<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_02_1836208</id>
	<title>Scientists Step Down After CRU Hack Fallout</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1259781240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"In the wake of the recent release of thousands of private files and emails after <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1747257/Climatic-Research-Unit-Hacked-Files-Leaked">a server of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was hacked</a>, Prof. Phil Jones is <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125970198500271683.html">stepping down as head of the CRU</a>. Prof. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, is also under inquiry by Penn State University."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " In the wake of the recent release of thousands of private files and emails after a server of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was hacked , Prof. Phil Jones is stepping down as head of the CRU .
Prof. Michael Mann , another prominent climate scientist , is also under inquiry by Penn State University .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "In the wake of the recent release of thousands of private files and emails after a server of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was hacked, Prof. Phil Jones is stepping down as head of the CRU.
Prof. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, is also under inquiry by Penn State University.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305394</id>
	<title>feed the troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259585640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. put an ice cube in a microwave safe cup (preferably transparent)<br>2. fill cup halfway with chilled water<br>3. put cup in microwave for 1 minute<br>4. ?????<br>5. profit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. put an ice cube in a microwave safe cup ( preferably transparent ) 2. fill cup halfway with chilled water3 .
put cup in microwave for 1 minute4 .
? ? ? ? ? 5. profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. put an ice cube in a microwave safe cup (preferably transparent)2. fill cup halfway with chilled water3.
put cup in microwave for 1 minute4.
?????5. profit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305776</id>
	<title>Re:*NOT* "denialists</title>
	<author>bjourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259587620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is not entirely unlike some "revisionists" who finally can admit that, yes, some people died in the Holocaust camps. But it was for natural causes, like fever, pneumonia and typhus. It had absolutely nothing to do with man-made Zyklon B, carbon monoxide or gun shots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is not entirely unlike some " revisionists " who finally can admit that , yes , some people died in the Holocaust camps .
But it was for natural causes , like fever , pneumonia and typhus .
It had absolutely nothing to do with man-made Zyklon B , carbon monoxide or gun shots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is not entirely unlike some "revisionists" who finally can admit that, yes, some people died in the Holocaust camps.
But it was for natural causes, like fever, pneumonia and typhus.
It had absolutely nothing to do with man-made Zyklon B, carbon monoxide or gun shots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304288</id>
	<title>Re:Google Censoring Climategate</title>
	<author>dusanv</author>
	<datestamp>1259581260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing did have 'climategate' as the top suggestion until today. In fact, just typing 'cli' would have netted you climategate as the top suggestion on Bing until today. Yes, it's disappeared completely today. See <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/02/google-trends-on-climategate-show-public-interest-increasing-but-troubling-questions-loom/#more-13582" title="wattsupwiththat.com">here</a> [wattsupwiththat.com] and <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">here</a> [wattsupwiththat.com] for more details.</p><p>Do no evil, huh? At least MS isn't making any pretences...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing did have 'climategate ' as the top suggestion until today .
In fact , just typing 'cli ' would have netted you climategate as the top suggestion on Bing until today .
Yes , it 's disappeared completely today .
See here [ wattsupwiththat.com ] and here [ wattsupwiththat.com ] for more details.Do no evil , huh ?
At least MS is n't making any pretences.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing did have 'climategate' as the top suggestion until today.
In fact, just typing 'cli' would have netted you climategate as the top suggestion on Bing until today.
Yes, it's disappeared completely today.
See here [wattsupwiththat.com] and here [wattsupwiththat.com] for more details.Do no evil, huh?
At least MS isn't making any pretences...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>chillax137</author>
	<datestamp>1259574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously you didn't take the time to read the realclimate.org post. They cite evidence in their refutations, show that most of the claims are taken out of context, and explain certain terms and phrases that can be considered jargon for their community.
<br> <br>
In response to the readme file. Yes, the coding is bad. They aren't fudging the data though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously you did n't take the time to read the realclimate.org post .
They cite evidence in their refutations , show that most of the claims are taken out of context , and explain certain terms and phrases that can be considered jargon for their community .
In response to the readme file .
Yes , the coding is bad .
They are n't fudging the data though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously you didn't take the time to read the realclimate.org post.
They cite evidence in their refutations, show that most of the claims are taken out of context, and explain certain terms and phrases that can be considered jargon for their community.
In response to the readme file.
Yes, the coding is bad.
They aren't fudging the data though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301716</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Madoff stole BILLIONS of dollars, caused numerous people to commit suicide, and turned retiree's pleasant lifestyles into hellish poverty. Who did Jones and Mann impoverish or cause death to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Madoff stole BILLIONS of dollars , caused numerous people to commit suicide , and turned retiree 's pleasant lifestyles into hellish poverty .
Who did Jones and Mann impoverish or cause death to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Madoff stole BILLIONS of dollars, caused numerous people to commit suicide, and turned retiree's pleasant lifestyles into hellish poverty.
Who did Jones and Mann impoverish or cause death to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304298</id>
	<title>Now put them on trial for crimes against humanity!</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1259581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many lives will the socialist propaganda like "global warming" will end up costing the human civilization?  The answer can never be known, but it is clear that strengthening and centralizing government power disempowers all individuals and decelerates the rate of economic and technological growth, which has a negative effect on the quality of life as well as life expectancy of everyone alive today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many lives will the socialist propaganda like " global warming " will end up costing the human civilization ?
The answer can never be known , but it is clear that strengthening and centralizing government power disempowers all individuals and decelerates the rate of economic and technological growth , which has a negative effect on the quality of life as well as life expectancy of everyone alive today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many lives will the socialist propaganda like "global warming" will end up costing the human civilization?
The answer can never be known, but it is clear that strengthening and centralizing government power disempowers all individuals and decelerates the rate of economic and technological growth, which has a negative effect on the quality of life as well as life expectancy of everyone alive today!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301726</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1259573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You act as if the AGW zealots have nothing to gain from ignoring the failures in the science.<br>No matter what the science says (that would be the REAL data, not some massaged, averaged, sampled, and manipulated data), everyone that has a political stake in declaring "the sky is falling"* will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 isn't the catastrophe it's claimed to be.  Simple selfish interest.</p><p>* whether this be from: too much cold, too much heat, running out of food, running out of oil, running out of clean water, all the wild animals going extinct, running out of landfill space, DDT, PCBs, mercury, lead, acid rain, nuclear power, coal power, overpopulation...did I miss any 'doomsday naturalist scenarios' posited in the last 30 years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You act as if the AGW zealots have nothing to gain from ignoring the failures in the science.No matter what the science says ( that would be the REAL data , not some massaged , averaged , sampled , and manipulated data ) , everyone that has a political stake in declaring " the sky is falling " * will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 is n't the catastrophe it 's claimed to be .
Simple selfish interest .
* whether this be from : too much cold , too much heat , running out of food , running out of oil , running out of clean water , all the wild animals going extinct , running out of landfill space , DDT , PCBs , mercury , lead , acid rain , nuclear power , coal power , overpopulation...did I miss any 'doomsday naturalist scenarios ' posited in the last 30 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You act as if the AGW zealots have nothing to gain from ignoring the failures in the science.No matter what the science says (that would be the REAL data, not some massaged, averaged, sampled, and manipulated data), everyone that has a political stake in declaring "the sky is falling"* will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 isn't the catastrophe it's claimed to be.
Simple selfish interest.
* whether this be from: too much cold, too much heat, running out of food, running out of oil, running out of clean water, all the wild animals going extinct, running out of landfill space, DDT, PCBs, mercury, lead, acid rain, nuclear power, coal power, overpopulation...did I miss any 'doomsday naturalist scenarios' posited in the last 30 years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302864</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The motivations are plentiful, not always practiced in concert (until recently) but have found some common ground in some secret unspoken union of so called concerned citizens of the world</p><p>1) it began as "scientific speculation"<br>2) it was then borrowed for enviromental movement and raw political gain<br>3) it found additional friends in those who seek to destroy successful economies and social<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; systems which have won against the collectivist/totalitarianist interests who know you<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cannot conquer free men and the only way to get over them is to convince them to self<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; impose their own decline and their rhetoric was spilled into the pond and used over and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; over<br>4) the useful idiot was critical in aiding #3 and proved to be also useful to #1 and 2 and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; some of them occupy positions of power and academia as we now see and have known for<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; some time<br>5) so called practitioners of science were deluded by their delusions of granduer and self<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; importance and of course funding streams, some of them present here<br>6) the media, being the lemmings they are not only willingly promoted the psuedo science but<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; colluded in the propagation of mis information and intimidation of skeptics</p><p>They should all be publicly flogged</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The motivations are plentiful , not always practiced in concert ( until recently ) but have found some common ground in some secret unspoken union of so called concerned citizens of the world1 ) it began as " scientific speculation " 2 ) it was then borrowed for enviromental movement and raw political gain3 ) it found additional friends in those who seek to destroy successful economies and social       systems which have won against the collectivist/totalitarianist interests who know you       can not conquer free men and the only way to get over them is to convince them to self       impose their own decline and their rhetoric was spilled into the pond and used over and       over4 ) the useful idiot was critical in aiding # 3 and proved to be also useful to # 1 and 2 and       some of them occupy positions of power and academia as we now see and have known for       some time5 ) so called practitioners of science were deluded by their delusions of granduer and self       importance and of course funding streams , some of them present here6 ) the media , being the lemmings they are not only willingly promoted the psuedo science but       colluded in the propagation of mis information and intimidation of skepticsThey should all be publicly flogged</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The motivations are plentiful, not always practiced in concert (until recently) but have found some common ground in some secret unspoken union of so called concerned citizens of the world1) it began as "scientific speculation"2) it was then borrowed for enviromental movement and raw political gain3) it found additional friends in those who seek to destroy successful economies and social
      systems which have won against the collectivist/totalitarianist interests who know you
      cannot conquer free men and the only way to get over them is to convince them to self
      impose their own decline and their rhetoric was spilled into the pond and used over and
      over4) the useful idiot was critical in aiding #3 and proved to be also useful to #1 and 2 and
      some of them occupy positions of power and academia as we now see and have known for
      some time5) so called practitioners of science were deluded by their delusions of granduer and self
      importance and of course funding streams, some of them present here6) the media, being the lemmings they are not only willingly promoted the psuedo science but
      colluded in the propagation of mis information and intimidation of skepticsThey should all be publicly flogged</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301398</id>
	<title>Chuck Norris says...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/12/chuck-norris-takes-obamas-climate-one-world-order" title="motherjones.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/12/chuck-norris-takes-obamas-climate-one-world-order</a> [motherjones.com]</p><p>"My big worry, is that we as a nation, if we start having to be obligated to other countries<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Like, in this conference they're going to try to take our money and send it to third world countries, because of since we spend so much oil, and these other countries have suffered, then we're going to give our money to these third world countries."</p><p>I don't know about you, but I found this comment to be hilarious in its absurdity!</p><p>1) Biggest objector to a Climate Change accord: USA.<br>2) The reason? Because the big polluters out there like China and India will not contribute.<br>3) The reason? Because the USA et al. have been doing it for decades and as a result are very developed (wealthy). China and India figure it is their turn, why should their development be held back, its not fair.<br>4) The impasse?: Every accord that has been done basically severally cuts emissions in developed countries, while barely touching those of 3rd world or developing countries.<br>5) The result?: Developed countries will have tighter restrictions likely leading in a decline of their economy, while developing countries will continue to grow and will have boom economies.</p><p>So in one sense Chuck Norris is correct, on some level there will be a redistribution of wealth from rich developed countries to poor developing countries. However in another sense he is an idiot, as the USA currently OWES China something in the tune of 800 Billion dollars and growing anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/12/chuck-norris-takes-obamas-climate-one-world-order [ motherjones.com ] " My big worry , is that we as a nation , if we start having to be obligated to other countries ... Like , in this conference they 're going to try to take our money and send it to third world countries , because of since we spend so much oil , and these other countries have suffered , then we 're going to give our money to these third world countries .
" I do n't know about you , but I found this comment to be hilarious in its absurdity ! 1 ) Biggest objector to a Climate Change accord : USA.2 ) The reason ?
Because the big polluters out there like China and India will not contribute.3 ) The reason ?
Because the USA et al .
have been doing it for decades and as a result are very developed ( wealthy ) .
China and India figure it is their turn , why should their development be held back , its not fair.4 ) The impasse ?
: Every accord that has been done basically severally cuts emissions in developed countries , while barely touching those of 3rd world or developing countries.5 ) The result ?
: Developed countries will have tighter restrictions likely leading in a decline of their economy , while developing countries will continue to grow and will have boom economies.So in one sense Chuck Norris is correct , on some level there will be a redistribution of wealth from rich developed countries to poor developing countries .
However in another sense he is an idiot , as the USA currently OWES China something in the tune of 800 Billion dollars and growing anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/12/chuck-norris-takes-obamas-climate-one-world-order [motherjones.com]"My big worry, is that we as a nation, if we start having to be obligated to other countries ... Like, in this conference they're going to try to take our money and send it to third world countries, because of since we spend so much oil, and these other countries have suffered, then we're going to give our money to these third world countries.
"I don't know about you, but I found this comment to be hilarious in its absurdity!1) Biggest objector to a Climate Change accord: USA.2) The reason?
Because the big polluters out there like China and India will not contribute.3) The reason?
Because the USA et al.
have been doing it for decades and as a result are very developed (wealthy).
China and India figure it is their turn, why should their development be held back, its not fair.4) The impasse?
: Every accord that has been done basically severally cuts emissions in developed countries, while barely touching those of 3rd world or developing countries.5) The result?
: Developed countries will have tighter restrictions likely leading in a decline of their economy, while developing countries will continue to grow and will have boom economies.So in one sense Chuck Norris is correct, on some level there will be a redistribution of wealth from rich developed countries to poor developing countries.
However in another sense he is an idiot, as the USA currently OWES China something in the tune of 800 Billion dollars and growing anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301620</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>antibryce</author>
	<datestamp>1259572860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fyi realclimate.org should be viewed very skeptically.  In the leaked emails the fact that realclimate.org is essentially run by these very scientists is discussed in detail</p><p><a href="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&amp;filename=1139521913.txt" title="eastangliaemails.com">http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&amp;filename=1139521913.txt</a> [eastangliaemails.com]</p><p><i>I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.</i></p><p><i>[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fyi realclimate.org should be viewed very skeptically .
In the leaked emails the fact that realclimate.org is essentially run by these very scientists is discussed in detailhttp : //www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php ? eid = 622&amp;filename = 1139521913.txt [ eastangliaemails.com ] I wanted you guys to know that you 're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful .
Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not , and if so , any comments you 'd like us to include .
[ T ] hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We 'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics do n't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fyi realclimate.org should be viewed very skeptically.
In the leaked emails the fact that realclimate.org is essentially run by these very scientists is discussed in detailhttp://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&amp;filename=1139521913.txt [eastangliaemails.com]I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful.
Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.
[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30322436</id>
	<title>Re:Linking to Realclimate is not the best idea</title>
	<author>Flaming Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1259929920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So to see a site that is run by Mann and others he agrees with supporting him, well that doesn't really say much, does it?</p></div><p>What you are suggesting is essentially the same as if someone were accused of a crime, he should not be heard. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone? Why not listen to what Mann has to say and then decide?</p><p>It really seems to me that all that the denialists have one ten-year old email which uses the word "trick" and a handful of scientists, most of whom have proven links to oil, gas and coal industry. On the other side, there is almost 200 years' worth of science, and I believe even at this very moment over 10000 scientists who are basically saying "the evidence is clear, there is really not much debate left". I'd <i>love</i> to be wrong, but I'm afraid I'm not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So to see a site that is run by Mann and others he agrees with supporting him , well that does n't really say much , does it ? What you are suggesting is essentially the same as if someone were accused of a crime , he should not be heard .
Innocent until proven guilty , anyone ?
Why not listen to what Mann has to say and then decide ? It really seems to me that all that the denialists have one ten-year old email which uses the word " trick " and a handful of scientists , most of whom have proven links to oil , gas and coal industry .
On the other side , there is almost 200 years ' worth of science , and I believe even at this very moment over 10000 scientists who are basically saying " the evidence is clear , there is really not much debate left " .
I 'd love to be wrong , but I 'm afraid I 'm not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So to see a site that is run by Mann and others he agrees with supporting him, well that doesn't really say much, does it?What you are suggesting is essentially the same as if someone were accused of a crime, he should not be heard.
Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?
Why not listen to what Mann has to say and then decide?It really seems to me that all that the denialists have one ten-year old email which uses the word "trick" and a handful of scientists, most of whom have proven links to oil, gas and coal industry.
On the other side, there is almost 200 years' worth of science, and I believe even at this very moment over 10000 scientists who are basically saying "the evidence is clear, there is really not much debate left".
I'd love to be wrong, but I'm afraid I'm not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304044</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Realclimate started out as an impartial discussion site...but it is now dominated by the corrupt science revealed in the e-mails.</p><p>In the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.<br>Mann says in one of the e-mails-</p><p>"I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include."</p><p>Sorry, Realclimate is no longer a valid source.  They are tainted, and caught in their web of so called climate consensus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Realclimate started out as an impartial discussion site...but it is now dominated by the corrupt science revealed in the e-mails.In the CRU e-mails , the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.Mann says in one of the e-mails- " I wanted you guys to know that you 're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful .
Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not , and if so , any comments you 'd like us to include .
" Sorry , Realclimate is no longer a valid source .
They are tainted , and caught in their web of so called climate consensus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Realclimate started out as an impartial discussion site...but it is now dominated by the corrupt science revealed in the e-mails.In the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.Mann says in one of the e-mails-"I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful.
Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.
"Sorry, Realclimate is no longer a valid source.
They are tainted, and caught in their web of so called climate consensus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934</id>
	<title>Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it so hard to acknowledge that Jones, Mann, et al have engauged in FRAUD?  Not just any kind of fraud, but a massive fraud that makes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard\_Madoff" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Bernie Madoff's</a> [wikipedia.org] scam look tiny.  Just like Bernie, climate "scientists" like Jones and Mann have said their science doesn't need to be questioned because of their renowned reputations.  Actually, they may be worse than Madoff, because AFAIK, Madoff didn't go out of his way to smear critics.<br> <br>

Jones, Mann, and their fellow science-nazis should be cooling their heels in jail cells right next to Madoff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it so hard to acknowledge that Jones , Mann , et al have engauged in FRAUD ?
Not just any kind of fraud , but a massive fraud that makes Bernie Madoff 's [ wikipedia.org ] scam look tiny .
Just like Bernie , climate " scientists " like Jones and Mann have said their science does n't need to be questioned because of their renowned reputations .
Actually , they may be worse than Madoff , because AFAIK , Madoff did n't go out of his way to smear critics .
Jones , Mann , and their fellow science-nazis should be cooling their heels in jail cells right next to Madoff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it so hard to acknowledge that Jones, Mann, et al have engauged in FRAUD?
Not just any kind of fraud, but a massive fraud that makes Bernie Madoff's [wikipedia.org] scam look tiny.
Just like Bernie, climate "scientists" like Jones and Mann have said their science doesn't need to be questioned because of their renowned reputations.
Actually, they may be worse than Madoff, because AFAIK, Madoff didn't go out of his way to smear critics.
Jones, Mann, and their fellow science-nazis should be cooling their heels in jail cells right next to Madoff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305448</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259586000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ohh..... I get it! It's the Glenn Beck approach! "Isn't it true that Susie is a whore? Isn't she? Well then you will have no problem proving that she isn't. I'm just asking questions that need to be asked."</p><p>Seriously. The amount of personal insinuations that are floating around about this is astounding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ohh..... I get it !
It 's the Glenn Beck approach !
" Is n't it true that Susie is a whore ?
Is n't she ?
Well then you will have no problem proving that she is n't .
I 'm just asking questions that need to be asked. " Seriously .
The amount of personal insinuations that are floating around about this is astounding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ohh..... I get it!
It's the Glenn Beck approach!
"Isn't it true that Susie is a whore?
Isn't she?
Well then you will have no problem proving that she isn't.
I'm just asking questions that need to be asked."Seriously.
The amount of personal insinuations that are floating around about this is astounding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30309224</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1259847000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In god we trust, the rest of you show me the data.
<br> <br>
Deleting data is more than bad enough to justify the inquiry. If it was an accident this brings up competence issues. If it was deliberate, its so close to scientific fraud..... And after you get a FOIA whatever, its illegal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In god we trust , the rest of you show me the data .
Deleting data is more than bad enough to justify the inquiry .
If it was an accident this brings up competence issues .
If it was deliberate , its so close to scientific fraud..... And after you get a FOIA whatever , its illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In god we trust, the rest of you show me the data.
Deleting data is more than bad enough to justify the inquiry.
If it was an accident this brings up competence issues.
If it was deliberate, its so close to scientific fraud..... And after you get a FOIA whatever, its illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302898</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. They manipulated the peer-review process and controlled it to the point of changing what peer-review meant, freezing out contrary authors, reviewing each others' work, getting editors fired, etc. There's a lot of that kind of manipulation revealed.</p></div><p>The "changing what peer review meant" was a joke - as demonstrated by the fact they did reference the two papers in the IGCC report that they were talking about what "changing what peer review meant" in order to exclude.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. They colluded to avoid the FOIA and deleted emails and threatened to delete data before they would release it under FOIA. This is illegal.</p></div><p>As far as I can tell, they weren't serious about that, though most of the scientists do seem to be seriously fed up with dubious FOIA requests for data they can't release by people who'll just end up misinterpreting it anyway...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.' I don't have a problem with 'trick' being used. No big deal, but 'hide the decline'? Not good.</p></div><p>Firstly, not one e-mail talked about getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period. There were e-mails talking about a bogus statement attributed to one scientist in which he said that, but that's it. (Oh, and e-mails about containing the Medieval Warm Period - as in, obtaining temperature data far back enough to cover it in its entirety...)</p><p>Secondly, they did a really good job of "hiding the decline". <b>Publishing about it in the very high-profile journal <em>Nature</em> a decade ago proved a very effective way of keeping it secret.</b> Not. (The "decline" in question is a decline in indirect temperature measurements obtained from the density of tree cores in the high-latitude Northern hemisphere. It's a headache for reasearchers because they know based on other measurements that temperatures haven't actually declined - real cooling would be a different matter entirely...)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. They would manipulate the data by simply not adding it, closing a run on an increase, when the subsequent data showed a decline.</p></div><p>Nope. The issue is not that the subsequent data shows a decline, but that it doesn't match up with other measurements.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They seem dismayed that the last ten years shows an overall redction in temperature, at one point calling it a travesty and suggesting the data must be wrong.</p></div><p>Hmmmm? The only thing I've seen called a travesty was the current scientific level of understanding of certain large-scale weather systems. One of the scientists was complaining that it was the coldest year on record where he was and they didn't know why.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>5. Because there were no thermometers 2000 years ago, they use 'proxies' such as tree rings, ice core samples, etc. However, tree ring growth can be caused by wetness and other issues, not just temperature. In ine case they 'proved; warming based on 12 trees in Siberia. When hey went back and measured many more trees, the increase disappeared.</p></div><p>Yeah, that's a pain for researchers</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But the more damning evidence is in the programs themselves, including REM statements where 'hide the decline' is found numerous times</p></div><p>All related to Briffa's work on the problem with certain tree rings as temperature measurements since 1960, from what I can tell. Yes, all of them, really. Take a look at the file names.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>data is manually manipulated, and the programs would throw an error and keep on running.</p></div><p>Sounds about right for scientific code.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There's one 'Harry Read me' text file where poor Harry is trying to make sense of the code, over several years, and points out many of the flaws.</p></div><p>Yep. Some ancient legacy code base for an generating an obscure and equally legacy temperature dataset, apparently. (One that's underfunded, I suspect - it's not one of the big high-profile world temperature data sets. It's also not the same as the high-profile data set HadCRUT, which is the big non-NOAA temperature data set.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate, however, they were 'calibrated' on the 'adjusted' terrestrial data sets.</p></div><p>You can't measure temperature directly at that distance. What you're actually measuring is the thermal emissions of the various regions, which depend on their emission characteristics...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
They manipulated the peer-review process and controlled it to the point of changing what peer-review meant , freezing out contrary authors , reviewing each others ' work , getting editors fired , etc .
There 's a lot of that kind of manipulation revealed.The " changing what peer review meant " was a joke - as demonstrated by the fact they did reference the two papers in the IGCC report that they were talking about what " changing what peer review meant " in order to exclude.2 .
They colluded to avoid the FOIA and deleted emails and threatened to delete data before they would release it under FOIA .
This is illegal.As far as I can tell , they were n't serious about that , though most of the scientists do seem to be seriously fed up with dubious FOIA requests for data they ca n't release by people who 'll just end up misinterpreting it anyway...3 .
They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline ' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period .
' I do n't have a problem with 'trick ' being used .
No big deal , but 'hide the decline ' ?
Not good.Firstly , not one e-mail talked about getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period .
There were e-mails talking about a bogus statement attributed to one scientist in which he said that , but that 's it .
( Oh , and e-mails about containing the Medieval Warm Period - as in , obtaining temperature data far back enough to cover it in its entirety... ) Secondly , they did a really good job of " hiding the decline " .
Publishing about it in the very high-profile journal Nature a decade ago proved a very effective way of keeping it secret .
Not. ( The " decline " in question is a decline in indirect temperature measurements obtained from the density of tree cores in the high-latitude Northern hemisphere .
It 's a headache for reasearchers because they know based on other measurements that temperatures have n't actually declined - real cooling would be a different matter entirely... ) 4 .
They would manipulate the data by simply not adding it , closing a run on an increase , when the subsequent data showed a decline.Nope .
The issue is not that the subsequent data shows a decline , but that it does n't match up with other measurements.They seem dismayed that the last ten years shows an overall redction in temperature , at one point calling it a travesty and suggesting the data must be wrong.Hmmmm ?
The only thing I 've seen called a travesty was the current scientific level of understanding of certain large-scale weather systems .
One of the scientists was complaining that it was the coldest year on record where he was and they did n't know why.5 .
Because there were no thermometers 2000 years ago , they use 'proxies ' such as tree rings , ice core samples , etc .
However , tree ring growth can be caused by wetness and other issues , not just temperature .
In ine case they 'proved ; warming based on 12 trees in Siberia .
When hey went back and measured many more trees , the increase disappeared.Yeah , that 's a pain for researchersBut the more damning evidence is in the programs themselves , including REM statements where 'hide the decline ' is found numerous timesAll related to Briffa 's work on the problem with certain tree rings as temperature measurements since 1960 , from what I can tell .
Yes , all of them , really .
Take a look at the file names.data is manually manipulated , and the programs would throw an error and keep on running.Sounds about right for scientific code.There 's one 'Harry Read me ' text file where poor Harry is trying to make sense of the code , over several years , and points out many of the flaws.Yep .
Some ancient legacy code base for an generating an obscure and equally legacy temperature dataset , apparently .
( One that 's underfunded , I suspect - it 's not one of the big high-profile world temperature data sets .
It 's also not the same as the high-profile data set HadCRUT , which is the big non-NOAA temperature data set .
) You 'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate , however , they were 'calibrated ' on the 'adjusted ' terrestrial data sets.You ca n't measure temperature directly at that distance .
What you 're actually measuring is the thermal emissions of the various regions , which depend on their emission characteristics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
They manipulated the peer-review process and controlled it to the point of changing what peer-review meant, freezing out contrary authors, reviewing each others' work, getting editors fired, etc.
There's a lot of that kind of manipulation revealed.The "changing what peer review meant" was a joke - as demonstrated by the fact they did reference the two papers in the IGCC report that they were talking about what "changing what peer review meant" in order to exclude.2.
They colluded to avoid the FOIA and deleted emails and threatened to delete data before they would release it under FOIA.
This is illegal.As far as I can tell, they weren't serious about that, though most of the scientists do seem to be seriously fed up with dubious FOIA requests for data they can't release by people who'll just end up misinterpreting it anyway...3.
They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.
' I don't have a problem with 'trick' being used.
No big deal, but 'hide the decline'?
Not good.Firstly, not one e-mail talked about getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period.
There were e-mails talking about a bogus statement attributed to one scientist in which he said that, but that's it.
(Oh, and e-mails about containing the Medieval Warm Period - as in, obtaining temperature data far back enough to cover it in its entirety...)Secondly, they did a really good job of "hiding the decline".
Publishing about it in the very high-profile journal Nature a decade ago proved a very effective way of keeping it secret.
Not. (The "decline" in question is a decline in indirect temperature measurements obtained from the density of tree cores in the high-latitude Northern hemisphere.
It's a headache for reasearchers because they know based on other measurements that temperatures haven't actually declined - real cooling would be a different matter entirely...)4.
They would manipulate the data by simply not adding it, closing a run on an increase, when the subsequent data showed a decline.Nope.
The issue is not that the subsequent data shows a decline, but that it doesn't match up with other measurements.They seem dismayed that the last ten years shows an overall redction in temperature, at one point calling it a travesty and suggesting the data must be wrong.Hmmmm?
The only thing I've seen called a travesty was the current scientific level of understanding of certain large-scale weather systems.
One of the scientists was complaining that it was the coldest year on record where he was and they didn't know why.5.
Because there were no thermometers 2000 years ago, they use 'proxies' such as tree rings, ice core samples, etc.
However, tree ring growth can be caused by wetness and other issues, not just temperature.
In ine case they 'proved; warming based on 12 trees in Siberia.
When hey went back and measured many more trees, the increase disappeared.Yeah, that's a pain for researchersBut the more damning evidence is in the programs themselves, including REM statements where 'hide the decline' is found numerous timesAll related to Briffa's work on the problem with certain tree rings as temperature measurements since 1960, from what I can tell.
Yes, all of them, really.
Take a look at the file names.data is manually manipulated, and the programs would throw an error and keep on running.Sounds about right for scientific code.There's one 'Harry Read me' text file where poor Harry is trying to make sense of the code, over several years, and points out many of the flaws.Yep.
Some ancient legacy code base for an generating an obscure and equally legacy temperature dataset, apparently.
(One that's underfunded, I suspect - it's not one of the big high-profile world temperature data sets.
It's also not the same as the high-profile data set HadCRUT, which is the big non-NOAA temperature data set.
)You'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate, however, they were 'calibrated' on the 'adjusted' terrestrial data sets.You can't measure temperature directly at that distance.
What you're actually measuring is the thermal emissions of the various regions, which depend on their emission characteristics...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303500</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1259578620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before you go defending them too much, read this:</p><p><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole\%E2\%80\%A6/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole\%E2\%80\%A6/</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p><p>If this is really how the CRU crew did business then no one has any reason to defend them. They're as bad as any oil company could ever be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you go defending them too much , read this : http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % A6/ [ wattsupwiththat.com ] If this is really how the CRU crew did business then no one has any reason to defend them .
They 're as bad as any oil company could ever be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you go defending them too much, read this:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole\%E2\%80\%A6/ [wattsupwiththat.com]If this is really how the CRU crew did business then no one has any reason to defend them.
They're as bad as any oil company could ever be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302214</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1259574720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have yet to see the "deniers" be as heavily involved in money making schemes as the "alarmists."</p></div><p>not to be facile about this, but it kinda makes sense that people concerned about the future would be more likely to invest speculatively.  Nor does it seem bizarre that they would invest in industries that stood to benefit from the changes they anticipate.</p><p>on the other hand, the deniers strike me as "head-in-the-sand" types.  they have no faith in projections or science so it's difficult for them to make equivalently speculative investments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to see the " deniers " be as heavily involved in money making schemes as the " alarmists .
" not to be facile about this , but it kinda makes sense that people concerned about the future would be more likely to invest speculatively .
Nor does it seem bizarre that they would invest in industries that stood to benefit from the changes they anticipate.on the other hand , the deniers strike me as " head-in-the-sand " types .
they have no faith in projections or science so it 's difficult for them to make equivalently speculative investments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to see the "deniers" be as heavily involved in money making schemes as the "alarmists.
"not to be facile about this, but it kinda makes sense that people concerned about the future would be more likely to invest speculatively.
Nor does it seem bizarre that they would invest in industries that stood to benefit from the changes they anticipate.on the other hand, the deniers strike me as "head-in-the-sand" types.
they have no faith in projections or science so it's difficult for them to make equivalently speculative investments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300968</id>
	<title>Deniers on my Slashdot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more common than you think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more common than you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more common than you think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306768</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1259594940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....has pushed global warming as a way to scare people into world governance....</p><p>Both the prophet Daniel and the apostle John speak of a one world government. Its leader is referred to as the antichrist. You may be right about the global warming scare, but it will probably take something bigger than that, such as  World War III, or at the very least a big war in the Middle East with a nuke or two lobbed by Iran and Israel at each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....has pushed global warming as a way to scare people into world governance....Both the prophet Daniel and the apostle John speak of a one world government .
Its leader is referred to as the antichrist .
You may be right about the global warming scare , but it will probably take something bigger than that , such as World War III , or at the very least a big war in the Middle East with a nuke or two lobbed by Iran and Israel at each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....has pushed global warming as a way to scare people into world governance....Both the prophet Daniel and the apostle John speak of a one world government.
Its leader is referred to as the antichrist.
You may be right about the global warming scare, but it will probably take something bigger than that, such as  World War III, or at the very least a big war in the Middle East with a nuke or two lobbed by Iran and Israel at each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301676</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nothing to see here, move along, move along</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing to see here , move along , move along</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothing to see here, move along, move along</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305624</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Scareduck</author>
	<datestamp>1259586780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In response to the readme file. Yes, the coding is bad. They aren't fudging the data though.</p></div></blockquote><p>

<a href="http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/gerry-north-doesnt-understand-the-trick/" title="wordpress.com">Try</a> [wordpress.com] <a href="http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/replicating-the-trick-diagram/" title="wordpress.com">again</a> [wordpress.com]. They misrepresent their ability to estimate temperatures with proxies. They remove inconvenient data that fails to show their hypothesis panning out.

I don't know what to call that, but "science" isn't it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In response to the readme file .
Yes , the coding is bad .
They are n't fudging the data though .
Try [ wordpress.com ] again [ wordpress.com ] .
They misrepresent their ability to estimate temperatures with proxies .
They remove inconvenient data that fails to show their hypothesis panning out .
I do n't know what to call that , but " science " is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In response to the readme file.
Yes, the coding is bad.
They aren't fudging the data though.
Try [wordpress.com] again [wordpress.com].
They misrepresent their ability to estimate temperatures with proxies.
They remove inconvenient data that fails to show their hypothesis panning out.
I don't know what to call that, but "science" isn't it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30346260</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>nathanh</author>
	<datestamp>1260097140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
The code, written primarily in FORTAN and IDL, is a mess--not professional.
</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>I'm sorry, but "mess" and "professional" are not incompatible. In fact, they're usually the same thing.

</p><p>I'm utterly amazed that Slashdot of all places, with perhaps the highest concentration of IT geeks on the Internet, doesn't seem to know that professional code is often messy crap, which barely compiles, and is riddled with bugs, and is totally undocumented. That's <i>par for the course</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The code , written primarily in FORTAN and IDL , is a mess--not professional .
I 'm sorry , but " mess " and " professional " are not incompatible .
In fact , they 're usually the same thing .
I 'm utterly amazed that Slashdot of all places , with perhaps the highest concentration of IT geeks on the Internet , does n't seem to know that professional code is often messy crap , which barely compiles , and is riddled with bugs , and is totally undocumented .
That 's par for the course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
The code, written primarily in FORTAN and IDL, is a mess--not professional.
I'm sorry, but "mess" and "professional" are not incompatible.
In fact, they're usually the same thing.
I'm utterly amazed that Slashdot of all places, with perhaps the highest concentration of IT geeks on the Internet, doesn't seem to know that professional code is often messy crap, which barely compiles, and is riddled with bugs, and is totally undocumented.
That's par for the course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304356</id>
	<title>HARRY\_READ\_ME.txt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd think that by now there would have been a submission focusing on <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=harry\_read\_me.txt" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">HARRY\_READ\_ME.txt</a> [google.com] because it's wonderfully scary reading for programmers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think that by now there would have been a submission focusing on HARRY \ _READ \ _ME.txt [ google.com ] because it 's wonderfully scary reading for programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think that by now there would have been a submission focusing on HARRY\_READ\_ME.txt [google.com] because it's wonderfully scary reading for programmers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30314102</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>rochrist</author>
	<datestamp>1259869680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly, you aren't going to convince the skeptics with reason or fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , you are n't going to convince the skeptics with reason or fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, you aren't going to convince the skeptics with reason or fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301740</id>
	<title>*NOT*  "denialists</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1259573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A number of people making comments on slashdot are under the mistaken impression that the denialists are denying climate change.  They are not.  Even they know they can't with what is being seen.  Instead, they are denying that climate change is the result of human activity.  Very<br>convenient.  It absolves them from changing their behavior and/or spending money to fix the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A number of people making comments on slashdot are under the mistaken impression that the denialists are denying climate change .
They are not .
Even they know they ca n't with what is being seen .
Instead , they are denying that climate change is the result of human activity .
Veryconvenient. It absolves them from changing their behavior and/or spending money to fix the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A number of people making comments on slashdot are under the mistaken impression that the denialists are denying climate change.
They are not.
Even they know they can't with what is being seen.
Instead, they are denying that climate change is the result of human activity.
Veryconvenient.  It absolves them from changing their behavior and/or spending money to fix the issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304352</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a former academic researcher and current researcher in private industry.  Horrible code is par for the course.  Unless your final product is the code itself, all code in pursuit of the product (scientific paper to publish or widget to sell) is duct tape via cowboy methods.  In industry, I hope to get functional proof of concept in development, and figure the guys who polish it up for commerce know what they're doing.  They often don't.  For established examples from private industry see Diebold or the breathalyzer code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a former academic researcher and current researcher in private industry .
Horrible code is par for the course .
Unless your final product is the code itself , all code in pursuit of the product ( scientific paper to publish or widget to sell ) is duct tape via cowboy methods .
In industry , I hope to get functional proof of concept in development , and figure the guys who polish it up for commerce know what they 're doing .
They often do n't .
For established examples from private industry see Diebold or the breathalyzer code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a former academic researcher and current researcher in private industry.
Horrible code is par for the course.
Unless your final product is the code itself, all code in pursuit of the product (scientific paper to publish or widget to sell) is duct tape via cowboy methods.
In industry, I hope to get functional proof of concept in development, and figure the guys who polish it up for commerce know what they're doing.
They often don't.
For established examples from private industry see Diebold or the breathalyzer code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301616</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Saanvik</author>
	<datestamp>1259572800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the chart was not from random noise.</p><p>
1. No they did not.<br>
2. No, they did not.<br>
3. No, they did not.<br>
4. No, they did not.<br>
5. No, they did not.</p><p>I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point.  You have an ax to grind, and your claims show nothing but your bias.
</p><p>
If you disagree, please post proof of each of your claims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the chart was not from random noise .
1. No they did not .
2. No , they did not .
3. No , they did not .
4. No , they did not .
5. No , they did not.I could go on , but I think everyone gets the point .
You have an ax to grind , and your claims show nothing but your bias .
If you disagree , please post proof of each of your claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the chart was not from random noise.
1. No they did not.
2. No, they did not.
3. No, they did not.
4. No, they did not.
5. No, they did not.I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point.
You have an ax to grind, and your claims show nothing but your bias.
If you disagree, please post proof of each of your claims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303658</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For scientists it is about getting funding to keep up the research and world wide field trips to prove global warming. For all the Hollywood celebrities its the new hot cause to back since public interest in AIDS has subsided. They are flying their large private jets to Copenhagen right now.<br>For politicians and economists it is about trying to create a new industry, taxation system, and bureaucracy. Al Gore himself has over 200 million invested in green ventures ("carbon credits"): http://newsbusters.org/node/11149<br>If the global warming hype subsides a lot of government big shots will lose their investments. Their green industry companies currently depend on government subsidies to survive, and will only boom if the requirement for carbon credits becomes law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For scientists it is about getting funding to keep up the research and world wide field trips to prove global warming .
For all the Hollywood celebrities its the new hot cause to back since public interest in AIDS has subsided .
They are flying their large private jets to Copenhagen right now.For politicians and economists it is about trying to create a new industry , taxation system , and bureaucracy .
Al Gore himself has over 200 million invested in green ventures ( " carbon credits " ) : http : //newsbusters.org/node/11149If the global warming hype subsides a lot of government big shots will lose their investments .
Their green industry companies currently depend on government subsidies to survive , and will only boom if the requirement for carbon credits becomes law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For scientists it is about getting funding to keep up the research and world wide field trips to prove global warming.
For all the Hollywood celebrities its the new hot cause to back since public interest in AIDS has subsided.
They are flying their large private jets to Copenhagen right now.For politicians and economists it is about trying to create a new industry, taxation system, and bureaucracy.
Al Gore himself has over 200 million invested in green ventures ("carbon credits"): http://newsbusters.org/node/11149If the global warming hype subsides a lot of government big shots will lose their investments.
Their green industry companies currently depend on government subsidies to survive, and will only boom if the requirement for carbon credits becomes law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307490</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1259602380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you modify your raw data to create the desired result, and then delete it, what you're doing isn't science.  It's science fiction.  Have a nice <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf" title="climateaudit.org" rel="nofollow">pdf</a> [climateaudit.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you modify your raw data to create the desired result , and then delete it , what you 're doing is n't science .
It 's science fiction .
Have a nice pdf [ climateaudit.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you modify your raw data to create the desired result, and then delete it, what you're doing isn't science.
It's science fiction.
Have a nice pdf [climateaudit.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306360</id>
	<title>Re:Google Censoring Cl1mategate</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1259591700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about you, but I'm tired of hearing about 'Cl<b>1</b>mategate' as are many others who like me will not be Googling it in order to make it disappear. I'm waiting to be unenthused about Tigergate which will be hitting google in 3...2...1...<br> <br>
(Do you see what <b>1</b> d1d there?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but I 'm tired of hearing about 'Cl1mategate ' as are many others who like me will not be Googling it in order to make it disappear .
I 'm waiting to be unenthused about Tigergate which will be hitting google in 3...2...1.. . ( Do you see what 1 d1d there ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but I'm tired of hearing about 'Cl1mategate' as are many others who like me will not be Googling it in order to make it disappear.
I'm waiting to be unenthused about Tigergate which will be hitting google in 3...2...1... 
(Do you see what 1 d1d there?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301580</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1259572740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we should believe the same publications who published the fraudulent analysis from the same people who are implicated in this scandal? Yeah, right.</p><p>By the way, why don't they show us the data they've been hiding and trying so hard to block FOI requests for? Oh, that's right, they "lost" it.</p><p>The e-mails clearly show that they fudged the analysis of the data, not the data itself. The e-mails show they conspired with government officials to block FOI requests, which is a criminal offense. They also discussed deleting data after FOI requests were made, another criminal offense.</p><p>Reading two articles where they look at selected e-mails that don't show much isn't impressing anyone. Read the e-mails or at least have the fortitude to look at what dissenters have to say and which e-mails they show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we should believe the same publications who published the fraudulent analysis from the same people who are implicated in this scandal ?
Yeah , right.By the way , why do n't they show us the data they 've been hiding and trying so hard to block FOI requests for ?
Oh , that 's right , they " lost " it.The e-mails clearly show that they fudged the analysis of the data , not the data itself .
The e-mails show they conspired with government officials to block FOI requests , which is a criminal offense .
They also discussed deleting data after FOI requests were made , another criminal offense.Reading two articles where they look at selected e-mails that do n't show much is n't impressing anyone .
Read the e-mails or at least have the fortitude to look at what dissenters have to say and which e-mails they show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we should believe the same publications who published the fraudulent analysis from the same people who are implicated in this scandal?
Yeah, right.By the way, why don't they show us the data they've been hiding and trying so hard to block FOI requests for?
Oh, that's right, they "lost" it.The e-mails clearly show that they fudged the analysis of the data, not the data itself.
The e-mails show they conspired with government officials to block FOI requests, which is a criminal offense.
They also discussed deleting data after FOI requests were made, another criminal offense.Reading two articles where they look at selected e-mails that don't show much isn't impressing anyone.
Read the e-mails or at least have the fortitude to look at what dissenters have to say and which e-mails they show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307682</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In response to the readme file. Yes, the coding is bad. They aren't fudging the data though.</i> </p><p>They don't have to; the code itself does it for them.  Whether or not the data has been manipulated (I can't tell, since I have no original data to which it can be compared) is irrelevant, because the code itself is irrefutable evidence that the science is fraudulent.  It isn't merely written in an incompetent manner (although it is), it also doesn't do what a reasonable person would expect such code to do.  Anyone who has looked at that code and believes it is an accurate model of the Earth's climate is incompetent to hold a relevant opinion on the matter.</p><p>Human caused global warming might be real, but that code is a fraud regardless of anyone's opinion on the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In response to the readme file .
Yes , the coding is bad .
They are n't fudging the data though .
They do n't have to ; the code itself does it for them .
Whether or not the data has been manipulated ( I ca n't tell , since I have no original data to which it can be compared ) is irrelevant , because the code itself is irrefutable evidence that the science is fraudulent .
It is n't merely written in an incompetent manner ( although it is ) , it also does n't do what a reasonable person would expect such code to do .
Anyone who has looked at that code and believes it is an accurate model of the Earth 's climate is incompetent to hold a relevant opinion on the matter.Human caused global warming might be real , but that code is a fraud regardless of anyone 's opinion on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In response to the readme file.
Yes, the coding is bad.
They aren't fudging the data though.
They don't have to; the code itself does it for them.
Whether or not the data has been manipulated (I can't tell, since I have no original data to which it can be compared) is irrelevant, because the code itself is irrefutable evidence that the science is fraudulent.
It isn't merely written in an incompetent manner (although it is), it also doesn't do what a reasonable person would expect such code to do.
Anyone who has looked at that code and believes it is an accurate model of the Earth's climate is incompetent to hold a relevant opinion on the matter.Human caused global warming might be real, but that code is a fraud regardless of anyone's opinion on the subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301806</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Straif</author>
	<datestamp>1259573460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So your defense against the fraud charges are an editorial from Nature magazine and a post from a website that is itself caught up in the middle of the scandal.  By this point even many of the more prominent AGW supporters are admitting things look very fishy at the CRU, including fellow members of the EAU faculty.</p><p>As for the mainstream media defense, that's right along the 'consensus = proof' argument.  The MSM has been pushing AGW for years; far beyond the limits of disinterested reporters. In some cases (NBC in particular) they have direct financial ties to the continuation of the theory. NBC's parent company stands to make billions (and yes that's a 'B') based on the proposed anti-CO2 legislation.  Is there any wonder why suddenly when news comes out that shines a very negative light on their cause of the day that they are slow in covering it.</p><p>Basically, in the US in particular, if the story doesn't fit their political agenda news agencies are quite happy to ignore them.  Just look at the last election cycle with the John Edwards fiasco.  The New York Times was running front page stories of John McCain's relationship a decade earlier with a lobbyist that 2 assistants said he was friendly with (despite no hint of an affair and a voting record that did not in any way match her lobbyist positions) meanwhile no one except the National Enquirer was bothering to report on Edwards (poorly hidden) extramarital affair while he wife was fighting cancer.</p><p>Or even more recently, the entire ACORN mess.  Most media outlets failed to report on it until AFTER people were fired, the senate had voted to remove all federal funding of the agency and several state agencies reported investigations into their practices.  Even then many choose to focus on the two people reporting the story rather than the content of their investigation or simply did a quick 30 segment or small back page article on the matter.  Even Jon Stewart had to rip the media for that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So your defense against the fraud charges are an editorial from Nature magazine and a post from a website that is itself caught up in the middle of the scandal .
By this point even many of the more prominent AGW supporters are admitting things look very fishy at the CRU , including fellow members of the EAU faculty.As for the mainstream media defense , that 's right along the 'consensus = proof ' argument .
The MSM has been pushing AGW for years ; far beyond the limits of disinterested reporters .
In some cases ( NBC in particular ) they have direct financial ties to the continuation of the theory .
NBC 's parent company stands to make billions ( and yes that 's a 'B ' ) based on the proposed anti-CO2 legislation .
Is there any wonder why suddenly when news comes out that shines a very negative light on their cause of the day that they are slow in covering it.Basically , in the US in particular , if the story does n't fit their political agenda news agencies are quite happy to ignore them .
Just look at the last election cycle with the John Edwards fiasco .
The New York Times was running front page stories of John McCain 's relationship a decade earlier with a lobbyist that 2 assistants said he was friendly with ( despite no hint of an affair and a voting record that did not in any way match her lobbyist positions ) meanwhile no one except the National Enquirer was bothering to report on Edwards ( poorly hidden ) extramarital affair while he wife was fighting cancer.Or even more recently , the entire ACORN mess .
Most media outlets failed to report on it until AFTER people were fired , the senate had voted to remove all federal funding of the agency and several state agencies reported investigations into their practices .
Even then many choose to focus on the two people reporting the story rather than the content of their investigation or simply did a quick 30 segment or small back page article on the matter .
Even Jon Stewart had to rip the media for that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your defense against the fraud charges are an editorial from Nature magazine and a post from a website that is itself caught up in the middle of the scandal.
By this point even many of the more prominent AGW supporters are admitting things look very fishy at the CRU, including fellow members of the EAU faculty.As for the mainstream media defense, that's right along the 'consensus = proof' argument.
The MSM has been pushing AGW for years; far beyond the limits of disinterested reporters.
In some cases (NBC in particular) they have direct financial ties to the continuation of the theory.
NBC's parent company stands to make billions (and yes that's a 'B') based on the proposed anti-CO2 legislation.
Is there any wonder why suddenly when news comes out that shines a very negative light on their cause of the day that they are slow in covering it.Basically, in the US in particular, if the story doesn't fit their political agenda news agencies are quite happy to ignore them.
Just look at the last election cycle with the John Edwards fiasco.
The New York Times was running front page stories of John McCain's relationship a decade earlier with a lobbyist that 2 assistants said he was friendly with (despite no hint of an affair and a voting record that did not in any way match her lobbyist positions) meanwhile no one except the National Enquirer was bothering to report on Edwards (poorly hidden) extramarital affair while he wife was fighting cancer.Or even more recently, the entire ACORN mess.
Most media outlets failed to report on it until AFTER people were fired, the senate had voted to remove all federal funding of the agency and several state agencies reported investigations into their practices.
Even then many choose to focus on the two people reporting the story rather than the content of their investigation or simply did a quick 30 segment or small back page article on the matter.
Even Jon Stewart had to rip the media for that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301914</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1259573820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't RealClimate.org pretty much the creation of Mr. Jones, et al?</p><p>this is pretty much like Wikipedia citing Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't RealClimate.org pretty much the creation of Mr. Jones , et al ? this is pretty much like Wikipedia citing Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't RealClimate.org pretty much the creation of Mr. Jones, et al?this is pretty much like Wikipedia citing Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301782</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>rapidient</author>
	<datestamp>1259573400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not just any kind of fraud, but a massive fraud that makes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard\_Madoff" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Bernie Madoff's</a> [wikipedia.org] scam look tiny.</p></div><p>Does Godwin's Law allow for amendments?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just any kind of fraud , but a massive fraud that makes Bernie Madoff 's [ wikipedia.org ] scam look tiny.Does Godwin 's Law allow for amendments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just any kind of fraud, but a massive fraud that makes Bernie Madoff's [wikipedia.org] scam look tiny.Does Godwin's Law allow for amendments?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301992</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1259574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Careful, you need to be more specific. There are now two categories of "Deniers".</p><p>The most recent being those who deny there is some kind of funny business going on in the AGW movement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful , you need to be more specific .
There are now two categories of " Deniers " .The most recent being those who deny there is some kind of funny business going on in the AGW movement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful, you need to be more specific.
There are now two categories of "Deniers".The most recent being those who deny there is some kind of funny business going on in the AGW movement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306800</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Actually the deniers corrupted the peer-review process. Chris de Freitas, a paid shill and avowed climate change denier, rushed a paper by Soon and Baliunas through the editorial process. The four independent reviewers found fatal flaws in the analysis, authors cited by Soon and Baliunas formally complained that their conclusions were being distorted  and six other co-editors resigned in protest. After being published, a dozen or so papers documented Soon and Baliunas's inability to do basic arithmetic</p><p>2) No all FOIA requests were responded to and documents provided. Of course FOIA only works in the US and demanding that countries like India turn over all of it meteorological data for the last 30 years under US FOIA laws were promptly ignored</p><p>3) The trick you referred to, if you had finished reading the sentence the word trick was used in, is plotting the reconstructed temperatures along side the observed temperatures, Since the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period are well documented central and western European events only, how do you deal with it when examining GLOBAL temperatures?</p><p>5) Actually the Yamal problem is only a Watts and McIntyre problem, Briffa freely admits its a problem and he and other climatologists don't know why these 12 tree show a problem. If you take them out or add other tree data the temperatures INCREASE</p><p>Never looked a line of FORTRAN or IDL code have you. Try taking a look at source code for something like gcc or X11 or better yet Windows and then come back when you have understood and cleaned up the code. I give you 20 years although it will probably take longer than that for WIndows.</p><p>As far as there only being four data sets that a flat out lie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Actually the deniers corrupted the peer-review process .
Chris de Freitas , a paid shill and avowed climate change denier , rushed a paper by Soon and Baliunas through the editorial process .
The four independent reviewers found fatal flaws in the analysis , authors cited by Soon and Baliunas formally complained that their conclusions were being distorted and six other co-editors resigned in protest .
After being published , a dozen or so papers documented Soon and Baliunas 's inability to do basic arithmetic2 ) No all FOIA requests were responded to and documents provided .
Of course FOIA only works in the US and demanding that countries like India turn over all of it meteorological data for the last 30 years under US FOIA laws were promptly ignored3 ) The trick you referred to , if you had finished reading the sentence the word trick was used in , is plotting the reconstructed temperatures along side the observed temperatures , Since the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period are well documented central and western European events only , how do you deal with it when examining GLOBAL temperatures ? 5 ) Actually the Yamal problem is only a Watts and McIntyre problem , Briffa freely admits its a problem and he and other climatologists do n't know why these 12 tree show a problem .
If you take them out or add other tree data the temperatures INCREASENever looked a line of FORTRAN or IDL code have you .
Try taking a look at source code for something like gcc or X11 or better yet Windows and then come back when you have understood and cleaned up the code .
I give you 20 years although it will probably take longer than that for WIndows.As far as there only being four data sets that a flat out lie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Actually the deniers corrupted the peer-review process.
Chris de Freitas, a paid shill and avowed climate change denier, rushed a paper by Soon and Baliunas through the editorial process.
The four independent reviewers found fatal flaws in the analysis, authors cited by Soon and Baliunas formally complained that their conclusions were being distorted  and six other co-editors resigned in protest.
After being published, a dozen or so papers documented Soon and Baliunas's inability to do basic arithmetic2) No all FOIA requests were responded to and documents provided.
Of course FOIA only works in the US and demanding that countries like India turn over all of it meteorological data for the last 30 years under US FOIA laws were promptly ignored3) The trick you referred to, if you had finished reading the sentence the word trick was used in, is plotting the reconstructed temperatures along side the observed temperatures, Since the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period are well documented central and western European events only, how do you deal with it when examining GLOBAL temperatures?5) Actually the Yamal problem is only a Watts and McIntyre problem, Briffa freely admits its a problem and he and other climatologists don't know why these 12 tree show a problem.
If you take them out or add other tree data the temperatures INCREASENever looked a line of FORTRAN or IDL code have you.
Try taking a look at source code for something like gcc or X11 or better yet Windows and then come back when you have understood and cleaned up the code.
I give you 20 years although it will probably take longer than that for WIndows.As far as there only being four data sets that a flat out lie</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301370</id>
	<title>OMG! Climate scientists are people</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1259571960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They hold grudges!  They take personal stake in their projects!  They make up data!</p><p>Say it aint so!</p><p>I always assumed that these men who study the long-term variations of the planet's climate were appointed by an infallible creator as impartial arbiters of truth!</p><p>But now I find out that they are just regular people!  Their only qualifications are going to grad school, getting PhDs, and publishing papers that impressed their peers!</p><p>And to top it all off, they don't have respect for other scientists whose theories contradict their own!  They complain that these conflicting theories are poorly constructed, easily refuted, and written explicitly for shock value.  As though it matters.</p><p>I know that in America, every piece of information should be treated equally!  Whether it's backed up by actual evidence, or not.  It's not up to "experts" who have spent their lives studying these things to decide what's the truth.  It's up to each and every person's gut!</p><p>Preponderance of evidence?  I don't even know what that word means.  But I do know that my momma didn't raise no fool.  Going forwards, I am not going to trust any scientists ever again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They hold grudges !
They take personal stake in their projects !
They make up data ! Say it aint so ! I always assumed that these men who study the long-term variations of the planet 's climate were appointed by an infallible creator as impartial arbiters of truth ! But now I find out that they are just regular people !
Their only qualifications are going to grad school , getting PhDs , and publishing papers that impressed their peers ! And to top it all off , they do n't have respect for other scientists whose theories contradict their own !
They complain that these conflicting theories are poorly constructed , easily refuted , and written explicitly for shock value .
As though it matters.I know that in America , every piece of information should be treated equally !
Whether it 's backed up by actual evidence , or not .
It 's not up to " experts " who have spent their lives studying these things to decide what 's the truth .
It 's up to each and every person 's gut ! Preponderance of evidence ?
I do n't even know what that word means .
But I do know that my momma did n't raise no fool .
Going forwards , I am not going to trust any scientists ever again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They hold grudges!
They take personal stake in their projects!
They make up data!Say it aint so!I always assumed that these men who study the long-term variations of the planet's climate were appointed by an infallible creator as impartial arbiters of truth!But now I find out that they are just regular people!
Their only qualifications are going to grad school, getting PhDs, and publishing papers that impressed their peers!And to top it all off, they don't have respect for other scientists whose theories contradict their own!
They complain that these conflicting theories are poorly constructed, easily refuted, and written explicitly for shock value.
As though it matters.I know that in America, every piece of information should be treated equally!
Whether it's backed up by actual evidence, or not.
It's not up to "experts" who have spent their lives studying these things to decide what's the truth.
It's up to each and every person's gut!Preponderance of evidence?
I don't even know what that word means.
But I do know that my momma didn't raise no fool.
Going forwards, I am not going to trust any scientists ever again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306662</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259594100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The code, written primarily in FORTAN and IDL, is a mess--not professional.</p></div><p>Just as a side-note, I'm a researcher (in an unrelated field), and the code here is a mess as well.  That seems to be pretty standard among the large majority of scientists who don't have a software development background.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The code , written primarily in FORTAN and IDL , is a mess--not professional.Just as a side-note , I 'm a researcher ( in an unrelated field ) , and the code here is a mess as well .
That seems to be pretty standard among the large majority of scientists who do n't have a software development background .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The code, written primarily in FORTAN and IDL, is a mess--not professional.Just as a side-note, I'm a researcher (in an unrelated field), and the code here is a mess as well.
That seems to be pretty standard among the large majority of scientists who don't have a software development background.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>FALSE.

All accusations of fraud have been addressed by the scientists in question, as well as outside sources. There is a reason this hasn't been getting much mainstream media coverage.

For everyone's information: data was not manipulated, dissenting papers were not suppressed
<br>
<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html</a> [nature.com]
<br>
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/</a> [realclimate.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>FALSE .
All accusations of fraud have been addressed by the scientists in question , as well as outside sources .
There is a reason this has n't been getting much mainstream media coverage .
For everyone 's information : data was not manipulated , dissenting papers were not suppressed http : //www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html [ nature.com ] http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/ [ realclimate.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FALSE.
All accusations of fraud have been addressed by the scientists in question, as well as outside sources.
There is a reason this hasn't been getting much mainstream media coverage.
For everyone's information: data was not manipulated, dissenting papers were not suppressed

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html [nature.com]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/ [realclimate.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306232</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259590500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I've been reading these emails in different websites and I call B.S.</p><p>To disclose:</p><p>I am a scientist, I work at a prominent national university, and I specialize in statistics. I am not in climatology.</p><p>My impression from what I've read (including original peer-reviewed papers) is that there is GW, it is probably anthropogenic, but that part of it is less certain to me. I believe that regardless of this, diversifying energy sources away from oil is a good idea for economic reasons, and that there's a lot to be gained in terms of energy efficiency and decreased pollution by focusing on renewable energy resources, regardless of how that all turns out.</p><p>About all of these emails:</p><p>1. They are *completely and absolutely* taken out of context. It's completely inappropriate for you to use terms like "colluding" or "manipulating data" in the way you mean, because there's *no context* for what they're talking about. Maybe processing the data is desirable. If you have a known bias in the record (e.g., changes in the way measurements are taken after a certain point in time), ignoring it would be irresponsible. The now infamous "hide the decline" thing is a perfect example of this lack of context. In every case that I have seen, the emails are referring to the fact that they are projecting temperature estimates based on tree ring data, and that after about 1960 the tree ring data doesn't correspond to real, hard temperature measurements anymore. Maybe this is because of pollutants in the air, maybe it's because trees grow differently after a certain temperature, who knows--but they are trying to not make use of what they know to be flawed approximations. Maybe they should never use tree ring measurements at all, but that's a different issue.</p><p>2. You cannot have your data cake and eat it too. I've read some climate skeptic sites claiming that tree ring estimates are B.S. So here's some fing emails where the authors try to eliminate it. Pick your position.</p><p>3. This code BS is BS. I have lots of code sitting around on my machine that's not good, that produces wrong answers, etc. I keep it around so I know what I did *before I did it right*. If someone found my hard drive and picked old code that never got used to produce something that was peer-reviewed, I'd be pissed. This code isn't like some production code that you see in software development--it's trial and error stuff. It's "not professional" *because it was never meant to be read by anyone other than the fing people reading the emails.* (See point 1 above).</p><p>4. Climate skeptics and people being conned into this "climategate" scandal: stop telling me there's some discrepancy between the "real data" and the published results without explaining it. I'm sick of going to climate skeptic sites and seeing people complain that reported GLOBAL AVERAGE trends are incorrect, and then pointing to data from a single fing site as an example of how the raw data are being hid. Let's deal with apples and apples. Show me what the global trends SHOULD look like. Do you think I'm going to believe you without any explanation over peer reviewed articles where the corrections are documented?</p><p>5. Just because you don't understand the processing of some data doesn't mean it's "dubious" or "magical" or "black." It means you don't understand it. Get out of the way unless you understand it (see point 4: you demonstrate understanding by explaining something, not by saying something is unexplained).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 've been reading these emails in different websites and I call B.S.To disclose : I am a scientist , I work at a prominent national university , and I specialize in statistics .
I am not in climatology.My impression from what I 've read ( including original peer-reviewed papers ) is that there is GW , it is probably anthropogenic , but that part of it is less certain to me .
I believe that regardless of this , diversifying energy sources away from oil is a good idea for economic reasons , and that there 's a lot to be gained in terms of energy efficiency and decreased pollution by focusing on renewable energy resources , regardless of how that all turns out.About all of these emails : 1 .
They are * completely and absolutely * taken out of context .
It 's completely inappropriate for you to use terms like " colluding " or " manipulating data " in the way you mean , because there 's * no context * for what they 're talking about .
Maybe processing the data is desirable .
If you have a known bias in the record ( e.g. , changes in the way measurements are taken after a certain point in time ) , ignoring it would be irresponsible .
The now infamous " hide the decline " thing is a perfect example of this lack of context .
In every case that I have seen , the emails are referring to the fact that they are projecting temperature estimates based on tree ring data , and that after about 1960 the tree ring data does n't correspond to real , hard temperature measurements anymore .
Maybe this is because of pollutants in the air , maybe it 's because trees grow differently after a certain temperature , who knows--but they are trying to not make use of what they know to be flawed approximations .
Maybe they should never use tree ring measurements at all , but that 's a different issue.2 .
You can not have your data cake and eat it too .
I 've read some climate skeptic sites claiming that tree ring estimates are B.S .
So here 's some fing emails where the authors try to eliminate it .
Pick your position.3 .
This code BS is BS .
I have lots of code sitting around on my machine that 's not good , that produces wrong answers , etc .
I keep it around so I know what I did * before I did it right * .
If someone found my hard drive and picked old code that never got used to produce something that was peer-reviewed , I 'd be pissed .
This code is n't like some production code that you see in software development--it 's trial and error stuff .
It 's " not professional " * because it was never meant to be read by anyone other than the fing people reading the emails .
* ( See point 1 above ) .4 .
Climate skeptics and people being conned into this " climategate " scandal : stop telling me there 's some discrepancy between the " real data " and the published results without explaining it .
I 'm sick of going to climate skeptic sites and seeing people complain that reported GLOBAL AVERAGE trends are incorrect , and then pointing to data from a single fing site as an example of how the raw data are being hid .
Let 's deal with apples and apples .
Show me what the global trends SHOULD look like .
Do you think I 'm going to believe you without any explanation over peer reviewed articles where the corrections are documented ? 5 .
Just because you do n't understand the processing of some data does n't mean it 's " dubious " or " magical " or " black .
" It means you do n't understand it .
Get out of the way unless you understand it ( see point 4 : you demonstrate understanding by explaining something , not by saying something is unexplained ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I've been reading these emails in different websites and I call B.S.To disclose:I am a scientist, I work at a prominent national university, and I specialize in statistics.
I am not in climatology.My impression from what I've read (including original peer-reviewed papers) is that there is GW, it is probably anthropogenic, but that part of it is less certain to me.
I believe that regardless of this, diversifying energy sources away from oil is a good idea for economic reasons, and that there's a lot to be gained in terms of energy efficiency and decreased pollution by focusing on renewable energy resources, regardless of how that all turns out.About all of these emails:1.
They are *completely and absolutely* taken out of context.
It's completely inappropriate for you to use terms like "colluding" or "manipulating data" in the way you mean, because there's *no context* for what they're talking about.
Maybe processing the data is desirable.
If you have a known bias in the record (e.g., changes in the way measurements are taken after a certain point in time), ignoring it would be irresponsible.
The now infamous "hide the decline" thing is a perfect example of this lack of context.
In every case that I have seen, the emails are referring to the fact that they are projecting temperature estimates based on tree ring data, and that after about 1960 the tree ring data doesn't correspond to real, hard temperature measurements anymore.
Maybe this is because of pollutants in the air, maybe it's because trees grow differently after a certain temperature, who knows--but they are trying to not make use of what they know to be flawed approximations.
Maybe they should never use tree ring measurements at all, but that's a different issue.2.
You cannot have your data cake and eat it too.
I've read some climate skeptic sites claiming that tree ring estimates are B.S.
So here's some fing emails where the authors try to eliminate it.
Pick your position.3.
This code BS is BS.
I have lots of code sitting around on my machine that's not good, that produces wrong answers, etc.
I keep it around so I know what I did *before I did it right*.
If someone found my hard drive and picked old code that never got used to produce something that was peer-reviewed, I'd be pissed.
This code isn't like some production code that you see in software development--it's trial and error stuff.
It's "not professional" *because it was never meant to be read by anyone other than the fing people reading the emails.
* (See point 1 above).4.
Climate skeptics and people being conned into this "climategate" scandal: stop telling me there's some discrepancy between the "real data" and the published results without explaining it.
I'm sick of going to climate skeptic sites and seeing people complain that reported GLOBAL AVERAGE trends are incorrect, and then pointing to data from a single fing site as an example of how the raw data are being hid.
Let's deal with apples and apples.
Show me what the global trends SHOULD look like.
Do you think I'm going to believe you without any explanation over peer reviewed articles where the corrections are documented?5.
Just because you don't understand the processing of some data doesn't mean it's "dubious" or "magical" or "black.
" It means you don't understand it.
Get out of the way unless you understand it (see point 4: you demonstrate understanding by explaining something, not by saying something is unexplained).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301394</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>d3ac0n</author>
	<datestamp>1259572020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how when the "science" behind the global warming religion is shown to be a complete hoax, you warmers just point back to the ALREADY SHOWN TO BE FAKE data as some kind of "proof" that AGW is real.</p><p>(Realclimate?  Seriously?  Realclimate is the freaking Vatican of the Church of Global Warming.  We're supposed to take ANYTHING they write seriously?  HA!)</p><p>Get over it. AGW is a hoax, always has been.  Your religion is a lie that was designed to allow AGW scientists to feather their nests with multi-million dollar grants and for their fellow travelers on the political far left to use as a tool to bludgeon free societies into socialist servitude. It's well past time to accept it like a big boy and move on.</p><p>Anyone who still believes the AGW crap is a brainwashed moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how when the " science " behind the global warming religion is shown to be a complete hoax , you warmers just point back to the ALREADY SHOWN TO BE FAKE data as some kind of " proof " that AGW is real. ( Realclimate ?
Seriously ? Realclimate is the freaking Vatican of the Church of Global Warming .
We 're supposed to take ANYTHING they write seriously ?
HA ! ) Get over it .
AGW is a hoax , always has been .
Your religion is a lie that was designed to allow AGW scientists to feather their nests with multi-million dollar grants and for their fellow travelers on the political far left to use as a tool to bludgeon free societies into socialist servitude .
It 's well past time to accept it like a big boy and move on.Anyone who still believes the AGW crap is a brainwashed moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how when the "science" behind the global warming religion is shown to be a complete hoax, you warmers just point back to the ALREADY SHOWN TO BE FAKE data as some kind of "proof" that AGW is real.(Realclimate?
Seriously?  Realclimate is the freaking Vatican of the Church of Global Warming.
We're supposed to take ANYTHING they write seriously?
HA!)Get over it.
AGW is a hoax, always has been.
Your religion is a lie that was designed to allow AGW scientists to feather their nests with multi-million dollar grants and for their fellow travelers on the political far left to use as a tool to bludgeon free societies into socialist servitude.
It's well past time to accept it like a big boy and move on.Anyone who still believes the AGW crap is a brainwashed moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303046</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1259577300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science.  No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.  Simple selfish interest.</p></div><p>These "deniers" are trying to get a massive gain: The truth.</p><p>What "science" are you talking about? The faked data? The munged programs? The attacks on opponents?</p><p>I have a program and data set that shows that if you don't send me all of your earnings for the last 10 years, then the world will be destroyed. Sorry, the programs and data have been lost, but the proof is in this paragraph, so you better start writing that check right now before the Earth is destroyed. You need to do it right now, any delay could be devistating. If you want collabration, just ask any of my partners in this scam.</p><p>The "Climate Change" business has smelled like those Nigerian letters for a long time now. Send us money right now, or something terrible will happen.</p><p>Unless they can rewrite this into a real scientific study, it's just going to be yet another moderately successful scam that went bust. They need to get usable, reliable, verifiable data sets. They need to do analysis in a way that others can reproduce. They need to prove that man is causing it, and that it is not a natural event.</p><p>All they have right now is a political/religious propaganda effort.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science .
No matter what the science says , everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm .
Simple selfish interest.These " deniers " are trying to get a massive gain : The truth.What " science " are you talking about ?
The faked data ?
The munged programs ?
The attacks on opponents ? I have a program and data set that shows that if you do n't send me all of your earnings for the last 10 years , then the world will be destroyed .
Sorry , the programs and data have been lost , but the proof is in this paragraph , so you better start writing that check right now before the Earth is destroyed .
You need to do it right now , any delay could be devistating .
If you want collabration , just ask any of my partners in this scam.The " Climate Change " business has smelled like those Nigerian letters for a long time now .
Send us money right now , or something terrible will happen.Unless they can rewrite this into a real scientific study , it 's just going to be yet another moderately successful scam that went bust .
They need to get usable , reliable , verifiable data sets .
They need to do analysis in a way that others can reproduce .
They need to prove that man is causing it , and that it is not a natural event.All they have right now is a political/religious propaganda effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science.
No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.
Simple selfish interest.These "deniers" are trying to get a massive gain: The truth.What "science" are you talking about?
The faked data?
The munged programs?
The attacks on opponents?I have a program and data set that shows that if you don't send me all of your earnings for the last 10 years, then the world will be destroyed.
Sorry, the programs and data have been lost, but the proof is in this paragraph, so you better start writing that check right now before the Earth is destroyed.
You need to do it right now, any delay could be devistating.
If you want collabration, just ask any of my partners in this scam.The "Climate Change" business has smelled like those Nigerian letters for a long time now.
Send us money right now, or something terrible will happen.Unless they can rewrite this into a real scientific study, it's just going to be yet another moderately successful scam that went bust.
They need to get usable, reliable, verifiable data sets.
They need to do analysis in a way that others can reproduce.
They need to prove that man is causing it, and that it is not a natural event.All they have right now is a political/religious propaganda effort.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301322</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>STRICQ</author>
	<datestamp>1259571780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't it true that the maintainers of those two web sites are also implicated in the emails that were leaked?  How can we trust anything they say when they are a part of the fraud?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it true that the maintainers of those two web sites are also implicated in the emails that were leaked ?
How can we trust anything they say when they are a part of the fraud ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it true that the maintainers of those two web sites are also implicated in the emails that were leaked?
How can we trust anything they say when they are a part of the fraud?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302578</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Hack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259575740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're wrong, and everyone still thinks you have several screws loose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're wrong , and everyone still thinks you have several screws loose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're wrong, and everyone still thinks you have several screws loose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301414</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science.  No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.  Simple selfish interest.</p></div><p>It's the energy companies fighting for cap and trade. Demand goes up while they aren't allowed to supply more, which makes prices rise without them having to add any more supply.</p><p>Jones, who is stepping down had received over $22.6 million in grants since 1990.</p><p>Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands is the top shareholder of Dutch Shell Oil (how much so is a state secret) and is also the founder of the WWF. She is also an honorary member of the Club of Rome, which has pushed global warming as a way to scare people into world governance, funded by carbon taxes (see: First global revolution).</p><p>All of the top beaurocrats pushing global warming (al gore, maurice strong, etc...) are heavily invested in carbon trading exchanges.</p><p>I have yet to see the "deniers" be as heavily involved in money making schemes as the "alarmists."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science .
No matter what the science says , everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm .
Simple selfish interest.It 's the energy companies fighting for cap and trade .
Demand goes up while they are n't allowed to supply more , which makes prices rise without them having to add any more supply.Jones , who is stepping down had received over $ 22.6 million in grants since 1990.Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands is the top shareholder of Dutch Shell Oil ( how much so is a state secret ) and is also the founder of the WWF .
She is also an honorary member of the Club of Rome , which has pushed global warming as a way to scare people into world governance , funded by carbon taxes ( see : First global revolution ) .All of the top beaurocrats pushing global warming ( al gore , maurice strong , etc... ) are heavily invested in carbon trading exchanges.I have yet to see the " deniers " be as heavily involved in money making schemes as the " alarmists .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science.
No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.
Simple selfish interest.It's the energy companies fighting for cap and trade.
Demand goes up while they aren't allowed to supply more, which makes prices rise without them having to add any more supply.Jones, who is stepping down had received over $22.6 million in grants since 1990.Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands is the top shareholder of Dutch Shell Oil (how much so is a state secret) and is also the founder of the WWF.
She is also an honorary member of the Club of Rome, which has pushed global warming as a way to scare people into world governance, funded by carbon taxes (see: First global revolution).All of the top beaurocrats pushing global warming (al gore, maurice strong, etc...) are heavily invested in carbon trading exchanges.I have yet to see the "deniers" be as heavily involved in money making schemes as the "alarmists.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303294</id>
	<title>Re:Chuck Norris says...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259577960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Warning: Rant ahead<br> <br>People keep saying China and India are big polluters but that is TOTAL BS. <br> <br>The metric we use is garbage. China has 1.3billion people, US -<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.3billion, India - 1.1billion. Why in the fuck are we comparing countries as equals for CO2 output? It makes no fucking sense at all. The average Chinese citizen emits less than one-sixth that of the average American. For Indians, the per capita amount is only six percent of the average American. SIX PERCENT and they are called big polluters, fucking ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Warning : Rant ahead People keep saying China and India are big polluters but that is TOTAL BS .
The metric we use is garbage .
China has 1.3billion people , US - .3billion , India - 1.1billion .
Why in the fuck are we comparing countries as equals for CO2 output ?
It makes no fucking sense at all .
The average Chinese citizen emits less than one-sixth that of the average American .
For Indians , the per capita amount is only six percent of the average American .
SIX PERCENT and they are called big polluters , fucking ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warning: Rant ahead People keep saying China and India are big polluters but that is TOTAL BS.
The metric we use is garbage.
China has 1.3billion people, US - .3billion, India - 1.1billion.
Why in the fuck are we comparing countries as equals for CO2 output?
It makes no fucking sense at all.
The average Chinese citizen emits less than one-sixth that of the average American.
For Indians, the per capita amount is only six percent of the average American.
SIX PERCENT and they are called big polluters, fucking ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305880</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1259588220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As far as I can tell, they weren't serious about that, though most of the scientists do seem to be seriously fed up with dubious FOIA requests for data they can't release by people who'll just end up misinterpreting it anyway...</i></p><p>How common is this?   Is there are lot of science that is subjected to FoIA "harassment?"     Seriously,  call me naive on this one.     I understand the premise, I understand intellectual property and proprietary data I just can't remember Feynman and Gell-Man evoking FoIA to challenge each other or really any other example in science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I can tell , they were n't serious about that , though most of the scientists do seem to be seriously fed up with dubious FOIA requests for data they ca n't release by people who 'll just end up misinterpreting it anyway...How common is this ?
Is there are lot of science that is subjected to FoIA " harassment ?
" Seriously , call me naive on this one .
I understand the premise , I understand intellectual property and proprietary data I just ca n't remember Feynman and Gell-Man evoking FoIA to challenge each other or really any other example in science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I can tell, they weren't serious about that, though most of the scientists do seem to be seriously fed up with dubious FOIA requests for data they can't release by people who'll just end up misinterpreting it anyway...How common is this?
Is there are lot of science that is subjected to FoIA "harassment?
"     Seriously,  call me naive on this one.
I understand the premise, I understand intellectual property and proprietary data I just can't remember Feynman and Gell-Man evoking FoIA to challenge each other or really any other example in science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301082</id>
	<title>"Step down"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they "spending more time with their families" now?</p><p>They were fired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they " spending more time with their families " now ? They were fired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they "spending more time with their families" now?They were fired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301438</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, yeah, except that realclimate.org was created by Michael Mann, who is now under investigation by his own university for some of the questionable activities described in the hacked emails.</p><p>And if nobody has done anything wrong, why are people stepping down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , yeah , except that realclimate.org was created by Michael Mann , who is now under investigation by his own university for some of the questionable activities described in the hacked emails.And if nobody has done anything wrong , why are people stepping down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, yeah, except that realclimate.org was created by Michael Mann, who is now under investigation by his own university for some of the questionable activities described in the hacked emails.And if nobody has done anything wrong, why are people stepping down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302290</id>
	<title>Linking to Realclimate is not the best idea</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1259574900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing you notice about the site is that the members include Micheal Mann, one of the scientists under fire here. Well, it is no surprise that he believes that he's right and says so. Ok but that doesn't prove anything. So if someone publishes a paper, someone else points out serious problems with said paper, well then I am not going to turn the person who wrote the first paper as one to refute the person who's criticizing him. Of COURSE he'll refute it, however that doesn't mean anything.</p><p>So to see a site that is run by Mann and others he agrees with supporting him, well that doesn't really say much, does it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing you notice about the site is that the members include Micheal Mann , one of the scientists under fire here .
Well , it is no surprise that he believes that he 's right and says so .
Ok but that does n't prove anything .
So if someone publishes a paper , someone else points out serious problems with said paper , well then I am not going to turn the person who wrote the first paper as one to refute the person who 's criticizing him .
Of COURSE he 'll refute it , however that does n't mean anything.So to see a site that is run by Mann and others he agrees with supporting him , well that does n't really say much , does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing you notice about the site is that the members include Micheal Mann, one of the scientists under fire here.
Well, it is no surprise that he believes that he's right and says so.
Ok but that doesn't prove anything.
So if someone publishes a paper, someone else points out serious problems with said paper, well then I am not going to turn the person who wrote the first paper as one to refute the person who's criticizing him.
Of COURSE he'll refute it, however that doesn't mean anything.So to see a site that is run by Mann and others he agrees with supporting him, well that doesn't really say much, does it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30319306</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259847780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone pointed out back when the emails were leaked, it's a 61 MB "random" sample of the emails they stole.  The fact that it's only a subset, with threads, that all paint the researchers in a negative light implies that this isn't truly a random sample, but rather a hand picked subset.  And conveniently just before the big climate change summit.  How "random"!</p><p>Of course the code is a mess and "not professional", it's written by climatologist grad students instead of some software engineer.  Why was it written in Fortran?  Easy.  It's what they know, and it's a perfectly valid tool.  Do you know what all the software that analyzes all the big physics experiments are in?  Yup.  Fortran.  Why?  It's what they know.  Honestly, this is by far the weakest of all your complaints.</p><p>Most damning for the conspiracy folks is the fact that the code, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote\_mining\_code.php" title="scienceblogs.com" rel="nofollow">simply doesn't show any evidence of fraud</a> [scienceblogs.com].  "Hide the decline"?  Well there are two graphs labeled "Northern Hemisphere MXD" and "Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline."</p><p>Apparently they slept through "Fraud 101" in grad school huh?</p><p>Why would they call their estimation of temperature a "travesty" for when it showed an reduction in temperature for the last 10 years?  Well, because temperature, as measured by thermometers, actually increased during that time.  So ether the Earth is wrong, or the code is wrong.  Which is it?</p><p>Climate proxies have been used for years.  Do you really think that that they don't know that tree growth can be effected by something other than temperature?  Anyone that knows someone that forgot to water a plant know s that.  That's why in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Dendroclimatology</a> [wikipedia.org], you control for various effects by comparing trees from one region with those from another region that would be less likely to have been effected by whatever it is you're controlling for.  I am shocked.  SHOCKED! I say!  That there are known methods for doing this correctly.  Next you'll be telling me that the air bubbles in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice\_core" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ice core data</a> [wikipedia.org] don't actually contain samples of the atmosphere at that time they were formed.</p><p>Only four datasets?  Really?  Well you better tell Steve McIntyre!  His list of datasets goes on for <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf" title="climateaudit.org" rel="nofollow">for pages</a> [climateaudit.org]!</p><p>So the physics of CO2 that you can test in jar is wrong, and there's no correlation, even when measured directly.  Wow.  You are quite  insightful.  What is your expertise again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone pointed out back when the emails were leaked , it 's a 61 MB " random " sample of the emails they stole .
The fact that it 's only a subset , with threads , that all paint the researchers in a negative light implies that this is n't truly a random sample , but rather a hand picked subset .
And conveniently just before the big climate change summit .
How " random " ! Of course the code is a mess and " not professional " , it 's written by climatologist grad students instead of some software engineer .
Why was it written in Fortran ?
Easy. It 's what they know , and it 's a perfectly valid tool .
Do you know what all the software that analyzes all the big physics experiments are in ?
Yup. Fortran .
Why ? It 's what they know .
Honestly , this is by far the weakest of all your complaints.Most damning for the conspiracy folks is the fact that the code , simply does n't show any evidence of fraud [ scienceblogs.com ] .
" Hide the decline " ?
Well there are two graphs labeled " Northern Hemisphere MXD " and " Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline .
" Apparently they slept through " Fraud 101 " in grad school huh ? Why would they call their estimation of temperature a " travesty " for when it showed an reduction in temperature for the last 10 years ?
Well , because temperature , as measured by thermometers , actually increased during that time .
So ether the Earth is wrong , or the code is wrong .
Which is it ? Climate proxies have been used for years .
Do you really think that that they do n't know that tree growth can be effected by something other than temperature ?
Anyone that knows someone that forgot to water a plant know s that .
That 's why in Dendroclimatology [ wikipedia.org ] , you control for various effects by comparing trees from one region with those from another region that would be less likely to have been effected by whatever it is you 're controlling for .
I am shocked .
SHOCKED ! I say !
That there are known methods for doing this correctly .
Next you 'll be telling me that the air bubbles in ice core data [ wikipedia.org ] do n't actually contain samples of the atmosphere at that time they were formed.Only four datasets ?
Really ? Well you better tell Steve McIntyre !
His list of datasets goes on for for pages [ climateaudit.org ] ! So the physics of CO2 that you can test in jar is wrong , and there 's no correlation , even when measured directly .
Wow. You are quite insightful .
What is your expertise again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone pointed out back when the emails were leaked, it's a 61 MB "random" sample of the emails they stole.
The fact that it's only a subset, with threads, that all paint the researchers in a negative light implies that this isn't truly a random sample, but rather a hand picked subset.
And conveniently just before the big climate change summit.
How "random"!Of course the code is a mess and "not professional", it's written by climatologist grad students instead of some software engineer.
Why was it written in Fortran?
Easy.  It's what they know, and it's a perfectly valid tool.
Do you know what all the software that analyzes all the big physics experiments are in?
Yup.  Fortran.
Why?  It's what they know.
Honestly, this is by far the weakest of all your complaints.Most damning for the conspiracy folks is the fact that the code, simply doesn't show any evidence of fraud [scienceblogs.com].
"Hide the decline"?
Well there are two graphs labeled "Northern Hemisphere MXD" and "Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline.
"Apparently they slept through "Fraud 101" in grad school huh?Why would they call their estimation of temperature a "travesty" for when it showed an reduction in temperature for the last 10 years?
Well, because temperature, as measured by thermometers, actually increased during that time.
So ether the Earth is wrong, or the code is wrong.
Which is it?Climate proxies have been used for years.
Do you really think that that they don't know that tree growth can be effected by something other than temperature?
Anyone that knows someone that forgot to water a plant know s that.
That's why in Dendroclimatology [wikipedia.org], you control for various effects by comparing trees from one region with those from another region that would be less likely to have been effected by whatever it is you're controlling for.
I am shocked.
SHOCKED! I say!
That there are known methods for doing this correctly.
Next you'll be telling me that the air bubbles in ice core data [wikipedia.org] don't actually contain samples of the atmosphere at that time they were formed.Only four datasets?
Really?  Well you better tell Steve McIntyre!
His list of datasets goes on for for pages [climateaudit.org]!So the physics of CO2 that you can test in jar is wrong, and there's no correlation, even when measured directly.
Wow.  You are quite  insightful.
What is your expertise again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302132</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259574540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense... sort of like the Open Source process.</p></div></blockquote><p>And <strong>that</strong> is why I'm pissed off by every op-ed that says the CRU guys are guilty while <em>not</em> calling for completely open journals.  The journal system is a sad mess, and climate science is not the only one that suffers as a result.  Anyone that points a finger at CRU should be pointing at the broken journal system too.</p><blockquote><div><p>Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.</p></div></blockquote><p>Only instead of our very economy, we <em>could</em> be facing large scale destruction of our habitat and resources.  Climate science is too important to get wrong, be it due to the bias of scientists or the greed of corporations and economies.  Though, if our habitat goes it will probably melt your 401K faster than you can say "polar bear."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense... sort of like the Open Source process.And that is why I 'm pissed off by every op-ed that says the CRU guys are guilty while not calling for completely open journals .
The journal system is a sad mess , and climate science is not the only one that suffers as a result .
Anyone that points a finger at CRU should be pointing at the broken journal system too.Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted , our very economy is at stake from the " warmers " and their political machinations.Only instead of our very economy , we could be facing large scale destruction of our habitat and resources .
Climate science is too important to get wrong , be it due to the bias of scientists or the greed of corporations and economies .
Though , if our habitat goes it will probably melt your 401K faster than you can say " polar bear .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense... sort of like the Open Source process.And that is why I'm pissed off by every op-ed that says the CRU guys are guilty while not calling for completely open journals.
The journal system is a sad mess, and climate science is not the only one that suffers as a result.
Anyone that points a finger at CRU should be pointing at the broken journal system too.Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.Only instead of our very economy, we could be facing large scale destruction of our habitat and resources.
Climate science is too important to get wrong, be it due to the bias of scientists or the greed of corporations and economies.
Though, if our habitat goes it will probably melt your 401K faster than you can say "polar bear.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303726</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the same article:</p><p>"The revised figures were kept, but the originals &mdash; stored on paper and magnetic tape &mdash; were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building."</p><p>"Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue."</p><p>So raw, noisy data which was useless to them was thrown away almost \_thirty years ago\_ in order to make space. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. Anyone could have done that. Heck, the same exact thing probably happened in countless labs in almost every university on the planet at some point in time.</p><p>But it's good to see how easily you jump to absurd conclusions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the same article : " The revised figures were kept , but the originals    stored on paper and magnetic tape    were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building .
" " Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s , a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue .
" So raw , noisy data which was useless to them was thrown away almost \ _thirty years ago \ _ in order to make space .
Does n't sound like a big deal to me .
Anyone could have done that .
Heck , the same exact thing probably happened in countless labs in almost every university on the planet at some point in time.But it 's good to see how easily you jump to absurd conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the same article:"The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
""Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.
"So raw, noisy data which was useless to them was thrown away almost \_thirty years ago\_ in order to make space.
Doesn't sound like a big deal to me.
Anyone could have done that.
Heck, the same exact thing probably happened in countless labs in almost every university on the planet at some point in time.But it's good to see how easily you jump to absurd conclusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305132</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1259584560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>22.6 million in grants since 1990? That's a fucking travesty. That's about 1.1 million a year to run a lab, pay wages, buy equipment, purchase services, pay for facilities, and fund all of those other things you need to do to do science - they must be running on a near-shoestring budget, and this is some of the most important research on Earth right now.</p><p>Oh wait was I supposed to be aghast that the man personally received millions of dollars in grants? That's not the way it works; you really don't get rich doing science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>22.6 million in grants since 1990 ?
That 's a fucking travesty .
That 's about 1.1 million a year to run a lab , pay wages , buy equipment , purchase services , pay for facilities , and fund all of those other things you need to do to do science - they must be running on a near-shoestring budget , and this is some of the most important research on Earth right now.Oh wait was I supposed to be aghast that the man personally received millions of dollars in grants ?
That 's not the way it works ; you really do n't get rich doing science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>22.6 million in grants since 1990?
That's a fucking travesty.
That's about 1.1 million a year to run a lab, pay wages, buy equipment, purchase services, pay for facilities, and fund all of those other things you need to do to do science - they must be running on a near-shoestring budget, and this is some of the most important research on Earth right now.Oh wait was I supposed to be aghast that the man personally received millions of dollars in grants?
That's not the way it works; you really don't get rich doing science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300894</id>
	<title>What's worse than the appearance of impropriety?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1259613180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Impropriety.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Impropriety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Impropriety.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300974</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1259613600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One and the same.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One and the same.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = nEiLgbBGKVk [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One and the same.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302688</id>
	<title>Why not do it yourself?</title>
	<author>marcus</author>
	<datestamp>1259576040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You post with such an air of propriety and integrity.</p><p>Show me.</p><p>1) Go get yourself a copy of the emails. I'm sure you can find out which ones discuss this or if none of them do, post that or at least a summary. Make yourself a web page where you can post details: emails sent, from/to fields, a list of subjects, etc. Then paste in some ads and Profit! The traffic level will be enormous if you can do this.</p><p>2) Same here</p><p>3) Same here</p><p>I could go further, but I think everyone gets the point.</p><p>I'll give you a clue, you've got a long row to hoe if you want to convert quotes that say something like "Let's do this/OK, let's do it" into meaning "Let's do this/No, I will not do this" or as you say "No, they did not".</p><p>One more clue, if "they" did not, why are "they" resigning?</p><p>Good luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You post with such an air of propriety and integrity.Show me.1 ) Go get yourself a copy of the emails .
I 'm sure you can find out which ones discuss this or if none of them do , post that or at least a summary .
Make yourself a web page where you can post details : emails sent , from/to fields , a list of subjects , etc .
Then paste in some ads and Profit !
The traffic level will be enormous if you can do this.2 ) Same here3 ) Same hereI could go further , but I think everyone gets the point.I 'll give you a clue , you 've got a long row to hoe if you want to convert quotes that say something like " Let 's do this/OK , let 's do it " into meaning " Let 's do this/No , I will not do this " or as you say " No , they did not " .One more clue , if " they " did not , why are " they " resigning ? Good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You post with such an air of propriety and integrity.Show me.1) Go get yourself a copy of the emails.
I'm sure you can find out which ones discuss this or if none of them do, post that or at least a summary.
Make yourself a web page where you can post details: emails sent, from/to fields, a list of subjects, etc.
Then paste in some ads and Profit!
The traffic level will be enormous if you can do this.2) Same here3) Same hereI could go further, but I think everyone gets the point.I'll give you a clue, you've got a long row to hoe if you want to convert quotes that say something like "Let's do this/OK, let's do it" into meaning "Let's do this/No, I will not do this" or as you say "No, they did not".One more clue, if "they" did not, why are "they" resigning?Good luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303142</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1259577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, you perhaps picked off the easy one. Now how about you address the other 9 points that mschuyler made?</p><p>It's those nine points that are really relevant to this discussion, not the perhaps debunking of the debunking of the hockey stick graph.</p><p>I'm swayable on this argument so I'm worth the time investment but I should warn you that like mschuyler I'm not impressed with links to realclimate.org and here's two reasons why:</p><p>1) Using them in defense of CRU is a circular reference. Much of RC.Os "stuff" comes from CRU.<br>2) They get things wrong and then hide the devil in the details.</p><p>For instance Myth #1 from your link : MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).</p><p>They go on to argue that a dozen other proxy tests have been performed and that most of them show similar results. What they DON'T tell you is that of the dozen other proxy tests performed all but three of them were done either by Mann himself or one of his students! More circular proof and this time RC.O keeps it hidden from you.</p><p>So please address points one through nine without using RC.O links. I'm interested in what you have to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , you perhaps picked off the easy one .
Now how about you address the other 9 points that mschuyler made ? It 's those nine points that are really relevant to this discussion , not the perhaps debunking of the debunking of the hockey stick graph.I 'm swayable on this argument so I 'm worth the time investment but I should warn you that like mschuyler I 'm not impressed with links to realclimate.org and here 's two reasons why : 1 ) Using them in defense of CRU is a circular reference .
Much of RC.Os " stuff " comes from CRU.2 ) They get things wrong and then hide the devil in the details.For instance Myth # 1 from your link : MYTH # 1 : The " Hockey Stick " Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues ( Mann et al , 1998 ; 1999 ) .They go on to argue that a dozen other proxy tests have been performed and that most of them show similar results .
What they DO N'T tell you is that of the dozen other proxy tests performed all but three of them were done either by Mann himself or one of his students !
More circular proof and this time RC.O keeps it hidden from you.So please address points one through nine without using RC.O links .
I 'm interested in what you have to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, you perhaps picked off the easy one.
Now how about you address the other 9 points that mschuyler made?It's those nine points that are really relevant to this discussion, not the perhaps debunking of the debunking of the hockey stick graph.I'm swayable on this argument so I'm worth the time investment but I should warn you that like mschuyler I'm not impressed with links to realclimate.org and here's two reasons why:1) Using them in defense of CRU is a circular reference.
Much of RC.Os "stuff" comes from CRU.2) They get things wrong and then hide the devil in the details.For instance Myth #1 from your link : MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).They go on to argue that a dozen other proxy tests have been performed and that most of them show similar results.
What they DON'T tell you is that of the dozen other proxy tests performed all but three of them were done either by Mann himself or one of his students!
More circular proof and this time RC.O keeps it hidden from you.So please address points one through nine without using RC.O links.
I'm interested in what you have to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303050</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1259577300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're essentially claiming that Global Warming is and has always been a money-grabbing scam by the scientists doing the research?</p><p>A perpetual motion machine business gone wildly out of control because more and more scientists are trying to get in on this "global warming pyramid scheme"?</p><p>I think it'd be a lot more believable if you claimed the researchers were mistaken, rather than claiming it's an overtly malicious conspiracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're essentially claiming that Global Warming is and has always been a money-grabbing scam by the scientists doing the research ? A perpetual motion machine business gone wildly out of control because more and more scientists are trying to get in on this " global warming pyramid scheme " ? I think it 'd be a lot more believable if you claimed the researchers were mistaken , rather than claiming it 's an overtly malicious conspiracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're essentially claiming that Global Warming is and has always been a money-grabbing scam by the scientists doing the research?A perpetual motion machine business gone wildly out of control because more and more scientists are trying to get in on this "global warming pyramid scheme"?I think it'd be a lot more believable if you claimed the researchers were mistaken, rather than claiming it's an overtly malicious conspiracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300984</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the guy.  At the time, Mann refused to release his data and refused to release the methodology behind the creation of the graph.  Years later it turned out if you use Gaussian noise for your temperature input you get a graph with the same hockey stick shape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the guy .
At the time , Mann refused to release his data and refused to release the methodology behind the creation of the graph .
Years later it turned out if you use Gaussian noise for your temperature input you get a graph with the same hockey stick shape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the guy.
At the time, Mann refused to release his data and refused to release the methodology behind the creation of the graph.
Years later it turned out if you use Gaussian noise for your temperature input you get a graph with the same hockey stick shape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305050</id>
	<title>Re:Chuck Norris says...</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1259584140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, China has a huge wealth disparity: 70\% of its population are rural peasants. The 30\% of the country that has industrialized is producing as much CO2 as any westerner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , China has a huge wealth disparity : 70 \ % of its population are rural peasants .
The 30 \ % of the country that has industrialized is producing as much CO2 as any westerner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, China has a huge wealth disparity: 70\% of its population are rural peasants.
The 30\% of the country that has industrialized is producing as much CO2 as any westerner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301352</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the perpetrators of the fraud assure us there is no fraud? That's a relief!</p><p>who do you think controls realclimate.org?</p><p>stay in school kids!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the perpetrators of the fraud assure us there is no fraud ?
That 's a relief ! who do you think controls realclimate.org ? stay in school kids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the perpetrators of the fraud assure us there is no fraud?
That's a relief!who do you think controls realclimate.org?stay in school kids!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301228</id>
	<title>Who should I trust more ...</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1259614620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On one hand, we have dozens of national academies of science, tens of thousands of scientists, a handful of whom might or might not have embellished their results. And that is very bad indeed, although I could point out that Mendel among others is believed to have done the same thing about his peas, and we all know how wrong that turned out to be.</p><p>On the other hand we have the most evil people on earth, from the fat Exxon types raking in dozens of billions of dollars of revenue, or the mountain top removal coal mining asswipes raping the WV landscape when they're not too busy giving blowjobs to creationist gay-bashing whore-fucking war-mongering GOP congresscritters, and the conveniently stupid born again, young earther, racist ignorant nationalist fucktards that is their constituency.</p><p>Yeah, who am I going to fucking trust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand , we have dozens of national academies of science , tens of thousands of scientists , a handful of whom might or might not have embellished their results .
And that is very bad indeed , although I could point out that Mendel among others is believed to have done the same thing about his peas , and we all know how wrong that turned out to be.On the other hand we have the most evil people on earth , from the fat Exxon types raking in dozens of billions of dollars of revenue , or the mountain top removal coal mining asswipes raping the WV landscape when they 're not too busy giving blowjobs to creationist gay-bashing whore-fucking war-mongering GOP congresscritters , and the conveniently stupid born again , young earther , racist ignorant nationalist fucktards that is their constituency.Yeah , who am I going to fucking trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand, we have dozens of national academies of science, tens of thousands of scientists, a handful of whom might or might not have embellished their results.
And that is very bad indeed, although I could point out that Mendel among others is believed to have done the same thing about his peas, and we all know how wrong that turned out to be.On the other hand we have the most evil people on earth, from the fat Exxon types raking in dozens of billions of dollars of revenue, or the mountain top removal coal mining asswipes raping the WV landscape when they're not too busy giving blowjobs to creationist gay-bashing whore-fucking war-mongering GOP congresscritters, and the conveniently stupid born again, young earther, racist ignorant nationalist fucktards that is their constituency.Yeah, who am I going to fucking trust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300858</id>
	<title>Climategate? Bah!!!</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1259613060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer the term Warmaquiddick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer the term Warmaquiddick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer the term Warmaquiddick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305060</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1259584200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tenure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tenure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tenure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303242</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>JobyKSU</author>
	<datestamp>1259577840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Science is not done by consensus.</p> </div><p>Having gone through the research/submission/revision/publication process of science multiple times, I can vouch for the fact that Science is indeed done by consensus. Research will be conducted on a topic until the same conclusion has been reached by multiple authors, likely using multiple methods. The later verifications most likely will try to give some sort of "value added" by integrating complementary theories, but those previous conclusions will be tested often.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense...</p> </div><p>That aspect of your argument is definitely true. That is one of the ways that consensus is built - repeated analysis and conclusions that verify the validity of the initial findings.

One thing that is often lost in the CRU scandal is that there have been many independent researchers that are coming to the same conclusion using different methods. Mann and Jones' behavior is the result of the politicized environment and partisanship that exists around climate change science - an environment they definitely helped create (chicken or the egg?). Given the number of climate change proponents that jumped to justify the leaked emails as perfectly innocent and refused to see <b> <i>anything</i></b>  damning in them, it makes it difficult to give the rest of the (nearly uniformly) honest scientists the benefit of doubt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is not done by consensus .
Having gone through the research/submission/revision/publication process of science multiple times , I can vouch for the fact that Science is indeed done by consensus .
Research will be conducted on a topic until the same conclusion has been reached by multiple authors , likely using multiple methods .
The later verifications most likely will try to give some sort of " value added " by integrating complementary theories , but those previous conclusions will be tested often.Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense... That aspect of your argument is definitely true .
That is one of the ways that consensus is built - repeated analysis and conclusions that verify the validity of the initial findings .
One thing that is often lost in the CRU scandal is that there have been many independent researchers that are coming to the same conclusion using different methods .
Mann and Jones ' behavior is the result of the politicized environment and partisanship that exists around climate change science - an environment they definitely helped create ( chicken or the egg ? ) .
Given the number of climate change proponents that jumped to justify the leaked emails as perfectly innocent and refused to see anything damning in them , it makes it difficult to give the rest of the ( nearly uniformly ) honest scientists the benefit of doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is not done by consensus.
Having gone through the research/submission/revision/publication process of science multiple times, I can vouch for the fact that Science is indeed done by consensus.
Research will be conducted on a topic until the same conclusion has been reached by multiple authors, likely using multiple methods.
The later verifications most likely will try to give some sort of "value added" by integrating complementary theories, but those previous conclusions will be tested often.Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense... That aspect of your argument is definitely true.
That is one of the ways that consensus is built - repeated analysis and conclusions that verify the validity of the initial findings.
One thing that is often lost in the CRU scandal is that there have been many independent researchers that are coming to the same conclusion using different methods.
Mann and Jones' behavior is the result of the politicized environment and partisanship that exists around climate change science - an environment they definitely helped create (chicken or the egg?).
Given the number of climate change proponents that jumped to justify the leaked emails as perfectly innocent and refused to see  anything  damning in them, it makes it difficult to give the rest of the (nearly uniformly) honest scientists the benefit of doubt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304888</id>
	<title>prosecute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great points. But point #2 appears to be the worst offense and should be prosecuted.</p><p>Maybe I am being paranoid. But I always expect scientific reports to be skewed in alignment with the desired outcome. At least for corporate sponsored studies. I am less suspicious of government funded studies because there is no financial benefit to one result over the another. This is unethical but not illegal.</p><p>So what if they twisted the numbers. Maybe they cherry-picked data to support their models. I don't care... this is just another study that will be revealed to be biased when examined/repeated by others.</p><p>The real problem here is that they presented their results without releasing the data. Furthermore they actively engaged in avoiding an FOI request.</p><p>If anything positive can come from this... it should be:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - all government funded studies must release a complete set of source data and the mechanism for achieving a result AT THE SAME TIME as they are releasing any report.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - persons who clearly disregard FOI requests should be prosecuted.</p><p>Note: no need to cry for scientists who skew their results to match expectations tho. Because they have a bright and well paid future working privately under corporate backing to produce reports which assist our economic recovery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great points .
But point # 2 appears to be the worst offense and should be prosecuted.Maybe I am being paranoid .
But I always expect scientific reports to be skewed in alignment with the desired outcome .
At least for corporate sponsored studies .
I am less suspicious of government funded studies because there is no financial benefit to one result over the another .
This is unethical but not illegal.So what if they twisted the numbers .
Maybe they cherry-picked data to support their models .
I do n't care... this is just another study that will be revealed to be biased when examined/repeated by others.The real problem here is that they presented their results without releasing the data .
Furthermore they actively engaged in avoiding an FOI request.If anything positive can come from this... it should be :     - all government funded studies must release a complete set of source data and the mechanism for achieving a result AT THE SAME TIME as they are releasing any report .
    - persons who clearly disregard FOI requests should be prosecuted.Note : no need to cry for scientists who skew their results to match expectations tho .
Because they have a bright and well paid future working privately under corporate backing to produce reports which assist our economic recovery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great points.
But point #2 appears to be the worst offense and should be prosecuted.Maybe I am being paranoid.
But I always expect scientific reports to be skewed in alignment with the desired outcome.
At least for corporate sponsored studies.
I am less suspicious of government funded studies because there is no financial benefit to one result over the another.
This is unethical but not illegal.So what if they twisted the numbers.
Maybe they cherry-picked data to support their models.
I don't care... this is just another study that will be revealed to be biased when examined/repeated by others.The real problem here is that they presented their results without releasing the data.
Furthermore they actively engaged in avoiding an FOI request.If anything positive can come from this... it should be:
    - all government funded studies must release a complete set of source data and the mechanism for achieving a result AT THE SAME TIME as they are releasing any report.
    - persons who clearly disregard FOI requests should be prosecuted.Note: no need to cry for scientists who skew their results to match expectations tho.
Because they have a bright and well paid future working privately under corporate backing to produce reports which assist our economic recovery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301280</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>thepotoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259571600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for the links, best article I've read all day.</p><p>A couple of quotes from the Nature editorial for the TL;DR crowd:</p><blockquote><div><p>A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751&ndash;771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89&ndash;110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, <b>neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>(Emphasis mine).</p><blockquote><div><p>The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' &mdash; slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.</p></div></blockquote><p>There is far, far too much politics in science.  I don't know why Dr. Jones decided to step down, but I'm inclined to believe (after reading the Nature editorial) that the reasons were almost entirely political.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for the links , best article I 've read all day.A couple of quotes from the Nature editorial for the TL ; DR crowd : A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists ' conspiracy theories .
In one of the more controversial exchanges , UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming ( S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ .
14 , 751    771 ; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim .
Res. 23 , 89    110 ; 2003 ) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) .
Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in ( supposed ) privacy , however , what matters is how they acted .
And the fact is that , in the end , neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything : when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers .
( Emphasis mine ) .The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers ' own papers .
One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick '    slang for a clever ( and legitimate ) technique , but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results .
It is Nature 's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern , but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.There is far , far too much politics in science .
I do n't know why Dr. Jones decided to step down , but I 'm inclined to believe ( after reading the Nature editorial ) that the reasons were almost entirely political .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for the links, best article I've read all day.A couple of quotes from the Nature editorial for the TL;DR crowd:A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories.
In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ.
14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim.
Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted.
And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.
(Emphasis mine).The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers.
One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results.
It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.There is far, far too much politics in science.
I don't know why Dr. Jones decided to step down, but I'm inclined to believe (after reading the Nature editorial) that the reasons were almost entirely political.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301304</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>choconutdancer</author>
	<datestamp>1259571720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent synopsis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent synopsis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent synopsis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303252</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259577840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Power and money.  There's big amounts of both at stake on both sides, although the power part accumulates more to the AGW side than the skeptic side.  We're talking authority to control essentially the entire world's economy in big ways.  Check out some of the connections Al Gore has, and how much money he and his associates stand to make from trading carbon certs if cap-and-trade goes into effect.  And if you don't think governments aren't going to be able to dish out big favors in the granting of emissions certs, you haven't been paying attention to politics for the past couple thousand years.</p><p>As far as the scientists go, these e-mails make it look like at least some of them have succumbed to hubris.  They've got some True Believer syndrome stuff going on here.  It looks like they've just become so emotionally invested in the AGW theories that they can't allow themselves to be wrong.  Mann is particularly bad about this (even some of his fellows in the e-mails make note of this).  Mostly this is just the standard confirmation bias type stuff that you have to watch out for in any field (Mann excepted).  Not to mention the grant money.  Academics live and breath publications and grant money.</p><p>(CAPTCHA is rather amusingly 'parasite')</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Power and money .
There 's big amounts of both at stake on both sides , although the power part accumulates more to the AGW side than the skeptic side .
We 're talking authority to control essentially the entire world 's economy in big ways .
Check out some of the connections Al Gore has , and how much money he and his associates stand to make from trading carbon certs if cap-and-trade goes into effect .
And if you do n't think governments are n't going to be able to dish out big favors in the granting of emissions certs , you have n't been paying attention to politics for the past couple thousand years.As far as the scientists go , these e-mails make it look like at least some of them have succumbed to hubris .
They 've got some True Believer syndrome stuff going on here .
It looks like they 've just become so emotionally invested in the AGW theories that they ca n't allow themselves to be wrong .
Mann is particularly bad about this ( even some of his fellows in the e-mails make note of this ) .
Mostly this is just the standard confirmation bias type stuff that you have to watch out for in any field ( Mann excepted ) .
Not to mention the grant money .
Academics live and breath publications and grant money .
( CAPTCHA is rather amusingly 'parasite ' )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Power and money.
There's big amounts of both at stake on both sides, although the power part accumulates more to the AGW side than the skeptic side.
We're talking authority to control essentially the entire world's economy in big ways.
Check out some of the connections Al Gore has, and how much money he and his associates stand to make from trading carbon certs if cap-and-trade goes into effect.
And if you don't think governments aren't going to be able to dish out big favors in the granting of emissions certs, you haven't been paying attention to politics for the past couple thousand years.As far as the scientists go, these e-mails make it look like at least some of them have succumbed to hubris.
They've got some True Believer syndrome stuff going on here.
It looks like they've just become so emotionally invested in the AGW theories that they can't allow themselves to be wrong.
Mann is particularly bad about this (even some of his fellows in the e-mails make note of this).
Mostly this is just the standard confirmation bias type stuff that you have to watch out for in any field (Mann excepted).
Not to mention the grant money.
Academics live and breath publications and grant money.
(CAPTCHA is rather amusingly 'parasite')</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304736</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1259582820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the simple human motivation of power.</p><p>Why did Rachel Carson blame DDT when ALL the subsequent testing showed that it wasn't DDT that caused eggshell thinning, etc.?</p><p>Why have enviromental alarmists previously cried that we're all going to die from:<br>- too much cold<br>- too much heat<br>- running out of food<br>- running out of oil<br>- running out of clean water<br>- all the wild animals going extinct<br>- running out of landfill space<br>- PCBs<br>- mercury<br>- lead<br>- acid rain<br>- nuclear power<br>- coal power<br>- overpopulation<br>?<br>CONTROL.</p><p>Of course, Gore himself WAS likely just in it for the money, he's well on the way to being the world's top magnate with his fingers in every carbon-trading scheme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the simple human motivation of power.Why did Rachel Carson blame DDT when ALL the subsequent testing showed that it was n't DDT that caused eggshell thinning , etc .
? Why have enviromental alarmists previously cried that we 're all going to die from : - too much cold- too much heat- running out of food- running out of oil- running out of clean water- all the wild animals going extinct- running out of landfill space- PCBs- mercury- lead- acid rain- nuclear power- coal power- overpopulation ? CONTROL.Of course , Gore himself WAS likely just in it for the money , he 's well on the way to being the world 's top magnate with his fingers in every carbon-trading scheme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the simple human motivation of power.Why did Rachel Carson blame DDT when ALL the subsequent testing showed that it wasn't DDT that caused eggshell thinning, etc.
?Why have enviromental alarmists previously cried that we're all going to die from:- too much cold- too much heat- running out of food- running out of oil- running out of clean water- all the wild animals going extinct- running out of landfill space- PCBs- mercury- lead- acid rain- nuclear power- coal power- overpopulation?CONTROL.Of course, Gore himself WAS likely just in it for the money, he's well on the way to being the world's top magnate with his fingers in every carbon-trading scheme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304860</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of monetary motivation was involved in taking down the Twin Towers?</p><p>Sometimes people do crazy shit for reasons other than money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of monetary motivation was involved in taking down the Twin Towers ? Sometimes people do crazy shit for reasons other than money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of monetary motivation was involved in taking down the Twin Towers?Sometimes people do crazy shit for reasons other than money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301328</id>
	<title>climate change groomer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259571780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>interesting that you use the term "deniers", so lumping those who disagree with you in with holocaust deniers.  But be careful with these ad hominim attacks, they can rebound my climate change grooming friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>interesting that you use the term " deniers " , so lumping those who disagree with you in with holocaust deniers .
But be careful with these ad hominim attacks , they can rebound my climate change grooming friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>interesting that you use the term "deniers", so lumping those who disagree with you in with holocaust deniers.
But be careful with these ad hominim attacks, they can rebound my climate change grooming friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305940</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>RJBeery</author>
	<datestamp>1259588640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"....data was not manipulated, dissenting papers were not suppressed..."<br> <br>Jesus man, are you serious? Have you read anything other than the realclimate.org rebuttals???</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ....data was not manipulated , dissenting papers were not suppressed... " Jesus man , are you serious ?
Have you read anything other than the realclimate.org rebuttals ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"....data was not manipulated, dissenting papers were not suppressed..." Jesus man, are you serious?
Have you read anything other than the realclimate.org rebuttals??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301854</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>HebrewToYou</author>
	<datestamp>1259573640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Realclimate.org is an unreliable source considering their correspondence was included among the leaked emails.  Just sayin'...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Realclimate.org is an unreliable source considering their correspondence was included among the leaked emails .
Just sayin'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Realclimate.org is an unreliable source considering their correspondence was included among the leaked emails.
Just sayin'...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30308270</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>OzRoy</author>
	<datestamp>1259873640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember Gore's CO2 graph? Probably a 95\% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming. Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend. In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.</p></div><p>Both is actually true. CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. That is well known and understood physics. Something that has been known for well over 100 years.</p><p>The CO2 lag is caused by a runaway event. There is an initial trigger that causes an increase in global temperatures. This increase causes ice caps to melt and marshlands to be created which causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, which then causes the temperature to rise again, which then causes more CO2 to be produced and so on. This keeps going even after something causes the global temperatures to decrease. So CO2 remains high for a period after temperatures drop.</p><p>The CO2 lag is well known, and well understood and a part of all global warming models and is not an argument against anthropomorphic climate change.</p><p>Watch this youtube series for an explanation of the Science of climate change instead of the rhetoric.<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#grid/user/A4F0994AFB057BB8" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#grid/user/A4F0994AFB057BB8</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember Gore 's CO2 graph ?
Probably a 95 \ % correlation between CO2 and temperature , which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming .
Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend .
In other words , warming CAUSED CO2 increases , the opposite of what he implied.Both is actually true .
CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere .
That is well known and understood physics .
Something that has been known for well over 100 years.The CO2 lag is caused by a runaway event .
There is an initial trigger that causes an increase in global temperatures .
This increase causes ice caps to melt and marshlands to be created which causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere , which then causes the temperature to rise again , which then causes more CO2 to be produced and so on .
This keeps going even after something causes the global temperatures to decrease .
So CO2 remains high for a period after temperatures drop.The CO2 lag is well known , and well understood and a part of all global warming models and is not an argument against anthropomorphic climate change.Watch this youtube series for an explanation of the Science of climate change instead of the rhetoric.http : //www.youtube.com/user/potholer54 # grid/user/A4F0994AFB057BB8 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember Gore's CO2 graph?
Probably a 95\% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming.
Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend.
In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.Both is actually true.
CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere.
That is well known and understood physics.
Something that has been known for well over 100 years.The CO2 lag is caused by a runaway event.
There is an initial trigger that causes an increase in global temperatures.
This increase causes ice caps to melt and marshlands to be created which causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, which then causes the temperature to rise again, which then causes more CO2 to be produced and so on.
This keeps going even after something causes the global temperatures to decrease.
So CO2 remains high for a period after temperatures drop.The CO2 lag is well known, and well understood and a part of all global warming models and is not an argument against anthropomorphic climate change.Watch this youtube series for an explanation of the Science of climate change instead of the rhetoric.http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#grid/user/A4F0994AFB057BB8 [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30332968</id>
	<title>Obama to da ResQue ... Oh no ... not THAT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama with 2008 SS in towe will mount the stage and say,</p><p>Howdy der folksz, Izz beenzz on a loong flithtz from da DC to hear<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... schuzzez me whilez Izzesz whoopz des out.</p><p>Then a rendition of the Blue Danube will be farted-out, in key, by the UN deligates, followed by a large portrait of Adolf Hitler lowering in the background, where all on stage join hands and goose-steep to a lively rendition of "Spring Time for Hitler and Germany".</p><p>On stage right will be a male dog mounting another male dog, with the dominant male dog wearing a sash with the words "Go Irish", and on stage left will be Al Gore pulling the legs off frogs and tossing the parts to audience members.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama with 2008 SS in towe will mount the stage and say,Howdy der folksz , Izz beenzz on a loong flithtz from da DC to hear ... schuzzez me whilez Izzesz whoopz des out.Then a rendition of the Blue Danube will be farted-out , in key , by the UN deligates , followed by a large portrait of Adolf Hitler lowering in the background , where all on stage join hands and goose-steep to a lively rendition of " Spring Time for Hitler and Germany " .On stage right will be a male dog mounting another male dog , with the dominant male dog wearing a sash with the words " Go Irish " , and on stage left will be Al Gore pulling the legs off frogs and tossing the parts to audience members .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama with 2008 SS in towe will mount the stage and say,Howdy der folksz, Izz beenzz on a loong flithtz from da DC to hear ... schuzzez me whilez Izzesz whoopz des out.Then a rendition of the Blue Danube will be farted-out, in key, by the UN deligates, followed by a large portrait of Adolf Hitler lowering in the background, where all on stage join hands and goose-steep to a lively rendition of "Spring Time for Hitler and Germany".On stage right will be a male dog mounting another male dog, with the dominant male dog wearing a sash with the words "Go Irish", and on stage left will be Al Gore pulling the legs off frogs and tossing the parts to audience members.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301508</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Snocone</author>
	<datestamp>1259572440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>3. They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.' I don't have a problem with 'trick' being used. No big deal, but 'hide the decline'? Not good.</i></p><p>Look closer. They actually *replaced* the inconveniently truthful proxy data with instrument measurements to get the fitting they wanted. That's not a 'trick'. That's plain fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline ' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period .
' I do n't have a problem with 'trick ' being used .
No big deal , but 'hide the decline ' ?
Not good.Look closer .
They actually * replaced * the inconveniently truthful proxy data with instrument measurements to get the fitting they wanted .
That 's not a 'trick' .
That 's plain fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.
' I don't have a problem with 'trick' being used.
No big deal, but 'hide the decline'?
Not good.Look closer.
They actually *replaced* the inconveniently truthful proxy data with instrument measurements to get the fitting they wanted.
That's not a 'trick'.
That's plain fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303512</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>d3ac0n</author>
	<datestamp>1259578680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Church of AGW has stolen TRILLIONS of dollars from the world economy on BS schemes which have both directly and indirectly cause economic and personal harm to BILLIONS of people around the world.  (Hello? Kyoto Accords?)</p><p>I wonder how many people have starved because the AGW quacks have us turning food-stocks into auto fuel?  Or have you already forgotten the cornmeal shortage-caused riots in the 3rd world over the last few summers? Another stupid scam foisted upon us by the Church of AGW.</p><p>You would have to be willfully ignorant to not see the massive damage already caused by the Church of AGW and their political accomplices on the far left.  And what they have PLANNED will spell nothing less than the collapse of Human civilization and possibly the extinction of our species.  All for a lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Church of AGW has stolen TRILLIONS of dollars from the world economy on BS schemes which have both directly and indirectly cause economic and personal harm to BILLIONS of people around the world .
( Hello ? Kyoto Accords ?
) I wonder how many people have starved because the AGW quacks have us turning food-stocks into auto fuel ?
Or have you already forgotten the cornmeal shortage-caused riots in the 3rd world over the last few summers ?
Another stupid scam foisted upon us by the Church of AGW.You would have to be willfully ignorant to not see the massive damage already caused by the Church of AGW and their political accomplices on the far left .
And what they have PLANNED will spell nothing less than the collapse of Human civilization and possibly the extinction of our species .
All for a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Church of AGW has stolen TRILLIONS of dollars from the world economy on BS schemes which have both directly and indirectly cause economic and personal harm to BILLIONS of people around the world.
(Hello? Kyoto Accords?
)I wonder how many people have starved because the AGW quacks have us turning food-stocks into auto fuel?
Or have you already forgotten the cornmeal shortage-caused riots in the 3rd world over the last few summers?
Another stupid scam foisted upon us by the Church of AGW.You would have to be willfully ignorant to not see the massive damage already caused by the Church of AGW and their political accomplices on the far left.
And what they have PLANNED will spell nothing less than the collapse of Human civilization and possibly the extinction of our species.
All for a lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305918</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1259588580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have to ask, you don't understand.  Cap and trade hurts poor nations the most as they're required to put money into programs that will cause undue hardships on the poorest of the poor.  There's a reason why hyper economies like India and China are rather pissy over the entire thing.  It's not just limited to economic growth, it limits population growth, and growth of farmable areas to sustain populations.</p><p>So lets take a look further at the push of eco-green tech pushed by people into area's like Africa.  Just go a head and research that a bit, you'll find that it's not as a pretty picture as they make it out to be.  Rather it keeps dirt farmers, as dirt farmers.  It pushes farming production backwards, and causes primary and secondary strife.  It all reeks of the old "positive population checks" of Malthus.  I'll take the reasoning of Borlaug instead; "you can't create a peaceful world on empty stomachs."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have to ask , you do n't understand .
Cap and trade hurts poor nations the most as they 're required to put money into programs that will cause undue hardships on the poorest of the poor .
There 's a reason why hyper economies like India and China are rather pissy over the entire thing .
It 's not just limited to economic growth , it limits population growth , and growth of farmable areas to sustain populations.So lets take a look further at the push of eco-green tech pushed by people into area 's like Africa .
Just go a head and research that a bit , you 'll find that it 's not as a pretty picture as they make it out to be .
Rather it keeps dirt farmers , as dirt farmers .
It pushes farming production backwards , and causes primary and secondary strife .
It all reeks of the old " positive population checks " of Malthus .
I 'll take the reasoning of Borlaug instead ; " you ca n't create a peaceful world on empty stomachs .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have to ask, you don't understand.
Cap and trade hurts poor nations the most as they're required to put money into programs that will cause undue hardships on the poorest of the poor.
There's a reason why hyper economies like India and China are rather pissy over the entire thing.
It's not just limited to economic growth, it limits population growth, and growth of farmable areas to sustain populations.So lets take a look further at the push of eco-green tech pushed by people into area's like Africa.
Just go a head and research that a bit, you'll find that it's not as a pretty picture as they make it out to be.
Rather it keeps dirt farmers, as dirt farmers.
It pushes farming production backwards, and causes primary and secondary strife.
It all reeks of the old "positive population checks" of Malthus.
I'll take the reasoning of Borlaug instead; "you can't create a peaceful world on empty stomachs.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303696</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1259579280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I've seen better arguments with a magic 8 ball. At least you're consistent...?</p><p>His claims at least had a bit of that 'logic' and 'fact' stuff thrown in. But I suppose you're right; the guy simply repeating 'NONONONO' has no bias and only truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I 've seen better arguments with a magic 8 ball .
At least you 're consistent... ? His claims at least had a bit of that 'logic ' and 'fact ' stuff thrown in .
But I suppose you 're right ; the guy simply repeating 'NONONONO ' has no bias and only truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I've seen better arguments with a magic 8 ball.
At least you're consistent...?His claims at least had a bit of that 'logic' and 'fact' stuff thrown in.
But I suppose you're right; the guy simply repeating 'NONONONO' has no bias and only truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307402</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259601180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not fudging the data? How do you know? They won't give the data to folks looking to check things out. Did they actually admit in e-mails that they were fudging data, nope. Not in the e-mails they didn't delete.</p><p>Basically they took millions in grant money and refused access to people who wanted to check their work. That's not what good scientists are supposed to do. If they're so worried about disclosing their potential mistakes it's reasonable to assume they don't actually have confidence in their results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not fudging the data ?
How do you know ?
They wo n't give the data to folks looking to check things out .
Did they actually admit in e-mails that they were fudging data , nope .
Not in the e-mails they did n't delete.Basically they took millions in grant money and refused access to people who wanted to check their work .
That 's not what good scientists are supposed to do .
If they 're so worried about disclosing their potential mistakes it 's reasonable to assume they do n't actually have confidence in their results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not fudging the data?
How do you know?
They won't give the data to folks looking to check things out.
Did they actually admit in e-mails that they were fudging data, nope.
Not in the e-mails they didn't delete.Basically they took millions in grant money and refused access to people who wanted to check their work.
That's not what good scientists are supposed to do.
If they're so worried about disclosing their potential mistakes it's reasonable to assume they don't actually have confidence in their results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30310640</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.  Simple selfish interest.</p></div><p>...and looking at the business section of the Telegraph (UK) I've seen  lots of examples of financial sector parasites rubbing their hands in anticipation of Carbon trading and other schemes. They're all in favour of billions going into "green" carbon offset schemes and taxes, and passing through their sticky fingers as they take their commissions. They'll fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 hasn't done any harm. Simple selfish interest.</p><p>Perhaps we should drop pseudomarxist kneejerk as a scientific argument?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what the science says , everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm .
Simple selfish interest....and looking at the business section of the Telegraph ( UK ) I 've seen lots of examples of financial sector parasites rubbing their hands in anticipation of Carbon trading and other schemes .
They 're all in favour of billions going into " green " carbon offset schemes and taxes , and passing through their sticky fingers as they take their commissions .
They 'll fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 has n't done any harm .
Simple selfish interest.Perhaps we should drop pseudomarxist kneejerk as a scientific argument ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.
Simple selfish interest....and looking at the business section of the Telegraph (UK) I've seen  lots of examples of financial sector parasites rubbing their hands in anticipation of Carbon trading and other schemes.
They're all in favour of billions going into "green" carbon offset schemes and taxes, and passing through their sticky fingers as they take their commissions.
They'll fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 hasn't done any harm.
Simple selfish interest.Perhaps we should drop pseudomarxist kneejerk as a scientific argument?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304290</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1259581260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently, your simple reliable science can't account for the last decade of no warming.</p><p>And how convenient for you that you can't prove a negative because it leaves you free to assert pretty much anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , your simple reliable science ca n't account for the last decade of no warming.And how convenient for you that you ca n't prove a negative because it leaves you free to assert pretty much anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, your simple reliable science can't account for the last decade of no warming.And how convenient for you that you can't prove a negative because it leaves you free to assert pretty much anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304320</id>
	<title>Re:Linking to Realclimate is not the best idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course you'd want to see the response of the person who wrote the first paper. And then you would evaluate it. If serious problems are found in a paper, but that the author successfully argues that no real problems were found, I would go with his version. Wouldn't you? And who's in the best position to mount a defense if not the original author? You can only "refute" someone with good arguments after all. He certainly deserves a shot.</p><p>It's like linking to a creationist site looking for evidence against evolution. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but if you aren't completely clueless you can readily see and verify that their arguments are absolutely dreadful. One should not link to them because they are terrible. Instead of saying we can't link to RealClimate, follow the link, read what's written, go read the original papers and think for yourself if it all makes sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course you 'd want to see the response of the person who wrote the first paper .
And then you would evaluate it .
If serious problems are found in a paper , but that the author successfully argues that no real problems were found , I would go with his version .
Would n't you ?
And who 's in the best position to mount a defense if not the original author ?
You can only " refute " someone with good arguments after all .
He certainly deserves a shot.It 's like linking to a creationist site looking for evidence against evolution .
There is nothing inherently wrong with that , but if you are n't completely clueless you can readily see and verify that their arguments are absolutely dreadful .
One should not link to them because they are terrible .
Instead of saying we ca n't link to RealClimate , follow the link , read what 's written , go read the original papers and think for yourself if it all makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course you'd want to see the response of the person who wrote the first paper.
And then you would evaluate it.
If serious problems are found in a paper, but that the author successfully argues that no real problems were found, I would go with his version.
Wouldn't you?
And who's in the best position to mount a defense if not the original author?
You can only "refute" someone with good arguments after all.
He certainly deserves a shot.It's like linking to a creationist site looking for evidence against evolution.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but if you aren't completely clueless you can readily see and verify that their arguments are absolutely dreadful.
One should not link to them because they are terrible.
Instead of saying we can't link to RealClimate, follow the link, read what's written, go read the original papers and think for yourself if it all makes sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302732</id>
	<title>Inhofe, FOI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259576220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sen. Inhofe has put US climate research institutions on notice that material related to climate research may be subject to FOI and is not to be destroyed.  Any Slashdot folks out there that are connected with this stuff better be on notice; deleting FOI subject material is a criminal offense. People are going to look hard at this, and then they're going to ruin some lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sen. Inhofe has put US climate research institutions on notice that material related to climate research may be subject to FOI and is not to be destroyed .
Any Slashdot folks out there that are connected with this stuff better be on notice ; deleting FOI subject material is a criminal offense .
People are going to look hard at this , and then they 're going to ruin some lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sen. Inhofe has put US climate research institutions on notice that material related to climate research may be subject to FOI and is not to be destroyed.
Any Slashdot folks out there that are connected with this stuff better be on notice; deleting FOI subject material is a criminal offense.
People are going to look hard at this, and then they're going to ruin some lives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307312</id>
	<title>So prove it scientifically</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1259600040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Throughout this entire thread people are performing political analyses--who are all the players, and what do they have to gain? That's a political analysis.</p><p>But none of that shit matters if we are talking about scientific conclusions. If people fudged data, it should not be hard to prove it scientifically, as CRU does not hold the only temperate data and model code in the world. Data tampering should be easy to spot. So where is the scientific proof? Conversely, if the data is accurate, Satan himself could publish it, and it would not make it any less accurate.</p><p>Not that I'm asking you to prove tampering, of course. Like most posters to this thread, you are probably in the IT field and have never conducted publishable scientific research in your life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Throughout this entire thread people are performing political analyses--who are all the players , and what do they have to gain ?
That 's a political analysis.But none of that shit matters if we are talking about scientific conclusions .
If people fudged data , it should not be hard to prove it scientifically , as CRU does not hold the only temperate data and model code in the world .
Data tampering should be easy to spot .
So where is the scientific proof ?
Conversely , if the data is accurate , Satan himself could publish it , and it would not make it any less accurate.Not that I 'm asking you to prove tampering , of course .
Like most posters to this thread , you are probably in the IT field and have never conducted publishable scientific research in your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throughout this entire thread people are performing political analyses--who are all the players, and what do they have to gain?
That's a political analysis.But none of that shit matters if we are talking about scientific conclusions.
If people fudged data, it should not be hard to prove it scientifically, as CRU does not hold the only temperate data and model code in the world.
Data tampering should be easy to spot.
So where is the scientific proof?
Conversely, if the data is accurate, Satan himself could publish it, and it would not make it any less accurate.Not that I'm asking you to prove tampering, of course.
Like most posters to this thread, you are probably in the IT field and have never conducted publishable scientific research in your life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306538</id>
	<title>In another story...</title>
	<author>darkpixel2k</author>
	<datestamp>1259593080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In an unrelated story, the former lead scientist at CRU has been offered a research job with Big Tobacco.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In an unrelated story , the former lead scientist at CRU has been offered a research job with Big Tobacco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an unrelated story, the former lead scientist at CRU has been offered a research job with Big Tobacco.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305190</id>
	<title>Re:Remember Ike's Warning?</title>
	<author>jbeach</author>
	<datestamp>1259584800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because Federal-funded research **may** be influenced by Federal $, does NOT mean that corporate-funded research is clean.

If anything, Federal-funded research is more likely to be clean IF ONLY because the Federal government is ultimately beholden to the voters, whereas companies are only beholden to their stockholders, if at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because Federal-funded research * * may * * be influenced by Federal $ , does NOT mean that corporate-funded research is clean .
If anything , Federal-funded research is more likely to be clean IF ONLY because the Federal government is ultimately beholden to the voters , whereas companies are only beholden to their stockholders , if at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because Federal-funded research **may** be influenced by Federal $, does NOT mean that corporate-funded research is clean.
If anything, Federal-funded research is more likely to be clean IF ONLY because the Federal government is ultimately beholden to the voters, whereas companies are only beholden to their stockholders, if at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301174</id>
	<title>Not fraud. Why is it so hard to believe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not fraud. Why is it so hard to believe?</p><p>It isn't fraud since there's no evidence of fraud. With Bernie, there was a huge lump of money gone AWOL. Yet the independent data still shows the same effect as this supposedly contaminated one.</p><p>So where's the evidence of fraud?</p><p>It's like accusing a bank manager of robbing the bank but no money has gone missing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not fraud .
Why is it so hard to believe ? It is n't fraud since there 's no evidence of fraud .
With Bernie , there was a huge lump of money gone AWOL .
Yet the independent data still shows the same effect as this supposedly contaminated one.So where 's the evidence of fraud ? It 's like accusing a bank manager of robbing the bank but no money has gone missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not fraud.
Why is it so hard to believe?It isn't fraud since there's no evidence of fraud.
With Bernie, there was a huge lump of money gone AWOL.
Yet the independent data still shows the same effect as this supposedly contaminated one.So where's the evidence of fraud?It's like accusing a bank manager of robbing the bank but no money has gone missing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30309230</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1259847180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We'll use our best discretion to make sure the <b>skeptics</b> don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.</p></div><p>Q:Since when are you not allowed to be a skeptic in science? <br>
A:When its politics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics do n't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.Q : Since when are you not allowed to be a skeptic in science ?
A : When its politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.Q:Since when are you not allowed to be a skeptic in science?
A:When its politics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305982</id>
	<title>Re:This whole thing is awful.</title>
	<author>AB3A</author>
	<datestamp>1259588940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question I have is whether there can ever be conclusive data to prove one side or the other before it actually happens.</p><p>I had hopes before that some very bright people might find a way to analyze data and simulate with it. However, given the dubious quality of the data collected thus far, I have to wonder if climate studies are going to produce anything useful.</p><p>And then these CRU idiots got exposed. If there was any opportunity for real science to get done before, it's been blown away for a good many years.</p><p>Thanks a lot guys. Your disservice to the community ought to win you an IgNobel --except that those usually have some humor in them.  There is nothing funny about what CRU did.</p><p>(spit)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question I have is whether there can ever be conclusive data to prove one side or the other before it actually happens.I had hopes before that some very bright people might find a way to analyze data and simulate with it .
However , given the dubious quality of the data collected thus far , I have to wonder if climate studies are going to produce anything useful.And then these CRU idiots got exposed .
If there was any opportunity for real science to get done before , it 's been blown away for a good many years.Thanks a lot guys .
Your disservice to the community ought to win you an IgNobel --except that those usually have some humor in them .
There is nothing funny about what CRU did .
( spit )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question I have is whether there can ever be conclusive data to prove one side or the other before it actually happens.I had hopes before that some very bright people might find a way to analyze data and simulate with it.
However, given the dubious quality of the data collected thus far, I have to wonder if climate studies are going to produce anything useful.And then these CRU idiots got exposed.
If there was any opportunity for real science to get done before, it's been blown away for a good many years.Thanks a lot guys.
Your disservice to the community ought to win you an IgNobel --except that those usually have some humor in them.
There is nothing funny about what CRU did.
(spit)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304696</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>DiamondGeezer</author>
	<datestamp>1259582700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Those, as you called them, "warmers" are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication, no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled, only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.</em> <br> <br>The peer review process itself was subverted. They got published and anyone who wrote articles criticizing them got blocked, even to the extent of having independent editors removed if they dared question the "science" that they were producing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those , as you called them , " warmers " are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals .
Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication , no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled , only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks .
The peer review process itself was subverted .
They got published and anyone who wrote articles criticizing them got blocked , even to the extent of having independent editors removed if they dared question the " science " that they were producing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those, as you called them, "warmers" are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals.
Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication, no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled, only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.
The peer review process itself was subverted.
They got published and anyone who wrote articles criticizing them got blocked, even to the extent of having independent editors removed if they dared question the "science" that they were producing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302312</id>
	<title>Google Censoring Climategate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259574960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shortly after the story broke, "climategate" used to be one of the top autocomplete suggestions as you started typing it out.</p><p>Now it's no where to be found.</p><p>Even "climategat" won't give you the suggestion of "climategate".</p><p>"Climategate" has over 20,000,000 hits.</p><p>"Climate Guatamala City" has 840,000 hits.<br>"Climate Guadalajara" has less that 800,000 hits.</p><p>Obviously search suggestions are not driven by the number of hits, but the frequency of the search.<br>But:</p><p>- There is an order of magnitude difference in the hits for "Climategate" and other suggested search terms.</p><p>- You get suggestions for things that don't match what you're typing, yet you don't get suggestions for spelling "climategat" or "climategate".</p><p>- "Climategate" used to be a search suggestion.  It appears as if the algorithms at Google picked up on it as they should, and it was MANUALLY REMOVED.</p><p>You DO however still get the suggestion of "climate gate scandal" if you start typing in "climate g", though there are only 6,500,000 hits for "climate gate scandal" and the top few pages are filled mostly with the same Joseph Bast article talking mostly about economics.</p><p>Bing has NO suggestions for "climategate" or "climate gate", though I do not know if it ever did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shortly after the story broke , " climategate " used to be one of the top autocomplete suggestions as you started typing it out.Now it 's no where to be found.Even " climategat " wo n't give you the suggestion of " climategate " .
" Climategate " has over 20,000,000 hits .
" Climate Guatamala City " has 840,000 hits .
" Climate Guadalajara " has less that 800,000 hits.Obviously search suggestions are not driven by the number of hits , but the frequency of the search.But : - There is an order of magnitude difference in the hits for " Climategate " and other suggested search terms.- You get suggestions for things that do n't match what you 're typing , yet you do n't get suggestions for spelling " climategat " or " climategate " .- " Climategate " used to be a search suggestion .
It appears as if the algorithms at Google picked up on it as they should , and it was MANUALLY REMOVED.You DO however still get the suggestion of " climate gate scandal " if you start typing in " climate g " , though there are only 6,500,000 hits for " climate gate scandal " and the top few pages are filled mostly with the same Joseph Bast article talking mostly about economics.Bing has NO suggestions for " climategate " or " climate gate " , though I do not know if it ever did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shortly after the story broke, "climategate" used to be one of the top autocomplete suggestions as you started typing it out.Now it's no where to be found.Even "climategat" won't give you the suggestion of "climategate".
"Climategate" has over 20,000,000 hits.
"Climate Guatamala City" has 840,000 hits.
"Climate Guadalajara" has less that 800,000 hits.Obviously search suggestions are not driven by the number of hits, but the frequency of the search.But:- There is an order of magnitude difference in the hits for "Climategate" and other suggested search terms.- You get suggestions for things that don't match what you're typing, yet you don't get suggestions for spelling "climategat" or "climategate".- "Climategate" used to be a search suggestion.
It appears as if the algorithms at Google picked up on it as they should, and it was MANUALLY REMOVED.You DO however still get the suggestion of "climate gate scandal" if you start typing in "climate g", though there are only 6,500,000 hits for "climate gate scandal" and the top few pages are filled mostly with the same Joseph Bast article talking mostly about economics.Bing has NO suggestions for "climategate" or "climate gate", though I do not know if it ever did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302392</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Hack</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1259575200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But if just 10 years ago, I was saying to you that a government body is going to be created that would tax all nations, you would have claimed I had a screw loose.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'll tell you, TODAY, you have a frickin' screw loose.  Probably several, in fact.</p><blockquote><div><p>Anyone who is researching our planets climate record and current climate HONESTLY, knew this whole carbon tax thing was a money making scam.</p></div></blockquote><p>Money-making for who?</p><blockquote><div><p>the people behind this could care less about our planet</p></div></blockquote><p>Impossible to know someone's motives, and irrelevant to what they're actually doing, so you've said nothing at all of value here.</p><blockquote><div><p>You people who believe in this stuff reading this post are stupid sheepeople.</p></div></blockquote><p>Either that, or the people complaining about it are insane conspiracy theorists...  Could be either one....</p><blockquote><div><p>Once the system is setup, more taxes can then easily be added and now you have a government fully sustained by taxes that reaches world wide.</p></div></blockquote><p>International treaties have existed forever, and they all carry the same lack of power...  Any country can opt out at any time they want, and chose whether to admit it or not.  You're no worse off than if you never signed-up to being with.</p><blockquote><div><p>I won't get into right here because nobody would believe me....</p></div></blockquote><p>Good to see we agree on something!</p><blockquote><div><p>-Hack</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, you certainly are...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if just 10 years ago , I was saying to you that a government body is going to be created that would tax all nations , you would have claimed I had a screw loose.I 'll tell you , TODAY , you have a frickin ' screw loose .
Probably several , in fact.Anyone who is researching our planets climate record and current climate HONESTLY , knew this whole carbon tax thing was a money making scam.Money-making for who ? the people behind this could care less about our planetImpossible to know someone 's motives , and irrelevant to what they 're actually doing , so you 've said nothing at all of value here.You people who believe in this stuff reading this post are stupid sheepeople.Either that , or the people complaining about it are insane conspiracy theorists... Could be either one....Once the system is setup , more taxes can then easily be added and now you have a government fully sustained by taxes that reaches world wide.International treaties have existed forever , and they all carry the same lack of power... Any country can opt out at any time they want , and chose whether to admit it or not .
You 're no worse off than if you never signed-up to being with.I wo n't get into right here because nobody would believe me....Good to see we agree on something ! -HackYes , you certainly are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if just 10 years ago, I was saying to you that a government body is going to be created that would tax all nations, you would have claimed I had a screw loose.I'll tell you, TODAY, you have a frickin' screw loose.
Probably several, in fact.Anyone who is researching our planets climate record and current climate HONESTLY, knew this whole carbon tax thing was a money making scam.Money-making for who?the people behind this could care less about our planetImpossible to know someone's motives, and irrelevant to what they're actually doing, so you've said nothing at all of value here.You people who believe in this stuff reading this post are stupid sheepeople.Either that, or the people complaining about it are insane conspiracy theorists...  Could be either one....Once the system is setup, more taxes can then easily be added and now you have a government fully sustained by taxes that reaches world wide.International treaties have existed forever, and they all carry the same lack of power...  Any country can opt out at any time they want, and chose whether to admit it or not.
You're no worse off than if you never signed-up to being with.I won't get into right here because nobody would believe me....Good to see we agree on something!-HackYes, you certainly are...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302258</id>
	<title>Re:Chuck Norris says...</title>
	<author>the\_one(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1259574840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2) The reason? Because the big polluters out there like China and India will not contribute.</p></div><p>Dunno about India but China has pledged to lower emissions by an absurd* 45\% by 2020.<br>*China's emissions / person is already quite low.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 ) The reason ?
Because the big polluters out there like China and India will not contribute.Dunno about India but China has pledged to lower emissions by an absurd * 45 \ % by 2020 .
* China 's emissions / person is already quite low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2) The reason?
Because the big polluters out there like China and India will not contribute.Dunno about India but China has pledged to lower emissions by an absurd* 45\% by 2020.
*China's emissions / person is already quite low.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301434</id>
	<title>you can fix the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All these 'impartial gov sponsored' climate surveys ignore the top 4 worldwide reasons for global warming. Cooking, Washing, Home heating (wood/oil/coal burning #1 worldwide  method), and Chemical refining/manufacturing.</p><p>So to stop global warming. Stop cooking your food. Stop heating your bath water. Don't heat your house. Stop all manufacturing.<br>In other words, "Take your stinky, wool sweater wearing butt outside."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All these 'impartial gov sponsored ' climate surveys ignore the top 4 worldwide reasons for global warming .
Cooking , Washing , Home heating ( wood/oil/coal burning # 1 worldwide method ) , and Chemical refining/manufacturing.So to stop global warming .
Stop cooking your food .
Stop heating your bath water .
Do n't heat your house .
Stop all manufacturing.In other words , " Take your stinky , wool sweater wearing butt outside .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these 'impartial gov sponsored' climate surveys ignore the top 4 worldwide reasons for global warming.
Cooking, Washing, Home heating (wood/oil/coal burning #1 worldwide  method), and Chemical refining/manufacturing.So to stop global warming.
Stop cooking your food.
Stop heating your bath water.
Don't heat your house.
Stop all manufacturing.In other words, "Take your stinky, wool sweater wearing butt outside.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305844</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>RJBeery</author>
	<datestamp>1259587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it delicious that you were modded funny when I suspect your post was sincere.  How can you be so blind as to not see the motivation behind AGW proponents?  Economically, the CRU itself has received tens of millions in grant money and I've read that the US Gov't has spent tens of BILLIONS over the decades in AGW inspired research, development, grants, etc.  Politically, it's a tool to grant a moral high-ground to unproductive countries which is why it is so popular with anti-consumerists and Socialists.  Have you never heard of the calls for exemptions on CO2 emissions for China, et al?  What about some South American countries (recently and specifically the President of Brazil) proclaiming that "the Gringos should pay" for the deforestation occurring in their forests?<br> <br>After further thought I suspect you are willfully blind or simply a shill trying to paint the AGW movement as an altruistic and unpolitical one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it delicious that you were modded funny when I suspect your post was sincere .
How can you be so blind as to not see the motivation behind AGW proponents ?
Economically , the CRU itself has received tens of millions in grant money and I 've read that the US Gov't has spent tens of BILLIONS over the decades in AGW inspired research , development , grants , etc .
Politically , it 's a tool to grant a moral high-ground to unproductive countries which is why it is so popular with anti-consumerists and Socialists .
Have you never heard of the calls for exemptions on CO2 emissions for China , et al ?
What about some South American countries ( recently and specifically the President of Brazil ) proclaiming that " the Gringos should pay " for the deforestation occurring in their forests ?
After further thought I suspect you are willfully blind or simply a shill trying to paint the AGW movement as an altruistic and unpolitical one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it delicious that you were modded funny when I suspect your post was sincere.
How can you be so blind as to not see the motivation behind AGW proponents?
Economically, the CRU itself has received tens of millions in grant money and I've read that the US Gov't has spent tens of BILLIONS over the decades in AGW inspired research, development, grants, etc.
Politically, it's a tool to grant a moral high-ground to unproductive countries which is why it is so popular with anti-consumerists and Socialists.
Have you never heard of the calls for exemptions on CO2 emissions for China, et al?
What about some South American countries (recently and specifically the President of Brazil) proclaiming that "the Gringos should pay" for the deforestation occurring in their forests?
After further thought I suspect you are willfully blind or simply a shill trying to paint the AGW movement as an altruistic and unpolitical one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306362</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259591700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The motivation to fabricate AGW is the same motivation Obama used to cut executive pay at firms which DIDN'T accept bailout money along with some that did (after we were assured that Obama has no interest in running GM).<br>It is the same motivation they've always had since Marx and beyond: they think you're stupid - too stupid, in fact, to run your own lives, so you must turn your lives over to the people who can't even keep party crashers out of the White House.  The individual must never be allowed to win out over the interest of the L33T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The motivation to fabricate AGW is the same motivation Obama used to cut executive pay at firms which DID N'T accept bailout money along with some that did ( after we were assured that Obama has no interest in running GM ) .It is the same motivation they 've always had since Marx and beyond : they think you 're stupid - too stupid , in fact , to run your own lives , so you must turn your lives over to the people who ca n't even keep party crashers out of the White House .
The individual must never be allowed to win out over the interest of the L33T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The motivation to fabricate AGW is the same motivation Obama used to cut executive pay at firms which DIDN'T accept bailout money along with some that did (after we were assured that Obama has no interest in running GM).It is the same motivation they've always had since Marx and beyond: they think you're stupid - too stupid, in fact, to run your own lives, so you must turn your lives over to the people who can't even keep party crashers out of the White House.
The individual must never be allowed to win out over the interest of the L33T.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301582</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.</p><p>I'm not so sure. I think their technique is to manipulate the media to convince the masses that global warming is a myth, and an affront to their freedom.<br>Then the masses will do the hard work for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.I 'm not so sure .
I think their technique is to manipulate the media to convince the masses that global warming is a myth , and an affront to their freedom.Then the masses will do the hard work for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.I'm not so sure.
I think their technique is to manipulate the media to convince the masses that global warming is a myth, and an affront to their freedom.Then the masses will do the hard work for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302926</id>
	<title>Proof</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1259576940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not only was it manipulated</i></p><p>Of course it was manipulated. You don't do science without data manipulation.</p><p><i>they threw out both the raw data and any audit trail.</i></p><p>This constitutes proof of misrepresentation how?</p><p>I'd agree with anyone who says that discarding raw data makes a given work based on it less scientifically credible. The more independent researchers can recreate/verify, the stronger the science is. But it isn't evidence of misrepresentation.</p><p>Here's what proof of misrepresentation looks like a statement by one of the parties involved saying "I did  to  to produce " followed by either:</p><p>1) a further statement something like "to make it look like  is true even though we have no indication it might be."</p><p>2) an examination of dataset Y0 before procedure X is applied to makes it clear that X(Y0) != Y and further evidence that this is intentional.</p><p>3) a detailed explanation as to why not only would procedure X produce problematic results but also why it's probable that the only reason someone would use would be to misrepresent facts, preferably unrefuted by any reasonable argument as to why procedure X could be helpful.</p><p>Maybe this is in the emails, but so far, I haven't seen anything like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only was it manipulatedOf course it was manipulated .
You do n't do science without data manipulation.they threw out both the raw data and any audit trail.This constitutes proof of misrepresentation how ? I 'd agree with anyone who says that discarding raw data makes a given work based on it less scientifically credible .
The more independent researchers can recreate/verify , the stronger the science is .
But it is n't evidence of misrepresentation.Here 's what proof of misrepresentation looks like a statement by one of the parties involved saying " I did to to produce " followed by either : 1 ) a further statement something like " to make it look like is true even though we have no indication it might be .
" 2 ) an examination of dataset Y0 before procedure X is applied to makes it clear that X ( Y0 ) ! = Y and further evidence that this is intentional.3 ) a detailed explanation as to why not only would procedure X produce problematic results but also why it 's probable that the only reason someone would use would be to misrepresent facts , preferably unrefuted by any reasonable argument as to why procedure X could be helpful.Maybe this is in the emails , but so far , I have n't seen anything like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only was it manipulatedOf course it was manipulated.
You don't do science without data manipulation.they threw out both the raw data and any audit trail.This constitutes proof of misrepresentation how?I'd agree with anyone who says that discarding raw data makes a given work based on it less scientifically credible.
The more independent researchers can recreate/verify, the stronger the science is.
But it isn't evidence of misrepresentation.Here's what proof of misrepresentation looks like a statement by one of the parties involved saying "I did  to  to produce " followed by either:1) a further statement something like "to make it look like  is true even though we have no indication it might be.
"2) an examination of dataset Y0 before procedure X is applied to makes it clear that X(Y0) != Y and further evidence that this is intentional.3) a detailed explanation as to why not only would procedure X produce problematic results but also why it's probable that the only reason someone would use would be to misrepresent facts, preferably unrefuted by any reasonable argument as to why procedure X could be helpful.Maybe this is in the emails, but so far, I haven't seen anything like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304534</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1259582220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is far, far too much politics in science. I don't know why Dr. Jones decided to step down, but I'm inclined to believe (after reading the Nature editorial) that the reasons were almost entirely political.</p></div><p>I think most everyone agrees on that.  There was actually a best selling book about that very topic a few years ago.  It used global warming as the example, and, ironically, wound up further politicizing the issue.  I'm appalled by the overall lack of reading comprehension in America, and find it interesting that the book was prominently "rebutted" point by point by one of the people tangentially involved in the e-mails.  While it's wrong to assume guilt by association, it does seem to me that the people suffering because of the leak appear to adamantly disagree with the book and it's premise that science should be separate from politics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is far , far too much politics in science .
I do n't know why Dr. Jones decided to step down , but I 'm inclined to believe ( after reading the Nature editorial ) that the reasons were almost entirely political.I think most everyone agrees on that .
There was actually a best selling book about that very topic a few years ago .
It used global warming as the example , and , ironically , wound up further politicizing the issue .
I 'm appalled by the overall lack of reading comprehension in America , and find it interesting that the book was prominently " rebutted " point by point by one of the people tangentially involved in the e-mails .
While it 's wrong to assume guilt by association , it does seem to me that the people suffering because of the leak appear to adamantly disagree with the book and it 's premise that science should be separate from politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is far, far too much politics in science.
I don't know why Dr. Jones decided to step down, but I'm inclined to believe (after reading the Nature editorial) that the reasons were almost entirely political.I think most everyone agrees on that.
There was actually a best selling book about that very topic a few years ago.
It used global warming as the example, and, ironically, wound up further politicizing the issue.
I'm appalled by the overall lack of reading comprehension in America, and find it interesting that the book was prominently "rebutted" point by point by one of the people tangentially involved in the e-mails.
While it's wrong to assume guilt by association, it does seem to me that the people suffering because of the leak appear to adamantly disagree with the book and it's premise that science should be separate from politics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301444</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Snocone</author>
	<datestamp>1259572200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For everyone's information: data was not manipulated</i></p><p>Oh, for crying out loud. Not only was it manipulated, they threw out both the raw data and any audit trail.</p><p>"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. "</p><p><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece</a> [timesonline.co.uk]</p><p>I hope you're at least getting a paycheque for throwing out nonsense so easily proved wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For everyone 's information : data was not manipulatedOh , for crying out loud .
Not only was it manipulated , they threw out both the raw data and any audit trail .
" SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia ( UEA ) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based ... Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled .
That is now impossible .
" http : //www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece [ timesonline.co.uk ] I hope you 're at least getting a paycheque for throwing out nonsense so easily proved wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For everyone's information: data was not manipulatedOh, for crying out loud.
Not only was it manipulated, they threw out both the raw data and any audit trail.
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based ... Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled.
That is now impossible.
"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece [timesonline.co.uk]I hope you're at least getting a paycheque for throwing out nonsense so easily proved wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300970</id>
	<title>Stepping aside =/= stepping down</title>
	<author>JackCroww</author>
	<datestamp>1259613600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The man is still going to be at the Center, which means he'll use his "pull" to keep his fingers in the pie, kinda like Putin isn't President of Russia anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The man is still going to be at the Center , which means he 'll use his " pull " to keep his fingers in the pie , kinda like Putin is n't President of Russia anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The man is still going to be at the Center, which means he'll use his "pull" to keep his fingers in the pie, kinda like Putin isn't President of Russia anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301984</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1259574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Madoff? Why not Jay Gould?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Madoff ?
Why not Jay Gould ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Madoff?
Why not Jay Gould?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30320828</id>
	<title>Re:The denialists are out in force today</title>
	<author>Pranadevil2k</author>
	<datestamp>1259861280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The argument being made is that the results of the CRU research that have been found to use this modified data played a large role in passing legislation in the US and other countries that cost governments millions or billions of [currency] to enact and enforce. On top of that, most likely using government money to create this fake data. Consider the lowest common denominator average joe citizen hearing this in the news after having global warming drilled into them for the past 10 years, and you might see how this single act of dishonesty on the part of these scientists could setback the global warming debate by a whole hell of a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument being made is that the results of the CRU research that have been found to use this modified data played a large role in passing legislation in the US and other countries that cost governments millions or billions of [ currency ] to enact and enforce .
On top of that , most likely using government money to create this fake data .
Consider the lowest common denominator average joe citizen hearing this in the news after having global warming drilled into them for the past 10 years , and you might see how this single act of dishonesty on the part of these scientists could setback the global warming debate by a whole hell of a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument being made is that the results of the CRU research that have been found to use this modified data played a large role in passing legislation in the US and other countries that cost governments millions or billions of [currency] to enact and enforce.
On top of that, most likely using government money to create this fake data.
Consider the lowest common denominator average joe citizen hearing this in the news after having global warming drilled into them for the past 10 years, and you might see how this single act of dishonesty on the part of these scientists could setback the global warming debate by a whole hell of a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301892</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yes, the same scientists that were manipulating the peer review process in order to make sure that only their views ever made it to the journals.  That's not real peer review.  <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1464428&amp;cid=30301040" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1464428&amp;cid=30301040</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes , the same scientists that were manipulating the peer review process in order to make sure that only their views ever made it to the journals .
That 's not real peer review .
http : //politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1464428&amp;cid = 30301040 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes, the same scientists that were manipulating the peer review process in order to make sure that only their views ever made it to the journals.
That's not real peer review.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1464428&amp;cid=30301040 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300698</id>
	<title>Politics</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1259612280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that this story is posted under Politics says a lot about what's wrong with the global warming 'debate' IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that this story is posted under Politics says a lot about what 's wrong with the global warming 'debate ' IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that this story is posted under Politics says a lot about what's wrong with the global warming 'debate' IMO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301200</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Yokaze</author>
	<datestamp>1259614560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I followed you up to this point:</p><p>&gt; Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.</p><p>Those, as you called them, "warmers" are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication, no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled, only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.</p><p>Concerning the effect of assumed counter-measurements against climate change, I am astonished, that you can claim to know the economical impact, as at least to my knowledge, economic models are several orders less reliable than climate models, as recent events may indicate.</p><p>Care to share your insight, which seems to exceed that of the tree huggers at McKinsey's?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I followed you up to this point : &gt; Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted , our very economy is at stake from the " warmers " and their political machinations.Those , as you called them , " warmers " are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals .
Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication , no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled , only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.Concerning the effect of assumed counter-measurements against climate change , I am astonished , that you can claim to know the economical impact , as at least to my knowledge , economic models are several orders less reliable than climate models , as recent events may indicate.Care to share your insight , which seems to exceed that of the tree huggers at McKinsey 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I followed you up to this point:&gt; Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.Those, as you called them, "warmers" are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals.
Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication, no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled, only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.Concerning the effect of assumed counter-measurements against climate change, I am astonished, that you can claim to know the economical impact, as at least to my knowledge, economic models are several orders less reliable than climate models, as recent events may indicate.Care to share your insight, which seems to exceed that of the tree huggers at McKinsey's?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304568</id>
	<title>Hockey Stick</title>
	<author>rlp</author>
	<datestamp>1259582280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you get a hockey stick graph from climate data.  One way is to apply a hockey stick filter to the data!  See <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447" title="ibiblio.org">ESR's blog</a> [ibiblio.org] for details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you get a hockey stick graph from climate data .
One way is to apply a hockey stick filter to the data !
See ESR 's blog [ ibiblio.org ] for details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you get a hockey stick graph from climate data.
One way is to apply a hockey stick filter to the data!
See ESR's blog [ibiblio.org] for details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302172</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1259574600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science is done when you get a polition who flunked out of a religious college to make a power point presentation on a subject he barely understands. You then give him a Nobel Prize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is done when you get a polition who flunked out of a religious college to make a power point presentation on a subject he barely understands .
You then give him a Nobel Prize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is done when you get a polition who flunked out of a religious college to make a power point presentation on a subject he barely understands.
You then give him a Nobel Prize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30309200</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1259846700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Grants are in the millions. Subsidies for "green" energy and other green technology in the billions. Would you lie for your salary.
<br> <br>
Also oil company involvement is highly overrated. We are Dependant on them and they know it. Even the crazys that think that AGW will end the world and the human race, don't really do anything to use less energy. We rant and rave about AGW and oil, gas and electricity consumption is increasing. Fast. Why, cus we don't really care. AGW is something to talk about in the pub or on the net... but we don't really want petrol to cost 3x more. Or electcity bills to be higher.
<br> <br>
Its other people that need to cut back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Grants are in the millions .
Subsidies for " green " energy and other green technology in the billions .
Would you lie for your salary .
Also oil company involvement is highly overrated .
We are Dependant on them and they know it .
Even the crazys that think that AGW will end the world and the human race , do n't really do anything to use less energy .
We rant and rave about AGW and oil , gas and electricity consumption is increasing .
Fast. Why , cus we do n't really care .
AGW is something to talk about in the pub or on the net... but we do n't really want petrol to cost 3x more .
Or electcity bills to be higher .
Its other people that need to cut back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grants are in the millions.
Subsidies for "green" energy and other green technology in the billions.
Would you lie for your salary.
Also oil company involvement is highly overrated.
We are Dependant on them and they know it.
Even the crazys that think that AGW will end the world and the human race, don't really do anything to use less energy.
We rant and rave about AGW and oil, gas and electricity consumption is increasing.
Fast. Why, cus we don't really care.
AGW is something to talk about in the pub or on the net... but we don't really want petrol to cost 3x more.
Or electcity bills to be higher.
Its other people that need to cut back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302622</id>
	<title>This whole thing is awful.</title>
	<author>Tobor the Eighth Man</author>
	<datestamp>1259575860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AGW isn't science, but neither is the competing movement of skeptics. This is all just politics, and the whole thing is awful, and everyone parading around with glee over this controversy is just as guilty of politicizing matters as the people they're lambasting. It's impossible to do proper science when both sides of the argument have become moralistic crusades, and the tainting influence of politics has basically made the entire subject a mish-mash of lies and nonsense on both sides of the equation.</p><p>Neither pride nor gloating have any place in science. Global warming needs to be evaluated solely on the evidence. Skepticism should be applauded wherever it's found, but the entire global warming debate has devolved into nothing but gross factionalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AGW is n't science , but neither is the competing movement of skeptics .
This is all just politics , and the whole thing is awful , and everyone parading around with glee over this controversy is just as guilty of politicizing matters as the people they 're lambasting .
It 's impossible to do proper science when both sides of the argument have become moralistic crusades , and the tainting influence of politics has basically made the entire subject a mish-mash of lies and nonsense on both sides of the equation.Neither pride nor gloating have any place in science .
Global warming needs to be evaluated solely on the evidence .
Skepticism should be applauded wherever it 's found , but the entire global warming debate has devolved into nothing but gross factionalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AGW isn't science, but neither is the competing movement of skeptics.
This is all just politics, and the whole thing is awful, and everyone parading around with glee over this controversy is just as guilty of politicizing matters as the people they're lambasting.
It's impossible to do proper science when both sides of the argument have become moralistic crusades, and the tainting influence of politics has basically made the entire subject a mish-mash of lies and nonsense on both sides of the equation.Neither pride nor gloating have any place in science.
Global warming needs to be evaluated solely on the evidence.
Skepticism should be applauded wherever it's found, but the entire global warming debate has devolved into nothing but gross factionalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306884</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259596140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember Gore's CO2 graph? Probably a 95\% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming. Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend. In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.</p></div><p>Apparently someone here likes to get their pseudo-science from Fox News.</p><p>CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  This is a matter of physics, not speculation.    The CO2 lag after initial temperature increases is the signature characteristic of ice age terminations.   The earth's orbit goes through a number of long-term orbital fluctuations called Milankovich cycles whose harmonics are on the order of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.   On the uptick those cycles warm the oceans -- one of the earth's largest carbon sinks -- which lose capacity for absorbing CO2 and, as they warm further, start to release it.  It's ultimately that CO2 that is the primary driver in transforming post-glacial climate.   The earth's climate history is a proof, not a refutation, of the vital role of GHG's in its climate.   Please stop posting right-wing bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember Gore 's CO2 graph ?
Probably a 95 \ % correlation between CO2 and temperature , which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming .
Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend .
In other words , warming CAUSED CO2 increases , the opposite of what he implied.Apparently someone here likes to get their pseudo-science from Fox News.CO2 is a greenhouse gas .
This is a matter of physics , not speculation .
The CO2 lag after initial temperature increases is the signature characteristic of ice age terminations .
The earth 's orbit goes through a number of long-term orbital fluctuations called Milankovich cycles whose harmonics are on the order of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years .
On the uptick those cycles warm the oceans -- one of the earth 's largest carbon sinks -- which lose capacity for absorbing CO2 and , as they warm further , start to release it .
It 's ultimately that CO2 that is the primary driver in transforming post-glacial climate .
The earth 's climate history is a proof , not a refutation , of the vital role of GHG 's in its climate .
Please stop posting right-wing bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember Gore's CO2 graph?
Probably a 95\% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming.
Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend.
In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.Apparently someone here likes to get their pseudo-science from Fox News.CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This is a matter of physics, not speculation.
The CO2 lag after initial temperature increases is the signature characteristic of ice age terminations.
The earth's orbit goes through a number of long-term orbital fluctuations called Milankovich cycles whose harmonics are on the order of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.
On the uptick those cycles warm the oceans -- one of the earth's largest carbon sinks -- which lose capacity for absorbing CO2 and, as they warm further, start to release it.
It's ultimately that CO2 that is the primary driver in transforming post-glacial climate.
The earth's climate history is a proof, not a refutation, of the vital role of GHG's in its climate.
Please stop posting right-wing bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1259613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. Same guy. Random number input into his program produced a hockey stick. I downloaded the 61MB zip file and have read most of the emails. Those are damaging in terms of exposing several issues:</p><p>1. They manipulated the peer-review process and controlled it to the point of changing what peer-review meant, freezing out contrary authors, reviewing each others' work, getting editors fired, etc. There's a lot of that kind of manipulation revealed.</p><p>2. They colluded to avoid the FOIA and deleted emails and threatened to delete data before they would release it under FOIA. This is illegal.</p><p>3. They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.' I don't have a problem with 'trick' being used. No big deal, but 'hide the decline'? Not good.</p><p>4. They would manipulate the data by simply not adding it, closing a run on an increase, when the subsequent data showed a decline. They seem dismayed that the last ten years shows an overall redction in temperature, at one point calling it a travesty and suggesting the data must be wrong.</p><p>5. Because there were no thermometers 2000 years ago, they use 'proxies' such as tree rings, ice core samples, etc. However, tree ring growth can be caused by wetness and other issues, not just temperature. In ine case they 'proved; warming based on 12 trees in Siberia. When hey went back and measured many more trees, the increase disappeared.</p><p>But the more damning evidence is in the programs themselves, including REM statements where 'hide the decline' is found numerous times, data is manually manipulated, and the programs would throw an error and keep on running.</p><p>The code, written primarily in FORTAN and IDL, is a mess--not professional. The datasets are often missing or in poor shape. There's one 'Harry Read me' text file where poor Harry is trying to make sense of the code, over several years, and points out many of the flaws.</p><p>So what we've got here is email and program code evidence of manipulation, very poor data, and very poor programming.</p><p>The thing is, there are only 4 datasets in the world, two terrestrial and two satellite. There are serious problms with both terrestrial data sets. NOAA's, for example, has manually 'adjusted' data over the years as much as 500\%! In other words, the observed degree difference was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1 degree C and the 'adjustment' was +.5 degrees C. You'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate, however, they were 'calibrated' on the 'adjusted' terrestrial data sets.</p><p>Remember Gore's CO2 graph? Probably a 95\% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming. Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend. In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Same guy .
Random number input into his program produced a hockey stick .
I downloaded the 61MB zip file and have read most of the emails .
Those are damaging in terms of exposing several issues : 1 .
They manipulated the peer-review process and controlled it to the point of changing what peer-review meant , freezing out contrary authors , reviewing each others ' work , getting editors fired , etc .
There 's a lot of that kind of manipulation revealed.2 .
They colluded to avoid the FOIA and deleted emails and threatened to delete data before they would release it under FOIA .
This is illegal.3 .
They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline ' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period .
' I do n't have a problem with 'trick ' being used .
No big deal , but 'hide the decline ' ?
Not good.4 .
They would manipulate the data by simply not adding it , closing a run on an increase , when the subsequent data showed a decline .
They seem dismayed that the last ten years shows an overall redction in temperature , at one point calling it a travesty and suggesting the data must be wrong.5 .
Because there were no thermometers 2000 years ago , they use 'proxies ' such as tree rings , ice core samples , etc .
However , tree ring growth can be caused by wetness and other issues , not just temperature .
In ine case they 'proved ; warming based on 12 trees in Siberia .
When hey went back and measured many more trees , the increase disappeared.But the more damning evidence is in the programs themselves , including REM statements where 'hide the decline ' is found numerous times , data is manually manipulated , and the programs would throw an error and keep on running.The code , written primarily in FORTAN and IDL , is a mess--not professional .
The datasets are often missing or in poor shape .
There 's one 'Harry Read me ' text file where poor Harry is trying to make sense of the code , over several years , and points out many of the flaws.So what we 've got here is email and program code evidence of manipulation , very poor data , and very poor programming.The thing is , there are only 4 datasets in the world , two terrestrial and two satellite .
There are serious problms with both terrestrial data sets .
NOAA 's , for example , has manually 'adjusted ' data over the years as much as 500 \ % !
In other words , the observed degree difference was .1 degree C and the 'adjustment ' was + .5 degrees C. You 'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate , however , they were 'calibrated ' on the 'adjusted ' terrestrial data sets.Remember Gore 's CO2 graph ?
Probably a 95 \ % correlation between CO2 and temperature , which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming .
Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend .
In other words , warming CAUSED CO2 increases , the opposite of what he implied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Same guy.
Random number input into his program produced a hockey stick.
I downloaded the 61MB zip file and have read most of the emails.
Those are damaging in terms of exposing several issues:1.
They manipulated the peer-review process and controlled it to the point of changing what peer-review meant, freezing out contrary authors, reviewing each others' work, getting editors fired, etc.
There's a lot of that kind of manipulation revealed.2.
They colluded to avoid the FOIA and deleted emails and threatened to delete data before they would release it under FOIA.
This is illegal.3.
They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.
' I don't have a problem with 'trick' being used.
No big deal, but 'hide the decline'?
Not good.4.
They would manipulate the data by simply not adding it, closing a run on an increase, when the subsequent data showed a decline.
They seem dismayed that the last ten years shows an overall redction in temperature, at one point calling it a travesty and suggesting the data must be wrong.5.
Because there were no thermometers 2000 years ago, they use 'proxies' such as tree rings, ice core samples, etc.
However, tree ring growth can be caused by wetness and other issues, not just temperature.
In ine case they 'proved; warming based on 12 trees in Siberia.
When hey went back and measured many more trees, the increase disappeared.But the more damning evidence is in the programs themselves, including REM statements where 'hide the decline' is found numerous times, data is manually manipulated, and the programs would throw an error and keep on running.The code, written primarily in FORTAN and IDL, is a mess--not professional.
The datasets are often missing or in poor shape.
There's one 'Harry Read me' text file where poor Harry is trying to make sense of the code, over several years, and points out many of the flaws.So what we've got here is email and program code evidence of manipulation, very poor data, and very poor programming.The thing is, there are only 4 datasets in the world, two terrestrial and two satellite.
There are serious problms with both terrestrial data sets.
NOAA's, for example, has manually 'adjusted' data over the years as much as 500\%!
In other words, the observed degree difference was .1 degree C and the 'adjustment' was +.5 degrees C. You'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate, however, they were 'calibrated' on the 'adjusted' terrestrial data sets.Remember Gore's CO2 graph?
Probably a 95\% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming.
Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend.
In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307800</id>
	<title>Look at the code</title>
	<author>Andrew30</author>
	<datestamp>1259606520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is understandable that many people have latched on to the emails, but in their defense the people at CRU indicate that the emails are &lsquo;without context&rsquo; or somehow &lsquo;normal banter&rsquo; in a scientific institution.</p><p>The program code however is different.</p><p>It is the actual program code, the modeling code that contains the most damaging evidence. I am not talking about the 'comments' in the code but rather the actual computer program source code itself.</p><p>Unlike comments and emails the computer code can only be interpreted in one way. Unlike the comments and the emails the computer code is whole unto it self and requires no external context.</p><p>So now everyone has the code.</p><p>However now the CRU have somehow &lsquo;lost&rsquo; the world&rsquo;s raw climate data that they used in their modeling.</p><p>It may have been necessary for them to have lost the raw temperature data. If the raw temperature data was available then they might be asked to reproduce Exactly The Same Results, in front of skeptical witnesses, as they had used in their peer-reviewed publications that were distributed to the world. This might have been impossible without using some infected modeling code, which an investigating scientist might discover.</p><p>If the results can not be reproduced the paper that used the results should be withdrawn. Then every paper that cited that paper, and so on until the whole web of pseudo-science that can be traced back to the original fabrication has been purged from the libraries</p><p>It is not scientific unless an independent body can reproduce the results.</p><p>Please see also:</p><p><a href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html" title="scienceand...policy.org" rel="nofollow">http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html</a> [scienceand...policy.org]</p><p>For a satirical look and the programming fraud:</p><p>Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.</p><p><a href="http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103" title="thespoof.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103</a> [thespoof.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is understandable that many people have latched on to the emails , but in their defense the people at CRU indicate that the emails are    without context    or somehow    normal banter    in a scientific institution.The program code however is different.It is the actual program code , the modeling code that contains the most damaging evidence .
I am not talking about the 'comments ' in the code but rather the actual computer program source code itself.Unlike comments and emails the computer code can only be interpreted in one way .
Unlike the comments and the emails the computer code is whole unto it self and requires no external context.So now everyone has the code.However now the CRU have somehow    lost    the world    s raw climate data that they used in their modeling.It may have been necessary for them to have lost the raw temperature data .
If the raw temperature data was available then they might be asked to reproduce Exactly The Same Results , in front of skeptical witnesses , as they had used in their peer-reviewed publications that were distributed to the world .
This might have been impossible without using some infected modeling code , which an investigating scientist might discover.If the results can not be reproduced the paper that used the results should be withdrawn .
Then every paper that cited that paper , and so on until the whole web of pseudo-science that can be traced back to the original fabrication has been purged from the librariesIt is not scientific unless an independent body can reproduce the results.Please see also : http : //scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html [ scienceand...policy.org ] For a satirical look and the programming fraud : Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.http : //www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm ? headline = s5i64103 [ thespoof.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is understandable that many people have latched on to the emails, but in their defense the people at CRU indicate that the emails are ‘without context’ or somehow ‘normal banter’ in a scientific institution.The program code however is different.It is the actual program code, the modeling code that contains the most damaging evidence.
I am not talking about the 'comments' in the code but rather the actual computer program source code itself.Unlike comments and emails the computer code can only be interpreted in one way.
Unlike the comments and the emails the computer code is whole unto it self and requires no external context.So now everyone has the code.However now the CRU have somehow ‘lost’ the world’s raw climate data that they used in their modeling.It may have been necessary for them to have lost the raw temperature data.
If the raw temperature data was available then they might be asked to reproduce Exactly The Same Results, in front of skeptical witnesses, as they had used in their peer-reviewed publications that were distributed to the world.
This might have been impossible without using some infected modeling code, which an investigating scientist might discover.If the results can not be reproduced the paper that used the results should be withdrawn.
Then every paper that cited that paper, and so on until the whole web of pseudo-science that can be traced back to the original fabrication has been purged from the librariesIt is not scientific unless an independent body can reproduce the results.Please see also:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html [scienceand...policy.org]For a satirical look and the programming fraud:Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103 [thespoof.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302464</id>
	<title>Re:Who should I trust more ...</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1259575440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand we have the most evil people on earth, from the fat Exxon types raking in dozens of billions of dollars of revenue, or the mountain top removal coal mining asswipes raping the WV landscape</p></div><p>And you sit there, munching your Doritoes (made from corn made possible by farm equipment powered by diesel fuel processed by Exxon) which came into town on a truck (powered by diesel fuel powered by Exxon), as you type at your computer (powered with electricity generated using the heat from the coal from those WV mountaintops), saying that you trust the ones who have been proven to be liars above those that are trying to hold an honest job.</p><p>Obviously, you're completely clueless and in desparate need  of help.  Don't worry, Obama and Pelosi are here to make sure everything works out perfectly in your life.  Until they get the world perfectly ordered for you, so that you don't have to worry about feeding or dressing yourself or tending to your own health, just keep in mind that if the old guy offers you candy, don't get in the back of his van.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand we have the most evil people on earth , from the fat Exxon types raking in dozens of billions of dollars of revenue , or the mountain top removal coal mining asswipes raping the WV landscapeAnd you sit there , munching your Doritoes ( made from corn made possible by farm equipment powered by diesel fuel processed by Exxon ) which came into town on a truck ( powered by diesel fuel powered by Exxon ) , as you type at your computer ( powered with electricity generated using the heat from the coal from those WV mountaintops ) , saying that you trust the ones who have been proven to be liars above those that are trying to hold an honest job.Obviously , you 're completely clueless and in desparate need of help .
Do n't worry , Obama and Pelosi are here to make sure everything works out perfectly in your life .
Until they get the world perfectly ordered for you , so that you do n't have to worry about feeding or dressing yourself or tending to your own health , just keep in mind that if the old guy offers you candy , do n't get in the back of his van .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand we have the most evil people on earth, from the fat Exxon types raking in dozens of billions of dollars of revenue, or the mountain top removal coal mining asswipes raping the WV landscapeAnd you sit there, munching your Doritoes (made from corn made possible by farm equipment powered by diesel fuel processed by Exxon) which came into town on a truck (powered by diesel fuel powered by Exxon), as you type at your computer (powered with electricity generated using the heat from the coal from those WV mountaintops), saying that you trust the ones who have been proven to be liars above those that are trying to hold an honest job.Obviously, you're completely clueless and in desparate need  of help.
Don't worry, Obama and Pelosi are here to make sure everything works out perfectly in your life.
Until they get the world perfectly ordered for you, so that you don't have to worry about feeding or dressing yourself or tending to your own health, just keep in mind that if the old guy offers you candy, don't get in the back of his van.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302378</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1259575140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals."</p><p>Peer reviewed Journals that pretty much didn't accept anything other than the party line.</p><p>The entire AGW movement has become self-referential.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals .
" Peer reviewed Journals that pretty much did n't accept anything other than the party line.The entire AGW movement has become self-referential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals.
"Peer reviewed Journals that pretty much didn't accept anything other than the party line.The entire AGW movement has become self-referential.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304392</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1259581680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose that in your mind, the Vatican's response or lack of response only makes Dan Brown's fiction ring truer. Damned if you do, damned if you don't....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose that in your mind , the Vatican 's response or lack of response only makes Dan Brown 's fiction ring truer .
Damned if you do , damned if you do n't... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose that in your mind, the Vatican's response or lack of response only makes Dan Brown's fiction ring truer.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302656</id>
	<title>Was it just [re]discovered, that simulations...</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1259576040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>are just simulations? Sure we can simulate going to the moon, million miles away and get there in reality, but to simulate hundred of thousands of years to predict hundreds of years into the future? IMO, that's would be a bit more complex and take longer than 20yrs to figure out. Climate research is a <b>scale</b> issue and we already know one theory doesn't apply to all (Quantum Physics vs. Newtonian Physics).
<br>
<br>
One renown scientist told me that simulations are just models that <b>you</b> tweak to get results <b>you want</b>.
<br>
<br>
This [now political situation] appears to have followed that same principle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>are just simulations ?
Sure we can simulate going to the moon , million miles away and get there in reality , but to simulate hundred of thousands of years to predict hundreds of years into the future ?
IMO , that 's would be a bit more complex and take longer than 20yrs to figure out .
Climate research is a scale issue and we already know one theory does n't apply to all ( Quantum Physics vs. Newtonian Physics ) .
One renown scientist told me that simulations are just models that you tweak to get results you want .
This [ now political situation ] appears to have followed that same principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are just simulations?
Sure we can simulate going to the moon, million miles away and get there in reality, but to simulate hundred of thousands of years to predict hundreds of years into the future?
IMO, that's would be a bit more complex and take longer than 20yrs to figure out.
Climate research is a scale issue and we already know one theory doesn't apply to all (Quantum Physics vs. Newtonian Physics).
One renown scientist told me that simulations are just models that you tweak to get results you want.
This [now political situation] appears to have followed that same principle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304424</id>
	<title>Get this though your head</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RealClimate.org is <b>out</b>.  Mann is <b>out</b>.  Jones is <b>out</b>.  CRU is <b>out</b>.</p><p>Nothing they say counts any longer.  Their credibility is shot to hell.</p><p>Please limit future arguments to credible sources.  RealClimate is essentially Jones et al.'s blog for christ sake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RealClimate.org is out .
Mann is out .
Jones is out .
CRU is out.Nothing they say counts any longer .
Their credibility is shot to hell.Please limit future arguments to credible sources .
RealClimate is essentially Jones et al .
's blog for christ sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RealClimate.org is out.
Mann is out.
Jones is out.
CRU is out.Nothing they say counts any longer.
Their credibility is shot to hell.Please limit future arguments to credible sources.
RealClimate is essentially Jones et al.
's blog for christ sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301426</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"sort of like the Open Source process"....</i>
<br>
<br>
And there we end up with KDE and Gnome? And these projects makes perfect sense? (shakes fist)... compared to OSX, Win7, or even Palm WebOS?
<br>
(Granted the Linux kernel is a blessing, but is really driven by a few people (Linus + around 32 folks) and a monolithic kernel isn't the end all be all when you need more support like in RT apps). Peer review (part confirmation, more consensus) is a great idea, when money, politics and egos are checked at the door. Otherwise, we need something better.
<br>

<br>

Let's face it, science is either politicized for governments and universities, or exploited for business and technology. I have yet to come across a independent scientist (like Newton or B. Franklin for example) or groups that truly confirm/<b>repeat</b> experiments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" sort of like the Open Source process " ... . And there we end up with KDE and Gnome ?
And these projects makes perfect sense ?
( shakes fist ) ... compared to OSX , Win7 , or even Palm WebOS ?
( Granted the Linux kernel is a blessing , but is really driven by a few people ( Linus + around 32 folks ) and a monolithic kernel is n't the end all be all when you need more support like in RT apps ) .
Peer review ( part confirmation , more consensus ) is a great idea , when money , politics and egos are checked at the door .
Otherwise , we need something better .
Let 's face it , science is either politicized for governments and universities , or exploited for business and technology .
I have yet to come across a independent scientist ( like Newton or B. Franklin for example ) or groups that truly confirm/repeat experiments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"sort of like the Open Source process"....


And there we end up with KDE and Gnome?
And these projects makes perfect sense?
(shakes fist)... compared to OSX, Win7, or even Palm WebOS?
(Granted the Linux kernel is a blessing, but is really driven by a few people (Linus + around 32 folks) and a monolithic kernel isn't the end all be all when you need more support like in RT apps).
Peer review (part confirmation, more consensus) is a great idea, when money, politics and egos are checked at the door.
Otherwise, we need something better.
Let's face it, science is either politicized for governments and universities, or exploited for business and technology.
I have yet to come across a independent scientist (like Newton or B. Franklin for example) or groups that truly confirm/repeat experiments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304076</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1259580540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>&gt; and explain certain terms and phrases that can be considered jargon for their community.</i> <br>
<br>
Excuse me if I don't take their explanations very seriously at this point, especially given that they have a fairly major motive to downplay the leak.<br>
<br>
"No, no, officer, you misunderstand. Yes, I said I was going to kill her, but you see, 'kill' is actually jargon in my community that really means I was going to treat her to a nice seafood dinner and then never call her again."</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; and explain certain terms and phrases that can be considered jargon for their community .
Excuse me if I do n't take their explanations very seriously at this point , especially given that they have a fairly major motive to downplay the leak .
" No , no , officer , you misunderstand .
Yes , I said I was going to kill her , but you see , 'kill ' is actually jargon in my community that really means I was going to treat her to a nice seafood dinner and then never call her again .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; and explain certain terms and phrases that can be considered jargon for their community.
Excuse me if I don't take their explanations very seriously at this point, especially given that they have a fairly major motive to downplay the leak.
"No, no, officer, you misunderstand.
Yes, I said I was going to kill her, but you see, 'kill' is actually jargon in my community that really means I was going to treat her to a nice seafood dinner and then never call her again.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</id>
	<title>What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1259573760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously there is plenty of monetary motivation to deny AGW, but what is the motivation to fabricate it? I just don't see it. At best you could say that these scientists were duped into believing that AGW was real and, now that they know the "truth," are trying to hide that they were wrong, but this is far from compelling considering the sheer number of scientists involved all trying to dupe each other.</p><p>What am I missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously there is plenty of monetary motivation to deny AGW , but what is the motivation to fabricate it ?
I just do n't see it .
At best you could say that these scientists were duped into believing that AGW was real and , now that they know the " truth , " are trying to hide that they were wrong , but this is far from compelling considering the sheer number of scientists involved all trying to dupe each other.What am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously there is plenty of monetary motivation to deny AGW, but what is the motivation to fabricate it?
I just don't see it.
At best you could say that these scientists were duped into believing that AGW was real and, now that they know the "truth," are trying to hide that they were wrong, but this is far from compelling considering the sheer number of scientists involved all trying to dupe each other.What am I missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301368</id>
	<title>Remember Ike's Warning?</title>
	<author>whatthef*ck</author>
	<datestamp>1259571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember Ike's warning about the Military-Industrial Complex? In that same speech, he also said:</p><blockquote><div><p>the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.</p><p>The prospect of domination of the nation&rsquo;s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.</p><p>Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.</p></div></blockquote><p>(http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html)</p><p>Think about that the next time someone tries to discredit research because it was funded by an oil company.</p><p>Ike's warning has been borne out. Public policy has become the captive of a scientific-technological elite, who, unsurprisingly, are a bunch of dishonest frauds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember Ike 's warning about the Military-Industrial Complex ?
In that same speech , he also said : the free university , historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery , has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research .
Partly because of the huge costs involved , a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity .
For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.The prospect of domination of the nation    s scholars by Federal employment , project allocations , and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.Yet , in holding scientific research and discovery in respect , as we should , we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite .
( http : //www.h-net.org/ ~ hst306/documents/indust.html ) Think about that the next time someone tries to discredit research because it was funded by an oil company.Ike 's warning has been borne out .
Public policy has become the captive of a scientific-technological elite , who , unsurprisingly , are a bunch of dishonest frauds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember Ike's warning about the Military-Industrial Complex?
In that same speech, he also said:the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.
Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
(http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html)Think about that the next time someone tries to discredit research because it was funded by an oil company.Ike's warning has been borne out.
Public policy has become the captive of a scientific-technological elite, who, unsurprisingly, are a bunch of dishonest frauds.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307866</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>Andrew30</author>
	<datestamp>1259607600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RE: What am I missing.<br>Phil got 22+ million over 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RE : What am I missing.Phil got 22 + million over 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RE: What am I missing.Phil got 22+ million over 10 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307332</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1259600160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right. Same guy. Random number input into his program produced a hockey stick.</p></div><p>Right. According to another guy who was hand picked by a pair of politicians to come up with that result, and who "peer reviewed" it by emailing it to a couple of his friends.</p><p>This, by the way, is *not* what science is about. In case you haven't noticed, this has become about how Mann is evil and Wegman is good.  In truth, the politicians got some statistics Nazi to write a criticism of Mann's report and -- big surprise -- the statistician found statistical practices he could criticize.  That's true of *all* scientific papers.  None of them are unassailable.  When the effects of the flaws Wegman pointed out were factored in in the peer reviewed literature, the results were not significantly changed.  So ironically, by bypassing the peer review process, Wegman himself ended up overstating *his* results.</p><p>It is significant that Wegman, whose paper you are referring to, later presented *his* findings in a talk entitled, "Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science".   Which shows that when you push a scholar, he doesn't back down, he *clarifies his position*.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Same guy .
Random number input into his program produced a hockey stick.Right .
According to another guy who was hand picked by a pair of politicians to come up with that result , and who " peer reviewed " it by emailing it to a couple of his friends.This , by the way , is * not * what science is about .
In case you have n't noticed , this has become about how Mann is evil and Wegman is good .
In truth , the politicians got some statistics Nazi to write a criticism of Mann 's report and -- big surprise -- the statistician found statistical practices he could criticize .
That 's true of * all * scientific papers .
None of them are unassailable .
When the effects of the flaws Wegman pointed out were factored in in the peer reviewed literature , the results were not significantly changed .
So ironically , by bypassing the peer review process , Wegman himself ended up overstating * his * results.It is significant that Wegman , whose paper you are referring to , later presented * his * findings in a talk entitled , " Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science " .
Which shows that when you push a scholar , he does n't back down , he * clarifies his position * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Same guy.
Random number input into his program produced a hockey stick.Right.
According to another guy who was hand picked by a pair of politicians to come up with that result, and who "peer reviewed" it by emailing it to a couple of his friends.This, by the way, is *not* what science is about.
In case you haven't noticed, this has become about how Mann is evil and Wegman is good.
In truth, the politicians got some statistics Nazi to write a criticism of Mann's report and -- big surprise -- the statistician found statistical practices he could criticize.
That's true of *all* scientific papers.
None of them are unassailable.
When the effects of the flaws Wegman pointed out were factored in in the peer reviewed literature, the results were not significantly changed.
So ironically, by bypassing the peer review process, Wegman himself ended up overstating *his* results.It is significant that Wegman, whose paper you are referring to, later presented *his* findings in a talk entitled, "Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science".
Which shows that when you push a scholar, he doesn't back down, he *clarifies his position*.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30346516</id>
	<title>Slashdot Shows Severe Misunderstanding of Science</title>
	<author>nathanh</author>
	<datestamp>1260098760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a severe misunderstanding of science being displayed by some of the comments. It's this "publish the raw data" meme that has recently taken hold in the collective mindset. <i>That's not how science works.</i>

</p><p>Here's a recent example. My friend works in the physics department (PhD) and was recently asked to reproduce a scramjet simulation. It's basically a shock tube aimed at a combustion chamber. The original paper contained the method, and the conclusion, <i> <b>but did not contain the raw data</b> </i>.

</p><p>There's a reason for that. If the measurements are incorrect then there's simply no point in reusing the flawed data. What matters is the result; basically can a person, who is skilled in the field, reproduce the experiment to obtain the same result. My friend did reproduce the result, but in the process he said he's found a mistake in the methodology, so he's now writing a paper about it. At no stage did he need the raw data. He never even requested it. The idea never even crossed his mind.

</p><p>The skeptics should be collecting their own data, not sitting on their lazy butts and demanding copies of the raw data. The skeptics who find mistakes in the methodology are doing the right thing. But they are the exception rather than the rule. The majority seem to think they'll find a "smoking gun" in the raw data. That's just nonsense.

</p><p>I think it shows a general laziness. It's the idea that you can sit on a PC with google, a browser pointed to wikipedia, and somehow topple 1000s of man-years of research "if only I had copies of that original data". No, that's not how it works. Go collect more data that shows a contrary result. That's hard work, but that's science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a severe misunderstanding of science being displayed by some of the comments .
It 's this " publish the raw data " meme that has recently taken hold in the collective mindset .
That 's not how science works .
Here 's a recent example .
My friend works in the physics department ( PhD ) and was recently asked to reproduce a scramjet simulation .
It 's basically a shock tube aimed at a combustion chamber .
The original paper contained the method , and the conclusion , but did not contain the raw data .
There 's a reason for that .
If the measurements are incorrect then there 's simply no point in reusing the flawed data .
What matters is the result ; basically can a person , who is skilled in the field , reproduce the experiment to obtain the same result .
My friend did reproduce the result , but in the process he said he 's found a mistake in the methodology , so he 's now writing a paper about it .
At no stage did he need the raw data .
He never even requested it .
The idea never even crossed his mind .
The skeptics should be collecting their own data , not sitting on their lazy butts and demanding copies of the raw data .
The skeptics who find mistakes in the methodology are doing the right thing .
But they are the exception rather than the rule .
The majority seem to think they 'll find a " smoking gun " in the raw data .
That 's just nonsense .
I think it shows a general laziness .
It 's the idea that you can sit on a PC with google , a browser pointed to wikipedia , and somehow topple 1000s of man-years of research " if only I had copies of that original data " .
No , that 's not how it works .
Go collect more data that shows a contrary result .
That 's hard work , but that 's science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a severe misunderstanding of science being displayed by some of the comments.
It's this "publish the raw data" meme that has recently taken hold in the collective mindset.
That's not how science works.
Here's a recent example.
My friend works in the physics department (PhD) and was recently asked to reproduce a scramjet simulation.
It's basically a shock tube aimed at a combustion chamber.
The original paper contained the method, and the conclusion,  but did not contain the raw data .
There's a reason for that.
If the measurements are incorrect then there's simply no point in reusing the flawed data.
What matters is the result; basically can a person, who is skilled in the field, reproduce the experiment to obtain the same result.
My friend did reproduce the result, but in the process he said he's found a mistake in the methodology, so he's now writing a paper about it.
At no stage did he need the raw data.
He never even requested it.
The idea never even crossed his mind.
The skeptics should be collecting their own data, not sitting on their lazy butts and demanding copies of the raw data.
The skeptics who find mistakes in the methodology are doing the right thing.
But they are the exception rather than the rule.
The majority seem to think they'll find a "smoking gun" in the raw data.
That's just nonsense.
I think it shows a general laziness.
It's the idea that you can sit on a PC with google, a browser pointed to wikipedia, and somehow topple 1000s of man-years of research "if only I had copies of that original data".
No, that's not how it works.
Go collect more data that shows a contrary result.
That's hard work, but that's science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306554</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate, however, they were 'calibrated' on the 'adjusted' terrestrial data sets.</p><p>Thats not true ! Can you provide a source ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate , however , they were 'calibrated ' on the 'adjusted ' terrestrial data sets.Thats not true !
Can you provide a source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate, however, they were 'calibrated' on the 'adjusted' terrestrial data sets.Thats not true !
Can you provide a source ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30361594</id>
	<title>US EPA Criminalizes ... Water!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260206100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US EPA just figured out that water vapor, the deadlest greenhouse gas, comes from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... water.</p><p>EPA now plans to criminal possession or discharge of water.</p><p>Peeing is now a Fellony Offince punishable by execution, not to mention pre-crime perminent detention (Obama Executive Order).</p><p>This goes with an earlier finding that soft drinks and alkaselzer contain carbon dioxide; another Fellony Offince if found in possession.</p><p>When asked about the apparent contradiction with the previously enacted Clean Water Act, the EPA Administrator had a fit screaming, "Who did dat?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I gona kee dat suckur."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US EPA just figured out that water vapor , the deadlest greenhouse gas , comes from ... water.EPA now plans to criminal possession or discharge of water.Peeing is now a Fellony Offince punishable by execution , not to mention pre-crime perminent detention ( Obama Executive Order ) .This goes with an earlier finding that soft drinks and alkaselzer contain carbon dioxide ; another Fellony Offince if found in possession.When asked about the apparent contradiction with the previously enacted Clean Water Act , the EPA Administrator had a fit screaming , " Who did dat ?
... I gona kee dat suckur .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US EPA just figured out that water vapor, the deadlest greenhouse gas, comes from ... water.EPA now plans to criminal possession or discharge of water.Peeing is now a Fellony Offince punishable by execution, not to mention pre-crime perminent detention (Obama Executive Order).This goes with an earlier finding that soft drinks and alkaselzer contain carbon dioxide; another Fellony Offince if found in possession.When asked about the apparent contradiction with the previously enacted Clean Water Act, the EPA Administrator had a fit screaming, "Who did dat?
... I gona kee dat suckur.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301110</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This lays it out very clearly:</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu\_ok37HDuE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This lays it out very clearly : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Cu \ _ok37HDuE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This lays it out very clearly:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu\_ok37HDuE</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304182</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They got biggish grants,research trips and better jobs, influential positions with regard to media/policy makers. Perhaps the knew the truth, perhaps they were blinded by their "legacy" to the extent they could not see the truth. Just because there is no obvious financial gain does not mean that there are not strong (possibly individual) incentives for either side of the debate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They got biggish grants,research trips and better jobs , influential positions with regard to media/policy makers .
Perhaps the knew the truth , perhaps they were blinded by their " legacy " to the extent they could not see the truth .
Just because there is no obvious financial gain does not mean that there are not strong ( possibly individual ) incentives for either side of the debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got biggish grants,research trips and better jobs, influential positions with regard to media/policy makers.
Perhaps the knew the truth, perhaps they were blinded by their "legacy" to the extent they could not see the truth.
Just because there is no obvious financial gain does not mean that there are not strong (possibly individual) incentives for either side of the debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301290</id>
	<title>The denialists are out in force today</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1259571660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Madoff? The guy who stole billions of dollar? Versus a guy who might, at worst, have infringed on a Freedom of Information act? What else is fraud? The "Nature trick" thing? That's such bullshit it's ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Madoff ?
The guy who stole billions of dollar ?
Versus a guy who might , at worst , have infringed on a Freedom of Information act ?
What else is fraud ?
The " Nature trick " thing ?
That 's such bullshit it 's ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Madoff?
The guy who stole billions of dollar?
Versus a guy who might, at worst, have infringed on a Freedom of Information act?
What else is fraud?
The "Nature trick" thing?
That's such bullshit it's ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301842</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>HertzaHaeon</author>
	<datestamp>1259573580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember Gore's CO2 graph? Probably a 95\% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming. Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend. In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.</p></div><p>That's a classic argument that has been refuted again and again. Like at How to talk to a climate skeptic; <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php" title="scienceblogs.com">CO2 Lags Not Leads</a> [scienceblogs.com], or at Realcliamate.org; <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/" title="realclimate.org">The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore&rsquo;s got it right.)</a> [realclimate.org].</p><p>In short, with warming periods lasting for around 5000 years, a lag of 800 years isn't as significant as you might think. Other factors than just CO2 affects warming, which isn't surprising or unknown.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember Gore 's CO2 graph ?
Probably a 95 \ % correlation between CO2 and temperature , which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming .
Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend .
In other words , warming CAUSED CO2 increases , the opposite of what he implied.That 's a classic argument that has been refuted again and again .
Like at How to talk to a climate skeptic ; CO2 Lags Not Leads [ scienceblogs.com ] , or at Realcliamate.org ; The lag between temperature and CO2 .
( Gore    s got it right .
) [ realclimate.org ] .In short , with warming periods lasting for around 5000 years , a lag of 800 years is n't as significant as you might think .
Other factors than just CO2 affects warming , which is n't surprising or unknown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember Gore's CO2 graph?
Probably a 95\% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming.
Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend.
In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.That's a classic argument that has been refuted again and again.
Like at How to talk to a climate skeptic; CO2 Lags Not Leads [scienceblogs.com], or at Realcliamate.org; The lag between temperature and CO2.
(Gore’s got it right.
) [realclimate.org].In short, with warming periods lasting for around 5000 years, a lag of 800 years isn't as significant as you might think.
Other factors than just CO2 affects warming, which isn't surprising or unknown.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307308</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Hack</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1259600040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... these very evil people will have the resources of an entire planet to accomplish even more evil....</p><p>It is interesting that both Daniel of the Old Testament and the apostle John and Paul in the New Testament of the Bible, prophesy of a world government with an evil ruler called the antichrist. It also foretells that this evil ruler will institute an identifier placed physically on each person, without which nobody will be allowed to buy or sell. Is your Social Security number, debit card and credit card a precursor to such a system?</p><p>Jesus prophesied of a time so terrible, the likes of which has never been on earth before and never will be again. He adds that if this time were not cut short (by God's intervention), no human being would live through it.</p><p>Just think what a modern-day Hitler could do with computers, weapons of mass destruction and other modern-day technology that was not yet available to that madman.</p><p>It looks to me like the world is lurching toward the fulfillment of these prophecies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... these very evil people will have the resources of an entire planet to accomplish even more evil....It is interesting that both Daniel of the Old Testament and the apostle John and Paul in the New Testament of the Bible , prophesy of a world government with an evil ruler called the antichrist .
It also foretells that this evil ruler will institute an identifier placed physically on each person , without which nobody will be allowed to buy or sell .
Is your Social Security number , debit card and credit card a precursor to such a system ? Jesus prophesied of a time so terrible , the likes of which has never been on earth before and never will be again .
He adds that if this time were not cut short ( by God 's intervention ) , no human being would live through it.Just think what a modern-day Hitler could do with computers , weapons of mass destruction and other modern-day technology that was not yet available to that madman.It looks to me like the world is lurching toward the fulfillment of these prophecies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... these very evil people will have the resources of an entire planet to accomplish even more evil....It is interesting that both Daniel of the Old Testament and the apostle John and Paul in the New Testament of the Bible, prophesy of a world government with an evil ruler called the antichrist.
It also foretells that this evil ruler will institute an identifier placed physically on each person, without which nobody will be allowed to buy or sell.
Is your Social Security number, debit card and credit card a precursor to such a system?Jesus prophesied of a time so terrible, the likes of which has never been on earth before and never will be again.
He adds that if this time were not cut short (by God's intervention), no human being would live through it.Just think what a modern-day Hitler could do with computers, weapons of mass destruction and other modern-day technology that was not yet available to that madman.It looks to me like the world is lurching toward the fulfillment of these prophecies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301234</id>
	<title>What surprises me about all of this</title>
	<author>gujo-odori</author>
	<datestamp>1259614620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What surprises me about all of this isn't that that the Climategate scientists were caught apparently fudging facts and massaging data when said facts and data did not support what they wanted the conclusion to be, or that they were caught definitely trying to muzzle any scientists who questioned them. What surprises me most is that people are surprised by this. What surprises me second most is that scientists don't get caught doing this more often.</p><p>Why is that?</p><p>Well, we (well, not I, but many people) have this view of scientists as pure, balanced, objective, high-minded individuals in pursuit of pure scientific truth, Reality is that scientists, while highly trained and educated, are human just like everyone else. They can be vain, egotistical, self-serving, corrupt, and dishonest, just like everyone else. They want to be right, just like everyone else. They don't want to be publicly proven wrong, just like everyone else. And some of them will do anything to not be proven wrong, including lie and forge data and results. I'm not saying the scientists in question here did (or didn't) do that, just that some scientists have done things like that in the past and will do so again in the future. They're human, like anybody else.</p><p>For those of you old enough to remember when the prevailing theory of dinosaur extinction was failure to adapt to changing environmental conditions and competition from the rise of mammals, you may also recall that the first scientists to advance the mass-extinction/asteroid impact theory had scorn heaped upon them for years by the scientific establishment. However, they stuck to their guns and that theory is now accepted as fact and anyone advancing the previous theory would be the scorn magnet.</p><p>This is a case that certainly bears investigation, to find out whether or not real fraud has really occurred, and why (and how successful they were) they are trying so hard to prevent even the publication by other highly qualified researchers of any opposing viewpoint. After all, if the AGW theorists are correct and their methodology sound, it should stand up to public scrutiny and challenge, so why be afraid of challengers. If the AGW group is right, the challengers will be proven wrong.</p><p>That said, I think that reasonable efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels and produce less pollution are good in and of themselves, whether global warming is caused by humans (or even happening) or not. If you lived in southern California in the seventies, you'll recall how bad the smog was in those days. There were days when the smog was so bad that classes at my middle school in San Diego were canceled and students were sent home early. Today, there are far more cars on the SoCal freeways, but the air is much better, thanks to more fuel-efficient vehicles and good pollution control equipment. AFAIK school doesn't get canceled due to smog anymore, not even in LA. If we all had the kind of cars now that we had then, the smog would be so bad that SoCal (and the Bay area) would both be unlivable. Sustainable practices are good, independent of global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What surprises me about all of this is n't that that the Climategate scientists were caught apparently fudging facts and massaging data when said facts and data did not support what they wanted the conclusion to be , or that they were caught definitely trying to muzzle any scientists who questioned them .
What surprises me most is that people are surprised by this .
What surprises me second most is that scientists do n't get caught doing this more often.Why is that ? Well , we ( well , not I , but many people ) have this view of scientists as pure , balanced , objective , high-minded individuals in pursuit of pure scientific truth , Reality is that scientists , while highly trained and educated , are human just like everyone else .
They can be vain , egotistical , self-serving , corrupt , and dishonest , just like everyone else .
They want to be right , just like everyone else .
They do n't want to be publicly proven wrong , just like everyone else .
And some of them will do anything to not be proven wrong , including lie and forge data and results .
I 'm not saying the scientists in question here did ( or did n't ) do that , just that some scientists have done things like that in the past and will do so again in the future .
They 're human , like anybody else.For those of you old enough to remember when the prevailing theory of dinosaur extinction was failure to adapt to changing environmental conditions and competition from the rise of mammals , you may also recall that the first scientists to advance the mass-extinction/asteroid impact theory had scorn heaped upon them for years by the scientific establishment .
However , they stuck to their guns and that theory is now accepted as fact and anyone advancing the previous theory would be the scorn magnet.This is a case that certainly bears investigation , to find out whether or not real fraud has really occurred , and why ( and how successful they were ) they are trying so hard to prevent even the publication by other highly qualified researchers of any opposing viewpoint .
After all , if the AGW theorists are correct and their methodology sound , it should stand up to public scrutiny and challenge , so why be afraid of challengers .
If the AGW group is right , the challengers will be proven wrong.That said , I think that reasonable efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels and produce less pollution are good in and of themselves , whether global warming is caused by humans ( or even happening ) or not .
If you lived in southern California in the seventies , you 'll recall how bad the smog was in those days .
There were days when the smog was so bad that classes at my middle school in San Diego were canceled and students were sent home early .
Today , there are far more cars on the SoCal freeways , but the air is much better , thanks to more fuel-efficient vehicles and good pollution control equipment .
AFAIK school does n't get canceled due to smog anymore , not even in LA .
If we all had the kind of cars now that we had then , the smog would be so bad that SoCal ( and the Bay area ) would both be unlivable .
Sustainable practices are good , independent of global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What surprises me about all of this isn't that that the Climategate scientists were caught apparently fudging facts and massaging data when said facts and data did not support what they wanted the conclusion to be, or that they were caught definitely trying to muzzle any scientists who questioned them.
What surprises me most is that people are surprised by this.
What surprises me second most is that scientists don't get caught doing this more often.Why is that?Well, we (well, not I, but many people) have this view of scientists as pure, balanced, objective, high-minded individuals in pursuit of pure scientific truth, Reality is that scientists, while highly trained and educated, are human just like everyone else.
They can be vain, egotistical, self-serving, corrupt, and dishonest, just like everyone else.
They want to be right, just like everyone else.
They don't want to be publicly proven wrong, just like everyone else.
And some of them will do anything to not be proven wrong, including lie and forge data and results.
I'm not saying the scientists in question here did (or didn't) do that, just that some scientists have done things like that in the past and will do so again in the future.
They're human, like anybody else.For those of you old enough to remember when the prevailing theory of dinosaur extinction was failure to adapt to changing environmental conditions and competition from the rise of mammals, you may also recall that the first scientists to advance the mass-extinction/asteroid impact theory had scorn heaped upon them for years by the scientific establishment.
However, they stuck to their guns and that theory is now accepted as fact and anyone advancing the previous theory would be the scorn magnet.This is a case that certainly bears investigation, to find out whether or not real fraud has really occurred, and why (and how successful they were) they are trying so hard to prevent even the publication by other highly qualified researchers of any opposing viewpoint.
After all, if the AGW theorists are correct and their methodology sound, it should stand up to public scrutiny and challenge, so why be afraid of challengers.
If the AGW group is right, the challengers will be proven wrong.That said, I think that reasonable efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels and produce less pollution are good in and of themselves, whether global warming is caused by humans (or even happening) or not.
If you lived in southern California in the seventies, you'll recall how bad the smog was in those days.
There were days when the smog was so bad that classes at my middle school in San Diego were canceled and students were sent home early.
Today, there are far more cars on the SoCal freeways, but the air is much better, thanks to more fuel-efficient vehicles and good pollution control equipment.
AFAIK school doesn't get canceled due to smog anymore, not even in LA.
If we all had the kind of cars now that we had then, the smog would be so bad that SoCal (and the Bay area) would both be unlivable.
Sustainable practices are good, independent of global warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307388</id>
	<title>Ponzi Scheme Ready to Explode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259601000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the Feds get access to the bank accounts and money transfers and start connecting the $$$, a global new years political firestorm conflagration will errupt the like perhaps never witnessed before.</p><p>Climate science = astrology.</p><p>Global warming (Al Gore style) = Ponzi scheme.</p><p>Climate astrologier = swindler (Bernie Madoff is no comparison to this on any scale).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Feds get access to the bank accounts and money transfers and start connecting the $ $ $ , a global new years political firestorm conflagration will errupt the like perhaps never witnessed before.Climate science = astrology.Global warming ( Al Gore style ) = Ponzi scheme.Climate astrologier = swindler ( Bernie Madoff is no comparison to this on any scale ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Feds get access to the bank accounts and money transfers and start connecting the $$$, a global new years political firestorm conflagration will errupt the like perhaps never witnessed before.Climate science = astrology.Global warming (Al Gore style) = Ponzi scheme.Climate astrologier = swindler (Bernie Madoff is no comparison to this on any scale).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304560</id>
	<title>Here's some food for thought for both sides ..</title>
	<author>sureshgn</author>
	<datestamp>1259582280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fuel we burn is the result of a hundreds of thousands of years of natural processes working on plants and other bio matter. In the last 100 years, we've taken about 70\% of that material and pushed it into the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide.
Think of it as a tin can of carbon dioxide. It took nature 40 million years to fill the can. We emptied it out into the atmosphere in a 100 years. Left to nature, it will take 40 million years to put all the carbon dioxide back into the can.<p>
However, taking the same analogy further, there are many other tin cans of carbon dioxide around. A good super volcano eruption can do the same thing as we've done with fossil fuels a heck of a lot faster. However, that's not something we can prevent.
The question I would ask is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what if the effect of us pushing all the Carbon Dioxide into the air <b>does</b> end up being catastrophic. There are, as I see it, two possibilities:</p><p>
1) things get so bad so quickly that we can't keep up - and we end up extinct</p><p>
2) we figure out a way to do what nature took millions of years to do - and lock up the Carbon Dioxide again</p><p>
The aggressiveness of the man-made climate change camp is going to help ensure that we do put money into having option 2 ready if it ever come to the point where we need it. So, keep your super cars and SUV's if you want them. However, ensure your insurance policy is fully paid up by funding alternate fuel and carbon sequestration research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fuel we burn is the result of a hundreds of thousands of years of natural processes working on plants and other bio matter .
In the last 100 years , we 've taken about 70 \ % of that material and pushed it into the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide .
Think of it as a tin can of carbon dioxide .
It took nature 40 million years to fill the can .
We emptied it out into the atmosphere in a 100 years .
Left to nature , it will take 40 million years to put all the carbon dioxide back into the can .
However , taking the same analogy further , there are many other tin cans of carbon dioxide around .
A good super volcano eruption can do the same thing as we 've done with fossil fuels a heck of a lot faster .
However , that 's not something we can prevent .
The question I would ask is ... what if the effect of us pushing all the Carbon Dioxide into the air does end up being catastrophic .
There are , as I see it , two possibilities : 1 ) things get so bad so quickly that we ca n't keep up - and we end up extinct 2 ) we figure out a way to do what nature took millions of years to do - and lock up the Carbon Dioxide again The aggressiveness of the man-made climate change camp is going to help ensure that we do put money into having option 2 ready if it ever come to the point where we need it .
So , keep your super cars and SUV 's if you want them .
However , ensure your insurance policy is fully paid up by funding alternate fuel and carbon sequestration research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fuel we burn is the result of a hundreds of thousands of years of natural processes working on plants and other bio matter.
In the last 100 years, we've taken about 70\% of that material and pushed it into the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide.
Think of it as a tin can of carbon dioxide.
It took nature 40 million years to fill the can.
We emptied it out into the atmosphere in a 100 years.
Left to nature, it will take 40 million years to put all the carbon dioxide back into the can.
However, taking the same analogy further, there are many other tin cans of carbon dioxide around.
A good super volcano eruption can do the same thing as we've done with fossil fuels a heck of a lot faster.
However, that's not something we can prevent.
The question I would ask is ... what if the effect of us pushing all the Carbon Dioxide into the air does end up being catastrophic.
There are, as I see it, two possibilities:
1) things get so bad so quickly that we can't keep up - and we end up extinct
2) we figure out a way to do what nature took millions of years to do - and lock up the Carbon Dioxide again
The aggressiveness of the man-made climate change camp is going to help ensure that we do put money into having option 2 ready if it ever come to the point where we need it.
So, keep your super cars and SUV's if you want them.
However, ensure your insurance policy is fully paid up by funding alternate fuel and carbon sequestration research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306320</id>
	<title>The explain this ...</title>
	<author>Doormouse</author>
	<datestamp>1259591340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As referenced by climateadit.org<br> <br>


Michael Mann, Dec 2004 (at realclimate and also one of the folks involved  in the email scandel)<br> <br>


<i>No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, &ldquo;grafted the thermometer record onto&rdquo; 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 [realclimate].</i> <br> <br>


Phil Jones, Nov 1999 (the guy who is stepping down in one of the purloined emails)<br> <br>

<i>I&rsquo;ve just completed Mike&rsquo;s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith&rsquo;s to hide the decline.</i> <br> <br>

Gavin Schmidt, Nov 2009 realclimate spinmaster <br> <br>

<i>Scientists often use the term &ldquo;trick&rdquo; to refer to a &ldquo;a good way to deal with a problem&rdquo;, rather than something that is &ldquo;secret&rdquo;, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.</i> <br> <br>

Now unless your incredibly thick or lost in the depths of some pseuedo-science/religious rapture, you are going to have a problem with this. After being accused by some of the folks at climateaudit of padding the proxy data with instrument data at the end of the record, Mann reacts angrily that only an oil industry funded shill would suggest such a thing. In the purloined email we find out not only is Mann doing the thing that he angrily denied, but others are doing the same thing. The current crew over at realclimate find nothing problematic with this. After all, I guess it's OK to "distort a bit" to get the <i> correct </i> message out. One have massive cognitive dissonance to not understand why there is so much distrust of such tactics. realclimate is ready to just plow under what amounts to a bald faced lie because it doesn't meet the party line. I know we want to concentrate on the word <i>trick</i> and explain it out of existance, but the <i>adding real temps to each series for the last 20 years</i> part is far more troubling especially since it highlights earlier cases of playing fast and loose with the facts</htmltext>
<tokenext>As referenced by climateadit.org Michael Mann , Dec 2004 ( at realclimate and also one of the folks involved in the email scandel ) 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 [ realclimate ] .
Phil Jones , Nov 1999 ( the guy who is stepping down in one of the purloined emails ) I    ve just completed Mike    s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ( ie from 1981 onwards ) and from 1961 for Keith    s to hide the decline .
Gavin Schmidt , Nov 2009 realclimate spinmaster Scientists often use the term    trick    to refer to a    a good way to deal with a problem    , rather than something that is    secret    , and so there is nothing problematic in this at all .
Now unless your incredibly thick or lost in the depths of some pseuedo-science/religious rapture , you are going to have a problem with this .
After being accused by some of the folks at climateaudit of padding the proxy data with instrument data at the end of the record , Mann reacts angrily that only an oil industry funded shill would suggest such a thing .
In the purloined email we find out not only is Mann doing the thing that he angrily denied , but others are doing the same thing .
The current crew over at realclimate find nothing problematic with this .
After all , I guess it 's OK to " distort a bit " to get the correct message out .
One have massive cognitive dissonance to not understand why there is so much distrust of such tactics .
realclimate is ready to just plow under what amounts to a bald faced lie because it does n't meet the party line .
I know we want to concentrate on the word trick and explain it out of existance , but the adding real temps to each series for the last 20 years part is far more troubling especially since it highlights earlier cases of playing fast and loose with the facts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As referenced by climateadit.org 


Michael Mann, Dec 2004 (at realclimate and also one of the folks involved  in the email scandel) 


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 [realclimate].
Phil Jones, Nov 1999 (the guy who is stepping down in one of the purloined emails) 

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Gavin Schmidt, Nov 2009 realclimate spinmaster  

Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.
Now unless your incredibly thick or lost in the depths of some pseuedo-science/religious rapture, you are going to have a problem with this.
After being accused by some of the folks at climateaudit of padding the proxy data with instrument data at the end of the record, Mann reacts angrily that only an oil industry funded shill would suggest such a thing.
In the purloined email we find out not only is Mann doing the thing that he angrily denied, but others are doing the same thing.
The current crew over at realclimate find nothing problematic with this.
After all, I guess it's OK to "distort a bit" to get the  correct  message out.
One have massive cognitive dissonance to not understand why there is so much distrust of such tactics.
realclimate is ready to just plow under what amounts to a bald faced lie because it doesn't meet the party line.
I know we want to concentrate on the word trick and explain it out of existance, but the adding real temps to each series for the last 20 years part is far more troubling especially since it highlights earlier cases of playing fast and loose with the facts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818</id>
	<title>Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science is not done by consensus. Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense... sort of like the Open Source process. Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is not done by consensus .
Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense... sort of like the Open Source process .
Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted , our very economy is at stake from the " warmers " and their political machinations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is not done by consensus.
Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense... sort of like the Open Source process.
Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306618</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1259593740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....of carbon into the atmosphere<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>which was in the atmosphere before man started burning fossil fuels, before the fuels were formed a long time ago. We call them fossil fuels, because they come from living things. No fossils or fossil fuels are being made today, because the CO2 content of the atmosphere and its temperature are much lower today than they were. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more plants flourish. Even if global warming were true, which it doesn't appear to be, at least by the last 10 years or so data, it would not be the end of the world. It would be very different, but not necessarily bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....of carbon into the atmosphere ...which was in the atmosphere before man started burning fossil fuels , before the fuels were formed a long time ago .
We call them fossil fuels , because they come from living things .
No fossils or fossil fuels are being made today , because the CO2 content of the atmosphere and its temperature are much lower today than they were .
The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere , the more plants flourish .
Even if global warming were true , which it does n't appear to be , at least by the last 10 years or so data , it would not be the end of the world .
It would be very different , but not necessarily bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....of carbon into the atmosphere ...which was in the atmosphere before man started burning fossil fuels, before the fuels were formed a long time ago.
We call them fossil fuels, because they come from living things.
No fossils or fossil fuels are being made today, because the CO2 content of the atmosphere and its temperature are much lower today than they were.
The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more plants flourish.
Even if global warming were true, which it doesn't appear to be, at least by the last 10 years or so data, it would not be the end of the world.
It would be very different, but not necessarily bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30313744</id>
	<title>Re:Linking to Realclimate is not the best idea</title>
	<author>macbutch</author>
	<datestamp>1259868300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats insane - if someone publishes a paper and objections are raised then the *first* person you should look to for a response is the original author. Giving the right to reply is normal just about anywhere (e.g. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/fairness/rightofreply.shtml*" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/fairness/rightofreply.shtml*</a> [bbc.co.uk]). It is completely nuts to say that because someone has been criticised they're then out of the discussion because they'll try to defend themselves.</p><p>Beyond that:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So to see a site that is run by Mann and others he agrees with supporting him, well that doesn't really say much, does it?</p></div><p>It really depends on what they have to say doesn't it? If they're making poor arguments and fail to respond to criticism and just continue to restate the original argument then that would be bad. On the other hand what seems to be the case is that a group of scientists have grouped together to engage their critics and make clear responses and explanations where their original argument was unclear or misunderstood etc. Surely that is exactly what they should do?</p><p>* right of reply in a journalistic sense is slightly different but the concept is the same/similar</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats insane - if someone publishes a paper and objections are raised then the * first * person you should look to for a response is the original author .
Giving the right to reply is normal just about anywhere ( e.g .
http : //www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/fairness/rightofreply.shtml * [ bbc.co.uk ] ) .
It is completely nuts to say that because someone has been criticised they 're then out of the discussion because they 'll try to defend themselves.Beyond that : So to see a site that is run by Mann and others he agrees with supporting him , well that does n't really say much , does it ? It really depends on what they have to say does n't it ?
If they 're making poor arguments and fail to respond to criticism and just continue to restate the original argument then that would be bad .
On the other hand what seems to be the case is that a group of scientists have grouped together to engage their critics and make clear responses and explanations where their original argument was unclear or misunderstood etc .
Surely that is exactly what they should do ?
* right of reply in a journalistic sense is slightly different but the concept is the same/similar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats insane - if someone publishes a paper and objections are raised then the *first* person you should look to for a response is the original author.
Giving the right to reply is normal just about anywhere (e.g.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/fairness/rightofreply.shtml* [bbc.co.uk]).
It is completely nuts to say that because someone has been criticised they're then out of the discussion because they'll try to defend themselves.Beyond that:So to see a site that is run by Mann and others he agrees with supporting him, well that doesn't really say much, does it?It really depends on what they have to say doesn't it?
If they're making poor arguments and fail to respond to criticism and just continue to restate the original argument then that would be bad.
On the other hand what seems to be the case is that a group of scientists have grouped together to engage their critics and make clear responses and explanations where their original argument was unclear or misunderstood etc.
Surely that is exactly what they should do?
* right of reply in a journalistic sense is slightly different but the concept is the same/similar
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301498</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heresy!  Blasphemy!</p><p>How dare you post such deceptions.  We - the authoritative slashdot community - need to prevent such abominations from being seen.  This kind of thing belongs in the invisible "Score:1" category.  It has no place in a "Score:3", and is an abomination at "Score:5, Insightful".  We should have seen this coming with such a loose mod point process.  Those loons have gone and bought their own stash of "Insightful" mod points.  We need to make sure only knowledgable people can assign "Insightful" mod points.  And I don't care if we have to redefine the whole "mod point" process to do it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heresy !
Blasphemy ! How dare you post such deceptions .
We - the authoritative slashdot community - need to prevent such abominations from being seen .
This kind of thing belongs in the invisible " Score : 1 " category .
It has no place in a " Score : 3 " , and is an abomination at " Score : 5 , Insightful " .
We should have seen this coming with such a loose mod point process .
Those loons have gone and bought their own stash of " Insightful " mod points .
We need to make sure only knowledgable people can assign " Insightful " mod points .
And I do n't care if we have to redefine the whole " mod point " process to do it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heresy!
Blasphemy!How dare you post such deceptions.
We - the authoritative slashdot community - need to prevent such abominations from being seen.
This kind of thing belongs in the invisible "Score:1" category.
It has no place in a "Score:3", and is an abomination at "Score:5, Insightful".
We should have seen this coming with such a loose mod point process.
Those loons have gone and bought their own stash of "Insightful" mod points.
We need to make sure only knowledgable people can assign "Insightful" mod points.
And I don't care if we have to redefine the whole "mod point" process to do it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301484</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>furball</author>
	<datestamp>1259572320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend. In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.</p></div><p>This may be related to the amount of carbon dioxide in solution in sea water. The ocean acts as a CO2 sink. As the temperature increases, there's more water vapor and more CO2 released from the ocean.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend .
In other words , warming CAUSED CO2 increases , the opposite of what he implied.This may be related to the amount of carbon dioxide in solution in sea water .
The ocean acts as a CO2 sink .
As the temperature increases , there 's more water vapor and more CO2 released from the ocean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend.
In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.This may be related to the amount of carbon dioxide in solution in sea water.
The ocean acts as a CO2 sink.
As the temperature increases, there's more water vapor and more CO2 released from the ocean.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303306</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1259577960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now who is the Denier?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now who is the Denier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now who is the Denier?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science.  No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.  Simple selfish interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science .
No matter what the science says , everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm .
Simple selfish interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science.
No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm.
Simple selfish interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302576</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1259575740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Citing realclimate.org doesn't help your cause. Several contributors to that site have been implicated in the leaked emails.</i></p><p>Which would actually make them uniquely qualified to comment on the content, since they participated in the discussions and know the context and what was behind some of the comments.</p><p><i>With regards to the content of your post, the data was most certainly manipulated.</i></p><p>Sure. In fact, in order to do science, you have to manipulate data.</p><p><i>Have you not taken the time to discover the coding travesty documented in the HARRY\_READ\_ME file that was leaked along with the emails? Here are a couple good links to start with.</i></p><p>This isn't what proof of intentional data misrepresentation looks like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Citing realclimate.org does n't help your cause .
Several contributors to that site have been implicated in the leaked emails.Which would actually make them uniquely qualified to comment on the content , since they participated in the discussions and know the context and what was behind some of the comments.With regards to the content of your post , the data was most certainly manipulated.Sure .
In fact , in order to do science , you have to manipulate data.Have you not taken the time to discover the coding travesty documented in the HARRY \ _READ \ _ME file that was leaked along with the emails ?
Here are a couple good links to start with.This is n't what proof of intentional data misrepresentation looks like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citing realclimate.org doesn't help your cause.
Several contributors to that site have been implicated in the leaked emails.Which would actually make them uniquely qualified to comment on the content, since they participated in the discussions and know the context and what was behind some of the comments.With regards to the content of your post, the data was most certainly manipulated.Sure.
In fact, in order to do science, you have to manipulate data.Have you not taken the time to discover the coding travesty documented in the HARRY\_READ\_ME file that was leaked along with the emails?
Here are a couple good links to start with.This isn't what proof of intentional data misrepresentation looks like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303814</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>obviously you didnt take the time to read the readme.txt</p><p>Mann is full of shit and is backtracking to cover their ass and possibly jail. All they can do is claim everything is out of context.</p><p>Sure seems there is a whole lot of "beleif" required to get on the AWG bandwagon.</p><p>beleive me- the data said its so.<br>its invisible now because I deleted it but just beleive in me.<br>beleive me when i say something else and claim I ment something else. Just beleive everything I say when I say it and dont question it. I am Mann hear me roar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>obviously you didnt take the time to read the readme.txtMann is full of shit and is backtracking to cover their ass and possibly jail .
All they can do is claim everything is out of context.Sure seems there is a whole lot of " beleif " required to get on the AWG bandwagon.beleive me- the data said its so.its invisible now because I deleted it but just beleive in me.beleive me when i say something else and claim I ment something else .
Just beleive everything I say when I say it and dont question it .
I am Mann hear me roar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obviously you didnt take the time to read the readme.txtMann is full of shit and is backtracking to cover their ass and possibly jail.
All they can do is claim everything is out of context.Sure seems there is a whole lot of "beleif" required to get on the AWG bandwagon.beleive me- the data said its so.its invisible now because I deleted it but just beleive in me.beleive me when i say something else and claim I ment something else.
Just beleive everything I say when I say it and dont question it.
I am Mann hear me roar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30310008</id>
	<title>Re:What is the motivation to fabricate AGW?</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1259854980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To find out, you have to think like a very cynic and evil person. Have complete apathy to other people's problems.</p><p>If you are to develop and industry to fight some problem, you first have to create the problem. You know, the 4 steps to profit.</p><p>A war against a country doesn't sell anymore in this new media-laden world.</p><p>What if the enemy is a group of people instead of a nation? Well, that way war could last much more since they are harder to find. It's not about taking the capital of X nation anymore. Every knows where a capital is located. But nobody know where Osama is.</p><p>Now how can we make the enemy/problem even more invisible so it's a never ending battle?</p><p>Option A: A virus (think N1H1 paranoia) but it would require obviously a real virus to begin with, otherwise people will notice.</p><p>Option B: Something about the weather! The earth is heating up! Yes, you just don't notice cause it's so slow, but it's surely getting warmer. We mash up a swimming polar ice bear footage with the frog in the pan theory and we are set!</p><p>Not saying that's the real scenario, but it's a possible one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To find out , you have to think like a very cynic and evil person .
Have complete apathy to other people 's problems.If you are to develop and industry to fight some problem , you first have to create the problem .
You know , the 4 steps to profit.A war against a country does n't sell anymore in this new media-laden world.What if the enemy is a group of people instead of a nation ?
Well , that way war could last much more since they are harder to find .
It 's not about taking the capital of X nation anymore .
Every knows where a capital is located .
But nobody know where Osama is.Now how can we make the enemy/problem even more invisible so it 's a never ending battle ? Option A : A virus ( think N1H1 paranoia ) but it would require obviously a real virus to begin with , otherwise people will notice.Option B : Something about the weather !
The earth is heating up !
Yes , you just do n't notice cause it 's so slow , but it 's surely getting warmer .
We mash up a swimming polar ice bear footage with the frog in the pan theory and we are set ! Not saying that 's the real scenario , but it 's a possible one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To find out, you have to think like a very cynic and evil person.
Have complete apathy to other people's problems.If you are to develop and industry to fight some problem, you first have to create the problem.
You know, the 4 steps to profit.A war against a country doesn't sell anymore in this new media-laden world.What if the enemy is a group of people instead of a nation?
Well, that way war could last much more since they are harder to find.
It's not about taking the capital of X nation anymore.
Every knows where a capital is located.
But nobody know where Osama is.Now how can we make the enemy/problem even more invisible so it's a never ending battle?Option A: A virus (think N1H1 paranoia) but it would require obviously a real virus to begin with, otherwise people will notice.Option B: Something about the weather!
The earth is heating up!
Yes, you just don't notice cause it's so slow, but it's surely getting warmer.
We mash up a swimming polar ice bear footage with the frog in the pan theory and we are set!Not saying that's the real scenario, but it's a possible one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758</id>
	<title>Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1259612580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Prof. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist is also under inquiry by Penn State University</p></div><p>Mann? Is he the same guy who said global temperature will go up exponentially like a hockey stick unless we cap and trade right now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prof. Michael Mann , another prominent climate scientist is also under inquiry by Penn State UniversityMann ?
Is he the same guy who said global temperature will go up exponentially like a hockey stick unless we cap and trade right now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prof. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist is also under inquiry by Penn State UniversityMann?
Is he the same guy who said global temperature will go up exponentially like a hockey stick unless we cap and trade right now?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302300</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1259574960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's face it, science is either politicized for governments and universities, or exploited for business and technology. I have yet to come across a independent scientist (like Newton or B. Franklin for example) or groups that truly confirm/repeat experiments.</p></div><p>Alas, Newton was not so pure</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the Scholium. Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no great consequence &amp; may be corrected by the reader.</p><p>Newton to Cotes June 15 1710</p></div><p> <a href="http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/" title="carbonfixated.com">Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment &lsquo;thinking&rsquo;</a> [carbonfixated.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's face it , science is either politicized for governments and universities , or exploited for business and technology .
I have yet to come across a independent scientist ( like Newton or B. Franklin for example ) or groups that truly confirm/repeat experiments.Alas , Newton was not so pureYou need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the Scholium .
Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no great consequence &amp; may be corrected by the reader.Newton to Cotes June 15 1710 Newtongate : the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment    thinking    [ carbonfixated.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's face it, science is either politicized for governments and universities, or exploited for business and technology.
I have yet to come across a independent scientist (like Newton or B. Franklin for example) or groups that truly confirm/repeat experiments.Alas, Newton was not so pureYou need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the Scholium.
Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no great consequence &amp; may be corrected by the reader.Newton to Cotes June 15 1710 Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’ [carbonfixated.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30312008</id>
	<title>Mary Jo Kopechne</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259862420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a 2005 email, Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit, had this to say regarding whether global warming was even happening at all:</p><p>"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."</p><p>Surprise surprise! Further, at some point since 1998 the alarmists engaged in a massive campaign to "re-brand" the movement from global warming to climate change. Seems some people were in the know (wink wink)...</p><p>It seems pretty simple - Jones et al knew there was no warming since 1998, and hid that fact from the (research funding) public. Since 1998 billions have been spent in research and public policy decisions (such as the US EPA declaring CO2 a 'pollutant' based on bogus IPCC and CRU representations).</p><p>The alarmists, however, refuse to accept that they've been hoodwinked, even in the face of Jones himself admitting he was a part of the deception (above). And by not looking at the data that has been revealed, and instead having blind faith in their cause, the alarmists have revealed themselves to be part of a religion, not a science.</p><p>Keep the faith, alarmists. Keep the faith.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a 2005 email , Phil Jones , Director of the Climate Research Unit , had this to say regarding whether global warming was even happening at all : " The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998 .
OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it is n't statistically significant .
" Surprise surprise !
Further , at some point since 1998 the alarmists engaged in a massive campaign to " re-brand " the movement from global warming to climate change .
Seems some people were in the know ( wink wink ) ...It seems pretty simple - Jones et al knew there was no warming since 1998 , and hid that fact from the ( research funding ) public .
Since 1998 billions have been spent in research and public policy decisions ( such as the US EPA declaring CO2 a 'pollutant ' based on bogus IPCC and CRU representations ) .The alarmists , however , refuse to accept that they 've been hoodwinked , even in the face of Jones himself admitting he was a part of the deception ( above ) .
And by not looking at the data that has been revealed , and instead having blind faith in their cause , the alarmists have revealed themselves to be part of a religion , not a science.Keep the faith , alarmists .
Keep the faith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a 2005 email, Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit, had this to say regarding whether global warming was even happening at all:"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.
OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.
"Surprise surprise!
Further, at some point since 1998 the alarmists engaged in a massive campaign to "re-brand" the movement from global warming to climate change.
Seems some people were in the know (wink wink)...It seems pretty simple - Jones et al knew there was no warming since 1998, and hid that fact from the (research funding) public.
Since 1998 billions have been spent in research and public policy decisions (such as the US EPA declaring CO2 a 'pollutant' based on bogus IPCC and CRU representations).The alarmists, however, refuse to accept that they've been hoodwinked, even in the face of Jones himself admitting he was a part of the deception (above).
And by not looking at the data that has been revealed, and instead having blind faith in their cause, the alarmists have revealed themselves to be part of a religion, not a science.Keep the faith, alarmists.
Keep the faith.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307494</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The vast number of regular Americans that consider themselves "deniers" are not as concerned with their stocks in those industries being affected as they are the power and control the US government will receive in the name of combating the biggest hoax in the history of the planet.  The amount of taxes to be levied, regulations imposed and freedom taken by the US Government in the name of saving the planet from the big lie that is man-made GW is mind-boggling and scary.  THAT is what we regular people are afraid of, our stocks taking a hit does not hold a candle to that fear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast number of regular Americans that consider themselves " deniers " are not as concerned with their stocks in those industries being affected as they are the power and control the US government will receive in the name of combating the biggest hoax in the history of the planet .
The amount of taxes to be levied , regulations imposed and freedom taken by the US Government in the name of saving the planet from the big lie that is man-made GW is mind-boggling and scary .
THAT is what we regular people are afraid of , our stocks taking a hit does not hold a candle to that fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast number of regular Americans that consider themselves "deniers" are not as concerned with their stocks in those industries being affected as they are the power and control the US government will receive in the name of combating the biggest hoax in the history of the planet.
The amount of taxes to be levied, regulations imposed and freedom taken by the US Government in the name of saving the planet from the big lie that is man-made GW is mind-boggling and scary.
THAT is what we regular people are afraid of, our stocks taking a hit does not hold a candle to that fear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196</id>
	<title>Re:Fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Citing realclimate.org doesn't help your cause.  Several contributors to that site have been implicated in the leaked emails.
<br> <br>
With regards to the content of your post, the data was most certainly manipulated.  Have you not taken the time to discover the coding travesty documented in the HARRY\_READ\_ME file that was leaked along with the emails?  <a href="http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm" title="di2.nu" rel="nofollow">Here</a> [di2.nu] are a couple <a href="http://www.di2.nu/200911/25.htm" title="di2.nu" rel="nofollow">good links</a> [di2.nu] to start with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Citing realclimate.org does n't help your cause .
Several contributors to that site have been implicated in the leaked emails .
With regards to the content of your post , the data was most certainly manipulated .
Have you not taken the time to discover the coding travesty documented in the HARRY \ _READ \ _ME file that was leaked along with the emails ?
Here [ di2.nu ] are a couple good links [ di2.nu ] to start with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citing realclimate.org doesn't help your cause.
Several contributors to that site have been implicated in the leaked emails.
With regards to the content of your post, the data was most certainly manipulated.
Have you not taken the time to discover the coding travesty documented in the HARRY\_READ\_ME file that was leaked along with the emails?
Here [di2.nu] are a couple good links [di2.nu] to start with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>Avumede</author>
	<datestamp>1259572380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of your assertions have been debunked a long time ago.  To take just one example:</p><p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/</a> [realclimate.org]</p><p>And, from working in academia as a programmer, I can tell you that the quality of engineering is in general low, because most of the time you don't have professional software engineers working on the product.  Unfortunate, but there's not enough money for anything more than an RA, which are often inexperienced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of your assertions have been debunked a long time ago .
To take just one example : http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ [ realclimate.org ] And , from working in academia as a programmer , I can tell you that the quality of engineering is in general low , because most of the time you do n't have professional software engineers working on the product .
Unfortunate , but there 's not enough money for anything more than an RA , which are often inexperienced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of your assertions have been debunked a long time ago.
To take just one example:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ [realclimate.org]And, from working in academia as a programmer, I can tell you that the quality of engineering is in general low, because most of the time you don't have professional software engineers working on the product.
Unfortunate, but there's not enough money for anything more than an RA, which are often inexperienced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302686</id>
	<title>Re:Science</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259576040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.</p></div><p>Or alternately, our very civilization is at stake from the "deniers" and their political machinations.</p><p>I don't know for sure that CO2 emissions are a problem. What I do know is that right now we only have one place to perform a real-world test to find out, and unfortunately we're living on it and have no alternatives if we screw up. Sort of a Reverse Pascal's Wager.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted , our very economy is at stake from the " warmers " and their political machinations.Or alternately , our very civilization is at stake from the " deniers " and their political machinations.I do n't know for sure that CO2 emissions are a problem .
What I do know is that right now we only have one place to perform a real-world test to find out , and unfortunately we 're living on it and have no alternatives if we screw up .
Sort of a Reverse Pascal 's Wager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.Or alternately, our very civilization is at stake from the "deniers" and their political machinations.I don't know for sure that CO2 emissions are a problem.
What I do know is that right now we only have one place to perform a real-world test to find out, and unfortunately we're living on it and have no alternatives if we screw up.
Sort of a Reverse Pascal's Wager.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301340</id>
	<title>Climate Hack</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1259571840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really HOPE nobody is surprised about this.</p><p>Anyone who is researching our planets climate record and current climate HONESTLY, knew this whole carbon tax thing was a money making scam.</p><p>What does that tell you by the way how deep this corruption runs when Al Gore gets a NOBEL prize for the "research" these people did?</p><p>Actually, if you follow the money, the people behind this could care less about our planet, or anyone on it.  What they are more concerned about are:</p><p>1) How can I make trillions of dollars a year?</p><p>2) How can I control more people?</p><p>The first step is to get a world body that taxes all nations and peoples on the earth as a precedent.   Since these shadowy figures behind all of this know that they could never outright tax everyone without a huge political hurdle, they are using the guise of the environmental movement to facilitate this tax so people think it is saving trees, snails and whales.</p><p>Yeah, sure it is.</p><p>You people who believe in this stuff reading this post are stupid sheepeople.</p><p>Once the system is setup, more taxes can then easily be added and now you have a government fully sustained by taxes that reaches world wide.</p><p>That is the real goal.</p><p>If they succeed, they will begin with the next part of their agenda's, which I won't get into right here because nobody would believe me....yet....so I will wait till its about to happen.</p><p>But if just 10 years ago, I was saying to you that a government body is going to be created that would tax all nations, you would have claimed I had a screw loose.</p><p>Well, its on the verge of happening, and once it does happen these very evil people will have the resources of an entire planet to accomplish even more evil.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really HOPE nobody is surprised about this.Anyone who is researching our planets climate record and current climate HONESTLY , knew this whole carbon tax thing was a money making scam.What does that tell you by the way how deep this corruption runs when Al Gore gets a NOBEL prize for the " research " these people did ? Actually , if you follow the money , the people behind this could care less about our planet , or anyone on it .
What they are more concerned about are : 1 ) How can I make trillions of dollars a year ? 2 ) How can I control more people ? The first step is to get a world body that taxes all nations and peoples on the earth as a precedent .
Since these shadowy figures behind all of this know that they could never outright tax everyone without a huge political hurdle , they are using the guise of the environmental movement to facilitate this tax so people think it is saving trees , snails and whales.Yeah , sure it is.You people who believe in this stuff reading this post are stupid sheepeople.Once the system is setup , more taxes can then easily be added and now you have a government fully sustained by taxes that reaches world wide.That is the real goal.If they succeed , they will begin with the next part of their agenda 's , which I wo n't get into right here because nobody would believe me....yet....so I will wait till its about to happen.But if just 10 years ago , I was saying to you that a government body is going to be created that would tax all nations , you would have claimed I had a screw loose.Well , its on the verge of happening , and once it does happen these very evil people will have the resources of an entire planet to accomplish even more evil.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really HOPE nobody is surprised about this.Anyone who is researching our planets climate record and current climate HONESTLY, knew this whole carbon tax thing was a money making scam.What does that tell you by the way how deep this corruption runs when Al Gore gets a NOBEL prize for the "research" these people did?Actually, if you follow the money, the people behind this could care less about our planet, or anyone on it.
What they are more concerned about are:1) How can I make trillions of dollars a year?2) How can I control more people?The first step is to get a world body that taxes all nations and peoples on the earth as a precedent.
Since these shadowy figures behind all of this know that they could never outright tax everyone without a huge political hurdle, they are using the guise of the environmental movement to facilitate this tax so people think it is saving trees, snails and whales.Yeah, sure it is.You people who believe in this stuff reading this post are stupid sheepeople.Once the system is setup, more taxes can then easily be added and now you have a government fully sustained by taxes that reaches world wide.That is the real goal.If they succeed, they will begin with the next part of their agenda's, which I won't get into right here because nobody would believe me....yet....so I will wait till its about to happen.But if just 10 years ago, I was saying to you that a government body is going to be created that would tax all nations, you would have claimed I had a screw loose.Well, its on the verge of happening, and once it does happen these very evil people will have the resources of an entire planet to accomplish even more evil.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301894</id>
	<title>Re:Hockey guy?</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1259573760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Caution: Science being done badly. Whats new? Science is meant to be pristine and perfect? If climate scientists have to cook the books to get politicians to do something then it says two things. Our understanding of climate is inadequate for the questions we need to answer. That we have major major problems at a politicial level, perhaps even to the demise of civilisation.
<br> <br>
We've dumped a metric assload of carbon into the atmosphere and we can measure it (we have actually boosted greenhouse gases about 40\% from the level pre-industrial era). there is no way this could be anything but very very bad. <br> <br>
If the world isn't observably warming up, or not over the last decade, but that is purely by a stroke of luck, and buys us time to actually do something. What the denalists can't show is that the aforementioned empirical asston of greenhouse gases we've spewed out is completely harmless, because simple reliable science say it can't be, and indeed hasn't been in prehistory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Caution : Science being done badly .
Whats new ?
Science is meant to be pristine and perfect ?
If climate scientists have to cook the books to get politicians to do something then it says two things .
Our understanding of climate is inadequate for the questions we need to answer .
That we have major major problems at a politicial level , perhaps even to the demise of civilisation .
We 've dumped a metric assload of carbon into the atmosphere and we can measure it ( we have actually boosted greenhouse gases about 40 \ % from the level pre-industrial era ) .
there is no way this could be anything but very very bad .
If the world is n't observably warming up , or not over the last decade , but that is purely by a stroke of luck , and buys us time to actually do something .
What the denalists ca n't show is that the aforementioned empirical asston of greenhouse gases we 've spewed out is completely harmless , because simple reliable science say it ca n't be , and indeed has n't been in prehistory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Caution: Science being done badly.
Whats new?
Science is meant to be pristine and perfect?
If climate scientists have to cook the books to get politicians to do something then it says two things.
Our understanding of climate is inadequate for the questions we need to answer.
That we have major major problems at a politicial level, perhaps even to the demise of civilisation.
We've dumped a metric assload of carbon into the atmosphere and we can measure it (we have actually boosted greenhouse gases about 40\% from the level pre-industrial era).
there is no way this could be anything but very very bad.
If the world isn't observably warming up, or not over the last decade, but that is purely by a stroke of luck, and buys us time to actually do something.
What the denalists can't show is that the aforementioned empirical asston of greenhouse gases we've spewed out is completely harmless, because simple reliable science say it can't be, and indeed hasn't been in prehistory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301972</id>
	<title>Re:Chuck Norris says...</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1259574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may find this chart amusing, even though it's a couple of years old
<br>
<a href="http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/09/piechart200701.gif" title="optimist123.com">http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/09/piechart200701.gif</a> [optimist123.com] <br>
From: <a href="http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/03/updated\_pie\_cha.html" title="optimist123.com">http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/03/updated\_pie\_cha.html</a> [optimist123.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may find this chart amusing , even though it 's a couple of years old http : //www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html ? /photos/uncategorized/2007/04/09/piechart200701.gif [ optimist123.com ] From : http : //www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/03/updated \ _pie \ _cha.html [ optimist123.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may find this chart amusing, even though it's a couple of years old

http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/09/piechart200701.gif [optimist123.com] 
From: http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/03/updated\_pie\_cha.html [optimist123.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301398</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30313744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30319306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30320828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30310008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30310640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30314102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30309200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30346260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30322436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30308270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30309224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_1836208_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30309230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30310640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306768
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30310008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30309200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30308270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302290
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30322436
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30313744
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304320
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307312
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303142
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301854
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301914
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302898
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30314102
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301894
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306618
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30346260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301616
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303306
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303696
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30319306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30300934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30309230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301196
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304352
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301996
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303814
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30306320
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307682
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304076
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305624
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304044
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30307402
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304424
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301280
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30309224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301394
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30304392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30320828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30303294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30305050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30302258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_1836208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_1836208.30301370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
