and unpredictable, and thus far NOBODY has been able to create a model to even remotely predict it. You do know that when the "weatherman" says "there is a 40\% chance of rain today" means there is a 40\% chance you are in a place that is raining right now. That's it!<br> <br>What we CAN see are very real consequences of this hoax. Just as the DDT hoax is easily responsible for 40+ million deaths in Africa that were totally preventable, the United Nations and European Union have been denying third world sovereign nations the right to industrialize under the threat of war justifying it with "data" about their supposed "carbon footprint". Independent nations with the natural resources, the technology, and skill, and certainly plenty of labor to make much of Africa thrive allowing them to provide FOR THEMSELVES electricity, steel, clean water, and all the other things we take for granted are being denied. People are being denied the right to take care of themselves.<br> <br>Genocide has always been justified. They don't worship the right God, and God is going to punish us if we don't kill them, or at least let our leaders do what they know is best for us. Their blood is different, so we need to kill them so they don't pollute the gene pool and we die of horrible disease, or at least let our leaders do what they know is best for us. We don't have enough food to feed everybody, and we can't let everybody starve, so we are going to have to let you die (oh yeah, there is still some "debate" over whether or not the grain silos were full at the time, but that is just an academic issue). Sorry all you darkies are dying of Malaria, but after we cured all our land, it turns out there is this one study that found a bird laid a soft eggs and we think it might be related, you are all just going to have to die because we would hate to think another bird might lay another soft egg.<br> <br>So you tell me, just how sure are you about this Global Warming thing, this Anthropogenic Climate Change thing, keeping in mind this goes a LITTLE bit further than regulating what additives in your hair spray might end up in the ozone layer.<br> <br>Yes, there are real environmental issues, air pollution, water pollution and such which are rightfully local issues that people in their communities can actually deal with. "Global Warming" is a scam and an</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Climate change is just the issue being used to promote world government .
Does n't really matter what the issue so long as it helps justify the objective .
Controlling Carbon Dioxide is NO different than the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax , other than DHMO was meant from the beginning to make a point... which evidently most people still do n't seem to get .
Even Al Gore has come out recently to say that " It is n't Global Warming , it is about Global Climate Change " .
Yes , ice has been melting AND ice has been forming .
Overall , there is MORE ice .
The past decade has seen significant cooling just like there should have been based on solar cycles as people have known and understood for hundreds of years .
I am sorry you ca n't go outside and ice skate any more , but how is a comparison of a generalization of a lake near your house as a kid versus a generalization of it as an adult evidence for or against anthropogenic global climate change ?
Also , nothing you have said shows any evidence that any of this change would be bad .
Directly related , there were many predictions made in the 90 's about " global warming " .
Storms , rising sea levels , droughts , floods , and cannibals [ newsbusters.org ] .
None of these predictions have even remotely come true , not to mention strong evidence that the people that made the " predictions " never believed them in the first place ( Ok , maybe they did it for the insurance policy ) .
4 Dead polar bears and some broken ice prompted book signings more than anything else .
The only real truth to come out of this is what we already knew : The climate is really weird and unpredictable , and thus far NOBODY has been able to create a model to even remotely predict it .
You do know that when the " weatherman " says " there is a 40 \ % chance of rain today " means there is a 40 \ % chance you are in a place that is raining right now .
That 's it !
What we CAN see are very real consequences of this hoax .
Just as the DDT hoax is easily responsible for 40 + million deaths in Africa that were totally preventable , the United Nations and European Union have been denying third world sovereign nations the right to industrialize under the threat of war justifying it with " data " about their supposed " carbon footprint " .
Independent nations with the natural resources , the technology , and skill , and certainly plenty of labor to make much of Africa thrive allowing them to provide FOR THEMSELVES electricity , steel , clean water , and all the other things we take for granted are being denied .
People are being denied the right to take care of themselves .
Genocide has always been justified .
They do n't worship the right God , and God is going to punish us if we do n't kill them , or at least let our leaders do what they know is best for us .
Their blood is different , so we need to kill them so they do n't pollute the gene pool and we die of horrible disease , or at least let our leaders do what they know is best for us .
We do n't have enough food to feed everybody , and we ca n't let everybody starve , so we are going to have to let you die ( oh yeah , there is still some " debate " over whether or not the grain silos were full at the time , but that is just an academic issue ) .
Sorry all you darkies are dying of Malaria , but after we cured all our land , it turns out there is this one study that found a bird laid a soft eggs and we think it might be related , you are all just going to have to die because we would hate to think another bird might lay another soft egg .
So you tell me , just how sure are you about this Global Warming thing , this Anthropogenic Climate Change thing , keeping in mind this goes a LITTLE bit further than regulating what additives in your hair spray might end up in the ozone layer .
Yes , there are real environmental issues , air pollution , water pollution and such which are rightfully local issues that people in their communities can actually deal with .
" Global Warming " is a scam and an</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Climate change is just the issue being used to promote world government.
Doesn't really matter what the issue so long as it helps justify the objective.
Controlling Carbon Dioxide is NO different than the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax, other than DHMO was meant from the beginning to make a point... which evidently most people still don't seem to get.
Even Al Gore has come out recently to say that "It isn't Global Warming, it is about Global Climate Change".
Yes, ice has been melting AND ice has been forming.
Overall, there is MORE ice.
The past decade has seen significant cooling just like there should have been based on solar cycles as people have known and understood for hundreds of years.
I am sorry you can't go outside and ice skate any more, but how is a comparison of a generalization of a lake near your house as a kid versus a generalization of it as an adult evidence for or against anthropogenic global climate change?
Also, nothing you have said shows any evidence that any of this change would be bad.
Directly related, there were many predictions made in the 90's about "global warming".
Storms, rising sea levels, droughts, floods, and cannibals [newsbusters.org].
None of these predictions have even remotely come true, not to mention strong evidence that the people that made the "predictions" never believed them in the first place (Ok, maybe they did it for the insurance policy).
4 Dead polar bears and some broken ice prompted book signings more than anything else.
The only real truth to come out of this is what we already knew: The climate is really weird and unpredictable, and thus far NOBODY has been able to create a model to even remotely predict it.
You do know that when the "weatherman" says "there is a 40\% chance of rain today" means there is a 40\% chance you are in a place that is raining right now.
That's it!
What we CAN see are very real consequences of this hoax.
Just as the DDT hoax is easily responsible for 40+ million deaths in Africa that were totally preventable, the United Nations and European Union have been denying third world sovereign nations the right to industrialize under the threat of war justifying it with "data" about their supposed "carbon footprint".
Independent nations with the natural resources, the technology, and skill, and certainly plenty of labor to make much of Africa thrive allowing them to provide FOR THEMSELVES electricity, steel, clean water, and all the other things we take for granted are being denied.
People are being denied the right to take care of themselves.
Genocide has always been justified.
They don't worship the right God, and God is going to punish us if we don't kill them, or at least let our leaders do what they know is best for us.
Their blood is different, so we need to kill them so they don't pollute the gene pool and we die of horrible disease, or at least let our leaders do what they know is best for us.
We don't have enough food to feed everybody, and we can't let everybody starve, so we are going to have to let you die (oh yeah, there is still some "debate" over whether or not the grain silos were full at the time, but that is just an academic issue).
Sorry all you darkies are dying of Malaria, but after we cured all our land, it turns out there is this one study that found a bird laid a soft eggs and we think it might be related, you are all just going to have to die because we would hate to think another bird might lay another soft egg.
So you tell me, just how sure are you about this Global Warming thing, this Anthropogenic Climate Change thing, keeping in mind this goes a LITTLE bit further than regulating what additives in your hair spray might end up in the ozone layer.
Yes, there are real environmental issues, air pollution, water pollution and such which are rightfully local issues that people in their communities can actually deal with.
"Global Warming" is a scam and an</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265682</id>
	<title>What would be the point...?</title>
	<author>Dexter Herbivore</author>
	<datestamp>1259508840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would be the point of releasing the raw data to the general public? Seriously, why bother? I know that I don't have the skills or expertise to analyse it effectively and come up with any conclusions that have *any* scientific merit. Surely the people who know how to analyse/process this data and draw meaningful conclusions already have access to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be the point of releasing the raw data to the general public ?
Seriously , why bother ?
I know that I do n't have the skills or expertise to analyse it effectively and come up with any conclusions that have * any * scientific merit .
Surely the people who know how to analyse/process this data and draw meaningful conclusions already have access to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be the point of releasing the raw data to the general public?
Seriously, why bother?
I know that I don't have the skills or expertise to analyse it effectively and come up with any conclusions that have *any* scientific merit.
Surely the people who know how to analyse/process this data and draw meaningful conclusions already have access to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271914</id>
	<title>This Parent IS a Troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) The parent asserts the Earth has been "steadily" warming since the last ice age. This is patently wrong: There were several hundred year long periods of cooling and equally long periods of warming, resulting in an overall temperature increase that happened anything but "steady".</p><p>2) The parent claims the temperature rise observed through roughly the past century is a direct consequence of us still being in the generally upwards temperature trend since the last ice age. This is wrong: The overall temperature increase since the last ice age is much, much slower than the increase we've observed recently.</p><p>Generally speaking, one of two main fallacies in the parent's argument is the inappropriate mix-up of time scales. As an analogy, just because the stock market historically goes upwards (e.g. the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DJIA\_historical\_graph\_to\_jan09\_(log).svg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Dow Jones</a> [wikipedia.org] from ~30 in 1890 to ~10k today), this does not mean there cannot be huge short-term bubbles as well (roaring 20s, dot-com, housing etc.). The important thing is that these bubbles are <b>unrelated</b> to the generally upward trend, just as our recently observed warming is unrelated to the last ice age.</p><p>The parent's second main fallacy is the assertion that mankind is too insignificant to influence the planet in any meaningful way. While this has been true for most of our history, it is patently wrong today, and continuing to advance this claim points towards a limited understanding of exponential growth. If we can - in 100 years - extract out of the ground, and put into the air, a significant part of the carbon the ecosphere needed hundreds of millions of years to store in the first place, it's simply ridiculous to claim any longer that we are too insignificant to influence the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The parent asserts the Earth has been " steadily " warming since the last ice age .
This is patently wrong : There were several hundred year long periods of cooling and equally long periods of warming , resulting in an overall temperature increase that happened anything but " steady " .2 ) The parent claims the temperature rise observed through roughly the past century is a direct consequence of us still being in the generally upwards temperature trend since the last ice age .
This is wrong : The overall temperature increase since the last ice age is much , much slower than the increase we 've observed recently.Generally speaking , one of two main fallacies in the parent 's argument is the inappropriate mix-up of time scales .
As an analogy , just because the stock market historically goes upwards ( e.g .
the Dow Jones [ wikipedia.org ] from ~ 30 in 1890 to ~ 10k today ) , this does not mean there can not be huge short-term bubbles as well ( roaring 20s , dot-com , housing etc. ) .
The important thing is that these bubbles are unrelated to the generally upward trend , just as our recently observed warming is unrelated to the last ice age.The parent 's second main fallacy is the assertion that mankind is too insignificant to influence the planet in any meaningful way .
While this has been true for most of our history , it is patently wrong today , and continuing to advance this claim points towards a limited understanding of exponential growth .
If we can - in 100 years - extract out of the ground , and put into the air , a significant part of the carbon the ecosphere needed hundreds of millions of years to store in the first place , it 's simply ridiculous to claim any longer that we are too insignificant to influence the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The parent asserts the Earth has been "steadily" warming since the last ice age.
This is patently wrong: There were several hundred year long periods of cooling and equally long periods of warming, resulting in an overall temperature increase that happened anything but "steady".2) The parent claims the temperature rise observed through roughly the past century is a direct consequence of us still being in the generally upwards temperature trend since the last ice age.
This is wrong: The overall temperature increase since the last ice age is much, much slower than the increase we've observed recently.Generally speaking, one of two main fallacies in the parent's argument is the inappropriate mix-up of time scales.
As an analogy, just because the stock market historically goes upwards (e.g.
the Dow Jones [wikipedia.org] from ~30 in 1890 to ~10k today), this does not mean there cannot be huge short-term bubbles as well (roaring 20s, dot-com, housing etc.).
The important thing is that these bubbles are unrelated to the generally upward trend, just as our recently observed warming is unrelated to the last ice age.The parent's second main fallacy is the assertion that mankind is too insignificant to influence the planet in any meaningful way.
While this has been true for most of our history, it is patently wrong today, and continuing to advance this claim points towards a limited understanding of exponential growth.
If we can - in 100 years - extract out of the ground, and put into the air, a significant part of the carbon the ecosphere needed hundreds of millions of years to store in the first place, it's simply ridiculous to claim any longer that we are too insignificant to influence the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267370</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259523120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;If you can't check the data because the "dog ate my homework" then some is entitled to ask on what basis are we refactoring the entire world economy by causing an artificial shortage of energy?</p><p>You must obviously be working for Exxon <b>or are an engineer of some kind.</b></p><p>And seriously, Real Climate.org says that Steve McIntyre must be dismissed because he used to be a Mining Engineer. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/)</p><p>Let alone the fact that he actually has, you know, actually found errors in data that has forced various scientists to print retractions, it's amazing that even just being an engineer is grounds for having your views dismissed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; If you ca n't check the data because the " dog ate my homework " then some is entitled to ask on what basis are we refactoring the entire world economy by causing an artificial shortage of energy ? You must obviously be working for Exxon or are an engineer of some kind.And seriously , Real Climate.org says that Steve McIntyre must be dismissed because he used to be a Mining Engineer .
( http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ ) Let alone the fact that he actually has , you know , actually found errors in data that has forced various scientists to print retractions , it 's amazing that even just being an engineer is grounds for having your views dismissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;If you can't check the data because the "dog ate my homework" then some is entitled to ask on what basis are we refactoring the entire world economy by causing an artificial shortage of energy?You must obviously be working for Exxon or are an engineer of some kind.And seriously, Real Climate.org says that Steve McIntyre must be dismissed because he used to be a Mining Engineer.
(http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/)Let alone the fact that he actually has, you know, actually found errors in data that has forced various scientists to print retractions, it's amazing that even just being an engineer is grounds for having your views dismissed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265718</id>
	<title>Let's Do That</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1259509200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Phil Jones, beleagured head of the CRU: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results."</p></div><p>Sounds fair.  Let's ignore your findings and recompute using the other's data sets and see if everything comes out equal.</p><p>This is science.  If you can't show your work so that other's can reproduce your results, you're out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phil Jones , beleagured head of the CRU : " Our global temperature series tallies with those of other , completely independent , groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States , among others .
Even if you were to ignore our findings , theirs show the same results .
" Sounds fair .
Let 's ignore your findings and recompute using the other 's data sets and see if everything comes out equal.This is science .
If you ca n't show your work so that other 's can reproduce your results , you 're out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phil Jones, beleagured head of the CRU: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others.
Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results.
"Sounds fair.
Let's ignore your findings and recompute using the other's data sets and see if everything comes out equal.This is science.
If you can't show your work so that other's can reproduce your results, you're out.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265798</id>
	<title>I'm not denying.</title>
	<author>Das Auge</author>
	<datestamp>1259509740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course the world is getting warmer.  It has been for the last ten thousand years.  You know, since the <i>end</i> of the <i>last ice age</i>.<br>
<br>
Back then, the polar ice cap extended down into modern-day Illinois.  If only we could have stopped global warming from melting the ice cap all the way to what it was 100 years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the world is getting warmer .
It has been for the last ten thousand years .
You know , since the end of the last ice age .
Back then , the polar ice cap extended down into modern-day Illinois .
If only we could have stopped global warming from melting the ice cap all the way to what it was 100 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the world is getting warmer.
It has been for the last ten thousand years.
You know, since the end of the last ice age.
Back then, the polar ice cap extended down into modern-day Illinois.
If only we could have stopped global warming from melting the ice cap all the way to what it was 100 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265704</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>sg\_oneill</author>
	<datestamp>1259509080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It probably wouldn't suprise you then that when you look at who are funding climate skeptic research</p><p><a href="http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/energy-and-environment.cfm" title="heritage.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/energy-and-environment.cfm</a> [heritage.org]</p><p>are the same people funding the creationist whackos</p><p><a href="http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev041905a.cfm" title="heritage.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev041905a.cfm</a> [heritage.org]</p><p>Yeah, its the same guys lecturing climate scientists and accusing them of fraud that lecture biologists and accuse THEM of fraud.</p><p>No agendas here folks, move on citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably would n't suprise you then that when you look at who are funding climate skeptic researchhttp : //www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/energy-and-environment.cfm [ heritage.org ] are the same people funding the creationist whackoshttp : //www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev041905a.cfm [ heritage.org ] Yeah , its the same guys lecturing climate scientists and accusing them of fraud that lecture biologists and accuse THEM of fraud.No agendas here folks , move on citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably wouldn't suprise you then that when you look at who are funding climate skeptic researchhttp://www.heritage.org/LeadershipForAmerica/energy-and-environment.cfm [heritage.org]are the same people funding the creationist whackoshttp://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev041905a.cfm [heritage.org]Yeah, its the same guys lecturing climate scientists and accusing them of fraud that lecture biologists and accuse THEM of fraud.No agendas here folks, move on citizen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30278510</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the larger picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is happening?? There has been no sea level increase in the last decade. The temperatures have also been rather flat with no warming...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is happening ? ?
There has been no sea level increase in the last decade .
The temperatures have also been rather flat with no warming.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is happening??
There has been no sea level increase in the last decade.
The temperatures have also been rather flat with no warming...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270522</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259600160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Outside of the science, all I know is that the climate zone in my local area has changed. Plants which you could not grow before, you can grow now. I hear from Innuit that there are plants and animals in the North which they have not seen before. I know that tornadoes dot the German Rhine where no tornadoes were seen before, I know hurricanes on the Eastern seaboard are behaving differently, I know that Crete was so dry when I saw it that I couldn't imagine olive trees growing there without irrigation, I know that our highways are a half kilometer wide and countless kilometers long, with thousands upon thousands of idling cars sitting on them, ten times a week for as long as I've been alive, and I know that sea captains don't want to traverse the Indian ocean because the almanacs are no longer reasonable guides to chart how long a given voyage from one port to the next might take.</p> </div><p>In other words, you don't know squat. It's worth noting that even in the absence of current climate change, we'd probably see changing vegetation patterns due to human activity and the ongoing ecosystem recovery from the last ice age. Hurricanes still act like hurricanes, tornadoes like tornadoes. Just because Crete "looks" too dry for olive trees doesn't mean it is. And the last comment about timid sea captains smells like pure bullshit. "Oh no. We dare not sail in the Indian Ocean because I might be early or late by a few hours."<br> <br>

Do you know what all of these "facts" have in common? Observer bias.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Outside of the science , all I know is that the climate zone in my local area has changed .
Plants which you could not grow before , you can grow now .
I hear from Innuit that there are plants and animals in the North which they have not seen before .
I know that tornadoes dot the German Rhine where no tornadoes were seen before , I know hurricanes on the Eastern seaboard are behaving differently , I know that Crete was so dry when I saw it that I could n't imagine olive trees growing there without irrigation , I know that our highways are a half kilometer wide and countless kilometers long , with thousands upon thousands of idling cars sitting on them , ten times a week for as long as I 've been alive , and I know that sea captains do n't want to traverse the Indian ocean because the almanacs are no longer reasonable guides to chart how long a given voyage from one port to the next might take .
In other words , you do n't know squat .
It 's worth noting that even in the absence of current climate change , we 'd probably see changing vegetation patterns due to human activity and the ongoing ecosystem recovery from the last ice age .
Hurricanes still act like hurricanes , tornadoes like tornadoes .
Just because Crete " looks " too dry for olive trees does n't mean it is .
And the last comment about timid sea captains smells like pure bullshit .
" Oh no .
We dare not sail in the Indian Ocean because I might be early or late by a few hours .
" Do you know what all of these " facts " have in common ?
Observer bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outside of the science, all I know is that the climate zone in my local area has changed.
Plants which you could not grow before, you can grow now.
I hear from Innuit that there are plants and animals in the North which they have not seen before.
I know that tornadoes dot the German Rhine where no tornadoes were seen before, I know hurricanes on the Eastern seaboard are behaving differently, I know that Crete was so dry when I saw it that I couldn't imagine olive trees growing there without irrigation, I know that our highways are a half kilometer wide and countless kilometers long, with thousands upon thousands of idling cars sitting on them, ten times a week for as long as I've been alive, and I know that sea captains don't want to traverse the Indian ocean because the almanacs are no longer reasonable guides to chart how long a given voyage from one port to the next might take.
In other words, you don't know squat.
It's worth noting that even in the absence of current climate change, we'd probably see changing vegetation patterns due to human activity and the ongoing ecosystem recovery from the last ice age.
Hurricanes still act like hurricanes, tornadoes like tornadoes.
Just because Crete "looks" too dry for olive trees doesn't mean it is.
And the last comment about timid sea captains smells like pure bullshit.
"Oh no.
We dare not sail in the Indian Ocean because I might be early or late by a few hours.
" 

Do you know what all of these "facts" have in common?
Observer bias.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271538</id>
	<title>Re:Still no nefarious behavior from where I sit</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1259605440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Had someone actually wanted to retrieve data off of those 9-track tapes, they probably would have been unsuccessful anyway since magnetic tape degrades with time and tar files don't have any error correction built in.</i></p><p>Unless those tapes were 100 or more years old, they would probably have been perfectly readable. Magnetic tape does not degrade rapidly if it is stored decently. Unless your storage closet was extremely hot and humid with an arc welder operating nearby, then the tapes would probably be readable 50 years later. Magnetic media isn't as horrible as you seem to believe, excepting 3-1/2" floppies of recent manufacture. These floppies don't survive being stared at for three seconds.</p><p><i>Is anyone arguing that humans are NOT responsible for 280 ppm going to, what is it now, 385 ppm of CO2 over the past 150 years?</i></p><p>Yes, that is one of the arguments. Is the CO2 increase caused by warming, or is warming causing the CO2 increase. If you look at the data, the CO2 increase follows the warming increase. Does cause follow effect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had someone actually wanted to retrieve data off of those 9-track tapes , they probably would have been unsuccessful anyway since magnetic tape degrades with time and tar files do n't have any error correction built in.Unless those tapes were 100 or more years old , they would probably have been perfectly readable .
Magnetic tape does not degrade rapidly if it is stored decently .
Unless your storage closet was extremely hot and humid with an arc welder operating nearby , then the tapes would probably be readable 50 years later .
Magnetic media is n't as horrible as you seem to believe , excepting 3-1/2 " floppies of recent manufacture .
These floppies do n't survive being stared at for three seconds.Is anyone arguing that humans are NOT responsible for 280 ppm going to , what is it now , 385 ppm of CO2 over the past 150 years ? Yes , that is one of the arguments .
Is the CO2 increase caused by warming , or is warming causing the CO2 increase .
If you look at the data , the CO2 increase follows the warming increase .
Does cause follow effect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had someone actually wanted to retrieve data off of those 9-track tapes, they probably would have been unsuccessful anyway since magnetic tape degrades with time and tar files don't have any error correction built in.Unless those tapes were 100 or more years old, they would probably have been perfectly readable.
Magnetic tape does not degrade rapidly if it is stored decently.
Unless your storage closet was extremely hot and humid with an arc welder operating nearby, then the tapes would probably be readable 50 years later.
Magnetic media isn't as horrible as you seem to believe, excepting 3-1/2" floppies of recent manufacture.
These floppies don't survive being stared at for three seconds.Is anyone arguing that humans are NOT responsible for 280 ppm going to, what is it now, 385 ppm of CO2 over the past 150 years?Yes, that is one of the arguments.
Is the CO2 increase caused by warming, or is warming causing the CO2 increase.
If you look at the data, the CO2 increase follows the warming increase.
Does cause follow effect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271740</id>
	<title>Re: Science: Where the Global Warming Data Is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a more basic level, the old "I used to fish on this lake as a kid"- type arguments are just as weak as the name-calling.  So based on one person's memory of a few decades out of millions of years, we are to enslave the world's developed nations in a tax scheme which would have no effect other than further enriching China and India?  No one has ever definitively proven, in public, the following:</p><p>What would the earth's temperatures in all human-inhabited areas have been if there had been no ice age?</p><p>At one point, it has been reported, the human population dwindled to about 2,000 on the earth, total. What influence did they have at that time on the planet's temperature? In what exact locations did this occur and what was the amount of variation attributable only to human activities vs. volcanoes and other causes?</p><p>And so on.</p><p>The more you peel the onion, the less you find is there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a more basic level , the old " I used to fish on this lake as a kid " - type arguments are just as weak as the name-calling .
So based on one person 's memory of a few decades out of millions of years , we are to enslave the world 's developed nations in a tax scheme which would have no effect other than further enriching China and India ?
No one has ever definitively proven , in public , the following : What would the earth 's temperatures in all human-inhabited areas have been if there had been no ice age ? At one point , it has been reported , the human population dwindled to about 2,000 on the earth , total .
What influence did they have at that time on the planet 's temperature ?
In what exact locations did this occur and what was the amount of variation attributable only to human activities vs. volcanoes and other causes ? And so on.The more you peel the onion , the less you find is there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a more basic level, the old "I used to fish on this lake as a kid"- type arguments are just as weak as the name-calling.
So based on one person's memory of a few decades out of millions of years, we are to enslave the world's developed nations in a tax scheme which would have no effect other than further enriching China and India?
No one has ever definitively proven, in public, the following:What would the earth's temperatures in all human-inhabited areas have been if there had been no ice age?At one point, it has been reported, the human population dwindled to about 2,000 on the earth, total.
What influence did they have at that time on the planet's temperature?
In what exact locations did this occur and what was the amount of variation attributable only to human activities vs. volcanoes and other causes?And so on.The more you peel the onion, the less you find is there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266512</id>
	<title>Re:Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1259515680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
On the other hand, suppose that global warming is real and is caused by human activities.  Then, who shall be responsible for the oceans flooding nations like Great Britain and Japan, shrinking their territories to one-tenth of the original size?</p></div><p>Well, that's exaggeration.  Neither Great Britain nor Japan are about to shrink to "one-tenth their original size".
</p><p>Please, exaggeration isn't helping-- try to stick to the real world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , suppose that global warming is real and is caused by human activities .
Then , who shall be responsible for the oceans flooding nations like Great Britain and Japan , shrinking their territories to one-tenth of the original size ? Well , that 's exaggeration .
Neither Great Britain nor Japan are about to shrink to " one-tenth their original size " .
Please , exaggeration is n't helping-- try to stick to the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
On the other hand, suppose that global warming is real and is caused by human activities.
Then, who shall be responsible for the oceans flooding nations like Great Britain and Japan, shrinking their territories to one-tenth of the original size?Well, that's exaggeration.
Neither Great Britain nor Japan are about to shrink to "one-tenth their original size".
Please, exaggeration isn't helping-- try to stick to the real world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268124</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1259575920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If you basing results on datasets that can't be released none of that is possible.</i> <br> <br>I don't believe you.  I've never seen a peer reviewed paper that included the data when published.  There are hints as to the data, explanations of how it was collected, a more thorough explanation of the processes, and then a result.  But then, I haven't worked in climatology, so perhaps they do things differently there.  I would prefer people not use the data published and just re-do the portions that are usually the best documented, being the methods of analyzation.  How did they get the data?  Then go get it yourself.  Make sure your answers match theirs.  To start with step 5 of a 10 step process and get the same answer doesn't validate or invalidate their work, and thus is a useless exercise.  If the data is private to begin with, and they have to sign an NDA to use it, and no one else has similar data, what would you have them do?<br> <br>There are two answers I see, say "we can't know" and act on that (apparently "we can't know" is synonymous with "we can't know, so let's operate under the assumption it's all lies"), or "it appears this way, but we can't verify it, so we will tentatively accept this until refuted, and work to verify or refute it."  Why are people so hung up on the data?  Science is about doing all the steps over, not just one or two steps in a long process.  They can't share their data?  Fine, move on.  Get your own, or get access to theirs through similar agreements they had to make.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you basing results on datasets that ca n't be released none of that is possible .
I do n't believe you .
I 've never seen a peer reviewed paper that included the data when published .
There are hints as to the data , explanations of how it was collected , a more thorough explanation of the processes , and then a result .
But then , I have n't worked in climatology , so perhaps they do things differently there .
I would prefer people not use the data published and just re-do the portions that are usually the best documented , being the methods of analyzation .
How did they get the data ?
Then go get it yourself .
Make sure your answers match theirs .
To start with step 5 of a 10 step process and get the same answer does n't validate or invalidate their work , and thus is a useless exercise .
If the data is private to begin with , and they have to sign an NDA to use it , and no one else has similar data , what would you have them do ?
There are two answers I see , say " we ca n't know " and act on that ( apparently " we ca n't know " is synonymous with " we ca n't know , so let 's operate under the assumption it 's all lies " ) , or " it appears this way , but we ca n't verify it , so we will tentatively accept this until refuted , and work to verify or refute it .
" Why are people so hung up on the data ?
Science is about doing all the steps over , not just one or two steps in a long process .
They ca n't share their data ?
Fine , move on .
Get your own , or get access to theirs through similar agreements they had to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you basing results on datasets that can't be released none of that is possible.
I don't believe you.
I've never seen a peer reviewed paper that included the data when published.
There are hints as to the data, explanations of how it was collected, a more thorough explanation of the processes, and then a result.
But then, I haven't worked in climatology, so perhaps they do things differently there.
I would prefer people not use the data published and just re-do the portions that are usually the best documented, being the methods of analyzation.
How did they get the data?
Then go get it yourself.
Make sure your answers match theirs.
To start with step 5 of a 10 step process and get the same answer doesn't validate or invalidate their work, and thus is a useless exercise.
If the data is private to begin with, and they have to sign an NDA to use it, and no one else has similar data, what would you have them do?
There are two answers I see, say "we can't know" and act on that (apparently "we can't know" is synonymous with "we can't know, so let's operate under the assumption it's all lies"), or "it appears this way, but we can't verify it, so we will tentatively accept this until refuted, and work to verify or refute it.
"  Why are people so hung up on the data?
Science is about doing all the steps over, not just one or two steps in a long process.
They can't share their data?
Fine, move on.
Get your own, or get access to theirs through similar agreements they had to make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275712</id>
	<title>160 MB of context</title>
	<author>toddhisattva</author>
	<datestamp>1259579580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is 160 million bytes of context.</p><p>Some shitheads are never satisfied!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is 160 million bytes of context.Some shitheads are never satisfied !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is 160 million bytes of context.Some shitheads are never satisfied!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267742</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not denying.</title>
	<author>EllisDees</author>
	<datestamp>1259614260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look at the record of the ice ages going back the past couple of million years, you will notice that we should already be well on our way into another ice age by now. Instead, the temperature is rising higher than at any point in that time range. What could be the difference now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the record of the ice ages going back the past couple of million years , you will notice that we should already be well on our way into another ice age by now .
Instead , the temperature is rising higher than at any point in that time range .
What could be the difference now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the record of the ice ages going back the past couple of million years, you will notice that we should already be well on our way into another ice age by now.
Instead, the temperature is rising higher than at any point in that time range.
What could be the difference now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269004</id>
	<title>Re:Look at the larger picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259589240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their predictions were off by 80\%, but you still put value in their prediction method?<br>
<br>
Think about it. I'd say that apparently they have no fucking clue whats going to happen next because their models are missing something important, because being wrong by 80\% either direction means exactly that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their predictions were off by 80 \ % , but you still put value in their prediction method ?
Think about it .
I 'd say that apparently they have no fucking clue whats going to happen next because their models are missing something important , because being wrong by 80 \ % either direction means exactly that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their predictions were off by 80\%, but you still put value in their prediction method?
Think about it.
I'd say that apparently they have no fucking clue whats going to happen next because their models are missing something important, because being wrong by 80\% either direction means exactly that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269776</id>
	<title>Re:What moron destroys original data?</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1259595420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A moron who has to store petabytes of raw climate data in 1998? Disk space was nowhere near as cheap back then as it is now, and the raw data is still on record with the originating meteorological service. Why not delete it? Anyone who wants it can get a copy from the original source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A moron who has to store petabytes of raw climate data in 1998 ?
Disk space was nowhere near as cheap back then as it is now , and the raw data is still on record with the originating meteorological service .
Why not delete it ?
Anyone who wants it can get a copy from the original source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A moron who has to store petabytes of raw climate data in 1998?
Disk space was nowhere near as cheap back then as it is now, and the raw data is still on record with the originating meteorological service.
Why not delete it?
Anyone who wants it can get a copy from the original source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275550</id>
	<title>Re:Still no nefarious behavior from where I sit</title>
	<author>mckyj57</author>
	<datestamp>1259578980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Let's review... The hacked emails look bad, but they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption - these emails were never "peer reviewed" so to speak. As far as I'm concerned, they are irrelevant, as tempting as it is to see some giant conspiracy in them.</i></p><p>The fact that this is modded 5-insightful shows where Slashdot has gone. Bye, it was nice knowing you, Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's review... The hacked emails look bad , but they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption - these emails were never " peer reviewed " so to speak .
As far as I 'm concerned , they are irrelevant , as tempting as it is to see some giant conspiracy in them.The fact that this is modded 5-insightful shows where Slashdot has gone .
Bye , it was nice knowing you , Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's review... The hacked emails look bad, but they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption - these emails were never "peer reviewed" so to speak.
As far as I'm concerned, they are irrelevant, as tempting as it is to see some giant conspiracy in them.The fact that this is modded 5-insightful shows where Slashdot has gone.
Bye, it was nice knowing you, Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269546</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In respect to "man made global warming" I have just two words and a link:<br>Milankovitch cycles<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch\_cycles</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In respect to " man made global warming " I have just two words and a link : Milankovitch cycleshttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch \ _cycles</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In respect to "man made global warming" I have just two words and a link:Milankovitch cycleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch\_cycles</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30285106</id>
	<title>PLEASE, POLLUTE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE !!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will endeavor to POLLUTE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE !!!</p><p>I will do this because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>1. I know some dumb government will pay to clean up my mess and employ many poor people in the process, thus I get the Browne points in heaven for giving poor people jobs.<br>2. The ONLY reason ANYTHING is dirty in this day and age is because liberals have writen bad laws and abused the legislature processes, so dirty industries are not legislated to clean up, thus liberals justify their own existence in the political process by portraying the problem as being MUCH larger then it is, and they will do these things whether I pollute or NOT !<br>3. Global Warming, Climate Change, ect. is a SHAM a TOTAL LIE, soon we will all be getting VERY VERY COLD !!!!!!<br>4. Al Gore also follows this ethic by flying all over the world in his jets and building numerous massive homes, eating top quality meats !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will endeavor to POLLUTE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ! !
! I will do this because ...1 .
I know some dumb government will pay to clean up my mess and employ many poor people in the process , thus I get the Browne points in heaven for giving poor people jobs.2 .
The ONLY reason ANYTHING is dirty in this day and age is because liberals have writen bad laws and abused the legislature processes , so dirty industries are not legislated to clean up , thus liberals justify their own existence in the political process by portraying the problem as being MUCH larger then it is , and they will do these things whether I pollute or NOT ! 3 .
Global Warming , Climate Change , ect .
is a SHAM a TOTAL LIE , soon we will all be getting VERY VERY COLD ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 .
Al Gore also follows this ethic by flying all over the world in his jets and building numerous massive homes , eating top quality meats !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will endeavor to POLLUTE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE !!
!I will do this because ...1.
I know some dumb government will pay to clean up my mess and employ many poor people in the process, thus I get the Browne points in heaven for giving poor people jobs.2.
The ONLY reason ANYTHING is dirty in this day and age is because liberals have writen bad laws and abused the legislature processes, so dirty industries are not legislated to clean up, thus liberals justify their own existence in the political process by portraying the problem as being MUCH larger then it is, and they will do these things whether I pollute or NOT !3.
Global Warming, Climate Change, ect.
is a SHAM a TOTAL LIE, soon we will all be getting VERY VERY COLD !!!!!!4.
Al Gore also follows this ethic by flying all over the world in his jets and building numerous massive homes, eating top quality meats !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266442</id>
	<title>Re:Climate change was NO issue in the 80s</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1259515080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Sounds dubious to me.  Public at large may not have had much interest in the 80's, but for the researchers in the field, the data set remains the basis of their work stretching decades, hence a valued archive at the least if they have any respect for their own work.  So they lost it, and yet conveniently use it as base for a theory and policy recommendation asking the world to restructure our economy.
</p><p>
Sad thing is those who believe in AGW should be the first ones to question CRU and extract answers, but for the most all I see is wagon-circling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds dubious to me .
Public at large may not have had much interest in the 80 's , but for the researchers in the field , the data set remains the basis of their work stretching decades , hence a valued archive at the least if they have any respect for their own work .
So they lost it , and yet conveniently use it as base for a theory and policy recommendation asking the world to restructure our economy .
Sad thing is those who believe in AGW should be the first ones to question CRU and extract answers , but for the most all I see is wagon-circling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Sounds dubious to me.
Public at large may not have had much interest in the 80's, but for the researchers in the field, the data set remains the basis of their work stretching decades, hence a valued archive at the least if they have any respect for their own work.
So they lost it, and yet conveniently use it as base for a theory and policy recommendation asking the world to restructure our economy.
Sad thing is those who believe in AGW should be the first ones to question CRU and extract answers, but for the most all I see is wagon-circling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274106</id>
	<title>Re:Still no nefarious behavior from where I sit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me guess:  when Sarah Palin's emails were hacked, you posted on Slashdot that we should ignore them because they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me guess : when Sarah Palin 's emails were hacked , you posted on Slashdot that we should ignore them because they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me guess:  when Sarah Palin's emails were hacked, you posted on Slashdot that we should ignore them because they were obtained illegally and were never meant for public consumption anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271418</id>
	<title>the Register on 'Climategate'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Climategate: Why it matters</strong> <br> <br>

"<i>The allegations<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. that climate scientists<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate\_analysis/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">withheld and destroyed data</a> [theregister.co.uk] they should have released as good scientific practice</i>", Andrew Orlowski<br> <br>

I would comment there only theREG has disabled commenting on this 'story'<br> <br>

"<i>Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."<br> <br>

Some of the data behind these other results can likely be found in a new resource that jamie located up at the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">Real Climate</a> [realclimate.org] site: a compilation of <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">links to a wide variety of raw data about climate</a> [realclimate.org] </i>"<br> <br>

Perhaps someone should contact Andrew and point him to the site<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climategate : Why it matters " The allegations .. are .. that climate scientists .. withheld and destroyed data [ theregister.co.uk ] they should have released as good scientific practice " , Andrew Orlowski I would comment there only theREG has disabled commenting on this 'story ' " Our global temperature series tallies with those of other , completely independent , groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States , among others .
Even if you were to ignore our findings , theirs show the same results .
The facts speak for themselves ; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them .
" Some of the data behind these other results can likely be found in a new resource that jamie located up at the Real Climate [ realclimate.org ] site : a compilation of links to a wide variety of raw data about climate [ realclimate.org ] " Perhaps someone should contact Andrew and point him to the site .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climategate: Why it matters  

"The allegations .. are .. that climate scientists .. withheld and destroyed data [theregister.co.uk] they should have released as good scientific practice", Andrew Orlowski 

I would comment there only theREG has disabled commenting on this 'story' 

"Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others.
Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results.
The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.
" 

Some of the data behind these other results can likely be found in a new resource that jamie located up at the Real Climate [realclimate.org] site: a compilation of links to a wide variety of raw data about climate [realclimate.org] " 

Perhaps someone should contact Andrew and point him to the site ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266870</id>
	<title>Look at the larger picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259518380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>During 2001 the IPCC made a number of predictions as to what would happen as a result of the climate change. At the time their results were widely mocked and ignored by the "climate change deniers" circles.</p><p>It now turns out that the actual effects measured today are \_worse\_ than what was predicted. For example, the rise of the ocean level is 80\% greater.</p><p>I think people should concentrate on the larger picture -- the predicted effects are happening. The whole CRU emails issue is peanuts and only diverts the attention from the real issue, even if we assume that everything that is being claimed there is true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During 2001 the IPCC made a number of predictions as to what would happen as a result of the climate change .
At the time their results were widely mocked and ignored by the " climate change deniers " circles.It now turns out that the actual effects measured today are \ _worse \ _ than what was predicted .
For example , the rise of the ocean level is 80 \ % greater.I think people should concentrate on the larger picture -- the predicted effects are happening .
The whole CRU emails issue is peanuts and only diverts the attention from the real issue , even if we assume that everything that is being claimed there is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During 2001 the IPCC made a number of predictions as to what would happen as a result of the climate change.
At the time their results were widely mocked and ignored by the "climate change deniers" circles.It now turns out that the actual effects measured today are \_worse\_ than what was predicted.
For example, the rise of the ocean level is 80\% greater.I think people should concentrate on the larger picture -- the predicted effects are happening.
The whole CRU emails issue is peanuts and only diverts the attention from the real issue, even if we assume that everything that is being claimed there is true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265890</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259510220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, the e-mails from the CRU would support this if they weren't full of statements indicating data was being manipulated, that e-mails and other material subject to FOIA were not being systematically and deliberately purged, that the peer review system was not being gamed and manipulated to keep out any opposing views up to and including getting editors removed if they didn't do what the Team wanted.<br> <br>

If you can't check the data because the "dog ate my homework" then some is entitled to ask on what basis are we refactoring the entire world economy by causing an artificial shortage of energy?<br> <br>

But only nasty people can ask such questions. Only people with agendas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the e-mails from the CRU would support this if they were n't full of statements indicating data was being manipulated , that e-mails and other material subject to FOIA were not being systematically and deliberately purged , that the peer review system was not being gamed and manipulated to keep out any opposing views up to and including getting editors removed if they did n't do what the Team wanted .
If you ca n't check the data because the " dog ate my homework " then some is entitled to ask on what basis are we refactoring the entire world economy by causing an artificial shortage of energy ?
But only nasty people can ask such questions .
Only people with agendas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, the e-mails from the CRU would support this if they weren't full of statements indicating data was being manipulated, that e-mails and other material subject to FOIA were not being systematically and deliberately purged, that the peer review system was not being gamed and manipulated to keep out any opposing views up to and including getting editors removed if they didn't do what the Team wanted.
If you can't check the data because the "dog ate my homework" then some is entitled to ask on what basis are we refactoring the entire world economy by causing an artificial shortage of energy?
But only nasty people can ask such questions.
Only people with agendas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265848</id>
	<title>Nice that you understand politics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259509920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The climate debate isn't about science anymore.  It is political and regardless of which side of the debate you are on the odds are the incorrect action will be taken.  Compromise, short term thinking and power (no pun intended) considerations will twist the debate.  Instead of climate change, carbon footprints and cap &amp; trade, redefine the debate as energy independence and job creation.  This is a US centric policy, but it is where I'm at, so come up with your own.  Set a goal of national energy independence, including drilling for domestic oil.  The US has limited enough supplies that low consumption credits and alternative energy sources incentives will be required to prevent the importation of oil.  Automation of manufacturing to bring jobs back to the United States.  Since we shifted our manufacturing to less developed countries, we've also shifted our pollution.  Instead of innovating to reduce local workforce expenses via automation, most companies took the short term gain of lower cost labor and limited regulation.  By subsidizing the R&amp;D of automation, many of the jobs may come back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate debate is n't about science anymore .
It is political and regardless of which side of the debate you are on the odds are the incorrect action will be taken .
Compromise , short term thinking and power ( no pun intended ) considerations will twist the debate .
Instead of climate change , carbon footprints and cap &amp; trade , redefine the debate as energy independence and job creation .
This is a US centric policy , but it is where I 'm at , so come up with your own .
Set a goal of national energy independence , including drilling for domestic oil .
The US has limited enough supplies that low consumption credits and alternative energy sources incentives will be required to prevent the importation of oil .
Automation of manufacturing to bring jobs back to the United States .
Since we shifted our manufacturing to less developed countries , we 've also shifted our pollution .
Instead of innovating to reduce local workforce expenses via automation , most companies took the short term gain of lower cost labor and limited regulation .
By subsidizing the R&amp;D of automation , many of the jobs may come back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate debate isn't about science anymore.
It is political and regardless of which side of the debate you are on the odds are the incorrect action will be taken.
Compromise, short term thinking and power (no pun intended) considerations will twist the debate.
Instead of climate change, carbon footprints and cap &amp; trade, redefine the debate as energy independence and job creation.
This is a US centric policy, but it is where I'm at, so come up with your own.
Set a goal of national energy independence, including drilling for domestic oil.
The US has limited enough supplies that low consumption credits and alternative energy sources incentives will be required to prevent the importation of oil.
Automation of manufacturing to bring jobs back to the United States.
Since we shifted our manufacturing to less developed countries, we've also shifted our pollution.
Instead of innovating to reduce local workforce expenses via automation, most companies took the short term gain of lower cost labor and limited regulation.
By subsidizing the R&amp;D of automation, many of the jobs may come back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271976</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not a straw man that is a false dilemma: <br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_dilemma" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_dilemma</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>Strawman:<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad\_hominem" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad\_hominem</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a straw man that is a false dilemma : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False \ _dilemma [ wikipedia.org ] Strawman : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad \ _hominem [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a straw man that is a false dilemma:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_dilemma [wikipedia.org]  Strawman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad\_hominem [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271132</id>
	<title>Re:The Parent Isn't a Troll</title>
	<author>huckamania</author>
	<datestamp>1259603520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A tiny percent of the population does not believe in Climate Change.   You would have to be an idiot not to believe that the climate changes.   If you believe in Global Warming, then don't be a putz and use Climate Change instead.</p><p>The 'Save the Polar Bear' wing of the AGW camp are not only trying to control the climate, they are trying to halt evolution.   Polar bears, like all life, have the ability to adapt to survive whatever changes are coming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A tiny percent of the population does not believe in Climate Change .
You would have to be an idiot not to believe that the climate changes .
If you believe in Global Warming , then do n't be a putz and use Climate Change instead.The 'Save the Polar Bear ' wing of the AGW camp are not only trying to control the climate , they are trying to halt evolution .
Polar bears , like all life , have the ability to adapt to survive whatever changes are coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A tiny percent of the population does not believe in Climate Change.
You would have to be an idiot not to believe that the climate changes.
If you believe in Global Warming, then don't be a putz and use Climate Change instead.The 'Save the Polar Bear' wing of the AGW camp are not only trying to control the climate, they are trying to halt evolution.
Polar bears, like all life, have the ability to adapt to survive whatever changes are coming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268930</id>
	<title>Re:The Parent Isn't a Troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259587980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How the fuck do you get an insightful for basically confirming, against your own argument, that we have been steadily warming since the last ice age ? 10,000 years ago you could walk from the UK to continental Europe. Has sea level not risen ? Even the ice cores show that the climate has been <a href="http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.html" title="climatedata.info">warming</a> [climatedata.info] since about 20,000 years ago. Can you see a pattern in those graphs ? Can you ? Or does your need to bash the so called "deniers" override your visual cortex to the extent that all you can see is red ?<br> <br>To me, those graphs show that over a period of time, we can expect the climate to experience rapid warming, followed by a longer period of cooling, where it gets very very cold, followed again by a rapid warming period. At what stage of that cycle are we currently living in ? The peak of the warming stage. Sure we may have higher CO2 than at similar points in past stages but not outside the realms of statistical possibility. There have been times where the peak was much lower than the average maximum, and now the peak is much higher than the average maximum. None of that precludes the fact that the long term cycle exists and going by past evidence will peak and turn down towards ice age. And if you think humans have the capability to prevent a cycle that runs over the order of 120,000 years from happening, just to suit our interests, then you are the one in denial - denial of just how insignificant we really are.<br> <br>Basically, if we aren't in a retreat from the last ice age, we are in a decline towards the next ice age. As we seem to be still climbing in both CO2 and temperature, I would go for the former - we are in the last stages of ice age retreat, will soon peak and start dropping towards the worst fucking nightmare, making the global warming scare seem like a sunny day at the beach. Fortunately, CO2 tends to lag temperature meaning that the extra CO2 we have produced will keep us warmer than we would have expected to be when the average temperature drops 3 or 4 degrees. Look at the graphs, specifically the <a href="http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores\_assets/03-EPICA\%20temperature\%20and\%20CO2.gif" title="climatedata.info">Temp/CO2 graph</a> [climatedata.info]. What happened about 120,000 years ago ? Does that part of the graph look ANYTHING like the current situation ? I say it does, and anybody with working eyes would say the same. But you seem content to blame the warming trend on humans, all evidence to the contrary. What goes up MUST come down. The quicker it goes up, the more rapid the fall when it comes. I would suggest it's a bit too late to be worrying about what we released into the atmosphere, it's done its damage already. If you're suggesting that we can transform the future graph into a straight line at roughly the place where we want it to be, I suggest you see a psychiatrist.<br> <br>Maybe, just maybe, we could prevent temps from rising too rapidly, but that does not negate the overall trend, where the average is 6 degrees less, and the maximum is roughly 15 degrees less than today. Surely the most important long term aim is to prevent cooling not warming ? The only issue I have with higher CO2 levels is that we can't breathe it, but to protect ourselves there, maybe we shouldn't cut down all the trees, pollute the oceans and burn things just to make money.<br> <br>Now you tell me, where is that actual recorded data wrong ? It wasn't the result of a flawed model, it hasn't been tweaked to suit my agenda, it has been measured by climate scientists from existing sources. But you still claim we are not "coming out of an ice age" ? It seems to me YOU are the denier, YOU are putting forward red herrings, in fact the red herring argument is itself a red herring, because it draws attention away from the facts. As do all the mouth frothing AGW religious types. They claim the data shows the end of the world is nigh but refuse to accept what the data is showing them. Instead they focus on such a short timescale that it can't be measured on the same scale as the evidenc</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the fuck do you get an insightful for basically confirming , against your own argument , that we have been steadily warming since the last ice age ?
10,000 years ago you could walk from the UK to continental Europe .
Has sea level not risen ?
Even the ice cores show that the climate has been warming [ climatedata.info ] since about 20,000 years ago .
Can you see a pattern in those graphs ?
Can you ?
Or does your need to bash the so called " deniers " override your visual cortex to the extent that all you can see is red ?
To me , those graphs show that over a period of time , we can expect the climate to experience rapid warming , followed by a longer period of cooling , where it gets very very cold , followed again by a rapid warming period .
At what stage of that cycle are we currently living in ?
The peak of the warming stage .
Sure we may have higher CO2 than at similar points in past stages but not outside the realms of statistical possibility .
There have been times where the peak was much lower than the average maximum , and now the peak is much higher than the average maximum .
None of that precludes the fact that the long term cycle exists and going by past evidence will peak and turn down towards ice age .
And if you think humans have the capability to prevent a cycle that runs over the order of 120,000 years from happening , just to suit our interests , then you are the one in denial - denial of just how insignificant we really are .
Basically , if we are n't in a retreat from the last ice age , we are in a decline towards the next ice age .
As we seem to be still climbing in both CO2 and temperature , I would go for the former - we are in the last stages of ice age retreat , will soon peak and start dropping towards the worst fucking nightmare , making the global warming scare seem like a sunny day at the beach .
Fortunately , CO2 tends to lag temperature meaning that the extra CO2 we have produced will keep us warmer than we would have expected to be when the average temperature drops 3 or 4 degrees .
Look at the graphs , specifically the Temp/CO2 graph [ climatedata.info ] .
What happened about 120,000 years ago ?
Does that part of the graph look ANYTHING like the current situation ?
I say it does , and anybody with working eyes would say the same .
But you seem content to blame the warming trend on humans , all evidence to the contrary .
What goes up MUST come down .
The quicker it goes up , the more rapid the fall when it comes .
I would suggest it 's a bit too late to be worrying about what we released into the atmosphere , it 's done its damage already .
If you 're suggesting that we can transform the future graph into a straight line at roughly the place where we want it to be , I suggest you see a psychiatrist .
Maybe , just maybe , we could prevent temps from rising too rapidly , but that does not negate the overall trend , where the average is 6 degrees less , and the maximum is roughly 15 degrees less than today .
Surely the most important long term aim is to prevent cooling not warming ?
The only issue I have with higher CO2 levels is that we ca n't breathe it , but to protect ourselves there , maybe we should n't cut down all the trees , pollute the oceans and burn things just to make money .
Now you tell me , where is that actual recorded data wrong ?
It was n't the result of a flawed model , it has n't been tweaked to suit my agenda , it has been measured by climate scientists from existing sources .
But you still claim we are not " coming out of an ice age " ?
It seems to me YOU are the denier , YOU are putting forward red herrings , in fact the red herring argument is itself a red herring , because it draws attention away from the facts .
As do all the mouth frothing AGW religious types .
They claim the data shows the end of the world is nigh but refuse to accept what the data is showing them .
Instead they focus on such a short timescale that it ca n't be measured on the same scale as the evidenc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the fuck do you get an insightful for basically confirming, against your own argument, that we have been steadily warming since the last ice age ?
10,000 years ago you could walk from the UK to continental Europe.
Has sea level not risen ?
Even the ice cores show that the climate has been warming [climatedata.info] since about 20,000 years ago.
Can you see a pattern in those graphs ?
Can you ?
Or does your need to bash the so called "deniers" override your visual cortex to the extent that all you can see is red ?
To me, those graphs show that over a period of time, we can expect the climate to experience rapid warming, followed by a longer period of cooling, where it gets very very cold, followed again by a rapid warming period.
At what stage of that cycle are we currently living in ?
The peak of the warming stage.
Sure we may have higher CO2 than at similar points in past stages but not outside the realms of statistical possibility.
There have been times where the peak was much lower than the average maximum, and now the peak is much higher than the average maximum.
None of that precludes the fact that the long term cycle exists and going by past evidence will peak and turn down towards ice age.
And if you think humans have the capability to prevent a cycle that runs over the order of 120,000 years from happening, just to suit our interests, then you are the one in denial - denial of just how insignificant we really are.
Basically, if we aren't in a retreat from the last ice age, we are in a decline towards the next ice age.
As we seem to be still climbing in both CO2 and temperature, I would go for the former - we are in the last stages of ice age retreat, will soon peak and start dropping towards the worst fucking nightmare, making the global warming scare seem like a sunny day at the beach.
Fortunately, CO2 tends to lag temperature meaning that the extra CO2 we have produced will keep us warmer than we would have expected to be when the average temperature drops 3 or 4 degrees.
Look at the graphs, specifically the Temp/CO2 graph [climatedata.info].
What happened about 120,000 years ago ?
Does that part of the graph look ANYTHING like the current situation ?
I say it does, and anybody with working eyes would say the same.
But you seem content to blame the warming trend on humans, all evidence to the contrary.
What goes up MUST come down.
The quicker it goes up, the more rapid the fall when it comes.
I would suggest it's a bit too late to be worrying about what we released into the atmosphere, it's done its damage already.
If you're suggesting that we can transform the future graph into a straight line at roughly the place where we want it to be, I suggest you see a psychiatrist.
Maybe, just maybe, we could prevent temps from rising too rapidly, but that does not negate the overall trend, where the average is 6 degrees less, and the maximum is roughly 15 degrees less than today.
Surely the most important long term aim is to prevent cooling not warming ?
The only issue I have with higher CO2 levels is that we can't breathe it, but to protect ourselves there, maybe we shouldn't cut down all the trees, pollute the oceans and burn things just to make money.
Now you tell me, where is that actual recorded data wrong ?
It wasn't the result of a flawed model, it hasn't been tweaked to suit my agenda, it has been measured by climate scientists from existing sources.
But you still claim we are not "coming out of an ice age" ?
It seems to me YOU are the denier, YOU are putting forward red herrings, in fact the red herring argument is itself a red herring, because it draws attention away from the facts.
As do all the mouth frothing AGW religious types.
They claim the data shows the end of the world is nigh but refuse to accept what the data is showing them.
Instead they focus on such a short timescale that it can't be measured on the same scale as the evidenc</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266282</id>
	<title>Re:What would be the point...?</title>
	<author>I'm just joshin</author>
	<datestamp>1259513160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would be the point of releasing the source code to the general public?  Seriously, why bother? I know that I don't have the skills or expertise to...</p><p>Ahem...</p><p>-J</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be the point of releasing the source code to the general public ?
Seriously , why bother ?
I know that I do n't have the skills or expertise to...Ahem...-J</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be the point of releasing the source code to the general public?
Seriously, why bother?
I know that I don't have the skills or expertise to...Ahem...-J</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275698</id>
	<title>Re:The Parent Isn't a Troll</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1259579520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>To me, those graphs show that over a period of time, we can expect the climate to experience rapid warming</i></p><p>To me, those graphs show that fairies come out at night to paint the flowers.</p><p>If the data is crap and the programs are crap, which is what the release of these documents show, then you can tell NOTHING from them. Crap in means crap out. Until you can get valid data, and process it in acceptable ways, you have nothing. What little is known of the programs that process the now missing data, is that they either include fudge factors or work on pre-mangled data, in order to force the results to their desired goal.</p><p>Until you get good reliable data, and work on it with accepted and proven methods, then all you have is crap. I can write programs to generate whatever graph I want from any random data set. Heck, I can just ignore the data set and generate the graphs anyway. It appears that all they used the data for was to add noise to their graphs.</p><p>The current "Global Warming" propaganda is more of a religion than science. If you are going to make major alterations to business practices for this, then you should also make changes for the poor little faries that spend all night painting flowers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , those graphs show that over a period of time , we can expect the climate to experience rapid warmingTo me , those graphs show that fairies come out at night to paint the flowers.If the data is crap and the programs are crap , which is what the release of these documents show , then you can tell NOTHING from them .
Crap in means crap out .
Until you can get valid data , and process it in acceptable ways , you have nothing .
What little is known of the programs that process the now missing data , is that they either include fudge factors or work on pre-mangled data , in order to force the results to their desired goal.Until you get good reliable data , and work on it with accepted and proven methods , then all you have is crap .
I can write programs to generate whatever graph I want from any random data set .
Heck , I can just ignore the data set and generate the graphs anyway .
It appears that all they used the data for was to add noise to their graphs.The current " Global Warming " propaganda is more of a religion than science .
If you are going to make major alterations to business practices for this , then you should also make changes for the poor little faries that spend all night painting flowers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, those graphs show that over a period of time, we can expect the climate to experience rapid warmingTo me, those graphs show that fairies come out at night to paint the flowers.If the data is crap and the programs are crap, which is what the release of these documents show, then you can tell NOTHING from them.
Crap in means crap out.
Until you can get valid data, and process it in acceptable ways, you have nothing.
What little is known of the programs that process the now missing data, is that they either include fudge factors or work on pre-mangled data, in order to force the results to their desired goal.Until you get good reliable data, and work on it with accepted and proven methods, then all you have is crap.
I can write programs to generate whatever graph I want from any random data set.
Heck, I can just ignore the data set and generate the graphs anyway.
It appears that all they used the data for was to add noise to their graphs.The current "Global Warming" propaganda is more of a religion than science.
If you are going to make major alterations to business practices for this, then you should also make changes for the poor little faries that spend all night painting flowers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266052</id>
	<title>From what I've read elsewhere...</title>
	<author>noz</author>
	<datestamp>1259511360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will be conveniently incomplete, ignoring data identified as contrary to popular political opinion.</p><p>But I'm a climate change <i>denier</i> and therefore a <i>conspiracy theory nut</i> and other carefully selected categorising terminologies in the politically correct nomenclature.</p><p>And suddenly I'm censored. Because democracy is fine, for a while. We can be trusted to decide things for ourselves. Most things. Until the issue is bigger than any person. Dammit it's our <i>children</i> and our <i>children's children</i> who stand to lose! And we cannot be trusted to make the right decision anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be conveniently incomplete , ignoring data identified as contrary to popular political opinion.But I 'm a climate change denier and therefore a conspiracy theory nut and other carefully selected categorising terminologies in the politically correct nomenclature.And suddenly I 'm censored .
Because democracy is fine , for a while .
We can be trusted to decide things for ourselves .
Most things .
Until the issue is bigger than any person .
Dammit it 's our children and our children 's children who stand to lose !
And we can not be trusted to make the right decision anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be conveniently incomplete, ignoring data identified as contrary to popular political opinion.But I'm a climate change denier and therefore a conspiracy theory nut and other carefully selected categorising terminologies in the politically correct nomenclature.And suddenly I'm censored.
Because democracy is fine, for a while.
We can be trusted to decide things for ourselves.
Most things.
Until the issue is bigger than any person.
Dammit it's our children and our children's children who stand to lose!
And we cannot be trusted to make the right decision anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265858</id>
	<title>Re:Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1259509980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even for slashdot, you with the handle "reporter" is one certifiable crackpot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even for slashdot , you with the handle " reporter " is one certifiable crackpot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even for slashdot, you with the handle "reporter" is one certifiable crackpot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269418</id>
	<title>denier groups; promo groups</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to denigrate your opponents with labels rather than arguments isn't a very convincing way to put your argument across.</p><p>All it needs is for them to start throwing the labels around and you will end up in a mud slinging contest which will do you no good at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to denigrate your opponents with labels rather than arguments is n't a very convincing way to put your argument across.All it needs is for them to start throwing the labels around and you will end up in a mud slinging contest which will do you no good at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to denigrate your opponents with labels rather than arguments isn't a very convincing way to put your argument across.All it needs is for them to start throwing the labels around and you will end up in a mud slinging contest which will do you no good at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268400</id>
	<title>Also, look at the larger picture in motivation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is reminiscent of the tobacco research showing that cigarettes cause lung cancer.  There was incredible controversy about this, mostly because of industry funded research throwing doubt on the results.  People were also saying that it was just a scare tactic.
<br>
<a href="http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PowerPoint/FundingEffect4.pdf" title="tufts.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PowerPoint/FundingEffect4.pdf</a> [tufts.edu]
<br> <br>

Just look at the larger picture of research funding involved since 1960's.  Climate change was a total non-starter for most scientists years ago.  The first scientists to proclaim climate change had an uphill battle to get any funding at all.  The energy industry and the auto industries have a financial interest in throwing doubt on climate change, and then on whether the climate change is man-made.  And they provide a lot of the current research funding motivation.
<br>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange</a> [guardian.co.uk]
<br> <br>
Now what motivation does a scientist have for proclaiming climate change?  Scientists are ordinary people, most don't have grand agendas, they just want to get ahead with research papers and get tenure; they try to do some science.   Controversy hurts researchers a lot when they get up for tenure.  Climate change garners a lot of opposition, and there wasn't historically much research funding for it.  What does any single researcher get for saying such a thing?  A lot of grief, really.
<br> <br>
There is very little historical motivation for any reputable scientist to manufacture a scare, all they want is research funding now, not research funding years from now.  The government does not like climate change as a problem, they'd much rather the problem goes away.  On the other hand there is plenty of financial motivation for many powerful industries to deny climate change.  If there is a significant subset of scientists saying there is man-made climate change, we should really pay attention, as it is very likely to be true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is reminiscent of the tobacco research showing that cigarettes cause lung cancer .
There was incredible controversy about this , mostly because of industry funded research throwing doubt on the results .
People were also saying that it was just a scare tactic .
http : //www.tufts.edu/ ~ skrimsky/PowerPoint/FundingEffect4.pdf [ tufts.edu ] Just look at the larger picture of research funding involved since 1960 's .
Climate change was a total non-starter for most scientists years ago .
The first scientists to proclaim climate change had an uphill battle to get any funding at all .
The energy industry and the auto industries have a financial interest in throwing doubt on climate change , and then on whether the climate change is man-made .
And they provide a lot of the current research funding motivation .
http : //www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange [ guardian.co.uk ] Now what motivation does a scientist have for proclaiming climate change ?
Scientists are ordinary people , most do n't have grand agendas , they just want to get ahead with research papers and get tenure ; they try to do some science .
Controversy hurts researchers a lot when they get up for tenure .
Climate change garners a lot of opposition , and there was n't historically much research funding for it .
What does any single researcher get for saying such a thing ?
A lot of grief , really .
There is very little historical motivation for any reputable scientist to manufacture a scare , all they want is research funding now , not research funding years from now .
The government does not like climate change as a problem , they 'd much rather the problem goes away .
On the other hand there is plenty of financial motivation for many powerful industries to deny climate change .
If there is a significant subset of scientists saying there is man-made climate change , we should really pay attention , as it is very likely to be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is reminiscent of the tobacco research showing that cigarettes cause lung cancer.
There was incredible controversy about this, mostly because of industry funded research throwing doubt on the results.
People were also saying that it was just a scare tactic.
http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PowerPoint/FundingEffect4.pdf [tufts.edu]
 

Just look at the larger picture of research funding involved since 1960's.
Climate change was a total non-starter for most scientists years ago.
The first scientists to proclaim climate change had an uphill battle to get any funding at all.
The energy industry and the auto industries have a financial interest in throwing doubt on climate change, and then on whether the climate change is man-made.
And they provide a lot of the current research funding motivation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange [guardian.co.uk]
 
Now what motivation does a scientist have for proclaiming climate change?
Scientists are ordinary people, most don't have grand agendas, they just want to get ahead with research papers and get tenure; they try to do some science.
Controversy hurts researchers a lot when they get up for tenure.
Climate change garners a lot of opposition, and there wasn't historically much research funding for it.
What does any single researcher get for saying such a thing?
A lot of grief, really.
There is very little historical motivation for any reputable scientist to manufacture a scare, all they want is research funding now, not research funding years from now.
The government does not like climate change as a problem, they'd much rather the problem goes away.
On the other hand there is plenty of financial motivation for many powerful industries to deny climate change.
If there is a significant subset of scientists saying there is man-made climate change, we should really pay attention, as it is very likely to be true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275760</id>
	<title>prosecute the FOI violations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Withholding science on topics which are so important to us is unethical. When did scientists ever get the idea that having their name attached to a theory was more important then the truth of the ideas underlying that theory?</p><p>To me this has little to do with whether the data and interpretation is correct or not. Rather the question is why such a time-crucial piece of scientific data is withheld from worldwide peer review over the fear that someone will try to refute the interpretation.</p><p>If these scientists really believe what they are purporting to the world... then really their primary concern should be releasing this to as many people as possible... showing everything they used and how it was modified to fit within the scope of their model. To not do so is inhuman... if they believe what their own data.</p><p>These scientist are selfish, selfish people. Considering their career futures over the health of our only world.</p><p>These scientist behave like criminals. They are funded by the people and when the people ask for the data and the government supports such a requests... they should reveal all. They should not spend out money (aka: use private industry) if they desire to keep their findings secret. They should not look and behave as Enron employees: shredding documents and lying about the availability of the data.</p><p>One thing that is obvious from the leak: these government funded employees were actively attempting to side step the FOI requests. AND the information was readily available already.</p><p>I think it should be in the interest of both sides (pro &amp; con AGW) to have this investigated as a minimum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Withholding science on topics which are so important to us is unethical .
When did scientists ever get the idea that having their name attached to a theory was more important then the truth of the ideas underlying that theory ? To me this has little to do with whether the data and interpretation is correct or not .
Rather the question is why such a time-crucial piece of scientific data is withheld from worldwide peer review over the fear that someone will try to refute the interpretation.If these scientists really believe what they are purporting to the world... then really their primary concern should be releasing this to as many people as possible... showing everything they used and how it was modified to fit within the scope of their model .
To not do so is inhuman... if they believe what their own data.These scientist are selfish , selfish people .
Considering their career futures over the health of our only world.These scientist behave like criminals .
They are funded by the people and when the people ask for the data and the government supports such a requests... they should reveal all .
They should not spend out money ( aka : use private industry ) if they desire to keep their findings secret .
They should not look and behave as Enron employees : shredding documents and lying about the availability of the data.One thing that is obvious from the leak : these government funded employees were actively attempting to side step the FOI requests .
AND the information was readily available already.I think it should be in the interest of both sides ( pro &amp; con AGW ) to have this investigated as a minimum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Withholding science on topics which are so important to us is unethical.
When did scientists ever get the idea that having their name attached to a theory was more important then the truth of the ideas underlying that theory?To me this has little to do with whether the data and interpretation is correct or not.
Rather the question is why such a time-crucial piece of scientific data is withheld from worldwide peer review over the fear that someone will try to refute the interpretation.If these scientists really believe what they are purporting to the world... then really their primary concern should be releasing this to as many people as possible... showing everything they used and how it was modified to fit within the scope of their model.
To not do so is inhuman... if they believe what their own data.These scientist are selfish, selfish people.
Considering their career futures over the health of our only world.These scientist behave like criminals.
They are funded by the people and when the people ask for the data and the government supports such a requests... they should reveal all.
They should not spend out money (aka: use private industry) if they desire to keep their findings secret.
They should not look and behave as Enron employees: shredding documents and lying about the availability of the data.One thing that is obvious from the leak: these government funded employees were actively attempting to side step the FOI requests.
AND the information was readily available already.I think it should be in the interest of both sides (pro &amp; con AGW) to have this investigated as a minimum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268424</id>
	<title>Hacked Climate Model Source Code Explained</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The actual hacked climate model source code explained by a software developer:</p><p>http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/</p><p>This puts the emails to shame, trust me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual hacked climate model source code explained by a software developer : http : //fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/This puts the emails to shame , trust me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual hacked climate model source code explained by a software developer:http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/This puts the emails to shame, trust me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30283216</id>
	<title>Why the mainstream absence of the counter point?</title>
	<author>watsonoo7</author>
	<datestamp>1259683020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without being scientific about this at all I would say that it is very suspicious that the view contrary to warming theory is almost never presented.  It's not as though the skeptics don't have their own scientific experts that doubt that MMGW needs a lot more proof before we radically modify our way of living.

<a href="http://petitionproject.org/" title="petitionproject.org" rel="nofollow">http://petitionproject.org/</a> [petitionproject.org]

I am always suspicious when someone tells me that God definitely exists and that the debate over His existence is over.  Just as I am equally suspicious of those who tell me that no God exists and that there is no debate about that either.  However, I can find plenty of sources on both sides of this debate.  It is an open debate with plenty of public discussion from both points of view.

What really gives me the creeps is when the MMGW camp tells me that the debate is over but I don't get to even hear the other side's perspective because they aren't even given a platform for debate.  The creepy lockstep that all of the news outlets that promote the MMGW's position really...well...creeps me out.

All I am saying is that the MMGW folks raise a lot of flags with me (and others I know) because of their seemingly Byzantine approach to their position.  These exposed emails don't help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without being scientific about this at all I would say that it is very suspicious that the view contrary to warming theory is almost never presented .
It 's not as though the skeptics do n't have their own scientific experts that doubt that MMGW needs a lot more proof before we radically modify our way of living .
http : //petitionproject.org/ [ petitionproject.org ] I am always suspicious when someone tells me that God definitely exists and that the debate over His existence is over .
Just as I am equally suspicious of those who tell me that no God exists and that there is no debate about that either .
However , I can find plenty of sources on both sides of this debate .
It is an open debate with plenty of public discussion from both points of view .
What really gives me the creeps is when the MMGW camp tells me that the debate is over but I do n't get to even hear the other side 's perspective because they are n't even given a platform for debate .
The creepy lockstep that all of the news outlets that promote the MMGW 's position really...well...creeps me out .
All I am saying is that the MMGW folks raise a lot of flags with me ( and others I know ) because of their seemingly Byzantine approach to their position .
These exposed emails do n't help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without being scientific about this at all I would say that it is very suspicious that the view contrary to warming theory is almost never presented.
It's not as though the skeptics don't have their own scientific experts that doubt that MMGW needs a lot more proof before we radically modify our way of living.
http://petitionproject.org/ [petitionproject.org]

I am always suspicious when someone tells me that God definitely exists and that the debate over His existence is over.
Just as I am equally suspicious of those who tell me that no God exists and that there is no debate about that either.
However, I can find plenty of sources on both sides of this debate.
It is an open debate with plenty of public discussion from both points of view.
What really gives me the creeps is when the MMGW camp tells me that the debate is over but I don't get to even hear the other side's perspective because they aren't even given a platform for debate.
The creepy lockstep that all of the news outlets that promote the MMGW's position really...well...creeps me out.
All I am saying is that the MMGW folks raise a lot of flags with me (and others I know) because of their seemingly Byzantine approach to their position.
These exposed emails don't help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530</id>
	<title>Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259507700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless if global warming is a problem , we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment .
Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet , BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife .
I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment.
Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife.
I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30277704</id>
	<title>Zip download available at wikileaks</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1259588280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic\_Research\_Unit\_emails\%2C\_data\%2C\_models\%2C\_1996-2009" title="wikileaks.org" rel="nofollow">http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic\_Research\_Unit\_emails\%2C\_data\%2C\_models\%2C\_1996-2009</a> [wikileaks.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic \ _Research \ _Unit \ _emails \ % 2C \ _data \ % 2C \ _models \ % 2C \ _1996-2009 [ wikileaks.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic\_Research\_Unit\_emails\%2C\_data\%2C\_models\%2C\_1996-2009 [wikileaks.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646</id>
	<title>My A*&amp; will be sore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259508660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have an energy patent that will go live January 2010.  Forgetting for the moment that I don't own it - more when it's live - , within about sixty seconds of it being available to read, the scientific community will rip me several new ones until every single one of them can duplicate everything that I've done with their own labs and equipment.<br> <br>
Ponds and Fleishman said they successfully created cold fusion and they are now bus boys at Chili's.  What I'm saying is that if the scientific community subjected the CRU to even the most basic scrutiny they would either be forced to prove their conclusions or sent packing.<br> <br>
Imagine for a moment someone spent thirty years recording data in any field then compiled a report based on their interpretation of the data only to delete all of the raw data.  What reasonable person on this planet would say, "No problem, I trust you."  Bull$#\%@.<br> <br>
This isn't Republican or Democrat, American or European, this is the very basis of what Slashdot is founded on, that is don't give me bull$\%#@ show me the data and your source, and most of all don't patronize me!<br> <br>
This world is going in the crapper unless we call everyone's BS.<br> <br>
"When the scientific principal is replaced by conventional wisdom or worse peer pressure, what prevents us from returning to the dark ages?"<br> <br>
William David Howell Sr.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an energy patent that will go live January 2010 .
Forgetting for the moment that I do n't own it - more when it 's live - , within about sixty seconds of it being available to read , the scientific community will rip me several new ones until every single one of them can duplicate everything that I 've done with their own labs and equipment .
Ponds and Fleishman said they successfully created cold fusion and they are now bus boys at Chili 's .
What I 'm saying is that if the scientific community subjected the CRU to even the most basic scrutiny they would either be forced to prove their conclusions or sent packing .
Imagine for a moment someone spent thirty years recording data in any field then compiled a report based on their interpretation of the data only to delete all of the raw data .
What reasonable person on this planet would say , " No problem , I trust you .
" Bull $ # \ % @ .
This is n't Republican or Democrat , American or European , this is the very basis of what Slashdot is founded on , that is do n't give me bull $ \ % # @ show me the data and your source , and most of all do n't patronize me !
This world is going in the crapper unless we call everyone 's BS .
" When the scientific principal is replaced by conventional wisdom or worse peer pressure , what prevents us from returning to the dark ages ?
" William David Howell Sr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an energy patent that will go live January 2010.
Forgetting for the moment that I don't own it - more when it's live - , within about sixty seconds of it being available to read, the scientific community will rip me several new ones until every single one of them can duplicate everything that I've done with their own labs and equipment.
Ponds and Fleishman said they successfully created cold fusion and they are now bus boys at Chili's.
What I'm saying is that if the scientific community subjected the CRU to even the most basic scrutiny they would either be forced to prove their conclusions or sent packing.
Imagine for a moment someone spent thirty years recording data in any field then compiled a report based on their interpretation of the data only to delete all of the raw data.
What reasonable person on this planet would say, "No problem, I trust you.
"  Bull$#\%@.
This isn't Republican or Democrat, American or European, this is the very basis of what Slashdot is founded on, that is don't give me bull$\%#@ show me the data and your source, and most of all don't patronize me!
This world is going in the crapper unless we call everyone's BS.
"When the scientific principal is replaced by conventional wisdom or worse peer pressure, what prevents us from returning to the dark ages?
" 
William David Howell Sr.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268826</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259586480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, how would you peer review a paper based on data you can't look at?</p></div><p>
This is simple. If the paper agrees with your beliefs, give it your stamp of approval.<br>
<br>
Remember that along with submitting a paper to a peer reviewed journal, they also submit recommendations as to whom should peer review it.<br>
<br>
The problem with the summary (havent read the article) is it fails to mention that Real Climate is run by Jones, the same guy at the CRU who is caught up in this scandal, so that data that is now magically available on the Real Climate site is automatically suspect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , how would you peer review a paper based on data you ca n't look at ?
This is simple .
If the paper agrees with your beliefs , give it your stamp of approval .
Remember that along with submitting a paper to a peer reviewed journal , they also submit recommendations as to whom should peer review it .
The problem with the summary ( havent read the article ) is it fails to mention that Real Climate is run by Jones , the same guy at the CRU who is caught up in this scandal , so that data that is now magically available on the Real Climate site is automatically suspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, how would you peer review a paper based on data you can't look at?
This is simple.
If the paper agrees with your beliefs, give it your stamp of approval.
Remember that along with submitting a paper to a peer reviewed journal, they also submit recommendations as to whom should peer review it.
The problem with the summary (havent read the article) is it fails to mention that Real Climate is run by Jones, the same guy at the CRU who is caught up in this scandal, so that data that is now magically available on the Real Climate site is automatically suspect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265806</id>
	<title>Why not just recreate it?</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1259509740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems if they have their methodology and processed data resurrecting the original should be trivial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems if they have their methodology and processed data resurrecting the original should be trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems if they have their methodology and processed data resurrecting the original should be trivial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265780</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259509560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment. Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife. I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.</p></div><p>Hippie.</p></div><p>Actually, if I had a choice <b>(regardless of any other environmental impact)</b> if I wanted to live in a place that had clean air or a place that was filled with smog, I choose the clean air. I would prefer my kids not to grow up with hacking coughs and running short of breath after a short run.<br> <br>

Add to that, that whatever we put up into the air often comes back down in the rain, and suddenly rivers are lifeless or algae blooms, our nature reserves if we have them are infested with weeds as the native fauna struggles to survive, and it's very quickly a bleak picture.<br> <br>

<b>If you can't cause less pollution to stop a greater environmental impact, stop polluting so much to keep the little area around you alive and hospitable. Your health, your kids health will be so much better for it.</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless if global warming is a problem , we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment .
Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet , BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife .
I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.Hippie.Actually , if I had a choice ( regardless of any other environmental impact ) if I wanted to live in a place that had clean air or a place that was filled with smog , I choose the clean air .
I would prefer my kids not to grow up with hacking coughs and running short of breath after a short run .
Add to that , that whatever we put up into the air often comes back down in the rain , and suddenly rivers are lifeless or algae blooms , our nature reserves if we have them are infested with weeds as the native fauna struggles to survive , and it 's very quickly a bleak picture .
If you ca n't cause less pollution to stop a greater environmental impact , stop polluting so much to keep the little area around you alive and hospitable .
Your health , your kids health will be so much better for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless if global warming is a problem, we should ALL strive to lessen our effect on the environment.
Restricting emissions that may not heat up the planet, BUT have noticeable problems on health of humans and wildlife.
I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.Hippie.Actually, if I had a choice (regardless of any other environmental impact) if I wanted to live in a place that had clean air or a place that was filled with smog, I choose the clean air.
I would prefer my kids not to grow up with hacking coughs and running short of breath after a short run.
Add to that, that whatever we put up into the air often comes back down in the rain, and suddenly rivers are lifeless or algae blooms, our nature reserves if we have them are infested with weeds as the native fauna struggles to survive, and it's very quickly a bleak picture.
If you can't cause less pollution to stop a greater environmental impact, stop polluting so much to keep the little area around you alive and hospitable.
Your health, your kids health will be so much better for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266100</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259511660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is definitely man made global warming here...one made by the scientists interpreting the raw data!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is definitely man made global warming here...one made by the scientists interpreting the raw data !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is definitely man made global warming here...one made by the scientists interpreting the raw data!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266196</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1259512320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent straw-man!!<br> <br>Your first paragraph seems to indicate that there are those who would actually choose smog over clean air.  Many who are concerned with CRU and the validity of certain global warming conclusions such as myself don't doubt that it is happening, or that we can and should be better environmental stewards.  I'm just not convinced that the data supports their conclusions.  Even if the CRU data is completely valid, it does not necessarily guarantee that their conclusions are correct.  <br> <br>Your second paragraph is a list of environmental problems that are unrelated to smog.  algae blooms (which subsequently render the water virtually lifeless so you repeated yourself) are not caused by air pollution.  Freshwater algae blooms are usually caused by Phosphorus run off from the soil because it is the nutrient that is limiting algae growth.  Saltwater blooms are usually caused by Nitrogen run off because it is the first limiting nutrient in that aquatic environment.  Nitrogen can come from the atmosphere, but not in the concentrations necessary to trigger an algae bloom.<br> <br>Your third paragraph is a second attempt to set up your straw-man.  Namely that anyone actually wants to pollute the environment.  It also trots out the timeless "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" meme, Bravo!  Every anthropogenic global warming skeptic I've met doesn't doubt the sense of taking care of the environment, only the conclusion that the world wouldn't be warming without us.  I'm all for tougher enviromental standards, but there is a point at which I believe we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.  <br> <br>You can feel free to disagree, but I'd prefer it if you'd leave your straw-men and Parental Hysteria at home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent straw-man ! !
Your first paragraph seems to indicate that there are those who would actually choose smog over clean air .
Many who are concerned with CRU and the validity of certain global warming conclusions such as myself do n't doubt that it is happening , or that we can and should be better environmental stewards .
I 'm just not convinced that the data supports their conclusions .
Even if the CRU data is completely valid , it does not necessarily guarantee that their conclusions are correct .
Your second paragraph is a list of environmental problems that are unrelated to smog .
algae blooms ( which subsequently render the water virtually lifeless so you repeated yourself ) are not caused by air pollution .
Freshwater algae blooms are usually caused by Phosphorus run off from the soil because it is the nutrient that is limiting algae growth .
Saltwater blooms are usually caused by Nitrogen run off because it is the first limiting nutrient in that aquatic environment .
Nitrogen can come from the atmosphere , but not in the concentrations necessary to trigger an algae bloom .
Your third paragraph is a second attempt to set up your straw-man .
Namely that anyone actually wants to pollute the environment .
It also trots out the timeless " THINK OF THE CHILDREN ! ! !
" meme , Bravo !
Every anthropogenic global warming skeptic I 've met does n't doubt the sense of taking care of the environment , only the conclusion that the world would n't be warming without us .
I 'm all for tougher enviromental standards , but there is a point at which I believe we are cutting off our nose to spite our face .
You can feel free to disagree , but I 'd prefer it if you 'd leave your straw-men and Parental Hysteria at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent straw-man!!
Your first paragraph seems to indicate that there are those who would actually choose smog over clean air.
Many who are concerned with CRU and the validity of certain global warming conclusions such as myself don't doubt that it is happening, or that we can and should be better environmental stewards.
I'm just not convinced that the data supports their conclusions.
Even if the CRU data is completely valid, it does not necessarily guarantee that their conclusions are correct.
Your second paragraph is a list of environmental problems that are unrelated to smog.
algae blooms (which subsequently render the water virtually lifeless so you repeated yourself) are not caused by air pollution.
Freshwater algae blooms are usually caused by Phosphorus run off from the soil because it is the nutrient that is limiting algae growth.
Saltwater blooms are usually caused by Nitrogen run off because it is the first limiting nutrient in that aquatic environment.
Nitrogen can come from the atmosphere, but not in the concentrations necessary to trigger an algae bloom.
Your third paragraph is a second attempt to set up your straw-man.
Namely that anyone actually wants to pollute the environment.
It also trots out the timeless "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
" meme, Bravo!
Every anthropogenic global warming skeptic I've met doesn't doubt the sense of taking care of the environment, only the conclusion that the world wouldn't be warming without us.
I'm all for tougher enviromental standards, but there is a point at which I believe we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.
You can feel free to disagree, but I'd prefer it if you'd leave your straw-men and Parental Hysteria at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266580</id>
	<title>Re:Just another day</title>
	<author>debatem1</author>
	<datestamp>1259516160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems pretty obvious to me. Those making the most noise about this imply that if one research group's conclusions predate their data, then all those who reached similar conclusions must have done the same. In the end the general public is unsure of who to trust, and the political impetus to make any real headway on environmental issues evaporates. Those who crowed about it publicly gain support, and those who produced research that supported these results suffer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems pretty obvious to me .
Those making the most noise about this imply that if one research group 's conclusions predate their data , then all those who reached similar conclusions must have done the same .
In the end the general public is unsure of who to trust , and the political impetus to make any real headway on environmental issues evaporates .
Those who crowed about it publicly gain support , and those who produced research that supported these results suffer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems pretty obvious to me.
Those making the most noise about this imply that if one research group's conclusions predate their data, then all those who reached similar conclusions must have done the same.
In the end the general public is unsure of who to trust, and the political impetus to make any real headway on environmental issues evaporates.
Those who crowed about it publicly gain support, and those who produced research that supported these results suffer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266862</id>
	<title>fwiw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259518320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I for one welcome our " 'Master' database of dubious provenance" overlord.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our " 'Master ' database of dubious provenance " overlord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I for one welcome our " 'Master' database of dubious provenance" overlord.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266534</id>
	<title>Re:Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming</title>
	<author>wellingj</author>
	<datestamp>1259515860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot one: Global warming occurs regardless of man.<br> <br>What then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot one : Global warming occurs regardless of man .
What then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot one: Global warming occurs regardless of man.
What then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267492</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>sl149q</author>
	<datestamp>1259524740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more I hear from the IPCC types the more I think the whole movement is like Lysenkoism (a now discredited state sponsored form of Lamarkism). It is amazing what you can prove if you don't have to release the raw data and have state sponsorship to shut off discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I hear from the IPCC types the more I think the whole movement is like Lysenkoism ( a now discredited state sponsored form of Lamarkism ) .
It is amazing what you can prove if you do n't have to release the raw data and have state sponsorship to shut off discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I hear from the IPCC types the more I think the whole movement is like Lysenkoism (a now discredited state sponsored form of Lamarkism).
It is amazing what you can prove if you don't have to release the raw data and have state sponsorship to shut off discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271294</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about whether the climate is warming.  It's about if man-made CO2 is causing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about whether the climate is warming .
It 's about if man-made CO2 is causing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about whether the climate is warming.
It's about if man-made CO2 is causing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267050</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1259520000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know what the rules are on your world, but on mine it isn't science if the work can't be peer reviewed, published and duplicated. If you basing results on datasets that can't be released none of that is possible. Seriously, how would you peer review a paper based on data you can't look at?</p></div><p>Well at least in computer science, <strong>this happens all the time</strong>.  This is how it works.  A paper is written and it uses some dataset, which may or not be widely available.  Typically, there are at least two datasets, maybe three.  One of which may be widely available but not originally intended for the purpose at hand.  What is important, is that the proprietary datasets are explained.  How they were gathered, and how the data is statistically distributed.  If it looks like it was gathered correctly, then it's fine.</p><p>You are simply never going to get the exact same data.  All you can do is gather similar data.  For example, a paper may say, "We gathered CIFS traces from 150 desktops connected to 10 servers from the engineering department at a major corporation.  The traces were sampled ever second for a month."  You're not going to get that data.  You will never get that data.  What you can do is apply the techniques presented to another similar dataset.  The data is irrelevant, how it's gathered is.  You compare different techniques to the same dataset, but you don't necessarily share data.</p><p>You also never get the code that run.  You get the algorithm, but you don't get the implementation.  Why not?  Because it doesn't matter.  It's the algorithm.  If you have the algorithm, or more precisely the interesting part of the algorithm explained, then it just doesn't matter.</p><p>Even with these emails data access was always a canard.  Anyone could gather the exact same data if they wanted.  It just involves go there and taking some samples.  In fact, <strong>if you think the data was biased, then you're obligated to gather it yourself</strong> in attempt to get unbiased data.  Simply having access to a biased dataset, does not magically make it unbiased.</p><p>This is doubly frustrating, because the big allegations against Mann's 98 "hockey stick" paper was never about the data gathering.   It was about the mathematics presented about analyzing of the data.  Would have access have made it easier for McIntyre to write the 2005 paper complaining about MBH98?  Yes, but the fact is that it didn't matter.  McIntyre didn't have the all data, yet was able to still write detect the bias, write the paper, and get it accepted, shows that it obviously wasn't a deal breaker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what the rules are on your world , but on mine it is n't science if the work ca n't be peer reviewed , published and duplicated .
If you basing results on datasets that ca n't be released none of that is possible .
Seriously , how would you peer review a paper based on data you ca n't look at ? Well at least in computer science , this happens all the time .
This is how it works .
A paper is written and it uses some dataset , which may or not be widely available .
Typically , there are at least two datasets , maybe three .
One of which may be widely available but not originally intended for the purpose at hand .
What is important , is that the proprietary datasets are explained .
How they were gathered , and how the data is statistically distributed .
If it looks like it was gathered correctly , then it 's fine.You are simply never going to get the exact same data .
All you can do is gather similar data .
For example , a paper may say , " We gathered CIFS traces from 150 desktops connected to 10 servers from the engineering department at a major corporation .
The traces were sampled ever second for a month .
" You 're not going to get that data .
You will never get that data .
What you can do is apply the techniques presented to another similar dataset .
The data is irrelevant , how it 's gathered is .
You compare different techniques to the same dataset , but you do n't necessarily share data.You also never get the code that run .
You get the algorithm , but you do n't get the implementation .
Why not ?
Because it does n't matter .
It 's the algorithm .
If you have the algorithm , or more precisely the interesting part of the algorithm explained , then it just does n't matter.Even with these emails data access was always a canard .
Anyone could gather the exact same data if they wanted .
It just involves go there and taking some samples .
In fact , if you think the data was biased , then you 're obligated to gather it yourself in attempt to get unbiased data .
Simply having access to a biased dataset , does not magically make it unbiased.This is doubly frustrating , because the big allegations against Mann 's 98 " hockey stick " paper was never about the data gathering .
It was about the mathematics presented about analyzing of the data .
Would have access have made it easier for McIntyre to write the 2005 paper complaining about MBH98 ?
Yes , but the fact is that it did n't matter .
McIntyre did n't have the all data , yet was able to still write detect the bias , write the paper , and get it accepted , shows that it obviously was n't a deal breaker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what the rules are on your world, but on mine it isn't science if the work can't be peer reviewed, published and duplicated.
If you basing results on datasets that can't be released none of that is possible.
Seriously, how would you peer review a paper based on data you can't look at?Well at least in computer science, this happens all the time.
This is how it works.
A paper is written and it uses some dataset, which may or not be widely available.
Typically, there are at least two datasets, maybe three.
One of which may be widely available but not originally intended for the purpose at hand.
What is important, is that the proprietary datasets are explained.
How they were gathered, and how the data is statistically distributed.
If it looks like it was gathered correctly, then it's fine.You are simply never going to get the exact same data.
All you can do is gather similar data.
For example, a paper may say, "We gathered CIFS traces from 150 desktops connected to 10 servers from the engineering department at a major corporation.
The traces were sampled ever second for a month.
"  You're not going to get that data.
You will never get that data.
What you can do is apply the techniques presented to another similar dataset.
The data is irrelevant, how it's gathered is.
You compare different techniques to the same dataset, but you don't necessarily share data.You also never get the code that run.
You get the algorithm, but you don't get the implementation.
Why not?
Because it doesn't matter.
It's the algorithm.
If you have the algorithm, or more precisely the interesting part of the algorithm explained, then it just doesn't matter.Even with these emails data access was always a canard.
Anyone could gather the exact same data if they wanted.
It just involves go there and taking some samples.
In fact, if you think the data was biased, then you're obligated to gather it yourself in attempt to get unbiased data.
Simply having access to a biased dataset, does not magically make it unbiased.This is doubly frustrating, because the big allegations against Mann's 98 "hockey stick" paper was never about the data gathering.
It was about the mathematics presented about analyzing of the data.
Would have access have made it easier for McIntyre to write the 2005 paper complaining about MBH98?
Yes, but the fact is that it didn't matter.
McIntyre didn't have the all data, yet was able to still write detect the bias, write the paper, and get it accepted, shows that it obviously wasn't a deal breaker.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269022</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>cdavidneely</author>
	<datestamp>1259589420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I cannot help but ponder how many of the people calling for open access to the information would scream about intellectual property rights if someone asked them to do the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not help but ponder how many of the people calling for open access to the information would scream about intellectual property rights if someone asked them to do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot help but ponder how many of the people calling for open access to the information would scream about intellectual property rights if someone asked them to do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269772</id>
	<title>Yes, he is (was Re:The Parent Isn't a Troll)</title>
	<author>Garwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1259595360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The parent posting isn't a troll. He is saying it like it is."</p><p>No, he's not.  I see this tactic all the time with AGW supporters - if there's evidence demonstrating a problem with their theory, they say it's just a smear campaign, or misinformation.  This is not "just another sissy-fit thrown by the denier groups that are willing to use any tactics to distract people from the real issue."  This is a revelation that the lead climate scientists in the world were engaged in fraud.  The released program code and comments demonstrates that they "cooked" their data to create a more alarming climate picture than actually existed, and the emails contain clear proof that they conspired to defeat FOI requests and subverted the peer-review process at major journals to suppress conflicting research.</p><p>"And I'm trying to figure out the scientific arguments being put forward by the contrarians. Are they saying that data has been suppressed that shows the world hasn't being warming significantly since the 1970's?!! Really?"</p><p>No.  Not really.  That's another AGW trick I see used all too often.  The skeptic points out a problem with the research, and the AGW supporter misrepresents the skeptic's view.  I have yet to see a single person claim that there hasn't been significant warming since the 1970s.</p><p>There is no denying that we are on an overall upwards trend in world climate.  None.  However, the AGW thesis is that industrial CO2 has enough of an impact to swing the balance - that the impact is highly statistically significant.  Little problem, though - since 1998 the global temperature has remained steady, with some cooling now coming into the picture...while the CO2 levels continue to rise.  If the AGW theory was correct, there should be a corresponding rise in temperature over the last ten years...but there isn't.  Some AGW climatologists have tried to hand-wave this away, saying that there's something going on with the oceans or somesuch, and we can look forward to cooling for about another ten years, but we shouldn't forget the AGW threat.  In the meantime, solar physicists are noting that this pretty much correlates to solar activity quite nicely.  So, yes, the temperature has risen since 1970.  But the proof that it was due to human activity is quite weak.</p><p>What Climategate does is demonstrate that certain AGW claims themselves, such as this decade being hotter than the 1990s, cannot be substantiated any longer.  The CRU, which is pivotal to these claims, has now been caught out fudging their data.</p><p>This is a good summary: <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate\_analysis/" title="theregister.co.uk">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate\_analysis/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p><p>So, to summarize, this is the skeptic argument: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if you add it to the atmosphere it will have a warming effect.  However, in the case of industrial CO2, the warming effect is small enough that it is not statistically significant, and is swamped by natural forcings.  THAT is the argument.</p><p>Clear enough for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The parent posting is n't a troll .
He is saying it like it is .
" No , he 's not .
I see this tactic all the time with AGW supporters - if there 's evidence demonstrating a problem with their theory , they say it 's just a smear campaign , or misinformation .
This is not " just another sissy-fit thrown by the denier groups that are willing to use any tactics to distract people from the real issue .
" This is a revelation that the lead climate scientists in the world were engaged in fraud .
The released program code and comments demonstrates that they " cooked " their data to create a more alarming climate picture than actually existed , and the emails contain clear proof that they conspired to defeat FOI requests and subverted the peer-review process at major journals to suppress conflicting research .
" And I 'm trying to figure out the scientific arguments being put forward by the contrarians .
Are they saying that data has been suppressed that shows the world has n't being warming significantly since the 1970 's ? ! !
Really ? " No. Not really .
That 's another AGW trick I see used all too often .
The skeptic points out a problem with the research , and the AGW supporter misrepresents the skeptic 's view .
I have yet to see a single person claim that there has n't been significant warming since the 1970s.There is no denying that we are on an overall upwards trend in world climate .
None. However , the AGW thesis is that industrial CO2 has enough of an impact to swing the balance - that the impact is highly statistically significant .
Little problem , though - since 1998 the global temperature has remained steady , with some cooling now coming into the picture...while the CO2 levels continue to rise .
If the AGW theory was correct , there should be a corresponding rise in temperature over the last ten years...but there is n't .
Some AGW climatologists have tried to hand-wave this away , saying that there 's something going on with the oceans or somesuch , and we can look forward to cooling for about another ten years , but we should n't forget the AGW threat .
In the meantime , solar physicists are noting that this pretty much correlates to solar activity quite nicely .
So , yes , the temperature has risen since 1970 .
But the proof that it was due to human activity is quite weak.What Climategate does is demonstrate that certain AGW claims themselves , such as this decade being hotter than the 1990s , can not be substantiated any longer .
The CRU , which is pivotal to these claims , has now been caught out fudging their data.This is a good summary : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate \ _analysis/ [ theregister.co.uk ] So , to summarize , this is the skeptic argument : CO2 is a greenhouse gas , and if you add it to the atmosphere it will have a warming effect .
However , in the case of industrial CO2 , the warming effect is small enough that it is not statistically significant , and is swamped by natural forcings .
THAT is the argument.Clear enough for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The parent posting isn't a troll.
He is saying it like it is.
"No, he's not.
I see this tactic all the time with AGW supporters - if there's evidence demonstrating a problem with their theory, they say it's just a smear campaign, or misinformation.
This is not "just another sissy-fit thrown by the denier groups that are willing to use any tactics to distract people from the real issue.
"  This is a revelation that the lead climate scientists in the world were engaged in fraud.
The released program code and comments demonstrates that they "cooked" their data to create a more alarming climate picture than actually existed, and the emails contain clear proof that they conspired to defeat FOI requests and subverted the peer-review process at major journals to suppress conflicting research.
"And I'm trying to figure out the scientific arguments being put forward by the contrarians.
Are they saying that data has been suppressed that shows the world hasn't being warming significantly since the 1970's?!!
Really?"No.  Not really.
That's another AGW trick I see used all too often.
The skeptic points out a problem with the research, and the AGW supporter misrepresents the skeptic's view.
I have yet to see a single person claim that there hasn't been significant warming since the 1970s.There is no denying that we are on an overall upwards trend in world climate.
None.  However, the AGW thesis is that industrial CO2 has enough of an impact to swing the balance - that the impact is highly statistically significant.
Little problem, though - since 1998 the global temperature has remained steady, with some cooling now coming into the picture...while the CO2 levels continue to rise.
If the AGW theory was correct, there should be a corresponding rise in temperature over the last ten years...but there isn't.
Some AGW climatologists have tried to hand-wave this away, saying that there's something going on with the oceans or somesuch, and we can look forward to cooling for about another ten years, but we shouldn't forget the AGW threat.
In the meantime, solar physicists are noting that this pretty much correlates to solar activity quite nicely.
So, yes, the temperature has risen since 1970.
But the proof that it was due to human activity is quite weak.What Climategate does is demonstrate that certain AGW claims themselves, such as this decade being hotter than the 1990s, cannot be substantiated any longer.
The CRU, which is pivotal to these claims, has now been caught out fudging their data.This is a good summary: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate\_analysis/ [theregister.co.uk]So, to summarize, this is the skeptic argument: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if you add it to the atmosphere it will have a warming effect.
However, in the case of industrial CO2, the warming effect is small enough that it is not statistically significant, and is swamped by natural forcings.
THAT is the argument.Clear enough for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265580</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259508180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should start by your mother having fewer children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should start by your mother having fewer children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should start by your mother having fewer children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266398</id>
	<title>Climate skeptics caught manipulating temp data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259514540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's been another breaking climate scandal. Some big name climate skeptics have been busted big time manipulating temperature data and lying about it.</p><p>They've manipulated the data to make it look like it was cooling when it was really warming, and the Drudge Report and blogger Anthony Watts have been caught up in the lies, and have tried to blame it on some New Zealand climate researchers:</p><p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new\_zealand\_climate\_science\_co.php?utm\_source=sbhomepage&amp;utm\_medium=link&amp;utm\_content=channellink" title="scienceblogs.com" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new\_zealand\_climate\_science\_co.php?utm\_source=sbhomepage&amp;utm\_medium=link&amp;utm\_content=channellink</a> [scienceblogs.com]</p><p><a href="http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/" title="hot-topic.co.nz" rel="nofollow">http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/</a> [hot-topic.co.nz]</p><p>"As long as its green, I'm not quite sure about this moralistic issue."</p><p>- Quote about writing "scientific studies" for the tobacco industry by Frederick Seitz, the author of that cover letter for that petition of 30000 questionable signatures against the science of climate change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's been another breaking climate scandal .
Some big name climate skeptics have been busted big time manipulating temperature data and lying about it.They 've manipulated the data to make it look like it was cooling when it was really warming , and the Drudge Report and blogger Anthony Watts have been caught up in the lies , and have tried to blame it on some New Zealand climate researchers : http : //scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new \ _zealand \ _climate \ _science \ _co.php ? utm \ _source = sbhomepage&amp;utm \ _medium = link&amp;utm \ _content = channellink [ scienceblogs.com ] http : //hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ [ hot-topic.co.nz ] " As long as its green , I 'm not quite sure about this moralistic issue .
" - Quote about writing " scientific studies " for the tobacco industry by Frederick Seitz , the author of that cover letter for that petition of 30000 questionable signatures against the science of climate change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's been another breaking climate scandal.
Some big name climate skeptics have been busted big time manipulating temperature data and lying about it.They've manipulated the data to make it look like it was cooling when it was really warming, and the Drudge Report and blogger Anthony Watts have been caught up in the lies, and have tried to blame it on some New Zealand climate researchers:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new\_zealand\_climate\_science\_co.php?utm\_source=sbhomepage&amp;utm\_medium=link&amp;utm\_content=channellink [scienceblogs.com]http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ [hot-topic.co.nz]"As long as its green, I'm not quite sure about this moralistic issue.
"- Quote about writing "scientific studies" for the tobacco industry by Frederick Seitz, the author of that cover letter for that petition of 30000 questionable signatures against the science of climate change.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267178</id>
	<title>Re:Why are people getting so worked up</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1259521200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been proposals to pump smog into the stratosphere in order to combat global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been proposals to pump smog into the stratosphere in order to combat global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been proposals to pump smog into the stratosphere in order to combat global warming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267478</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259524440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.</p></div><p>And moon landing "skeptics". And round earth "skeptics". And tobacco/lung cancer "skeptics".</p><p>Most people don't have the intelligence or scientific background to make an informed decision on climate change, yet many still somehow think their opinions somehow matter. How on earth they feel they can justify that view, I don't know. These are people who defer to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for all their political views, and if a scientific truth makes them uncomfortable... well it must be a massive conspiracy.</p><p>Fucking imbeciles. I think it's telling that there's an overwhelmingly negative correlation between AGW denialism and scientific education.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I hear from climate " skeptics " the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.And moon landing " skeptics " .
And round earth " skeptics " .
And tobacco/lung cancer " skeptics " .Most people do n't have the intelligence or scientific background to make an informed decision on climate change , yet many still somehow think their opinions somehow matter .
How on earth they feel they can justify that view , I do n't know .
These are people who defer to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for all their political views , and if a scientific truth makes them uncomfortable... well it must be a massive conspiracy.Fucking imbeciles .
I think it 's telling that there 's an overwhelmingly negative correlation between AGW denialism and scientific education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.And moon landing "skeptics".
And round earth "skeptics".
And tobacco/lung cancer "skeptics".Most people don't have the intelligence or scientific background to make an informed decision on climate change, yet many still somehow think their opinions somehow matter.
How on earth they feel they can justify that view, I don't know.
These are people who defer to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for all their political views, and if a scientific truth makes them uncomfortable... well it must be a massive conspiracy.Fucking imbeciles.
I think it's telling that there's an overwhelmingly negative correlation between AGW denialism and scientific education.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266338</id>
	<title>Re:My A*&amp; will be sore</title>
	<author>doug141</author>
	<datestamp>1259513820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Imagine for a moment someone spent thirty years recording data in any field then compiled a report based on their interpretation of the data only to delete all of the raw data.</i> <p>

reminds me of
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael\_A.\_Bellesiles" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael\_A.\_Bellesiles</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine for a moment someone spent thirty years recording data in any field then compiled a report based on their interpretation of the data only to delete all of the raw data .
reminds me of http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael \ _A. \ _Bellesiles [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine for a moment someone spent thirty years recording data in any field then compiled a report based on their interpretation of the data only to delete all of the raw data.
reminds me of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael\_A.\_Bellesiles [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267554</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation does NOT mean causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I find it strange that you think man may not be the cause behind the rise and fall of temperature but yet you don't question the rise and fall itself.</p><p>Do you believe that the current rise of temperature is, if not caused by man and processes beyond his understanding, unstoppable? That it will rise no matter what and fuck over a large part of humanity? Why do you have so much faith that your 'grandchildren' will be able to view it as a laughing matter and not a sad phase in humanity where we were struggling against the inevitable and, feeling depressed, close the book?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I find it strange that you think man may not be the cause behind the rise and fall of temperature but yet you do n't question the rise and fall itself.Do you believe that the current rise of temperature is , if not caused by man and processes beyond his understanding , unstoppable ?
That it will rise no matter what and fuck over a large part of humanity ?
Why do you have so much faith that your 'grandchildren ' will be able to view it as a laughing matter and not a sad phase in humanity where we were struggling against the inevitable and , feeling depressed , close the book ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I find it strange that you think man may not be the cause behind the rise and fall of temperature but yet you don't question the rise and fall itself.Do you believe that the current rise of temperature is, if not caused by man and processes beyond his understanding, unstoppable?
That it will rise no matter what and fuck over a large part of humanity?
Why do you have so much faith that your 'grandchildren' will be able to view it as a laughing matter and not a sad phase in humanity where we were struggling against the inevitable and, feeling depressed, close the book?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265546</id>
	<title>As I understand it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259507880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they tossed the raw data and are only reluctantly providing data sets that have been massaged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they tossed the raw data and are only reluctantly providing data sets that have been massaged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they tossed the raw data and are only reluctantly providing data sets that have been massaged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266006</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259511000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climate change is not a myth.  I don't think anyone is arguing that in the past there have been ice ages and such.  No one is questioning that reducing pollution is not a good thing.  The question has been whether human activity is the cause of whatever climate change occurs these days.  You can certainly contribute to that endeavor by getting your thermometer calibrated because without that somebody will question it now and not in 100 years.  Maybe those WalMart specials aren't that good as scientific instruments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate change is not a myth .
I do n't think anyone is arguing that in the past there have been ice ages and such .
No one is questioning that reducing pollution is not a good thing .
The question has been whether human activity is the cause of whatever climate change occurs these days .
You can certainly contribute to that endeavor by getting your thermometer calibrated because without that somebody will question it now and not in 100 years .
Maybe those WalMart specials are n't that good as scientific instruments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate change is not a myth.
I don't think anyone is arguing that in the past there have been ice ages and such.
No one is questioning that reducing pollution is not a good thing.
The question has been whether human activity is the cause of whatever climate change occurs these days.
You can certainly contribute to that endeavor by getting your thermometer calibrated because without that somebody will question it now and not in 100 years.
Maybe those WalMart specials aren't that good as scientific instruments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268624</id>
	<title>Google is part of the lie.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the\_briefing\_room/2009/11/google-appears-to-be-censoring-climate-emails-searches.html#comments<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>Google appears to be censoring climate emails searches<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>If you start typing the word climate in Google, for the past weeks it has thrown up emails or change as the next words because of the huge volume of web traffic on the leaked emails. However, I just tried it and although the search box remembered my own previous search, the word emails is no longer offered by Google itself.</p><p>Al Gore is a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc.</p><p>Bing works as it should showing climategate.  Hmmmm....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //briefingroom.typepad.com/the \ _briefing \ _room/2009/11/google-appears-to-be-censoring-climate-emails-searches.html # comments ....Google appears to be censoring climate emails searches ...If you start typing the word climate in Google , for the past weeks it has thrown up emails or change as the next words because of the huge volume of web traffic on the leaked emails .
However , I just tried it and although the search box remembered my own previous search , the word emails is no longer offered by Google itself.Al Gore is a Senior Advisor to Google , Inc.Bing works as it should showing climategate .
Hmmmm... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the\_briefing\_room/2009/11/google-appears-to-be-censoring-climate-emails-searches.html#comments ....Google appears to be censoring climate emails searches ...If you start typing the word climate in Google, for the past weeks it has thrown up emails or change as the next words because of the huge volume of web traffic on the leaked emails.
However, I just tried it and although the search box remembered my own previous search, the word emails is no longer offered by Google itself.Al Gore is a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc.Bing works as it should showing climategate.
Hmmmm....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265694</id>
	<title>Re:Just another day</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259508900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what is the real issue? If you call it smokescreen, at least enlighten us what it's screening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what is the real issue ?
If you call it smokescreen , at least enlighten us what it 's screening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what is the real issue?
If you call it smokescreen, at least enlighten us what it's screening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268964</id>
	<title>Re:By definition, this is no longer Science.</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1259588700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>in fact, this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice. The sad truth seems to be that, while Science concerns itself with discovering truth, these scientists have concerned themselves only with discovering funding and prestige.</p></div></blockquote><p>Really? You have to wait decades to pass elementary school science? Or do you first pass, then decades later they fail you, if you don't have the data any longer?</p><p>And how does that lead to this sad truth that you speak of? Your conclusion seems a bit unscientific to a layman such as myself.</p><p>I'll agree that this kind of crap shouldn't happen, but I think there seems to be other more plausible explanations than that they only are in it for the money and chics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in fact , this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice .
The sad truth seems to be that , while Science concerns itself with discovering truth , these scientists have concerned themselves only with discovering funding and prestige.Really ?
You have to wait decades to pass elementary school science ?
Or do you first pass , then decades later they fail you , if you do n't have the data any longer ? And how does that lead to this sad truth that you speak of ?
Your conclusion seems a bit unscientific to a layman such as myself.I 'll agree that this kind of crap should n't happen , but I think there seems to be other more plausible explanations than that they only are in it for the money and chics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in fact, this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice.
The sad truth seems to be that, while Science concerns itself with discovering truth, these scientists have concerned themselves only with discovering funding and prestige.Really?
You have to wait decades to pass elementary school science?
Or do you first pass, then decades later they fail you, if you don't have the data any longer?And how does that lead to this sad truth that you speak of?
Your conclusion seems a bit unscientific to a layman such as myself.I'll agree that this kind of crap shouldn't happen, but I think there seems to be other more plausible explanations than that they only are in it for the money and chics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269720</id>
	<title>Re:Geopolitical Consequences of Global Warming</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259595060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then we still need to do our best to stop it, or we're still screwed.</p><p>Frankly, I think the people who will handle global warming best if becomes a reality is the Amish. The main reason for this is that they're pretty self-sufficient, don't use much if any fossil fuels (directly or otherwise), and use farming techniques that keep their land in good shape in the long run. Also, unlike other agricultural societies, they're relatively far from the equator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we still need to do our best to stop it , or we 're still screwed.Frankly , I think the people who will handle global warming best if becomes a reality is the Amish .
The main reason for this is that they 're pretty self-sufficient , do n't use much if any fossil fuels ( directly or otherwise ) , and use farming techniques that keep their land in good shape in the long run .
Also , unlike other agricultural societies , they 're relatively far from the equator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we still need to do our best to stop it, or we're still screwed.Frankly, I think the people who will handle global warming best if becomes a reality is the Amish.
The main reason for this is that they're pretty self-sufficient, don't use much if any fossil fuels (directly or otherwise), and use farming techniques that keep their land in good shape in the long run.
Also, unlike other agricultural societies, they're relatively far from the equator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269812</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>mrcaseyj</author>
	<datestamp>1259595720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Outside of the science, all I know is that the climate zone in my local area has changed.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Maybe it's a little warmer now that we're coming out of the little ice age. Some areas get much hotter while some get cooler. Or maybe you're just imagining it.</p><blockquote><div><p>Plants which you could not grow before, you can grow now.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
From less than a one degree temp rise? Now I'm leaning more towards it being your imagination.</p><blockquote><div><p>I hear from Innuit that there are plants and animals in the North which they have not seen before.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Things change and evolve. Invasive species move in even if the temperature doesn't change.</p><blockquote><div><p>I know that tornadoes dot the German Rhine where no tornadoes were seen before, I know hurricanes on the Eastern seaboard are behaving differently</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Those could be signs of cooling as easily as warming. Or it could be warming in those areas and cooling in others.</p><blockquote><div><p>I know that Crete was so dry when I saw it that I couldn't imagine olive trees growing there without irrigation</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This could be naturally caused global warming or it could be one area getting drier while another gets wetter.</p><blockquote><div><p>I know that our highways are a half kilometer wide and countless kilometers long, with thousands upon thousands of idling cars sitting on them, ten times a week for as long as I've been alive</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
But you don't know if that will have a major effect or a minor effect.</p><blockquote><div><p>I know that sea captains don't want to traverse the Indian ocean because the almanacs are no longer reasonable guides to chart how long a given voyage from one port to the next might take.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Do you really know that? Did someone tell you that? Did they do a survey of a large number of sea captains? Or is this anecdotal evidence you've collected from a local legend spread among a few sea captains you know personally? Were the almanacs really more reliable in the old days? People's recollections of such things tends to be very poor.</p><blockquote><div><p>Maybe the arctic is intact</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Maybe it is. Or maybe they're exaggerating. Or maybe it's not our fault. Or maybe it is our fault, but it's no big deal.</p><blockquote><div><p>maybe the rainforests never actually existed. Maybe Mt. Kilamajaro doesn't exist</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So you think it's crazy to doubt what we're told about global warming, by a radical special interest group, that has been caught red handed trying to deceive us, even though it is very difficult to check their work?</p><blockquote><div><p>maybe it's all a mind control plot</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
No reasonable person could question that it is. And they seem to have had quite an influence on your mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Outside of the science , all I know is that the climate zone in my local area has changed .
Maybe it 's a little warmer now that we 're coming out of the little ice age .
Some areas get much hotter while some get cooler .
Or maybe you 're just imagining it.Plants which you could not grow before , you can grow now .
From less than a one degree temp rise ?
Now I 'm leaning more towards it being your imagination.I hear from Innuit that there are plants and animals in the North which they have not seen before .
Things change and evolve .
Invasive species move in even if the temperature does n't change.I know that tornadoes dot the German Rhine where no tornadoes were seen before , I know hurricanes on the Eastern seaboard are behaving differently Those could be signs of cooling as easily as warming .
Or it could be warming in those areas and cooling in others.I know that Crete was so dry when I saw it that I could n't imagine olive trees growing there without irrigation This could be naturally caused global warming or it could be one area getting drier while another gets wetter.I know that our highways are a half kilometer wide and countless kilometers long , with thousands upon thousands of idling cars sitting on them , ten times a week for as long as I 've been alive But you do n't know if that will have a major effect or a minor effect.I know that sea captains do n't want to traverse the Indian ocean because the almanacs are no longer reasonable guides to chart how long a given voyage from one port to the next might take .
Do you really know that ?
Did someone tell you that ?
Did they do a survey of a large number of sea captains ?
Or is this anecdotal evidence you 've collected from a local legend spread among a few sea captains you know personally ?
Were the almanacs really more reliable in the old days ?
People 's recollections of such things tends to be very poor.Maybe the arctic is intact Maybe it is .
Or maybe they 're exaggerating .
Or maybe it 's not our fault .
Or maybe it is our fault , but it 's no big deal.maybe the rainforests never actually existed .
Maybe Mt .
Kilamajaro does n't exist So you think it 's crazy to doubt what we 're told about global warming , by a radical special interest group , that has been caught red handed trying to deceive us , even though it is very difficult to check their work ? maybe it 's all a mind control plot No reasonable person could question that it is .
And they seem to have had quite an influence on your mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outside of the science, all I know is that the climate zone in my local area has changed.
Maybe it's a little warmer now that we're coming out of the little ice age.
Some areas get much hotter while some get cooler.
Or maybe you're just imagining it.Plants which you could not grow before, you can grow now.
From less than a one degree temp rise?
Now I'm leaning more towards it being your imagination.I hear from Innuit that there are plants and animals in the North which they have not seen before.
Things change and evolve.
Invasive species move in even if the temperature doesn't change.I know that tornadoes dot the German Rhine where no tornadoes were seen before, I know hurricanes on the Eastern seaboard are behaving differently

Those could be signs of cooling as easily as warming.
Or it could be warming in those areas and cooling in others.I know that Crete was so dry when I saw it that I couldn't imagine olive trees growing there without irrigation

This could be naturally caused global warming or it could be one area getting drier while another gets wetter.I know that our highways are a half kilometer wide and countless kilometers long, with thousands upon thousands of idling cars sitting on them, ten times a week for as long as I've been alive

But you don't know if that will have a major effect or a minor effect.I know that sea captains don't want to traverse the Indian ocean because the almanacs are no longer reasonable guides to chart how long a given voyage from one port to the next might take.
Do you really know that?
Did someone tell you that?
Did they do a survey of a large number of sea captains?
Or is this anecdotal evidence you've collected from a local legend spread among a few sea captains you know personally?
Were the almanacs really more reliable in the old days?
People's recollections of such things tends to be very poor.Maybe the arctic is intact

Maybe it is.
Or maybe they're exaggerating.
Or maybe it's not our fault.
Or maybe it is our fault, but it's no big deal.maybe the rainforests never actually existed.
Maybe Mt.
Kilamajaro doesn't exist

So you think it's crazy to doubt what we're told about global warming, by a radical special interest group, that has been caught red handed trying to deceive us, even though it is very difficult to check their work?maybe it's all a mind control plot

No reasonable person could question that it is.
And they seem to have had quite an influence on your mind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270184</id>
	<title>Re:My A*&amp; will be sore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rock-ON !!!</p><p>Science means full-disclosure, peer-review (including raw data), full scrutiny (and that usually entails skepticism) and replication and confirmation of results...  anything less is NOT SCIENCE !!  And if "scientists" set aside their core principles because they feel the end justifies the means... then they are no better than the political hacks who use them (and thei undeserved reputations) as patsies.  This also goes for flacid editors who promote a political agenda (yeah I'm talking to you).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rock-ON ! !
! Science means full-disclosure , peer-review ( including raw data ) , full scrutiny ( and that usually entails skepticism ) and replication and confirmation of results... anything less is NOT SCIENCE ! !
And if " scientists " set aside their core principles because they feel the end justifies the means... then they are no better than the political hacks who use them ( and thei undeserved reputations ) as patsies .
This also goes for flacid editors who promote a political agenda ( yeah I 'm talking to you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rock-ON !!
!Science means full-disclosure, peer-review (including raw data), full scrutiny (and that usually entails skepticism) and replication and confirmation of results...  anything less is NOT SCIENCE !!
And if "scientists" set aside their core principles because they feel the end justifies the means... then they are no better than the political hacks who use them (and thei undeserved reputations) as patsies.
This also goes for flacid editors who promote a political agenda (yeah I'm talking to you).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265864</id>
	<title>Re:My A*&amp; will be sore</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1259509980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>this is the very basis of what Slashdot is founded on, that is don't give me bull$\%#@ show me the data and your source, and most of all don't patronize me!</p></div></blockquote><p>You must be new here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is the very basis of what Slashdot is founded on , that is do n't give me bull $ \ % # @ show me the data and your source , and most of all do n't patronize me ! You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is the very basis of what Slashdot is founded on, that is don't give me bull$\%#@ show me the data and your source, and most of all don't patronize me!You must be new here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270354</id>
	<title>Re:The Parent Isn't a Troll</title>
	<author>Hawat</author>
	<datestamp>1259599140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This "incident" involves four scientists. Just four. "</p><p>You really need to get out more.  Here's a map of the participants based on the email addresses<br><a href="http://computationallegalstudies.com/2009/11/27/visualizing-the-east-anglia-climate-research-unit-leaked-email-network/" title="computatio...tudies.com" rel="nofollow">http://computationallegalstudies.com/2009/11/27/visualizing-the-east-anglia-climate-research-unit-leaked-email-network/</a> [computatio...tudies.com]</p><p>Four?!?  That's like output from the CRUd programs.  "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This " incident " involves four scientists .
Just four .
" You really need to get out more .
Here 's a map of the participants based on the email addresseshttp : //computationallegalstudies.com/2009/11/27/visualizing-the-east-anglia-climate-research-unit-leaked-email-network/ [ computatio...tudies.com ] Four ? ! ?
That 's like output from the CRUd programs .
" Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This "incident" involves four scientists.
Just four.
"You really need to get out more.
Here's a map of the participants based on the email addresseshttp://computationallegalstudies.com/2009/11/27/visualizing-the-east-anglia-climate-research-unit-leaked-email-network/ [computatio...tudies.com]Four?!?
That's like output from the CRUd programs.
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266116</id>
	<title>Where's the beef?</title>
	<author>chebucto</author>
	<datestamp>1259511780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the \_results\_ from the lab in question match up with other independent results, what possible grounds to laymen have to presume the data was deliberately changed? Unless they assume that all independent labs falsified their data in concert, which would be a hell of a conspiracy.</p><p>What really bothers me about the complaints around the emails is that none of them (as I understand it) come close to proving that findings were deliberately falsified to point to one conclusion over another. All of the emails were either innocuous or, at worst, ambiguous.</p><p>And what have some skeptics done with ambiguous data? They have manipulated it to fit their pre-existing theories. Which is very close to the sort of bad behavior they are charging the lab with now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the \ _results \ _ from the lab in question match up with other independent results , what possible grounds to laymen have to presume the data was deliberately changed ?
Unless they assume that all independent labs falsified their data in concert , which would be a hell of a conspiracy.What really bothers me about the complaints around the emails is that none of them ( as I understand it ) come close to proving that findings were deliberately falsified to point to one conclusion over another .
All of the emails were either innocuous or , at worst , ambiguous.And what have some skeptics done with ambiguous data ?
They have manipulated it to fit their pre-existing theories .
Which is very close to the sort of bad behavior they are charging the lab with now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the \_results\_ from the lab in question match up with other independent results, what possible grounds to laymen have to presume the data was deliberately changed?
Unless they assume that all independent labs falsified their data in concert, which would be a hell of a conspiracy.What really bothers me about the complaints around the emails is that none of them (as I understand it) come close to proving that findings were deliberately falsified to point to one conclusion over another.
All of the emails were either innocuous or, at worst, ambiguous.And what have some skeptics done with ambiguous data?
They have manipulated it to fit their pre-existing theories.
Which is very close to the sort of bad behavior they are charging the lab with now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275248</id>
	<title>PV=nRT</title>
	<author>HomelessInLaJolla</author>
	<datestamp>1259577960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy.  Higher temperature is higher average kinetic energy.  Increased kinetic energy means more collisions per second.  More collisions per second means higher pressure.  Increased pressure causes a system to expand unless it is restrained or contained.</p><p>Earth is a ball of stuff, largely water, flying through the vacuum of space--it is not restrained or contained.  If the globe were warming then the atmosphere would be expanding unless we are losing the mass of our atmosphere like a snowball skidding down a sidewalk.</p><p>Whether or not it is true to whatever degree people like to talk about it I do not see that it could possibly be happening to any degree which would be worth the trillions of dollars that the media, government, and environmentalists sap out of it.</p><p>I am lucky to have a lunch worth eating--and others are making billions from bullsh*t and fearmongering hype.</p><p>You are all going to hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy .
Higher temperature is higher average kinetic energy .
Increased kinetic energy means more collisions per second .
More collisions per second means higher pressure .
Increased pressure causes a system to expand unless it is restrained or contained.Earth is a ball of stuff , largely water , flying through the vacuum of space--it is not restrained or contained .
If the globe were warming then the atmosphere would be expanding unless we are losing the mass of our atmosphere like a snowball skidding down a sidewalk.Whether or not it is true to whatever degree people like to talk about it I do not see that it could possibly be happening to any degree which would be worth the trillions of dollars that the media , government , and environmentalists sap out of it.I am lucky to have a lunch worth eating--and others are making billions from bullsh * t and fearmongering hype.You are all going to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy.
Higher temperature is higher average kinetic energy.
Increased kinetic energy means more collisions per second.
More collisions per second means higher pressure.
Increased pressure causes a system to expand unless it is restrained or contained.Earth is a ball of stuff, largely water, flying through the vacuum of space--it is not restrained or contained.
If the globe were warming then the atmosphere would be expanding unless we are losing the mass of our atmosphere like a snowball skidding down a sidewalk.Whether or not it is true to whatever degree people like to talk about it I do not see that it could possibly be happening to any degree which would be worth the trillions of dollars that the media, government, and environmentalists sap out of it.I am lucky to have a lunch worth eating--and others are making billions from bullsh*t and fearmongering hype.You are all going to hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30280350</id>
	<title>Less pressing???</title>
	<author>FragHARD</author>
	<datestamp>1259700780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"in the 1980s, "a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue"<br><br>That's strange It seems like it was in the late 70's to early 80's that everyone was saying we were going to run out of oil/energy/what not.... and the predictions of imminent ice age/climate change was being proclaimed by certain groups.... hmmm... I guess those groups are always with us. I guess it depends on how less pressing you define it....<br><br>
&nbsp;</htmltext>
<tokenext>" in the 1980s , " a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue " That 's strange It seems like it was in the late 70 's to early 80 's that everyone was saying we were going to run out of oil/energy/what not.... and the predictions of imminent ice age/climate change was being proclaimed by certain groups.... hmmm... I guess those groups are always with us .
I guess it depends on how less pressing you define it... .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>"in the 1980s, "a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue"That's strange It seems like it was in the late 70's to early 80's that everyone was saying we were going to run out of oil/energy/what not.... and the predictions of imminent ice age/climate change was being proclaimed by certain groups.... hmmm... I guess those groups are always with us.
I guess it depends on how less pressing you define it....
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266410</id>
	<title>CRU data manipulation shown and Mann lie explained</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259514660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810</p><p>As far as I understand it, the situation is:</p><p>- going back on temperature measurements any meaningful period of time requires the use of proxies.<br>- because proxies are inaccurate, it's widely recognised by all that they must be compared with themselves - i.e. you are checking for "differences from the average". A tree ring that is much smaller indicates a much less tree-ring-inducing temperature, while a tree ring that is much bigger indicates the opposite.<br>- these tree rings indicate according to conventional views that the world has become somewhat warmer over a long period.<br>- We have tree ring data until 1995<br>- There are two identifiable issues however:</p><p>* Issue 1: In the most recent periods, the tree ring data did not support global warming - they have been showing either average temperatures or cooling temperatures compared to the historic data. Furthermore, this was when temperatures according to thermometers were rising.  <b>As a response to this issue, the CRU does not, as most would do, discard the tree ring data as a very poor source of data - they simply refer to it as a "modern effect"</b>. The "modern effect" makes tree rings invalid POST 1965 ONLY, and discard data POST 1965 ONLY according to quotable words from the good CRU (1). They have no explanation for this effect.</p><p>* Issue 2: In order to present a continous series of temperatures from the middle ages showing first a decline and then a rise (tree rings) followed by a further recent rise (15 years of thermometers) Mann simply takes the tree ring data series and adds thermometers to the end of it. Due to applied smoothing this removes the last period dip in temperatures as measured by tree rings. This is a problem because tree rings are used to measure simply \_relative change\_ in temperature (e.g. 'cold earlier, warm now'), but the recent 'warm now' actually looks the same as the old period 'cold earlier'. The danger of using tree ring measurements to a preciseness of plus minus 0.2C over 1000 years and finding that your proxy "stops working" and "is much lower than it should be given the temperature" in the last 20 years, is either that 1) tree rings are supremely inaccurate or 2) when today's "hot thermometer" shows up as "average tree ring", that might imply that historically "average tree ring" might have meant "hot thermometer" (in 1400) as well, meaning that recent temperatures are not abnormally high.</p><p>Mike Mann wrote an undeniable lie about this: "No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."</p><p>But in reality, they simply did, quoted from Jones: "They&rsquo;re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered &ndash; but they&rsquo;re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it&rsquo;s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don&rsquo;t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.&rdquo;</p><p>Lastly, nobody has been able to show that Steve McIntyre is "industry funded", and using that as a general smear is plain and simply spreading lies and FUD about your opposition.</p><p>(1) exact wording: "[The data] go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data we are using." Although he seems very certain here, 'this non-temperature signal' and its nature is like a black hole of unknowingness to Mann, all he knows is that it points the recent period to be colder than it should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.climateaudit.org/ ? p = 7810As far as I understand it , the situation is : - going back on temperature measurements any meaningful period of time requires the use of proxies.- because proxies are inaccurate , it 's widely recognised by all that they must be compared with themselves - i.e .
you are checking for " differences from the average " .
A tree ring that is much smaller indicates a much less tree-ring-inducing temperature , while a tree ring that is much bigger indicates the opposite.- these tree rings indicate according to conventional views that the world has become somewhat warmer over a long period.- We have tree ring data until 1995- There are two identifiable issues however : * Issue 1 : In the most recent periods , the tree ring data did not support global warming - they have been showing either average temperatures or cooling temperatures compared to the historic data .
Furthermore , this was when temperatures according to thermometers were rising .
As a response to this issue , the CRU does not , as most would do , discard the tree ring data as a very poor source of data - they simply refer to it as a " modern effect " .
The " modern effect " makes tree rings invalid POST 1965 ONLY , and discard data POST 1965 ONLY according to quotable words from the good CRU ( 1 ) .
They have no explanation for this effect .
* Issue 2 : In order to present a continous series of temperatures from the middle ages showing first a decline and then a rise ( tree rings ) followed by a further recent rise ( 15 years of thermometers ) Mann simply takes the tree ring data series and adds thermometers to the end of it .
Due to applied smoothing this removes the last period dip in temperatures as measured by tree rings .
This is a problem because tree rings are used to measure simply \ _relative change \ _ in temperature ( e.g .
'cold earlier , warm now ' ) , but the recent 'warm now ' actually looks the same as the old period 'cold earlier' .
The danger of using tree ring measurements to a preciseness of plus minus 0.2C over 1000 years and finding that your proxy " stops working " and " is much lower than it should be given the temperature " in the last 20 years , is either that 1 ) tree rings are supremely inaccurate or 2 ) when today 's " hot thermometer " shows up as " average tree ring " , that might imply that historically " average tree ring " might have meant " hot thermometer " ( in 1400 ) as well , meaning that recent temperatures are not abnormally high.Mike Mann wrote an undeniable lie about this : " No researchers in this field have ever , to our knowledge , " grafted the thermometer record onto " any reconstruction .
It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim ( which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites ) appearing in this forum .
" But in reality , they simply did , quoted from Jones : " They    re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered    but they    re talking about proxy data going further back in time , a thousand years , and it    s just about how you add on the last few years , because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores , and they don    t always have the last few years .
So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.    Lastly , nobody has been able to show that Steve McIntyre is " industry funded " , and using that as a general smear is plain and simply spreading lies and FUD about your opposition .
( 1 ) exact wording : " [ The data ] go from 1402 to 1995 , although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data we are using .
" Although he seems very certain here , 'this non-temperature signal ' and its nature is like a black hole of unknowingness to Mann , all he knows is that it points the recent period to be colder than it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810As far as I understand it, the situation is:- going back on temperature measurements any meaningful period of time requires the use of proxies.- because proxies are inaccurate, it's widely recognised by all that they must be compared with themselves - i.e.
you are checking for "differences from the average".
A tree ring that is much smaller indicates a much less tree-ring-inducing temperature, while a tree ring that is much bigger indicates the opposite.- these tree rings indicate according to conventional views that the world has become somewhat warmer over a long period.- We have tree ring data until 1995- There are two identifiable issues however:* Issue 1: In the most recent periods, the tree ring data did not support global warming - they have been showing either average temperatures or cooling temperatures compared to the historic data.
Furthermore, this was when temperatures according to thermometers were rising.
As a response to this issue, the CRU does not, as most would do, discard the tree ring data as a very poor source of data - they simply refer to it as a "modern effect".
The "modern effect" makes tree rings invalid POST 1965 ONLY, and discard data POST 1965 ONLY according to quotable words from the good CRU (1).
They have no explanation for this effect.
* Issue 2: In order to present a continous series of temperatures from the middle ages showing first a decline and then a rise (tree rings) followed by a further recent rise (15 years of thermometers) Mann simply takes the tree ring data series and adds thermometers to the end of it.
Due to applied smoothing this removes the last period dip in temperatures as measured by tree rings.
This is a problem because tree rings are used to measure simply \_relative change\_ in temperature (e.g.
'cold earlier, warm now'), but the recent 'warm now' actually looks the same as the old period 'cold earlier'.
The danger of using tree ring measurements to a preciseness of plus minus 0.2C over 1000 years and finding that your proxy "stops working" and "is much lower than it should be given the temperature" in the last 20 years, is either that 1) tree rings are supremely inaccurate or 2) when today's "hot thermometer" shows up as "average tree ring", that might imply that historically "average tree ring" might have meant "hot thermometer" (in 1400) as well, meaning that recent temperatures are not abnormally high.Mike Mann wrote an undeniable lie about this: "No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstruction.
It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
"But in reality, they simply did, quoted from Jones: "They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years.
So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”Lastly, nobody has been able to show that Steve McIntyre is "industry funded", and using that as a general smear is plain and simply spreading lies and FUD about your opposition.
(1) exact wording: "[The data] go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data we are using.
" Although he seems very certain here, 'this non-temperature signal' and its nature is like a black hole of unknowingness to Mann, all he knows is that it points the recent period to be colder than it should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267744</id>
	<title>Re:Science as Open Source</title>
	<author>amck</author>
	<datestamp>1259614260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you go look at the CRU mails and responses, the data wasn't "lost". They don't have a <i>copy</i> of it: the original data is still at other institutions.</p><p>The CRU work is based on collecting sets of measurements from around the world, and producing a gridded temperature dataset from this. They've<br>been doing this for decades. When they started, disk space was very expensive, and once they had finished they deleted the copy they had (the originals still being available at national archives).</p><p>Secondly a lot of the data was given under Non-disclosure agreements. A number of National Met Services are under an obligation to minimise their costs (ie taxes) by acting commercially and selling "added services" beyond simple weather forecasts (e.g. see <a href="http://www.met.ie/climate/climate-data-information.asp" title="www.met.ie">met.ie</a> [www.met.ie]: data for the last 3 years is on the web, beyond that you pay). Frequently this data is available free of charge for academic use, but you're not allowed pass it on to third parties. They simply cannot put it up on the website.</p><p>This is basically a non-problem scientifically: you are able to get similar datasets elsewhere for free, and can measure and do experiments yourself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>this is the <i>preferred</i> method scientifically, as it checks for systematic error in technique.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go look at the CRU mails and responses , the data was n't " lost " .
They do n't have a copy of it : the original data is still at other institutions.The CRU work is based on collecting sets of measurements from around the world , and producing a gridded temperature dataset from this .
They'vebeen doing this for decades .
When they started , disk space was very expensive , and once they had finished they deleted the copy they had ( the originals still being available at national archives ) .Secondly a lot of the data was given under Non-disclosure agreements .
A number of National Met Services are under an obligation to minimise their costs ( ie taxes ) by acting commercially and selling " added services " beyond simple weather forecasts ( e.g .
see met.ie [ www.met.ie ] : data for the last 3 years is on the web , beyond that you pay ) .
Frequently this data is available free of charge for academic use , but you 're not allowed pass it on to third parties .
They simply can not put it up on the website.This is basically a non-problem scientifically : you are able to get similar datasets elsewhere for free , and can measure and do experiments yourself ...this is the preferred method scientifically , as it checks for systematic error in technique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go look at the CRU mails and responses, the data wasn't "lost".
They don't have a copy of it: the original data is still at other institutions.The CRU work is based on collecting sets of measurements from around the world, and producing a gridded temperature dataset from this.
They'vebeen doing this for decades.
When they started, disk space was very expensive, and once they had finished they deleted the copy they had (the originals still being available at national archives).Secondly a lot of the data was given under Non-disclosure agreements.
A number of National Met Services are under an obligation to minimise their costs (ie taxes) by acting commercially and selling "added services" beyond simple weather forecasts (e.g.
see met.ie [www.met.ie]: data for the last 3 years is on the web, beyond that you pay).
Frequently this data is available free of charge for academic use, but you're not allowed pass it on to third parties.
They simply cannot put it up on the website.This is basically a non-problem scientifically: you are able to get similar datasets elsewhere for free, and can measure and do experiments yourself ...this is the preferred method scientifically, as it checks for systematic error in technique.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266930</id>
	<title>Adapt Or Die.</title>
	<author>billybob\_jcv</author>
	<datestamp>1259518980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our species will either adapt to climate changes, or we won't.  Douglas Adams said it better than I ever could:</p><p>"Far out, in the uncharted backwaters at the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy, lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly 92 million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended lifeforms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea."</p><p>It just doesn't matter one way or the other.  The human ego simply can't grasp the idea that the universe doesn't give a damn whether we exist or not.  Our futile scratchings at the crust and atmosphere of this planet are insignificant on the galactic scale.  I say "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!"</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our species will either adapt to climate changes , or we wo n't .
Douglas Adams said it better than I ever could : " Far out , in the uncharted backwaters at the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy , lies a small unregarded yellow sun .
Orbiting this at a distance of roughly 92 million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended lifeforms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea .
" It just does n't matter one way or the other .
The human ego simply ca n't grasp the idea that the universe does n't give a damn whether we exist or not .
Our futile scratchings at the crust and atmosphere of this planet are insignificant on the galactic scale .
I say " Eat , drink and be merry , for tomorrow we die !
"  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our species will either adapt to climate changes, or we won't.
Douglas Adams said it better than I ever could:"Far out, in the uncharted backwaters at the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy, lies a small unregarded yellow sun.
Orbiting this at a distance of roughly 92 million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended lifeforms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
"It just doesn't matter one way or the other.
The human ego simply can't grasp the idea that the universe doesn't give a damn whether we exist or not.
Our futile scratchings at the crust and atmosphere of this planet are insignificant on the galactic scale.
I say "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!
"
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266434</id>
	<title>Re:First Hand Knowledge?</title>
	<author>Tracy Reed</author>
	<datestamp>1259515020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of those changes are perfectly naturally occurring events. And when you can no longer get food or water or you die in a flood or tornado have no fear: It was a perfectly natural death!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of those changes are perfectly naturally occurring events .
And when you can no longer get food or water or you die in a flood or tornado have no fear : It was a perfectly natural death !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of those changes are perfectly naturally occurring events.
And when you can no longer get food or water or you die in a flood or tornado have no fear: It was a perfectly natural death!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266704</id>
	<title>Re:Redeye says it all....as always</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1259517060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did notice that major sites like cnn.com and abcnews.com had nothing on the "climategate" earlier today, while foxnews search had 9,509 entries</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did notice that major sites like cnn.com and abcnews.com had nothing on the " climategate " earlier today , while foxnews search had 9,509 entries</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did notice that major sites like cnn.com and abcnews.com had nothing on the "climategate" earlier today, while foxnews search had 9,509 entries</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30291900</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[blockquote]How did 'respected' journals publish papers that they couldn't ask another serious scientist to do a proper review of?[/blockquote]the reviewers where the same clique as the bunch at CRU, so as long as it supported their findings, it passed.  If it didn't, it was rejected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ blockquote ] How did 'respected ' journals publish papers that they could n't ask another serious scientist to do a proper review of ?
[ /blockquote ] the reviewers where the same clique as the bunch at CRU , so as long as it supported their findings , it passed .
If it did n't , it was rejected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[blockquote]How did 'respected' journals publish papers that they couldn't ask another serious scientist to do a proper review of?
[/blockquote]the reviewers where the same clique as the bunch at CRU, so as long as it supported their findings, it passed.
If it didn't, it was rejected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267344</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1259522820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;This is what I mean with damned if they do,damned if they don't.</p><p>You're making it more dramatic than it sounds.</p><p>They had the data, and willfully ignored FOIA requests to release it, saying they could only release the "massaged" data, not the raw data. They wouldn't even release raw data for places which had no NDA (which is the vast majority of stations).</p><p>And they did release the data to other groups (like Georgia State), just not to 'climate skeptics'. You can see Jones and the others mocking the climate skeptics when they made their FOIA requests - not to mention the email sent out asking them to delete data in advance of a FOIA request.</p><p>It's malfeasance on the part of Phil Jones - but people like Real Climate.org refuse to see that, instead taking up an it's-us-or-them mentality, defending the indefensible ("there's been no malfeasance") and thus calling their entire side into question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; This is what I mean with damned if they do,damned if they do n't.You 're making it more dramatic than it sounds.They had the data , and willfully ignored FOIA requests to release it , saying they could only release the " massaged " data , not the raw data .
They would n't even release raw data for places which had no NDA ( which is the vast majority of stations ) .And they did release the data to other groups ( like Georgia State ) , just not to 'climate skeptics' .
You can see Jones and the others mocking the climate skeptics when they made their FOIA requests - not to mention the email sent out asking them to delete data in advance of a FOIA request.It 's malfeasance on the part of Phil Jones - but people like Real Climate.org refuse to see that , instead taking up an it 's-us-or-them mentality , defending the indefensible ( " there 's been no malfeasance " ) and thus calling their entire side into question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;This is what I mean with damned if they do,damned if they don't.You're making it more dramatic than it sounds.They had the data, and willfully ignored FOIA requests to release it, saying they could only release the "massaged" data, not the raw data.
They wouldn't even release raw data for places which had no NDA (which is the vast majority of stations).And they did release the data to other groups (like Georgia State), just not to 'climate skeptics'.
You can see Jones and the others mocking the climate skeptics when they made their FOIA requests - not to mention the email sent out asking them to delete data in advance of a FOIA request.It's malfeasance on the part of Phil Jones - but people like Real Climate.org refuse to see that, instead taking up an it's-us-or-them mentality, defending the indefensible ("there's been no malfeasance") and thus calling their entire side into question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266182</id>
	<title>By definition, this is no longer Science.</title>
	<author>daemonenwind</author>
	<datestamp>1259512200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science, and the practice of it, demands that research be repeatable and transparent.
<p>
We have this quote from TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>The CRU is the world's leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.</p></div></blockquote><p>

By deleting the raw data, no one can ever reproduce or review the process by which raw data became tested theory.
</p><p>
This is not the act of a scientist; in fact, this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice.
The sad truth seems to be that, while Science concerns itself with discovering truth, these scientists have concerned themselves only with discovering funding and prestige.
</p><p>
Climate change theory must now reside with such things as Cold Fusion and Duke Nukem Forever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science , and the practice of it , demands that research be repeatable and transparent .
We have this quote from TFA : The CRU is the world 's leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures .
Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled .
That is now impossible .
By deleting the raw data , no one can ever reproduce or review the process by which raw data became tested theory .
This is not the act of a scientist ; in fact , this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice .
The sad truth seems to be that , while Science concerns itself with discovering truth , these scientists have concerned themselves only with discovering funding and prestige .
Climate change theory must now reside with such things as Cold Fusion and Duke Nukem Forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science, and the practice of it, demands that research be repeatable and transparent.
We have this quote from TFA:The CRU is the world's leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures.
Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled.
That is now impossible.
By deleting the raw data, no one can ever reproduce or review the process by which raw data became tested theory.
This is not the act of a scientist; in fact, this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice.
The sad truth seems to be that, while Science concerns itself with discovering truth, these scientists have concerned themselves only with discovering funding and prestige.
Climate change theory must now reside with such things as Cold Fusion and Duke Nukem Forever.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270464</id>
	<title>Don't Underestimate This Incident</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1259599860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't underestimate this incident.</p><p>It comes at a very bad time.  A recent USA Today poll showed larger numbers of Americans not believing that man made global climate change is a reality.</p><p>Frightened people who feel overwhelmed don't want to believe it.</p><p>Powerful people with significant financial interests against change don't want other people to believe it.</p><p>These people will use this incident to foster disbelief.   Most people do not look at details.  Unfortunately, since it is a highly politicized issue now, positive change requires that many people, including the ones that don't look at details, be onboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't underestimate this incident.It comes at a very bad time .
A recent USA Today poll showed larger numbers of Americans not believing that man made global climate change is a reality.Frightened people who feel overwhelmed do n't want to believe it.Powerful people with significant financial interests against change do n't want other people to believe it.These people will use this incident to foster disbelief .
Most people do not look at details .
Unfortunately , since it is a highly politicized issue now , positive change requires that many people , including the ones that do n't look at details , be onboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't underestimate this incident.It comes at a very bad time.
A recent USA Today poll showed larger numbers of Americans not believing that man made global climate change is a reality.Frightened people who feel overwhelmed don't want to believe it.Powerful people with significant financial interests against change don't want other people to believe it.These people will use this incident to foster disbelief.
Most people do not look at details.
Unfortunately, since it is a highly politicized issue now, positive change requires that many people, including the ones that don't look at details, be onboard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267146</id>
	<title>How come</title>
	<author>RandySC</author>
	<datestamp>1259520960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>these idiots talk about carbon and not carbon dioxide?  Does carbon monoxide warm the planet too?  Or can we ignore chemistry and this is only about carbon?  Ban pencils!  I told one friend who is freaked about global warming to give up his soda pop.  He said no:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>these idiots talk about carbon and not carbon dioxide ?
Does carbon monoxide warm the planet too ?
Or can we ignore chemistry and this is only about carbon ?
Ban pencils !
I told one friend who is freaked about global warming to give up his soda pop .
He said no : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>these idiots talk about carbon and not carbon dioxide?
Does carbon monoxide warm the planet too?
Or can we ignore chemistry and this is only about carbon?
Ban pencils!
I told one friend who is freaked about global warming to give up his soda pop.
He said no:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265586</id>
	<title>Redeye says it all....as always</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259508180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576887,00.html</p><p>The above link says it all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576887,00.htmlThe above link says it all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576887,00.htmlThe above link says it all</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275426</id>
	<title>Re:Still no nefarious behavior from where I sit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you use 150 years ago as a baseline. That was the end of the "the little Ice Age" which lasted for 500 years and devastated societies. Pravda had an article explaining the latency rise of CO2 on the oceans percolating the sequestrated CO2s with a warmer atmosphere.</p><p>What is the CO2's replacing in the atmosphere? Another green house gas?</p><p>Can you site a global extinction due to global warming or are they global cooling? So what am I to understand we will have anthropogenic global warming until a volcano causes global cooling. The earth keeps trying to warm up until a catastrophe happens and brings about global cooling.</p><p>Where I see warming trends I see life and diversity of species. Where I see ice ages I see death.</p><p>The capitalist nation were thwarted to shift to nuclear power by alarmists and now the alarmists are blaming us for there creation. Cap and tax will do nothing to eliminate CO2s emissions and will only shift wealth. This whole thing is political and seeks to bring down the industrialize nations.</p><p>I know science, this ain't science</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you use 150 years ago as a baseline .
That was the end of the " the little Ice Age " which lasted for 500 years and devastated societies .
Pravda had an article explaining the latency rise of CO2 on the oceans percolating the sequestrated CO2s with a warmer atmosphere.What is the CO2 's replacing in the atmosphere ?
Another green house gas ? Can you site a global extinction due to global warming or are they global cooling ?
So what am I to understand we will have anthropogenic global warming until a volcano causes global cooling .
The earth keeps trying to warm up until a catastrophe happens and brings about global cooling.Where I see warming trends I see life and diversity of species .
Where I see ice ages I see death.The capitalist nation were thwarted to shift to nuclear power by alarmists and now the alarmists are blaming us for there creation .
Cap and tax will do nothing to eliminate CO2s emissions and will only shift wealth .
This whole thing is political and seeks to bring down the industrialize nations.I know science , this ai n't science</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you use 150 years ago as a baseline.
That was the end of the "the little Ice Age" which lasted for 500 years and devastated societies.
Pravda had an article explaining the latency rise of CO2 on the oceans percolating the sequestrated CO2s with a warmer atmosphere.What is the CO2's replacing in the atmosphere?
Another green house gas?Can you site a global extinction due to global warming or are they global cooling?
So what am I to understand we will have anthropogenic global warming until a volcano causes global cooling.
The earth keeps trying to warm up until a catastrophe happens and brings about global cooling.Where I see warming trends I see life and diversity of species.
Where I see ice ages I see death.The capitalist nation were thwarted to shift to nuclear power by alarmists and now the alarmists are blaming us for there creation.
Cap and tax will do nothing to eliminate CO2s emissions and will only shift wealth.
This whole thing is political and seeks to bring down the industrialize nations.I know science, this ain't science</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265652</id>
	<title>What moron destroys original data?</title>
	<author>thinktech</author>
	<datestamp>1259508660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I'd rather have people believe I was covering up a conspiracy rather than think I'm such an idiot that I 'discard' my original data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'd rather have people believe I was covering up a conspiracy rather than think I 'm such an idiot that I 'discard ' my original data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'd rather have people believe I was covering up a conspiracy rather than think I'm such an idiot that I 'discard' my original data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267676</id>
	<title>"climategate" on Google and Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I looked up "climategate" on Bing and Google.</p><p>After typing "cli", Bing's auto-suggest has "climategate" as the top of the suggested list (even before "clip art").  49,800,000 results found.</p><p>Google never suggests "climategate".  I had to type the complete word.  13,400,000 results found.</p><p>Does this mean that Bing is more up to date?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked up " climategate " on Bing and Google.After typing " cli " , Bing 's auto-suggest has " climategate " as the top of the suggested list ( even before " clip art " ) .
49,800,000 results found.Google never suggests " climategate " .
I had to type the complete word .
13,400,000 results found.Does this mean that Bing is more up to date ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked up "climategate" on Bing and Google.After typing "cli", Bing's auto-suggest has "climategate" as the top of the suggested list (even before "clip art").
49,800,000 results found.Google never suggests "climategate".
I had to type the complete word.
13,400,000 results found.Does this mean that Bing is more up to date?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266020</id>
	<title>Weather is at it's heart chaos math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259511120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem is if you ask the simple question is the temperature getting higher or lower the answer is "yes". The models show some areas getting warmer and some getting cooler and some areas getting more rain and some getting less rain. Why that's easy just average the numbers! Not that simple. Average land temperatures could be lower and average ocean temperature higher or maybe some land higher and some oceans lower. You're trying to predict a 1,000 year or maybe 100,000 years of weather trend off ten years that appear to show radical change. Even the last 1,000 year could be an aberration. Then how can we know or maybe we should put our heads back in the sand? Since temperature models are unreliable you have to look at physical changes. There are environmental factors that normally buffer radical change it;s why overall changes are slow. When you see an abnormal shift then it can be a sign the buffering elements can't keep up with change. One of these buffering elements is cloud cover actually. Warm air and seas create more clouds blocking more sunlight lowering temperatures. Sunlight has been steadily dimming for decades. Part of the reason is pollution causing dimming but the rest is extra cloud cover. Clouds mean rain so that's a good thing because of all the droughts? Not always it can cause increased rain in one area but cause severe drought in another one. Anyone know what two factors are needed to create rain? If you answered clouds for one of them you fair, there's such a thing as clear air rain. You need aerial dust which forms the nucleus for water to condense around but what makes moisture in the air condense? Warm moist air colliding with cold air. Same process that makes moisture collect on cold metal. The problem is if the air is more uniformly warm the clouds just pass overhead and no rain. They get bigger and bigger until they unload on the first place with some cooler air. That causes severe flooding. Australia, parts of China and Africa have already suffered from this even parts of the US have been affected.</p><p>The whole point is if your models and information aren't sufficient to make accurate predictions look at the secondary effects. If you start having once in a hundred year heat waves every couple of years in some areas and once in a thousand year droughts in other areas, this is bad. What's one thing that is worldwide? Glaciers are melting not absolutely every single one of them just the vast majority. We're looking for trends here. Also for the first time since the Americas were discovered there's a clear northwest passage every year and we are facing summers free of ice for the first time in recent geological history. The real problem is if we wait until the change is obvious to the layman it'll be far too late. Look at the signs and make up your own mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is if you ask the simple question is the temperature getting higher or lower the answer is " yes " .
The models show some areas getting warmer and some getting cooler and some areas getting more rain and some getting less rain .
Why that 's easy just average the numbers !
Not that simple .
Average land temperatures could be lower and average ocean temperature higher or maybe some land higher and some oceans lower .
You 're trying to predict a 1,000 year or maybe 100,000 years of weather trend off ten years that appear to show radical change .
Even the last 1,000 year could be an aberration .
Then how can we know or maybe we should put our heads back in the sand ?
Since temperature models are unreliable you have to look at physical changes .
There are environmental factors that normally buffer radical change it ; s why overall changes are slow .
When you see an abnormal shift then it can be a sign the buffering elements ca n't keep up with change .
One of these buffering elements is cloud cover actually .
Warm air and seas create more clouds blocking more sunlight lowering temperatures .
Sunlight has been steadily dimming for decades .
Part of the reason is pollution causing dimming but the rest is extra cloud cover .
Clouds mean rain so that 's a good thing because of all the droughts ?
Not always it can cause increased rain in one area but cause severe drought in another one .
Anyone know what two factors are needed to create rain ?
If you answered clouds for one of them you fair , there 's such a thing as clear air rain .
You need aerial dust which forms the nucleus for water to condense around but what makes moisture in the air condense ?
Warm moist air colliding with cold air .
Same process that makes moisture collect on cold metal .
The problem is if the air is more uniformly warm the clouds just pass overhead and no rain .
They get bigger and bigger until they unload on the first place with some cooler air .
That causes severe flooding .
Australia , parts of China and Africa have already suffered from this even parts of the US have been affected.The whole point is if your models and information are n't sufficient to make accurate predictions look at the secondary effects .
If you start having once in a hundred year heat waves every couple of years in some areas and once in a thousand year droughts in other areas , this is bad .
What 's one thing that is worldwide ?
Glaciers are melting not absolutely every single one of them just the vast majority .
We 're looking for trends here .
Also for the first time since the Americas were discovered there 's a clear northwest passage every year and we are facing summers free of ice for the first time in recent geological history .
The real problem is if we wait until the change is obvious to the layman it 'll be far too late .
Look at the signs and make up your own mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is if you ask the simple question is the temperature getting higher or lower the answer is "yes".
The models show some areas getting warmer and some getting cooler and some areas getting more rain and some getting less rain.
Why that's easy just average the numbers!
Not that simple.
Average land temperatures could be lower and average ocean temperature higher or maybe some land higher and some oceans lower.
You're trying to predict a 1,000 year or maybe 100,000 years of weather trend off ten years that appear to show radical change.
Even the last 1,000 year could be an aberration.
Then how can we know or maybe we should put our heads back in the sand?
Since temperature models are unreliable you have to look at physical changes.
There are environmental factors that normally buffer radical change it;s why overall changes are slow.
When you see an abnormal shift then it can be a sign the buffering elements can't keep up with change.
One of these buffering elements is cloud cover actually.
Warm air and seas create more clouds blocking more sunlight lowering temperatures.
Sunlight has been steadily dimming for decades.
Part of the reason is pollution causing dimming but the rest is extra cloud cover.
Clouds mean rain so that's a good thing because of all the droughts?
Not always it can cause increased rain in one area but cause severe drought in another one.
Anyone know what two factors are needed to create rain?
If you answered clouds for one of them you fair, there's such a thing as clear air rain.
You need aerial dust which forms the nucleus for water to condense around but what makes moisture in the air condense?
Warm moist air colliding with cold air.
Same process that makes moisture collect on cold metal.
The problem is if the air is more uniformly warm the clouds just pass overhead and no rain.
They get bigger and bigger until they unload on the first place with some cooler air.
That causes severe flooding.
Australia, parts of China and Africa have already suffered from this even parts of the US have been affected.The whole point is if your models and information aren't sufficient to make accurate predictions look at the secondary effects.
If you start having once in a hundred year heat waves every couple of years in some areas and once in a thousand year droughts in other areas, this is bad.
What's one thing that is worldwide?
Glaciers are melting not absolutely every single one of them just the vast majority.
We're looking for trends here.
Also for the first time since the Americas were discovered there's a clear northwest passage every year and we are facing summers free of ice for the first time in recent geological history.
The real problem is if we wait until the change is obvious to the layman it'll be far too late.
Look at the signs and make up your own mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267278</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if they do Damned if they don't</title>
	<author>ghostdoc</author>
	<datestamp>1259522220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to contradict, but I'm a strong Darwinist and a medium Climate Sceptic (or maybe Skeptic).</p><p>I see the same dogmatic adherence to arguments from authority in both the Creationist and Green movements, and it repels me utterly.</p><p>I am suspicious of the Green Agenda (and openly opposed to the Creationist Agenda)...I have had too many conversations with devout Greens who insist that the only way to save the planet is to ditch Capitalism and go back to a pre-industrial 'golden age'. Even for non-devout, the usual response of 'we've got to start changing our ways' doesn't actually contain any useful actions, just a vague 'recycle more' meme. No-one seems to understand that to cut greenhouse gases by 20\% (not just Carbon ffs...that's only one of several greenhouse gases!) we have to cut our society's output by 20\%. That means we all get 20\% poorer or 20\% of us die. The Great Recession saw GDP's drop by 2-5\% and there's already huge suffering. How much suffering for a 20\% drop?</p><p>I have no doubt that the climate is changing. The entire planet is constantly changing, that's clear. The insanity of politicians picking a temperature and saying 'no further than this' is crass stupidity, a modern equivalent of the old King Cnut story of commanding the tide to stop. And it's utterly pointless: if the climate does cross their line, then they're impotent to do anything about it. If the climate doesn't cross their line, then we'll never know if that was because we did things, or because we didn't...too many causes affect the climate for us to be able to unravel them and attribute blame/credit.</p><p>And meanwhile the population rises and rises. If the assembled Nations of the World had said '6 billion and no more' and start sterilising their populations, then that's climate action I can believe in. All the rest is just bullshit politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to contradict , but I 'm a strong Darwinist and a medium Climate Sceptic ( or maybe Skeptic ) .I see the same dogmatic adherence to arguments from authority in both the Creationist and Green movements , and it repels me utterly.I am suspicious of the Green Agenda ( and openly opposed to the Creationist Agenda ) ...I have had too many conversations with devout Greens who insist that the only way to save the planet is to ditch Capitalism and go back to a pre-industrial 'golden age' .
Even for non-devout , the usual response of 'we 've got to start changing our ways ' does n't actually contain any useful actions , just a vague 'recycle more ' meme .
No-one seems to understand that to cut greenhouse gases by 20 \ % ( not just Carbon ffs...that 's only one of several greenhouse gases !
) we have to cut our society 's output by 20 \ % .
That means we all get 20 \ % poorer or 20 \ % of us die .
The Great Recession saw GDP 's drop by 2-5 \ % and there 's already huge suffering .
How much suffering for a 20 \ % drop ? I have no doubt that the climate is changing .
The entire planet is constantly changing , that 's clear .
The insanity of politicians picking a temperature and saying 'no further than this ' is crass stupidity , a modern equivalent of the old King Cnut story of commanding the tide to stop .
And it 's utterly pointless : if the climate does cross their line , then they 're impotent to do anything about it .
If the climate does n't cross their line , then we 'll never know if that was because we did things , or because we did n't...too many causes affect the climate for us to be able to unravel them and attribute blame/credit.And meanwhile the population rises and rises .
If the assembled Nations of the World had said '6 billion and no more ' and start sterilising their populations , then that 's climate action I can believe in .
All the rest is just bullshit politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to contradict, but I'm a strong Darwinist and a medium Climate Sceptic (or maybe Skeptic).I see the same dogmatic adherence to arguments from authority in both the Creationist and Green movements, and it repels me utterly.I am suspicious of the Green Agenda (and openly opposed to the Creationist Agenda)...I have had too many conversations with devout Greens who insist that the only way to save the planet is to ditch Capitalism and go back to a pre-industrial 'golden age'.
Even for non-devout, the usual response of 'we've got to start changing our ways' doesn't actually contain any useful actions, just a vague 'recycle more' meme.
No-one seems to understand that to cut greenhouse gases by 20\% (not just Carbon ffs...that's only one of several greenhouse gases!
) we have to cut our society's output by 20\%.
That means we all get 20\% poorer or 20\% of us die.
The Great Recession saw GDP's drop by 2-5\% and there's already huge suffering.
How much suffering for a 20\% drop?I have no doubt that the climate is changing.
The entire planet is constantly changing, that's clear.
The insanity of politicians picking a temperature and saying 'no further than this' is crass stupidity, a modern equivalent of the old King Cnut story of commanding the tide to stop.
And it's utterly pointless: if the climate does cross their line, then they're impotent to do anything about it.
If the climate doesn't cross their line, then we'll never know if that was because we did things, or because we didn't...too many causes affect the climate for us to be able to unravel them and attribute blame/credit.And meanwhile the population rises and rises.
If the assembled Nations of the World had said '6 billion and no more' and start sterilising their populations, then that's climate action I can believe in.
All the rest is just bullshit politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30293414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30291718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30290864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30278510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30272394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30277162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30289050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30291900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30281578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30279052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_30_0152244_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30291718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30281578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30279052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30289050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30278510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30293414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30290864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268374
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266700
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265780
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266196
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269286
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266952
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271976
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266724
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267344
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269022
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30291900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30277162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30267742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266342
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270346
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30268930
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30271914
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30275698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30274630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30270464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30269418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30266580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_30_0152244.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30265806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_30_0152244.30272394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
