<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_05_137203</id>
	<title>Scientific Journal <em>Nature</em> Finds Nothing Notable In CRU Leak</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260022680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes with an update to the <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1747257/Climatic-Research-Unit-Hacked-Files-Leaked">CRU email leak</a> story we've been following for the past two weeks. The peer-reviewed scientific journal <em>Nature</em> has published an article saying <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html">the emails do not demonstrate any sort of "scientific conspiracy,"</a> and that the journal doesn't intend to investigate earlier papers from CRU researchers without "substantive reasons for concern." The article notes, "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." Reader lacaprup points out related news that a global warming skeptic plans to sue NASA under the Freedom of Information Act for <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-climate-dispute/">failing to deliver climate data and correspondence</a> of their own, which he thinks will be "highly damaging." Meanwhile, a United Nations panel will be <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE9yAlgtiBwD9CCJUCG0">conducting its own investigation of the CRU emails</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes with an update to the CRU email leak story we 've been following for the past two weeks .
The peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature has published an article saying the emails do not demonstrate any sort of " scientific conspiracy , " and that the journal does n't intend to investigate earlier papers from CRU researchers without " substantive reasons for concern .
" The article notes , " 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 .
" Reader lacaprup points out related news that a global warming skeptic plans to sue NASA under the Freedom of Information Act for failing to deliver climate data and correspondence of their own , which he thinks will be " highly damaging .
" Meanwhile , a United Nations panel will be conducting its own investigation of the CRU emails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes with an update to the CRU email leak story we've been following for the past two weeks.
The peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature has published an article saying the emails do not demonstrate any sort of "scientific conspiracy," and that the journal doesn't intend to investigate earlier papers from CRU researchers without "substantive reasons for concern.
" The article notes, "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.
" Reader lacaprup points out related news that a global warming skeptic plans to sue NASA under the Freedom of Information Act for failing to deliver climate data and correspondence of their own, which he thinks will be "highly damaging.
" Meanwhile, a United Nations panel will be conducting its own investigation of the CRU emails.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337354</id>
	<title>Re:Data thrown away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260044580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here you go Sir.</p><p>http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/</p><p>Please evaluate how stupid this Scientific Cult for the NWO was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you go Sir.http : //fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/Please evaluate how stupid this Scientific Cult for the NWO was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you go Sir.http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/Please evaluate how stupid this Scientific Cult for the NWO was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341714</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>funwithBSD</author>
	<datestamp>1260131760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny you should say that. I never said what side I was on, nor did I support a specific side.</p><p>What I did do is call Nature out for their obvious bias in what is supposed to be a scientific discussion.</p><p>I am unconvinced in the matter, I see too many observable facts that indicate there is nothing we can do to stop or even slow what is happening. The fact is that Mars has shrinking icecaps. Better data exists for the mapping of the Mars Ice Caps than Earth's. Cassini first observed them in 1666. Earths had to wait until satellites gave a full picture as good as Mars.</p><p>Two planets, both have shrinking ice caps, one does not have humans. Ergo, some other agent is at work that can impact both planets.    I have yet to see a hypothesis that explains how humans could cause the melting on Mars.</p><p>Which means at the very least we need to identify the cause and use it to determine how much of Earth's warming is due to whatever is causing Mars melting and see how much is left. That amount would then be under scrutiny for AGW.</p><p>And I cloak it in religious overtones because if it is not science, it is a matter of faith. Go read Popper's Demaracation: The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.</p><p>If the "science is irrefutable", then it is no longer science.</p><p>It is a religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny you should say that .
I never said what side I was on , nor did I support a specific side.What I did do is call Nature out for their obvious bias in what is supposed to be a scientific discussion.I am unconvinced in the matter , I see too many observable facts that indicate there is nothing we can do to stop or even slow what is happening .
The fact is that Mars has shrinking icecaps .
Better data exists for the mapping of the Mars Ice Caps than Earth 's .
Cassini first observed them in 1666 .
Earths had to wait until satellites gave a full picture as good as Mars.Two planets , both have shrinking ice caps , one does not have humans .
Ergo , some other agent is at work that can impact both planets .
I have yet to see a hypothesis that explains how humans could cause the melting on Mars.Which means at the very least we need to identify the cause and use it to determine how much of Earth 's warming is due to whatever is causing Mars melting and see how much is left .
That amount would then be under scrutiny for AGW.And I cloak it in religious overtones because if it is not science , it is a matter of faith .
Go read Popper 's Demaracation : The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability , or refutability , or testability.If the " science is irrefutable " , then it is no longer science.It is a religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny you should say that.
I never said what side I was on, nor did I support a specific side.What I did do is call Nature out for their obvious bias in what is supposed to be a scientific discussion.I am unconvinced in the matter, I see too many observable facts that indicate there is nothing we can do to stop or even slow what is happening.
The fact is that Mars has shrinking icecaps.
Better data exists for the mapping of the Mars Ice Caps than Earth's.
Cassini first observed them in 1666.
Earths had to wait until satellites gave a full picture as good as Mars.Two planets, both have shrinking ice caps, one does not have humans.
Ergo, some other agent is at work that can impact both planets.
I have yet to see a hypothesis that explains how humans could cause the melting on Mars.Which means at the very least we need to identify the cause and use it to determine how much of Earth's warming is due to whatever is causing Mars melting and see how much is left.
That amount would then be under scrutiny for AGW.And I cloak it in religious overtones because if it is not science, it is a matter of faith.
Go read Popper's Demaracation: The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.If the "science is irrefutable", then it is no longer science.It is a religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334724</id>
	<title>With all the moeny invested</title>
	<author>Blappo</author>
	<datestamp>1260027120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the apparent lack of transparency regarding the code, I submit that the researchers under fire be asked to use the code in question to reproduce their results under observation, explaining how they did it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the apparent lack of transparency regarding the code , I submit that the researchers under fire be asked to use the code in question to reproduce their results under observation , explaining how they did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the apparent lack of transparency regarding the code, I submit that the researchers under fire be asked to use the code in question to reproduce their results under observation, explaining how they did it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336756</id>
	<title>Peer reviewed?</title>
	<author>MSTCrow5429</author>
	<datestamp>1260040740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, but did someone at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. forget to mention that the CRU emails did have evidence of a conspiracy to blacklist opposing scientific viewpoints from peer reviewed publications?  Did someone forget that Nature, for some years, has been itself criticized for such blacklisting?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but did someone at / .
forget to mention that the CRU emails did have evidence of a conspiracy to blacklist opposing scientific viewpoints from peer reviewed publications ?
Did someone forget that Nature , for some years , has been itself criticized for such blacklisting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but did someone at /.
forget to mention that the CRU emails did have evidence of a conspiracy to blacklist opposing scientific viewpoints from peer reviewed publications?
Did someone forget that Nature, for some years, has been itself criticized for such blacklisting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335272</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>DaTrueDave</author>
	<datestamp>1260031320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering. They are clueless about how to handle it.</p></div><p>BS.  The science should speak for itself.  Facts, real facts, don't have to be "spun" the right way...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism , spin meistering .
They are clueless about how to handle it.BS .
The science should speak for itself .
Facts , real facts , do n't have to be " spun " the right way.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering.
They are clueless about how to handle it.BS.
The science should speak for itself.
Facts, real facts, don't have to be "spun" the right way...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339392</id>
	<title>Looking for programing issues</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1260016320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and found this. The good part is about half way into this: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and found this .
The good part is about half way into this : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and found this.
The good part is about half way into this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337960</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1260005340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more.</p></div><p>Wrong. People who have been deniers won't change their standpoint. People who believe the science will look through the fog of misinformation and come to the conclusion that while some of the emails are unsavory, the science hasn't changed because there was no fraud. Only a few that were undecided will be swayed. Others will become more active in exposing how the fossil fuel industry has been waging a PR campaign that includes lying and bad science as well as buying scientists and think tanks for decades. The net result will be that the truth comes out. Just like about tobacco. Or evolution, Or that the earth is round.</p><p>Oh and have a look at <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/" title="desmogblog.com">http://www.desmogblog.com/</a> [desmogblog.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The damage is done : nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more.Wrong .
People who have been deniers wo n't change their standpoint .
People who believe the science will look through the fog of misinformation and come to the conclusion that while some of the emails are unsavory , the science has n't changed because there was no fraud .
Only a few that were undecided will be swayed .
Others will become more active in exposing how the fossil fuel industry has been waging a PR campaign that includes lying and bad science as well as buying scientists and think tanks for decades .
The net result will be that the truth comes out .
Just like about tobacco .
Or evolution , Or that the earth is round.Oh and have a look at http : //www.desmogblog.com/ [ desmogblog.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more.Wrong.
People who have been deniers won't change their standpoint.
People who believe the science will look through the fog of misinformation and come to the conclusion that while some of the emails are unsavory, the science hasn't changed because there was no fraud.
Only a few that were undecided will be swayed.
Others will become more active in exposing how the fossil fuel industry has been waging a PR campaign that includes lying and bad science as well as buying scientists and think tanks for decades.
The net result will be that the truth comes out.
Just like about tobacco.
Or evolution, Or that the earth is round.Oh and have a look at http://www.desmogblog.com/ [desmogblog.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335388</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260032460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Slashdotters are liberals and don't read right wing sites like I do.</p> </div><p>Are you reading a different Slashdot to me? Not only is there a large and very vocal right-wing (typically Libertarian) element, it tends to be that element which comprises most of the climate "sceptics". I'm not surprised, as there's inevitably less evidence and history for such philosophies than for conventional political stances, so if your political views tend towards the extremes (in either direction) then you have to put more weight on ideology and less on accumulated evidence. And the implications of climate climage are that at least some form of collective decision making will be required to deal with it, which is of course anathema to those of that philosophy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdotters are liberals and do n't read right wing sites like I do .
Are you reading a different Slashdot to me ?
Not only is there a large and very vocal right-wing ( typically Libertarian ) element , it tends to be that element which comprises most of the climate " sceptics " .
I 'm not surprised , as there 's inevitably less evidence and history for such philosophies than for conventional political stances , so if your political views tend towards the extremes ( in either direction ) then you have to put more weight on ideology and less on accumulated evidence .
And the implications of climate climage are that at least some form of collective decision making will be required to deal with it , which is of course anathema to those of that philosophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdotters are liberals and don't read right wing sites like I do.
Are you reading a different Slashdot to me?
Not only is there a large and very vocal right-wing (typically Libertarian) element, it tends to be that element which comprises most of the climate "sceptics".
I'm not surprised, as there's inevitably less evidence and history for such philosophies than for conventional political stances, so if your political views tend towards the extremes (in either direction) then you have to put more weight on ideology and less on accumulated evidence.
And the implications of climate climage are that at least some form of collective decision making will be required to deal with it, which is of course anathema to those of that philosophy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339698</id>
	<title>Re:Of course there is nothing notable</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1260019080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>come on, i think it was only 60 megs and presumedly a lot was simple data</p><p>and this is no longer a statistical endeavor.  for instance one email can put jones in jail, and the email is there, and i hope it happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>come on , i think it was only 60 megs and presumedly a lot was simple dataand this is no longer a statistical endeavor .
for instance one email can put jones in jail , and the email is there , and i hope it happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>come on, i think it was only 60 megs and presumedly a lot was simple dataand this is no longer a statistical endeavor.
for instance one email can put jones in jail, and the email is there, and i hope it happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335962</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>AdamHaun</author>
	<datestamp>1260036000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when does the right care about science? They can't even get an issue as simple and data-rich as sex education right, but now I'm supposed to believe that it's all about the evidence?</p><p>I used to have doubts about AGW because I heard so many skeptics, but now that they've dropped their masks and are trying to move in for the kill I see that the whole thing is just like the evolution "debate". Conspiracy theories ("It's the evil liberals! They want to destroy capitalism!"), quotes out of context, repeating the same tired debunked arguments year after year... The only difference is that the ideology behind it is a little more popular -- the strawman liberal is apparently a more plausible villain to most people than the strawman atheist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does the right care about science ?
They ca n't even get an issue as simple and data-rich as sex education right , but now I 'm supposed to believe that it 's all about the evidence ? I used to have doubts about AGW because I heard so many skeptics , but now that they 've dropped their masks and are trying to move in for the kill I see that the whole thing is just like the evolution " debate " .
Conspiracy theories ( " It 's the evil liberals !
They want to destroy capitalism !
" ) , quotes out of context , repeating the same tired debunked arguments year after year... The only difference is that the ideology behind it is a little more popular -- the strawman liberal is apparently a more plausible villain to most people than the strawman atheist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does the right care about science?
They can't even get an issue as simple and data-rich as sex education right, but now I'm supposed to believe that it's all about the evidence?I used to have doubts about AGW because I heard so many skeptics, but now that they've dropped their masks and are trying to move in for the kill I see that the whole thing is just like the evolution "debate".
Conspiracy theories ("It's the evil liberals!
They want to destroy capitalism!
"), quotes out of context, repeating the same tired debunked arguments year after year... The only difference is that the ideology behind it is a little more popular -- the strawman liberal is apparently a more plausible villain to most people than the strawman atheist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336512</id>
	<title>Re:Peer-reviewed journal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260039300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think open source is the answer here. Open source the data, methodologies, any programs used. Anybody else should be able to reproduce the results by themselves. All that research is paid for by the public dime anyway and it's used to set public policy so it shouldn't be kept secret. Oh, and no anonymous peer "reviewing" would be really nice.</i></p><p>I think you're a moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think open source is the answer here .
Open source the data , methodologies , any programs used .
Anybody else should be able to reproduce the results by themselves .
All that research is paid for by the public dime anyway and it 's used to set public policy so it should n't be kept secret .
Oh , and no anonymous peer " reviewing " would be really nice.I think you 're a moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think open source is the answer here.
Open source the data, methodologies, any programs used.
Anybody else should be able to reproduce the results by themselves.
All that research is paid for by the public dime anyway and it's used to set public policy so it shouldn't be kept secret.
Oh, and no anonymous peer "reviewing" would be really nice.I think you're a moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335316</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1260031860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My heart bleeds regularly, and I haven't trusted the veracity of the scientific community in forever.  In fact, the two conditions are a direct result of one another.</p><p>My rule of thumb is this. . .</p><p>"If evil can gain from lying, then you can rest assured that the popular media view is faulty."</p><p>Also. . .</p><p>"There is an inverse ratio between the monetary value of a lie and the veracity of its claim."</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My heart bleeds regularly , and I have n't trusted the veracity of the scientific community in forever .
In fact , the two conditions are a direct result of one another.My rule of thumb is this .
. .
" If evil can gain from lying , then you can rest assured that the popular media view is faulty. " Also .
. .
" There is an inverse ratio between the monetary value of a lie and the veracity of its claim .
" -FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My heart bleeds regularly, and I haven't trusted the veracity of the scientific community in forever.
In fact, the two conditions are a direct result of one another.My rule of thumb is this.
. .
"If evil can gain from lying, then you can rest assured that the popular media view is faulty."Also.
. .
"There is an inverse ratio between the monetary value of a lie and the veracity of its claim.
"-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30394948</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>IIJamesII</author>
	<datestamp>1260442500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone who feels the need to label and ostracize people for asking questions is an ideologue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who feels the need to label and ostracize people for asking questions is an ideologue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who feels the need to label and ostracize people for asking questions is an ideologue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30357890</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>Sarius64</author>
	<datestamp>1260181080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, I'll try that on my next program submission.  You can't handle the truth!

Trillions of dollars NOW!  Hand it over you denialists!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I 'll try that on my next program submission .
You ca n't handle the truth !
Trillions of dollars NOW !
Hand it over you denialists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I'll try that on my next program submission.
You can't handle the truth!
Trillions of dollars NOW!
Hand it over you denialists!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335120</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260030060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists, compare that to say, the hacked emails of Sarah Palin, See where you find more smoking guns."</p><p>Note to 140Mandak262Jamuna: the election was over more than a year ago.  She didn't win the Vice Presidency, you can stop obsessing over her.  Really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists , compare that to say , the hacked emails of Sarah Palin , See where you find more smoking guns .
" Note to 140Mandak262Jamuna : the election was over more than a year ago .
She did n't win the Vice Presidency , you can stop obsessing over her .
Really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists, compare that to say, the hacked emails of Sarah Palin, See where you find more smoking guns.
"Note to 140Mandak262Jamuna: the election was over more than a year ago.
She didn't win the Vice Presidency, you can stop obsessing over her.
Really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334708</id>
	<title>re:A few suspect emails do not destroy millions...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research."</p><p>Never mind the quality, feel the weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research .
" Never mind the quality , feel the weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.
"Never mind the quality, feel the weight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339852</id>
	<title>1950-2000 warming nothing to be afraid of</title>
	<author>thule</author>
	<datestamp>1260020280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought people have been questioning the modern temp data for a while due to land use and urban heat effect.  Climate Audit has been tracking this aspect for a while now.  We might be warming, but the warming is not universal and nothing more than what has happened in the past.  In the context of 1000-1500 years, the warming that happene between 1950-2000 is nothing to be afraid of.  To quote CRU:
<br>
<br>
"The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90\% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66\% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years."
<br>
<br>
Before any of this email stuff, climateaudit caught NASA adjusting the output so that the 1940's blip was not more than the latter half of the century.  I seem to recall it was a error in how the program was rounding the numbers.  Climateaudit made a new graph with 1940's showing the warmest year.  NASA reproduced the results and then later produced a new chart that showed the 1990's having the warming year with the 1940's the second warmest.
<br>
<br>
To quote another post of this subject (a href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11531"&gt;strata-sphere.com):
<br> <br>
"Well, the raw CRU data shows that the first half of the last century (1900-1960) was as warm or warmer than it is today. But even if it was not warmer, it was within the uncertainty of the processed data. But let&rsquo;s assume this claim still holds water, so what if this was the warmest half century since the beginning of the Little Ice Age! We have only had 3 half centuries since the LIA ended! We all know the Earth has been thankfully warming since this bleak time in humanity&rsquo;&rsquo;s brief existence."</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought people have been questioning the modern temp data for a while due to land use and urban heat effect .
Climate Audit has been tracking this aspect for a while now .
We might be warming , but the warming is not universal and nothing more than what has happened in the past .
In the context of 1000-1500 years , the warming that happene between 1950-2000 is nothing to be afraid of .
To quote CRU : " The principal conclusion from these studies ( summarized in IPCC AR4 ) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely ( 90 \ % probable ) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely ( 66 \ % probable ) the warmest in the past 1300 years .
" Before any of this email stuff , climateaudit caught NASA adjusting the output so that the 1940 's blip was not more than the latter half of the century .
I seem to recall it was a error in how the program was rounding the numbers .
Climateaudit made a new graph with 1940 's showing the warmest year .
NASA reproduced the results and then later produced a new chart that showed the 1990 's having the warming year with the 1940 's the second warmest .
To quote another post of this subject ( a href = " http : //strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11531 " &gt; strata-sphere.com ) : " Well , the raw CRU data shows that the first half of the last century ( 1900-1960 ) was as warm or warmer than it is today .
But even if it was not warmer , it was within the uncertainty of the processed data .
But let    s assume this claim still holds water , so what if this was the warmest half century since the beginning of the Little Ice Age !
We have only had 3 half centuries since the LIA ended !
We all know the Earth has been thankfully warming since this bleak time in humanity       s brief existence .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought people have been questioning the modern temp data for a while due to land use and urban heat effect.
Climate Audit has been tracking this aspect for a while now.
We might be warming, but the warming is not universal and nothing more than what has happened in the past.
In the context of 1000-1500 years, the warming that happene between 1950-2000 is nothing to be afraid of.
To quote CRU:


"The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90\% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66\% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years.
"


Before any of this email stuff, climateaudit caught NASA adjusting the output so that the 1940's blip was not more than the latter half of the century.
I seem to recall it was a error in how the program was rounding the numbers.
Climateaudit made a new graph with 1940's showing the warmest year.
NASA reproduced the results and then later produced a new chart that showed the 1990's having the warming year with the 1940's the second warmest.
To quote another post of this subject (a href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11531"&gt;strata-sphere.com):
 
"Well, the raw CRU data shows that the first half of the last century (1900-1960) was as warm or warmer than it is today.
But even if it was not warmer, it was within the uncertainty of the processed data.
But let’s assume this claim still holds water, so what if this was the warmest half century since the beginning of the Little Ice Age!
We have only had 3 half centuries since the LIA ended!
We all know the Earth has been thankfully warming since this bleak time in humanity’’s brief existence.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335426</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1260032760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a pretty major problem - decades of declining education standards have produced a generation that consider naturopaths to have equally valid qualifications as surgeons or climate scientists to be less trustworthy than cocaine ravaged shock jocks.  F* the idea that it's all about preaching and take a look around you guys.  Nobody freezes their arse off in Antarctica to fake data when they could just as easily fake it at home.<br>Climate is just the new soft target of anti-intellectuals since they can't get any furthur making fun of evolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a pretty major problem - decades of declining education standards have produced a generation that consider naturopaths to have equally valid qualifications as surgeons or climate scientists to be less trustworthy than cocaine ravaged shock jocks .
F * the idea that it 's all about preaching and take a look around you guys .
Nobody freezes their arse off in Antarctica to fake data when they could just as easily fake it at home.Climate is just the new soft target of anti-intellectuals since they ca n't get any furthur making fun of evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a pretty major problem - decades of declining education standards have produced a generation that consider naturopaths to have equally valid qualifications as surgeons or climate scientists to be less trustworthy than cocaine ravaged shock jocks.
F* the idea that it's all about preaching and take a look around you guys.
Nobody freezes their arse off in Antarctica to fake data when they could just as easily fake it at home.Climate is just the new soft target of anti-intellectuals since they can't get any furthur making fun of evolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341890</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>italiano</author>
	<datestamp>1260091680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, pretty much all debate on global warming has already ended--the scientific debate, anyway.</p></div><p>Not really, <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">science never stops "debating"</a> [realclimate.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , pretty much all debate on global warming has already ended--the scientific debate , anyway.Not really , science never stops " debating " [ realclimate.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, pretty much all debate on global warming has already ended--the scientific debate, anyway.Not really, science never stops "debating" [realclimate.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337178</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260043320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh but don't you understand! It's all one giant conspiracy! They're all in on it! Tinfoil hat blah blah blah!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh but do n't you understand !
It 's all one giant conspiracy !
They 're all in on it !
Tinfoil hat blah blah blah !
... sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh but don't you understand!
It's all one giant conspiracy!
They're all in on it!
Tinfoil hat blah blah blah!
... sigh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335536</id>
	<title>The cat's out of the bag</title>
	<author>reboot246</author>
	<datestamp>1260033660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no putting it back. "Peer-reviewed" means nothing when you can't trust the peers. We need FULL investigations by anybody and everybody. We need lawsuits out the ass. Enough bullshit. Let's start over and quit rushing into the unknown.<br><br>This is not science. It's ideology, politics, and MONEY.<br><br>Disagree? Sue me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no putting it back .
" Peer-reviewed " means nothing when you ca n't trust the peers .
We need FULL investigations by anybody and everybody .
We need lawsuits out the ass .
Enough bullshit .
Let 's start over and quit rushing into the unknown.This is not science .
It 's ideology , politics , and MONEY.Disagree ?
Sue me .
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no putting it back.
"Peer-reviewed" means nothing when you can't trust the peers.
We need FULL investigations by anybody and everybody.
We need lawsuits out the ass.
Enough bullshit.
Let's start over and quit rushing into the unknown.This is not science.
It's ideology, politics, and MONEY.Disagree?
Sue me.
:p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341050</id>
	<title>Step outside of this argument..</title>
	<author>byrdfl3w</author>
	<datestamp>1260033780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..And examine the Mainstream Media's blackout on this subject. BBC had the information for an entire month, and sat on the story. A strange situation unfolded, with that bastion of spin, FOX News, breaking the story with more gusto than a bull in a china shop - whilst every other channel either completely ignored it or attempted to skew the reporting to focus just on the theft of data. Only now are some stations grudgingly giving this story the airtime it merits. Here in New Zealand, not a single TV station or newspaper has reported it at all beyond a brief mention in some dirty back pages.. Even the local New Zealand climate scandal (NIWA artificially adjusting temp graphs) is being suppressed. Instead, the lead stories are absolutely jam-packed with images of melting glaciers and prophecies of imminent doom. Considering that the <a href="http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/tiger-woods-index.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Tiger Woods Index</a> [blogspot.com]finds "climategate" to be one of the most searched terms at the moment, it appears obvious to me that the mainstream media have a vested interest in keeping this information out of the public mind, at least until after Copenhagen. If this scandal had involved ANY other scientific arena of importance, this would have been headline news. I find such collusion between media conglomerates in keeping this story hushed far more disturbing than the story itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..And examine the Mainstream Media 's blackout on this subject .
BBC had the information for an entire month , and sat on the story .
A strange situation unfolded , with that bastion of spin , FOX News , breaking the story with more gusto than a bull in a china shop - whilst every other channel either completely ignored it or attempted to skew the reporting to focus just on the theft of data .
Only now are some stations grudgingly giving this story the airtime it merits .
Here in New Zealand , not a single TV station or newspaper has reported it at all beyond a brief mention in some dirty back pages.. Even the local New Zealand climate scandal ( NIWA artificially adjusting temp graphs ) is being suppressed .
Instead , the lead stories are absolutely jam-packed with images of melting glaciers and prophecies of imminent doom .
Considering that the Tiger Woods Index [ blogspot.com ] finds " climategate " to be one of the most searched terms at the moment , it appears obvious to me that the mainstream media have a vested interest in keeping this information out of the public mind , at least until after Copenhagen .
If this scandal had involved ANY other scientific arena of importance , this would have been headline news .
I find such collusion between media conglomerates in keeping this story hushed far more disturbing than the story itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..And examine the Mainstream Media's blackout on this subject.
BBC had the information for an entire month, and sat on the story.
A strange situation unfolded, with that bastion of spin, FOX News, breaking the story with more gusto than a bull in a china shop - whilst every other channel either completely ignored it or attempted to skew the reporting to focus just on the theft of data.
Only now are some stations grudgingly giving this story the airtime it merits.
Here in New Zealand, not a single TV station or newspaper has reported it at all beyond a brief mention in some dirty back pages.. Even the local New Zealand climate scandal (NIWA artificially adjusting temp graphs) is being suppressed.
Instead, the lead stories are absolutely jam-packed with images of melting glaciers and prophecies of imminent doom.
Considering that the Tiger Woods Index [blogspot.com]finds "climategate" to be one of the most searched terms at the moment, it appears obvious to me that the mainstream media have a vested interest in keeping this information out of the public mind, at least until after Copenhagen.
If this scandal had involved ANY other scientific arena of importance, this would have been headline news.
I find such collusion between media conglomerates in keeping this story hushed far more disturbing than the story itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341946</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1260093000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning" - true, indeed. The problem is that Global Warming has done so convincingly several times over and still some people refuse to bulge.</p></div><p>Huh? A few major "scientists", cited multiple times in the IPCC reports (which advises the UN bodies and policy makers worldwide), have been shown to be doing things that are dubious at best. This is <i>so convincing</i>.</p><p>Looks like you are being the denialist.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the "global warming is false" camp. I just think that the science needs to be more rigorous, given the importance of the implications. It is exactly because the issue is very important, that we need to have discussions to make sure we don't make the wrong decisions.</p><p>Or do you believe you can't be wrong, ever?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning " - true , indeed .
The problem is that Global Warming has done so convincingly several times over and still some people refuse to bulge.Huh ?
A few major " scientists " , cited multiple times in the IPCC reports ( which advises the UN bodies and policy makers worldwide ) , have been shown to be doing things that are dubious at best .
This is so convincing.Looks like you are being the denialist.Do n't get me wrong , I 'm not in the " global warming is false " camp .
I just think that the science needs to be more rigorous , given the importance of the implications .
It is exactly because the issue is very important , that we need to have discussions to make sure we do n't make the wrong decisions.Or do you believe you ca n't be wrong , ever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning" - true, indeed.
The problem is that Global Warming has done so convincingly several times over and still some people refuse to bulge.Huh?
A few major "scientists", cited multiple times in the IPCC reports (which advises the UN bodies and policy makers worldwide), have been shown to be doing things that are dubious at best.
This is so convincing.Looks like you are being the denialist.Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the "global warming is false" camp.
I just think that the science needs to be more rigorous, given the importance of the implications.
It is exactly because the issue is very important, that we need to have discussions to make sure we don't make the wrong decisions.Or do you believe you can't be wrong, ever?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339666</id>
	<title>Re:Can't extrapolate to whole community</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1260018780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your argument is fine as far as individuals are concerned</p><p>but three points</p><p>jones felt free to ask perhaps four others to engage in a criminal conspiracy which suggests he had reason to believe they would be cooperative</p><p>jones organized attacks on the peer review process, and a valid peer review process is a requirement for the validity of the whole endeavor as science.  it certainly makes honest individual scientists ineffective and i suppose has some effect on what they put their time into,  if they are academics, publication is a big career issue.</p><p>so we already have one criminal conspiracy, so looking for conspiracy based on whatever is reasonable.  admittedly, the act of adjusting data is not particularly interesting, but i seem to a recall a china dataset where the claimed procedure was not followed, and happened to result in a temperature increase</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your argument is fine as far as individuals are concernedbut three pointsjones felt free to ask perhaps four others to engage in a criminal conspiracy which suggests he had reason to believe they would be cooperativejones organized attacks on the peer review process , and a valid peer review process is a requirement for the validity of the whole endeavor as science .
it certainly makes honest individual scientists ineffective and i suppose has some effect on what they put their time into , if they are academics , publication is a big career issue.so we already have one criminal conspiracy , so looking for conspiracy based on whatever is reasonable .
admittedly , the act of adjusting data is not particularly interesting , but i seem to a recall a china dataset where the claimed procedure was not followed , and happened to result in a temperature increase</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your argument is fine as far as individuals are concernedbut three pointsjones felt free to ask perhaps four others to engage in a criminal conspiracy which suggests he had reason to believe they would be cooperativejones organized attacks on the peer review process, and a valid peer review process is a requirement for the validity of the whole endeavor as science.
it certainly makes honest individual scientists ineffective and i suppose has some effect on what they put their time into,  if they are academics, publication is a big career issue.so we already have one criminal conspiracy, so looking for conspiracy based on whatever is reasonable.
admittedly, the act of adjusting data is not particularly interesting, but i seem to a recall a china dataset where the claimed procedure was not followed, and happened to result in a temperature increase</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335206</id>
	<title>Re:Almost</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1260030720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Coal industry stands to lose billions of dollars. Global warming researcher's wages will be relatively unaffected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coal industry stands to lose billions of dollars .
Global warming researcher 's wages will be relatively unaffected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coal industry stands to lose billions of dollars.
Global warming researcher's wages will be relatively unaffected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340078</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1260022500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, because the guys who got millions in grants because they said the "sky is falling" are so much more trustworthy? Dr. Phil Jones received grants in the 90s in the thousands of dollars, since 1998 the grants he has received have been in the millions of dollars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because the guys who got millions in grants because they said the " sky is falling " are so much more trustworthy ?
Dr. Phil Jones received grants in the 90s in the thousands of dollars , since 1998 the grants he has received have been in the millions of dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because the guys who got millions in grants because they said the "sky is falling" are so much more trustworthy?
Dr. Phil Jones received grants in the 90s in the thousands of dollars, since 1998 the grants he has received have been in the millions of dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334802</id>
	<title>Indirection, folks</title>
	<author>samjam</author>
	<datestamp>1260027780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now the nay-sayers can get a word in edgeways, now they are not being edged out by "non-conspiracists" who "aren't faking data" we can read a bit more:</p><p>This document from some German scientists attempts to shed new light on where some of the 'global warming' scientific conclusions may not be substantiated.</p><p><a href="http://arxiv.org/PS\_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf" title="arxiv.org">http://arxiv.org/PS\_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf</a> [arxiv.org]</p><p>If it's too much for you, start at page 92 and don't whine until you've read at least 92-94</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the nay-sayers can get a word in edgeways , now they are not being edged out by " non-conspiracists " who " are n't faking data " we can read a bit more : This document from some German scientists attempts to shed new light on where some of the 'global warming ' scientific conclusions may not be substantiated.http : //arxiv.org/PS \ _cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf [ arxiv.org ] If it 's too much for you , start at page 92 and do n't whine until you 've read at least 92-94</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the nay-sayers can get a word in edgeways, now they are not being edged out by "non-conspiracists" who "aren't faking data" we can read a bit more:This document from some German scientists attempts to shed new light on where some of the 'global warming' scientific conclusions may not be substantiated.http://arxiv.org/PS\_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf [arxiv.org]If it's too much for you, start at page 92 and don't whine until you've read at least 92-94</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340210</id>
	<title>Re:Civilization was on trial</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1260023580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow --</p><p>Now I see why the deniers are so hot and bothered. Apparently they see it as having to admit some kind of collective guilt, then having to go back to living in trees.</p><p>I don't see anthropogenic global warming as a condemnation of civilization.  How could civilization have known?</p><p>There is *no* trial going on over "killing Gaia". Where is the corpus delecti?  The very idea is silly (*especially* if you believe in the Gaia hypothesis).</p><p>No, the trial is whether we can scrape up some kind of rational and just response to a complex problem we could not possibly have anticipated.  Throwing and evading blame is a pointless, irrational sideshow.</p><p>For better or worse, we are dependent on technology to survive. We *couldn't* go back to living in the trees, not without killing most of our species.  The answer to AGW will be a combination of adapting ourselves to inevitable changes (which was going to happen sooner or later anyway) and developing *new* technology that will help us do this while reducing our impact on the planet.</p><p>Nobody in his right mind wants to see forests and wild animal populations disappear, to see the planet paved over and it air choked with pollution. The planet will survive, it just won't be as nice a place as the one were born in.  I believe that means finding more environmentally efficient technologies that will raise our standard of living without depriving us of a the natural wealth we inherited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow --Now I see why the deniers are so hot and bothered .
Apparently they see it as having to admit some kind of collective guilt , then having to go back to living in trees.I do n't see anthropogenic global warming as a condemnation of civilization .
How could civilization have known ? There is * no * trial going on over " killing Gaia " .
Where is the corpus delecti ?
The very idea is silly ( * especially * if you believe in the Gaia hypothesis ) .No , the trial is whether we can scrape up some kind of rational and just response to a complex problem we could not possibly have anticipated .
Throwing and evading blame is a pointless , irrational sideshow.For better or worse , we are dependent on technology to survive .
We * could n't * go back to living in the trees , not without killing most of our species .
The answer to AGW will be a combination of adapting ourselves to inevitable changes ( which was going to happen sooner or later anyway ) and developing * new * technology that will help us do this while reducing our impact on the planet.Nobody in his right mind wants to see forests and wild animal populations disappear , to see the planet paved over and it air choked with pollution .
The planet will survive , it just wo n't be as nice a place as the one were born in .
I believe that means finding more environmentally efficient technologies that will raise our standard of living without depriving us of a the natural wealth we inherited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow --Now I see why the deniers are so hot and bothered.
Apparently they see it as having to admit some kind of collective guilt, then having to go back to living in trees.I don't see anthropogenic global warming as a condemnation of civilization.
How could civilization have known?There is *no* trial going on over "killing Gaia".
Where is the corpus delecti?
The very idea is silly (*especially* if you believe in the Gaia hypothesis).No, the trial is whether we can scrape up some kind of rational and just response to a complex problem we could not possibly have anticipated.
Throwing and evading blame is a pointless, irrational sideshow.For better or worse, we are dependent on technology to survive.
We *couldn't* go back to living in the trees, not without killing most of our species.
The answer to AGW will be a combination of adapting ourselves to inevitable changes (which was going to happen sooner or later anyway) and developing *new* technology that will help us do this while reducing our impact on the planet.Nobody in his right mind wants to see forests and wild animal populations disappear, to see the planet paved over and it air choked with pollution.
The planet will survive, it just won't be as nice a place as the one were born in.
I believe that means finding more environmentally efficient technologies that will raise our standard of living without depriving us of a the natural wealth we inherited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335090</id>
	<title>Re:Let me save the UN the time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260029880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global\_warming/science\_and\_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#The\_Peer\_Review\_Process" title="ucsusa.org">Here</a> [ucsusa.org] is a description from a reputable source of how the UN has conducted it's investigation so far.
<br> <br>
Further, the IPCC has a budget of $5-6 million per annum and none of the roughly 2500 scientists who compile the reports recieve a single penny of it in remmuneration. A small portion goes to the 2 or 3 paid staff but I will leave it at an exercise for you to actually visit their site and inspect their finiancial accounts to find out how they spend the rest of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ ucsusa.org ] is a description from a reputable source of how the UN has conducted it 's investigation so far .
Further , the IPCC has a budget of $ 5-6 million per annum and none of the roughly 2500 scientists who compile the reports recieve a single penny of it in remmuneration .
A small portion goes to the 2 or 3 paid staff but I will leave it at an exercise for you to actually visit their site and inspect their finiancial accounts to find out how they spend the rest of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here [ucsusa.org] is a description from a reputable source of how the UN has conducted it's investigation so far.
Further, the IPCC has a budget of $5-6 million per annum and none of the roughly 2500 scientists who compile the reports recieve a single penny of it in remmuneration.
A small portion goes to the 2 or 3 paid staff but I will leave it at an exercise for you to actually visit their site and inspect their finiancial accounts to find out how they spend the rest of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335048</id>
	<title>Why the need to supress debate?</title>
	<author>Saint Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1260029580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's such god-damnned good science, why then are people saying "we must not have any more debate.  Debate is closed.  It's time to move on."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's such god-damnned good science , why then are people saying " we must not have any more debate .
Debate is closed .
It 's time to move on .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's such god-damnned good science, why then are people saying "we must not have any more debate.
Debate is closed.
It's time to move on.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792</id>
	<title>Those that want to be bamboozled...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... will be bamboozled. There is nothing new in that. It lies behind all political folly.</p><p>The data that was adjusted was paleoclimate data, and what it was being adjusted to was temperature data (i.e., the more reliable modern temperature data). As far as I can tell, they neither could nor did adjust the measured temperature data.</p><p>The OP did not quote the really important part of the Nature piece :</p><p><i>Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real &mdash; or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.</i></p><p>The evidence for this is literally all around us. Throw all of the CRU data out if you want. It won't change a thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... will be bamboozled .
There is nothing new in that .
It lies behind all political folly.The data that was adjusted was paleoclimate data , and what it was being adjusted to was temperature data ( i.e. , the more reliable modern temperature data ) .
As far as I can tell , they neither could nor did adjust the measured temperature data.The OP did not quote the really important part of the Nature piece : Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real    or that human activities are almost certainly the cause .
That case is supported by multiple , robust lines of evidence , including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.The evidence for this is literally all around us .
Throw all of the CRU data out if you want .
It wo n't change a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... will be bamboozled.
There is nothing new in that.
It lies behind all political folly.The data that was adjusted was paleoclimate data, and what it was being adjusted to was temperature data (i.e., the more reliable modern temperature data).
As far as I can tell, they neither could nor did adjust the measured temperature data.The OP did not quote the really important part of the Nature piece :Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.
That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.The evidence for this is literally all around us.
Throw all of the CRU data out if you want.
It won't change a thing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339154</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1260014700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i sort of approve of nicolas of cusa, so i find value in soverign nation states.</p><p>looking at some trends, I think policy options like world fascist government, killing five billion people, and going backwards on tech are all in play.  I figure the motivations do not have much to with whatever science you think you have.  So you do not get to be left alone to decide what to do.  Thinking you should be, as a serious position, is a little odd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i sort of approve of nicolas of cusa , so i find value in soverign nation states.looking at some trends , I think policy options like world fascist government , killing five billion people , and going backwards on tech are all in play .
I figure the motivations do not have much to with whatever science you think you have .
So you do not get to be left alone to decide what to do .
Thinking you should be , as a serious position , is a little odd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i sort of approve of nicolas of cusa, so i find value in soverign nation states.looking at some trends, I think policy options like world fascist government, killing five billion people, and going backwards on tech are all in play.
I figure the motivations do not have much to with whatever science you think you have.
So you do not get to be left alone to decide what to do.
Thinking you should be, as a serious position, is a little odd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335112</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260030000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people who are trying to sow FUD against AGW know that it doesn't matter what was actually in those emails.  What matters is the <b>accusations</b> that they can hurl about without anyone really challenging them.<p>We thought that the media had grown a pair of proverbial balls after the Bush fiasco, but we were wrong.  It almost seems to be going in the wrong direction, where they are less challenging than they were before for fear of *not* getting that interview.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who are trying to sow FUD against AGW know that it does n't matter what was actually in those emails .
What matters is the accusations that they can hurl about without anyone really challenging them.We thought that the media had grown a pair of proverbial balls after the Bush fiasco , but we were wrong .
It almost seems to be going in the wrong direction , where they are less challenging than they were before for fear of * not * getting that interview .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who are trying to sow FUD against AGW know that it doesn't matter what was actually in those emails.
What matters is the accusations that they can hurl about without anyone really challenging them.We thought that the media had grown a pair of proverbial balls after the Bush fiasco, but we were wrong.
It almost seems to be going in the wrong direction, where they are less challenging than they were before for fear of *not* getting that interview.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335020</id>
	<title>Re:Indirection, folks</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1260029340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! This 'paper' contains almost the record number of lies per square centimeter of screen.</p><p>There's a lot of impressive-looking equations mixed with easily verified lies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
This 'paper ' contains almost the record number of lies per square centimeter of screen.There 's a lot of impressive-looking equations mixed with easily verified lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
This 'paper' contains almost the record number of lies per square centimeter of screen.There's a lot of impressive-looking equations mixed with easily verified lies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335440</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260032880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There comes a point where the scientific evidence in support of a theory is so overwhelming that those who deny its truth are either ignorant or denialists.</p><p>We don't take HIV/AIDS denialism seriously, we don't take tobacco/lung cancer denialists seriously, we don't take moon landing conspiracy theorists seriously, we don't take young earth creationists seriously. While there is some uncertainty in the ultimate extent of climate change (as with any scientific prediction), the fundamentals (i.e. radiative forcing due to CO2, the fact that we are responsible for recent increases in CO2, the fact that feedback mechanisms exist which enhance our climate sensitivity) are very well understood, and multiple independent measurements of the temperature confirm that the earth is indeed heating at a statistically significant rate.</p><p>It's actually funny watching the denialists backtrack further and further at each step that they are debunked. Carbon dioxide levels haven't increased. Okay, they have increased, but humans aren't responsible. Okay, we are responsible, but temperatures haven't increased as a result. Okay, temperatures are increasing, carbon dioxide levels are increasing, and we are responsible for it, but Glenn Beck tells me it's a conspiracy by Obama to introduce a global socialist government. Okay, these conspiracy theories are a little nutty - what's the problem with global warming? We should embrace it. Okay, maybe we shouldn't embrace it, but it's too hard to stop it. Let's give up.</p><p>For those who understand the science, there is no doubt in the fact that man is contributing to increases in the global temperature. For everyone else, there's always Fox News.</p><p>Honestly, I expected better from Slashdot. Most here seem to have taken the conspiracy theorist nonsense hook, line and sinker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There comes a point where the scientific evidence in support of a theory is so overwhelming that those who deny its truth are either ignorant or denialists.We do n't take HIV/AIDS denialism seriously , we do n't take tobacco/lung cancer denialists seriously , we do n't take moon landing conspiracy theorists seriously , we do n't take young earth creationists seriously .
While there is some uncertainty in the ultimate extent of climate change ( as with any scientific prediction ) , the fundamentals ( i.e .
radiative forcing due to CO2 , the fact that we are responsible for recent increases in CO2 , the fact that feedback mechanisms exist which enhance our climate sensitivity ) are very well understood , and multiple independent measurements of the temperature confirm that the earth is indeed heating at a statistically significant rate.It 's actually funny watching the denialists backtrack further and further at each step that they are debunked .
Carbon dioxide levels have n't increased .
Okay , they have increased , but humans are n't responsible .
Okay , we are responsible , but temperatures have n't increased as a result .
Okay , temperatures are increasing , carbon dioxide levels are increasing , and we are responsible for it , but Glenn Beck tells me it 's a conspiracy by Obama to introduce a global socialist government .
Okay , these conspiracy theories are a little nutty - what 's the problem with global warming ?
We should embrace it .
Okay , maybe we should n't embrace it , but it 's too hard to stop it .
Let 's give up.For those who understand the science , there is no doubt in the fact that man is contributing to increases in the global temperature .
For everyone else , there 's always Fox News.Honestly , I expected better from Slashdot .
Most here seem to have taken the conspiracy theorist nonsense hook , line and sinker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There comes a point where the scientific evidence in support of a theory is so overwhelming that those who deny its truth are either ignorant or denialists.We don't take HIV/AIDS denialism seriously, we don't take tobacco/lung cancer denialists seriously, we don't take moon landing conspiracy theorists seriously, we don't take young earth creationists seriously.
While there is some uncertainty in the ultimate extent of climate change (as with any scientific prediction), the fundamentals (i.e.
radiative forcing due to CO2, the fact that we are responsible for recent increases in CO2, the fact that feedback mechanisms exist which enhance our climate sensitivity) are very well understood, and multiple independent measurements of the temperature confirm that the earth is indeed heating at a statistically significant rate.It's actually funny watching the denialists backtrack further and further at each step that they are debunked.
Carbon dioxide levels haven't increased.
Okay, they have increased, but humans aren't responsible.
Okay, we are responsible, but temperatures haven't increased as a result.
Okay, temperatures are increasing, carbon dioxide levels are increasing, and we are responsible for it, but Glenn Beck tells me it's a conspiracy by Obama to introduce a global socialist government.
Okay, these conspiracy theories are a little nutty - what's the problem with global warming?
We should embrace it.
Okay, maybe we shouldn't embrace it, but it's too hard to stop it.
Let's give up.For those who understand the science, there is no doubt in the fact that man is contributing to increases in the global temperature.
For everyone else, there's always Fox News.Honestly, I expected better from Slashdot.
Most here seem to have taken the conspiracy theorist nonsense hook, line and sinker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334678</id>
	<title>Unfortunate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260026700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are items of interest--even if determined irrelevant in the end--to discuss.</p><p>This is as if immediately after the Kennedy assassination the government was saying "there is nothing to see, move along, move along"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are items of interest--even if determined irrelevant in the end--to discuss.This is as if immediately after the Kennedy assassination the government was saying " there is nothing to see , move along , move along "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are items of interest--even if determined irrelevant in the end--to discuss.This is as if immediately after the Kennedy assassination the government was saying "there is nothing to see, move along, move along"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335360</id>
	<title>Re:Those that want to be bamboozled...</title>
	<author>bhima</author>
	<datestamp>1260032280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you are absolutely right... and it amazes how desperately some folks want to be bamboozled</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you are absolutely right... and it amazes how desperately some folks want to be bamboozled</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are absolutely right... and it amazes how desperately some folks want to be bamboozled</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340414</id>
	<title>Re:Almost</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1260025740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point. We can't let a few suspect emails destroy millions of dollars in research grants.</p></div><p>Fixed it for you.</p></div><p>Do you honestly believe that tens of thousands of scientists around the world are engaging in a global conspiracy of fraud in order to obtain research grants? That the national academies of science of every major industrialised nation are actively working to perpetuate a fraud against the entire human species merely in order to obtain research grants? This does not sound a little far-fetched?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point .
We ca n't let a few suspect emails destroy millions of dollars in research grants.Fixed it for you.Do you honestly believe that tens of thousands of scientists around the world are engaging in a global conspiracy of fraud in order to obtain research grants ?
That the national academies of science of every major industrialised nation are actively working to perpetuate a fraud against the entire human species merely in order to obtain research grants ?
This does not sound a little far-fetched ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point.
We can't let a few suspect emails destroy millions of dollars in research grants.Fixed it for you.Do you honestly believe that tens of thousands of scientists around the world are engaging in a global conspiracy of fraud in order to obtain research grants?
That the national academies of science of every major industrialised nation are actively working to perpetuate a fraud against the entire human species merely in order to obtain research grants?
This does not sound a little far-fetched?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341826</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1260090540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strawman.</p><p>The accusation in this scandal is not that there is a worldwide conspiracy blah blah blah -- the accusation is that the people involved are not doing credible science, and yet we base our policies on climate change on them.</p><p>And that's a real problem, which needs to be rectified somehow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strawman.The accusation in this scandal is not that there is a worldwide conspiracy blah blah blah -- the accusation is that the people involved are not doing credible science , and yet we base our policies on climate change on them.And that 's a real problem , which needs to be rectified somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strawman.The accusation in this scandal is not that there is a worldwide conspiracy blah blah blah -- the accusation is that the people involved are not doing credible science, and yet we base our policies on climate change on them.And that's a real problem, which needs to be rectified somehow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334740</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>hcpxvi</author>
	<datestamp>1260027300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both the Nature article mentioned in the summary and the NS article linked by Idiomatick are clear and sensible articles and well worth a read. I do not, of course, hold out any hope that they will prevent the oil company shills and SUV drivers from baying for blood.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both the Nature article mentioned in the summary and the NS article linked by Idiomatick are clear and sensible articles and well worth a read .
I do not , of course , hold out any hope that they will prevent the oil company shills and SUV drivers from baying for blood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both the Nature article mentioned in the summary and the NS article linked by Idiomatick are clear and sensible articles and well worth a read.
I do not, of course, hold out any hope that they will prevent the oil company shills and SUV drivers from baying for blood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335504</id>
	<title>Re:What's next? Pedophilia?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1260033420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As opposed to the liberal smear campaign of the last few years where anyone who didn't treat AGW as an article of faith was endlessly ridiculed and accused of all manner of dark motives?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to the liberal smear campaign of the last few years where anyone who did n't treat AGW as an article of faith was endlessly ridiculed and accused of all manner of dark motives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to the liberal smear campaign of the last few years where anyone who didn't treat AGW as an article of faith was endlessly ridiculed and accused of all manner of dark motives?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334764</id>
	<title>Still curious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why these so-called scientists are telling everyone to "move along, nothing to see here" while ignoring the fact that the global climate has not warmed, but done just the opposite.  If the data is so strong, why did the hacked emails reveal intentional distortion of the data and collusion to suppress opposing viewpoints?  Is this an "ends-justifies-the-means" thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why these so-called scientists are telling everyone to " move along , nothing to see here " while ignoring the fact that the global climate has not warmed , but done just the opposite .
If the data is so strong , why did the hacked emails reveal intentional distortion of the data and collusion to suppress opposing viewpoints ?
Is this an " ends-justifies-the-means " thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why these so-called scientists are telling everyone to "move along, nothing to see here" while ignoring the fact that the global climate has not warmed, but done just the opposite.
If the data is so strong, why did the hacked emails reveal intentional distortion of the data and collusion to suppress opposing viewpoints?
Is this an "ends-justifies-the-means" thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335076</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1260029820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research."</p><p>Of course not.  But when the main suppliers of that information to policy makers turn out to be advocates of a dogma with a vested interest in manipulating that data, in colluding to hide contrary information, in DISPOSING (whups!  accident!) of the raw data sets that they've compiled, attacking critics, and generally behaving as if they have something to conceal, it IS possible for those individuals to taint that research and especially the conclusions drawn therefrom.</p><p>Who Watches the Watchmen, indeed?</p><p>It's a known psychological fact that very often the victims of a con will be the most vociferous defenders of the con artists - they are now defending their own reputation and self-image, no longer mere facts of 'does this snake oil work or not?'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research .
" Of course not .
But when the main suppliers of that information to policy makers turn out to be advocates of a dogma with a vested interest in manipulating that data , in colluding to hide contrary information , in DISPOSING ( whups !
accident ! ) of the raw data sets that they 've compiled , attacking critics , and generally behaving as if they have something to conceal , it IS possible for those individuals to taint that research and especially the conclusions drawn therefrom.Who Watches the Watchmen , indeed ? It 's a known psychological fact that very often the victims of a con will be the most vociferous defenders of the con artists - they are now defending their own reputation and self-image , no longer mere facts of 'does this snake oil work or not ?
' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.
"Of course not.
But when the main suppliers of that information to policy makers turn out to be advocates of a dogma with a vested interest in manipulating that data, in colluding to hide contrary information, in DISPOSING (whups!
accident!) of the raw data sets that they've compiled, attacking critics, and generally behaving as if they have something to conceal, it IS possible for those individuals to taint that research and especially the conclusions drawn therefrom.Who Watches the Watchmen, indeed?It's a known psychological fact that very often the victims of a con will be the most vociferous defenders of the con artists - they are now defending their own reputation and self-image, no longer mere facts of 'does this snake oil work or not?
'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335618</id>
	<title>It's all a conspiracy, I tell you!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anthropogenic global warming is just a conspiracy by the evil climatologists to steal our money and freedom. Never mind that it's an entire scientific field and thus a massive amount of people would have to be involved in this conspiracy, so many there's no chance they'd go even a day without a leak. Never mind that they've known about and been researching global warming for far longer than governments have been paying it attention, and thus they must've been working on this for decades on the minor chance they'd be able to expand the influence of the next generation of climatologists (or was the earlier research valid but the newer research is somehow flawed?). Never mind that pretty much every major scientific organization backs the theory of AGW; clearly the broader scientific community is just in the pockets of the powerful green lobby (note how green is a color just like red CONNECT THE DOTS MY FRIENDS). Also I'm pretty sure the Freemasons figure into it somehow.</p><p>Teach the controversy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anthropogenic global warming is just a conspiracy by the evil climatologists to steal our money and freedom .
Never mind that it 's an entire scientific field and thus a massive amount of people would have to be involved in this conspiracy , so many there 's no chance they 'd go even a day without a leak .
Never mind that they 've known about and been researching global warming for far longer than governments have been paying it attention , and thus they must 've been working on this for decades on the minor chance they 'd be able to expand the influence of the next generation of climatologists ( or was the earlier research valid but the newer research is somehow flawed ? ) .
Never mind that pretty much every major scientific organization backs the theory of AGW ; clearly the broader scientific community is just in the pockets of the powerful green lobby ( note how green is a color just like red CONNECT THE DOTS MY FRIENDS ) .
Also I 'm pretty sure the Freemasons figure into it somehow.Teach the controversy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anthropogenic global warming is just a conspiracy by the evil climatologists to steal our money and freedom.
Never mind that it's an entire scientific field and thus a massive amount of people would have to be involved in this conspiracy, so many there's no chance they'd go even a day without a leak.
Never mind that they've known about and been researching global warming for far longer than governments have been paying it attention, and thus they must've been working on this for decades on the minor chance they'd be able to expand the influence of the next generation of climatologists (or was the earlier research valid but the newer research is somehow flawed?).
Never mind that pretty much every major scientific organization backs the theory of AGW; clearly the broader scientific community is just in the pockets of the powerful green lobby (note how green is a color just like red CONNECT THE DOTS MY FRIENDS).
Also I'm pretty sure the Freemasons figure into it somehow.Teach the controversy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334718</id>
	<title>Nice explanation in potholer54's video</title>
	<author>sucker\_muts</author>
	<datestamp>1260027060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This video explains quite clearly how these leaks and the reactions on it should be placed in their correct context:<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This video explains quite clearly how these leaks and the reactions on it should be placed in their correct context : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 7nnVQ2fROOg [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This video explains quite clearly how these leaks and the reactions on it should be placed in their correct context: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774</id>
	<title>How they acted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>however, what matters is how they acted.</p></div><p>They weren't just saying things in those emails, they were acting on it. Scientific Journal is acting like all those emails were part of a fairytale and none of it ever happened.
<br> <br>
In the one email, the author is quoted saying that he "adjusted the numbers." Last time I checked "adjusted" is past tense meaning that he did something. That's not the same as "I can adjust the numbers if you want me to."
<br> <br>
If AGW was actually happening, there would be no need to "adjust" numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emails.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>however , what matters is how they acted.They were n't just saying things in those emails , they were acting on it .
Scientific Journal is acting like all those emails were part of a fairytale and none of it ever happened .
In the one email , the author is quoted saying that he " adjusted the numbers .
" Last time I checked " adjusted " is past tense meaning that he did something .
That 's not the same as " I can adjust the numbers if you want me to .
" If AGW was actually happening , there would be no need to " adjust " numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>however, what matters is how they acted.They weren't just saying things in those emails, they were acting on it.
Scientific Journal is acting like all those emails were part of a fairytale and none of it ever happened.
In the one email, the author is quoted saying that he "adjusted the numbers.
" Last time I checked "adjusted" is past tense meaning that he did something.
That's not the same as "I can adjust the numbers if you want me to.
"
 
If AGW was actually happening, there would be no need to "adjust" numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emails.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339194</id>
	<title>Move along</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1260014880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing to see here folks. Move along. These eco-lunies want nothing less than control of the world economy. You gotta admire their psychotic ambition. Copenhagen is gonna be a total fiasco. What fun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing to see here folks .
Move along .
These eco-lunies want nothing less than control of the world economy .
You got ta admire their psychotic ambition .
Copenhagen is gon na be a total fiasco .
What fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.
These eco-lunies want nothing less than control of the world economy.
You gotta admire their psychotic ambition.
Copenhagen is gonna be a total fiasco.
What fun!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335002</id>
	<title>Re:How they acted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260029280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, he "adjusted" the numbers and then backed out the adjustment.  He's was playing around with the data.  What's your point.</p><p>The so-called skeptics are really getting me down.  Doesn't anyone do critical thinking any more?  The deniers are giving a bad name to skeptics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , he " adjusted " the numbers and then backed out the adjustment .
He 's was playing around with the data .
What 's your point.The so-called skeptics are really getting me down .
Does n't anyone do critical thinking any more ?
The deniers are giving a bad name to skeptics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, he "adjusted" the numbers and then backed out the adjustment.
He's was playing around with the data.
What's your point.The so-called skeptics are really getting me down.
Doesn't anyone do critical thinking any more?
The deniers are giving a bad name to skeptics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334728</id>
	<title>Data thrown away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since they have no data anymore, how can anything they claim be seen as anything other than fantasy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they have no data anymore , how can anything they claim be seen as anything other than fantasy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they have no data anymore, how can anything they claim be seen as anything other than fantasy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334692</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260026880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.</p></div></blockquote><p>If data that all those millions of man-hours of research is based on is bogus then the conclusions are worthless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.If data that all those millions of man-hours of research is based on is bogus then the conclusions are worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.If data that all those millions of man-hours of research is based on is bogus then the conclusions are worthless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337002</id>
	<title>Raw stupidity on display</title>
	<author>Dobeln</author>
	<datestamp>1260042240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The people who are trying to sow FUD against AGW know that it doesn't matter what was actually in those emails."</p><p>a) They are online. It's not hard to check.</p><p>b) Do you seriously think that "it doesn't matter" what is actually in the emails (and data)? If they had been all about ordering takeout and yesterday's game, would anyone have cared? The answer is obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The people who are trying to sow FUD against AGW know that it does n't matter what was actually in those emails .
" a ) They are online .
It 's not hard to check.b ) Do you seriously think that " it does n't matter " what is actually in the emails ( and data ) ?
If they had been all about ordering takeout and yesterday 's game , would anyone have cared ?
The answer is obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The people who are trying to sow FUD against AGW know that it doesn't matter what was actually in those emails.
"a) They are online.
It's not hard to check.b) Do you seriously think that "it doesn't matter" what is actually in the emails (and data)?
If they had been all about ordering takeout and yesterday's game, would anyone have cared?
The answer is obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338084</id>
	<title>Glad I read Slashdot</title>
	<author>rbrander</author>
	<datestamp>1260006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just wanted to say: while I normally read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. set at "Score 4", within those limits, it's really, really nice to be reading here rather than the letters column of most newspapers.</p><p>There are for and against postings, but they're all arguing the scientific procedures based on established rules for what kinds of data-reduction are acceptable and not.</p><p>It's the first place I've been in the last 3 days that isn't just people shouting "It's a fraud" and "It's nothing at all" at each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wanted to say : while I normally read / .
set at " Score 4 " , within those limits , it 's really , really nice to be reading here rather than the letters column of most newspapers.There are for and against postings , but they 're all arguing the scientific procedures based on established rules for what kinds of data-reduction are acceptable and not.It 's the first place I 've been in the last 3 days that is n't just people shouting " It 's a fraud " and " It 's nothing at all " at each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wanted to say: while I normally read /.
set at "Score 4", within those limits, it's really, really nice to be reading here rather than the letters column of most newspapers.There are for and against postings, but they're all arguing the scientific procedures based on established rules for what kinds of data-reduction are acceptable and not.It's the first place I've been in the last 3 days that isn't just people shouting "It's a fraud" and "It's nothing at all" at each other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335648</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1260034380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely right, BUT it is worse, since the early 60's the SRCs SERC ESRC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... have ruled funding in science in British Universities, and as I said then, politicised it. Thus ALL UK Universities now have Barons like those at Imperial College, London in the 1940-60 time frame; this is not an accident it is the DELIBERATE politiziation of SCIENCE, SOCIAL&amp;#160;SCIENCE and ECONOMICS<br><br>A much more interseting question is why, when these idiots have been allowed to drive a coach and horses though the scientific method, and are still being protected by the media, after a long period of unprecedented funding, no DISRUPTIVE technologies eg Fusion have progressed.<br><br>And while I despair of some of the libertarian wackjobs in the US it is VERY clear that there is something very, very wrong with education in both the US and Europe.<br><br>But the parent is exactly right, The Genie is OUT the BOTTLE, and cannot be forced back in so AGW is over and the Carbon taxes will NEVER get enacted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely right , BUT it is worse , since the early 60 's the SRCs SERC ESRC ... have ruled funding in science in British Universities , and as I said then , politicised it .
Thus ALL UK Universities now have Barons like those at Imperial College , London in the 1940-60 time frame ; this is not an accident it is the DELIBERATE politiziation of SCIENCE , SOCIAL   SCIENCE and ECONOMICSA much more interseting question is why , when these idiots have been allowed to drive a coach and horses though the scientific method , and are still being protected by the media , after a long period of unprecedented funding , no DISRUPTIVE technologies eg Fusion have progressed.And while I despair of some of the libertarian wackjobs in the US it is VERY clear that there is something very , very wrong with education in both the US and Europe.But the parent is exactly right , The Genie is OUT the BOTTLE , and can not be forced back in so AGW is over and the Carbon taxes will NEVER get enacted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely right, BUT it is worse, since the early 60's the SRCs SERC ESRC ... have ruled funding in science in British Universities, and as I said then, politicised it.
Thus ALL UK Universities now have Barons like those at Imperial College, London in the 1940-60 time frame; this is not an accident it is the DELIBERATE politiziation of SCIENCE, SOCIAL SCIENCE and ECONOMICSA much more interseting question is why, when these idiots have been allowed to drive a coach and horses though the scientific method, and are still being protected by the media, after a long period of unprecedented funding, no DISRUPTIVE technologies eg Fusion have progressed.And while I despair of some of the libertarian wackjobs in the US it is VERY clear that there is something very, very wrong with education in both the US and Europe.But the parent is exactly right, The Genie is OUT the BOTTLE, and cannot be forced back in so AGW is over and the Carbon taxes will NEVER get enacted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335260</id>
	<title>i have one question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260031140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can these people ever tell me when the climate was in a steady state?</p><p>It seems to me that the climate has always been in a state of flux and we're just committing an extreme act of hubris to say that we are having the final and greatest affect on the global climate.  Even if we are then there's still nothing to worry about and nothing that can be done since, unlike many who think that our actions are somehow not a part of nature, we are just following our natural course and things will come out however that nature intends.  A few brains in a think tank telling the world to cripple its economy to satisfy some computer models aren't going to stop the masses of people who are just doing what they think they need to do to survive whether those models are true or not.</p><p>It doesn't matter what natural system you look at or at what level, organisms will take advantage of whatever resources are available to increase their numbers and activity until the resources are depleted and the population collapses.  A few will mutate to take advantage of whatever the previous generations have left behind and carry on and do the same thing.</p><p>Whether considered man made or naturally occurring, whether in the next few decades or in the next few centuries, humanity will likely face a near extinction event from it's own activities and the only solace that one can take it that, in the end, we're probably harder to kill, as a species, than the cockroaches.  Heck, we'll probably drive them to extinction by eating them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can these people ever tell me when the climate was in a steady state ? It seems to me that the climate has always been in a state of flux and we 're just committing an extreme act of hubris to say that we are having the final and greatest affect on the global climate .
Even if we are then there 's still nothing to worry about and nothing that can be done since , unlike many who think that our actions are somehow not a part of nature , we are just following our natural course and things will come out however that nature intends .
A few brains in a think tank telling the world to cripple its economy to satisfy some computer models are n't going to stop the masses of people who are just doing what they think they need to do to survive whether those models are true or not.It does n't matter what natural system you look at or at what level , organisms will take advantage of whatever resources are available to increase their numbers and activity until the resources are depleted and the population collapses .
A few will mutate to take advantage of whatever the previous generations have left behind and carry on and do the same thing.Whether considered man made or naturally occurring , whether in the next few decades or in the next few centuries , humanity will likely face a near extinction event from it 's own activities and the only solace that one can take it that , in the end , we 're probably harder to kill , as a species , than the cockroaches .
Heck , we 'll probably drive them to extinction by eating them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can these people ever tell me when the climate was in a steady state?It seems to me that the climate has always been in a state of flux and we're just committing an extreme act of hubris to say that we are having the final and greatest affect on the global climate.
Even if we are then there's still nothing to worry about and nothing that can be done since, unlike many who think that our actions are somehow not a part of nature, we are just following our natural course and things will come out however that nature intends.
A few brains in a think tank telling the world to cripple its economy to satisfy some computer models aren't going to stop the masses of people who are just doing what they think they need to do to survive whether those models are true or not.It doesn't matter what natural system you look at or at what level, organisms will take advantage of whatever resources are available to increase their numbers and activity until the resources are depleted and the population collapses.
A few will mutate to take advantage of whatever the previous generations have left behind and carry on and do the same thing.Whether considered man made or naturally occurring, whether in the next few decades or in the next few centuries, humanity will likely face a near extinction event from it's own activities and the only solace that one can take it that, in the end, we're probably harder to kill, as a species, than the cockroaches.
Heck, we'll probably drive them to extinction by eating them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337962</id>
	<title>Nature Is a Co-Conspirator</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260005340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL. Nature and New Scientist need to cover their asses since they are part and parcel of the greatest scientific fraud in human history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
Nature and New Scientist need to cover their asses since they are part and parcel of the greatest scientific fraud in human history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
Nature and New Scientist need to cover their asses since they are part and parcel of the greatest scientific fraud in human history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335202</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260030660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The operative word in your post is "if". eg: If the "skeptics" stop hand waving and come up with some evidence then your speculation might have some merit. However it would still fail to explain why other completely independent data sets concur with the HADCrut set.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The operative word in your post is " if " .
eg : If the " skeptics " stop hand waving and come up with some evidence then your speculation might have some merit .
However it would still fail to explain why other completely independent data sets concur with the HADCrut set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The operative word in your post is "if".
eg: If the "skeptics" stop hand waving and come up with some evidence then your speculation might have some merit.
However it would still fail to explain why other completely independent data sets concur with the HADCrut set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335058</id>
	<title>Re:Indirection, folks</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1260029640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a complete pile of wibble. "Climatologic radiation balance diagrams are nonsense, since they...do not fit in the framework of Feynman diagrams". WTF???? A fine example of "when you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a complete pile of wibble .
" Climatologic radiation balance diagrams are nonsense , since they...do not fit in the framework of Feynman diagrams " .
WTF ? ? ? ? A fine example of " when you ca n't dazzle them with brilliance , baffle them with bullshit " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a complete pile of wibble.
"Climatologic radiation balance diagrams are nonsense, since they...do not fit in the framework of Feynman diagrams".
WTF???? A fine example of "when you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340006</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>tiqui</author>
	<datestamp>1260021780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They <b>do</b> destroy it when they show a pattern of the most basic manipulations of science and the peer review process and of who and what gets published</p><p>I am sorry, but a few sympathetic publishers of AGW articles riding in to the rescue of AGW paper writers (who have privately admitted to working very hard to make sure that only people who agree with them can get published or be editors at publications) serves more to raise my eyebrows and ask if these publications were involved in the manipulation of publications. <b>That</b> is just how bad it is when scientists choose to manipulate their peers, the process, and the public</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do destroy it when they show a pattern of the most basic manipulations of science and the peer review process and of who and what gets publishedI am sorry , but a few sympathetic publishers of AGW articles riding in to the rescue of AGW paper writers ( who have privately admitted to working very hard to make sure that only people who agree with them can get published or be editors at publications ) serves more to raise my eyebrows and ask if these publications were involved in the manipulation of publications .
That is just how bad it is when scientists choose to manipulate their peers , the process , and the public</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do destroy it when they show a pattern of the most basic manipulations of science and the peer review process and of who and what gets publishedI am sorry, but a few sympathetic publishers of AGW articles riding in to the rescue of AGW paper writers (who have privately admitted to working very hard to make sure that only people who agree with them can get published or be editors at publications) serves more to raise my eyebrows and ask if these publications were involved in the manipulation of publications.
That is just how bad it is when scientists choose to manipulate their peers, the process, and the public</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341128</id>
	<title>Re:Those that want to be bamboozled...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1260034800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The data that was adjusted was paleoclimate data, and what it was being adjusted to was temperature data (i.e., the more reliable modern temperature data).</p></div><p>Looking at this a bit deeper, it's worth remember that temperature data is a modern artifact, it doesn't exist prior to somewhere around the start of the Industrial Age. A good prediction from paleoclimate data is essential to extrapolate from modern temperature observations to the more distant past for which we don't have temperature data. A key question is whether there is any warming due to human activity. Certain AGW skeptics are claiming that within the past millennium, global temperature has been warmer than it is today. If that is true, then it's a strong indication that the effects of solar input have been underestimated by current climate models. The only thing that can disprove that claim is paleoclimate data.<br> <br>

Paleoclimate data also is the bridge with geological climate data. We know that climate over the past few hundred million years (after the establishment of the current nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere) has varied tremendously due to variations in solar energy influx and the composition of the atmosphere (CO2 concentrations have varied by more than an order of magnitude).<br> <br>

The raw paleoclimate data seems uncorrupted, but the aggregation of that data is now suspect. This has what appears to me to be subtle yet profound effects on the entire body of climate science. It affects the models, our understanding of past climate changes, and most important, our perception of current risks. The "science" hasn't changed, but we may well find out that we didn't know the science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The data that was adjusted was paleoclimate data , and what it was being adjusted to was temperature data ( i.e. , the more reliable modern temperature data ) .Looking at this a bit deeper , it 's worth remember that temperature data is a modern artifact , it does n't exist prior to somewhere around the start of the Industrial Age .
A good prediction from paleoclimate data is essential to extrapolate from modern temperature observations to the more distant past for which we do n't have temperature data .
A key question is whether there is any warming due to human activity .
Certain AGW skeptics are claiming that within the past millennium , global temperature has been warmer than it is today .
If that is true , then it 's a strong indication that the effects of solar input have been underestimated by current climate models .
The only thing that can disprove that claim is paleoclimate data .
Paleoclimate data also is the bridge with geological climate data .
We know that climate over the past few hundred million years ( after the establishment of the current nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere ) has varied tremendously due to variations in solar energy influx and the composition of the atmosphere ( CO2 concentrations have varied by more than an order of magnitude ) .
The raw paleoclimate data seems uncorrupted , but the aggregation of that data is now suspect .
This has what appears to me to be subtle yet profound effects on the entire body of climate science .
It affects the models , our understanding of past climate changes , and most important , our perception of current risks .
The " science " has n't changed , but we may well find out that we did n't know the science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The data that was adjusted was paleoclimate data, and what it was being adjusted to was temperature data (i.e., the more reliable modern temperature data).Looking at this a bit deeper, it's worth remember that temperature data is a modern artifact, it doesn't exist prior to somewhere around the start of the Industrial Age.
A good prediction from paleoclimate data is essential to extrapolate from modern temperature observations to the more distant past for which we don't have temperature data.
A key question is whether there is any warming due to human activity.
Certain AGW skeptics are claiming that within the past millennium, global temperature has been warmer than it is today.
If that is true, then it's a strong indication that the effects of solar input have been underestimated by current climate models.
The only thing that can disprove that claim is paleoclimate data.
Paleoclimate data also is the bridge with geological climate data.
We know that climate over the past few hundred million years (after the establishment of the current nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere) has varied tremendously due to variations in solar energy influx and the composition of the atmosphere (CO2 concentrations have varied by more than an order of magnitude).
The raw paleoclimate data seems uncorrupted, but the aggregation of that data is now suspect.
This has what appears to me to be subtle yet profound effects on the entire body of climate science.
It affects the models, our understanding of past climate changes, and most important, our perception of current risks.
The "science" hasn't changed, but we may well find out that we didn't know the science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340562</id>
	<title>Nothing notable?  Really!</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1260027300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
So email evidence of data forgery, refusal to comply with FOIA requests, and attempts to silence dissenting opinion is nothing notable?
</p><p>
Perhaps <i>Nature</i> considers these part and parcel of regular science.  I don't, however, and I think most scientists would be shocked and horrified to learn the new rules.
</p><p>
Granted, the overwhelming majority of the emails show nothing more than the normal scientific process.  Apparently, whomever selected those in FOIA.zip is unaware of the normal peer review process.  However, if only by chance, they did find evidence of:
</p><ul>
<li>A conspiracy to thwart a FOIA request.</li>
<li>The appearance, at least, that certain scientists were applying a correction to the data in order to get the results they desired.(the "1940's blip")</li>
<li>A revealing email where scientists suggested not submitting papers to a journal which published dissenting papers.</li>
<li>A revealing text file "harry\_read\_me" in which the writer displays ignorance of numeric overflow, missing data sets, and arbitrarily generating missing or unavailable data.</li>
<li>A debate about the reliability of dendrochronology data as a proxy for temperature.</li>
</ul><p>
Granted, I may not believe the GW conspiracy theorists, but this development is very troubling.  While climatology as a whole is probably unaffected, those making public policy cannot rely on the resuts published by Mann, et al, until the investigation is finished.  While this may not have long term effects on the scientific problem of GW, it certainly affects the political aspects of it.
</p><p>
But then again, if <i>Nature</i> sees nothing wrong with forging data to get the result you want, perhaps all of science is doomed.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So email evidence of data forgery , refusal to comply with FOIA requests , and attempts to silence dissenting opinion is nothing notable ?
Perhaps Nature considers these part and parcel of regular science .
I do n't , however , and I think most scientists would be shocked and horrified to learn the new rules .
Granted , the overwhelming majority of the emails show nothing more than the normal scientific process .
Apparently , whomever selected those in FOIA.zip is unaware of the normal peer review process .
However , if only by chance , they did find evidence of : A conspiracy to thwart a FOIA request .
The appearance , at least , that certain scientists were applying a correction to the data in order to get the results they desired .
( the " 1940 's blip " ) A revealing email where scientists suggested not submitting papers to a journal which published dissenting papers .
A revealing text file " harry \ _read \ _me " in which the writer displays ignorance of numeric overflow , missing data sets , and arbitrarily generating missing or unavailable data .
A debate about the reliability of dendrochronology data as a proxy for temperature .
Granted , I may not believe the GW conspiracy theorists , but this development is very troubling .
While climatology as a whole is probably unaffected , those making public policy can not rely on the resuts published by Mann , et al , until the investigation is finished .
While this may not have long term effects on the scientific problem of GW , it certainly affects the political aspects of it .
But then again , if Nature sees nothing wrong with forging data to get the result you want , perhaps all of science is doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
So email evidence of data forgery, refusal to comply with FOIA requests, and attempts to silence dissenting opinion is nothing notable?
Perhaps Nature considers these part and parcel of regular science.
I don't, however, and I think most scientists would be shocked and horrified to learn the new rules.
Granted, the overwhelming majority of the emails show nothing more than the normal scientific process.
Apparently, whomever selected those in FOIA.zip is unaware of the normal peer review process.
However, if only by chance, they did find evidence of:

A conspiracy to thwart a FOIA request.
The appearance, at least, that certain scientists were applying a correction to the data in order to get the results they desired.
(the "1940's blip")
A revealing email where scientists suggested not submitting papers to a journal which published dissenting papers.
A revealing text file "harry\_read\_me" in which the writer displays ignorance of numeric overflow, missing data sets, and arbitrarily generating missing or unavailable data.
A debate about the reliability of dendrochronology data as a proxy for temperature.
Granted, I may not believe the GW conspiracy theorists, but this development is very troubling.
While climatology as a whole is probably unaffected, those making public policy cannot rely on the resuts published by Mann, et al, until the investigation is finished.
While this may not have long term effects on the scientific problem of GW, it certainly affects the political aspects of it.
But then again, if Nature sees nothing wrong with forging data to get the result you want, perhaps all of science is doomed.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334664</id>
	<title>Nice try</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1260026460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real smoking gun isn't the emails - it's the <a href="http://oneutah.org/2009/11/28/climategate-source-code-more-damning-than-emails/" title="oneutah.org" rel="nofollow">source code</a> [oneutah.org].</p><p>They keep talking about those emails in the hopes that no one will call them out on the "VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline"s applied liberally to the raw data.</p><p>Really take a look at the graphs in the link above. Plot that array yourself if you don't believe it. No amount of handwaving will explain away blatant lying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real smoking gun is n't the emails - it 's the source code [ oneutah.org ] .They keep talking about those emails in the hopes that no one will call them out on the " VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline " s applied liberally to the raw data.Really take a look at the graphs in the link above .
Plot that array yourself if you do n't believe it .
No amount of handwaving will explain away blatant lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real smoking gun isn't the emails - it's the source code [oneutah.org].They keep talking about those emails in the hopes that no one will call them out on the "VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline"s applied liberally to the raw data.Really take a look at the graphs in the link above.
Plot that array yourself if you don't believe it.
No amount of handwaving will explain away blatant lying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335748</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning" - true, indeed. The problem is that Global Warming has done so convincingly several times over and still some people refuse to bulge. Hence, denialists.</p><p>If this was an ordinary scientific issue it really wouldn't matter: graduate students tend to avoid bad scientists and so denialists die out. Unfortunately, this is not a ordinary scientific issue, but one that begets an extremely important current policy issue; one that may require all sorts of weird things, like actual global governance. I, personally, would very much prefer if the lunatics would shut up and let the rest of us get on to figure out what to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning " - true , indeed .
The problem is that Global Warming has done so convincingly several times over and still some people refuse to bulge .
Hence , denialists.If this was an ordinary scientific issue it really would n't matter : graduate students tend to avoid bad scientists and so denialists die out .
Unfortunately , this is not a ordinary scientific issue , but one that begets an extremely important current policy issue ; one that may require all sorts of weird things , like actual global governance .
I , personally , would very much prefer if the lunatics would shut up and let the rest of us get on to figure out what to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning" - true, indeed.
The problem is that Global Warming has done so convincingly several times over and still some people refuse to bulge.
Hence, denialists.If this was an ordinary scientific issue it really wouldn't matter: graduate students tend to avoid bad scientists and so denialists die out.
Unfortunately, this is not a ordinary scientific issue, but one that begets an extremely important current policy issue; one that may require all sorts of weird things, like actual global governance.
I, personally, would very much prefer if the lunatics would shut up and let the rest of us get on to figure out what to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339600</id>
	<title>Nature?  Trick.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260018060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nature has now earned its new reputation of being the journal which can be tricked.  Nature actually supports Mike's Nature trick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature has now earned its new reputation of being the journal which can be tricked .
Nature actually supports Mike 's Nature trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature has now earned its new reputation of being the journal which can be tricked.
Nature actually supports Mike's Nature trick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335418</id>
	<title>Re:Those that want to be bamboozled...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260032700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The evidence for this is literally all around us. Throw all of the CRU data out if you want. It won't change a thing.</p></div><p>Is that the same evidence to prove God exists?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The evidence for this is literally all around us .
Throw all of the CRU data out if you want .
It wo n't change a thing.Is that the same evidence to prove God exists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The evidence for this is literally all around us.
Throw all of the CRU data out if you want.
It won't change a thing.Is that the same evidence to prove God exists?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341180</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1260035580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not the only dog that didn't bark. We also didn't see space aliens like the Grays, Lizoids, Zergs, Vulcans, or Daleks in these emails too. The Wizard of Oz didn't boast about his steam powered climate control machine. Yet more dogs that didn't bark. Flat Earthers will be disappointed. No evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the fact that the Earth is flat. In fact, for every dog that barks, there are a countably infinite number of really lame dogs that didn't bark.<br> <br>

So instead of looking at what really happened, you look at some weak, unlikely scenario pushed by bozos. Lo and behold! Scenario is not supported by the facts. Stop the presses! The strawman turns out to be made of straw. If you really believe this is a significant observation that somehow overshadows a pattern of unscientific behavior in an incredibly high stakes debate for society and even a little implied criminal activity, then you are an idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the only dog that did n't bark .
We also did n't see space aliens like the Grays , Lizoids , Zergs , Vulcans , or Daleks in these emails too .
The Wizard of Oz did n't boast about his steam powered climate control machine .
Yet more dogs that did n't bark .
Flat Earthers will be disappointed .
No evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the fact that the Earth is flat .
In fact , for every dog that barks , there are a countably infinite number of really lame dogs that did n't bark .
So instead of looking at what really happened , you look at some weak , unlikely scenario pushed by bozos .
Lo and behold !
Scenario is not supported by the facts .
Stop the presses !
The strawman turns out to be made of straw .
If you really believe this is a significant observation that somehow overshadows a pattern of unscientific behavior in an incredibly high stakes debate for society and even a little implied criminal activity , then you are an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the only dog that didn't bark.
We also didn't see space aliens like the Grays, Lizoids, Zergs, Vulcans, or Daleks in these emails too.
The Wizard of Oz didn't boast about his steam powered climate control machine.
Yet more dogs that didn't bark.
Flat Earthers will be disappointed.
No evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the fact that the Earth is flat.
In fact, for every dog that barks, there are a countably infinite number of really lame dogs that didn't bark.
So instead of looking at what really happened, you look at some weak, unlikely scenario pushed by bozos.
Lo and behold!
Scenario is not supported by the facts.
Stop the presses!
The strawman turns out to be made of straw.
If you really believe this is a significant observation that somehow overshadows a pattern of unscientific behavior in an incredibly high stakes debate for society and even a little implied criminal activity, then you are an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336548</id>
	<title>Nature Article is Not "Peer Reviewed"</title>
	<author>rssrss</author>
	<datestamp>1260039540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Nature</i> is a journal that publishes "peer reviewed" articles. However the article linked in the OP is not peer reviewed. It is clearly marked as an "Editorial". Furthermore, as it is unsigned, we do not know who wrote it, whether he, she, it, or they know whereof they speak, nor the nature and sources of their biases and viewpoints.</p><p>Furthermore: "Peer Review" is not synonymous with audited, verified, nor replicated:</p><blockquote><div><p>In the end, it is the anonymous and secret nature of the peer review process that marks it as not part of actual science. The entire point of science is that all observers of a phenomenon can agree they see the same thing. Critical to creating that agreement is ruthless transparency. Secrecy is antithetical to the functioning of science, and peer review is a secret process.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Mere peer review should never be the basis of public policy, because when you get right down to it, we have only the word of the journal's editor that a peer review was even performed. There is no formal mechanism to assure that peer reviewed is performed or that the reviewers have the competence to review the paper in question. If the journal's editor is corrupt, then there is no independent mechanism that forces a peer review or ensures its quality. The entire system is based on a presumption of trust and on the discipline of the free market in scientific publishing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Even if everyone is honest, the inevitable professional biases of peer reviewers can cause them to reject papers that call into question the tenets upon which the reviewer's own work rests. If a scientific field is relatively small and all the peers share the same scientific blind spots or misapprehensions, then peer review can't catch even gross errors that become obvious in hindsight. It is common for peer reviewers to repeatedly reject papers that substantially alter a major tenet of a field. Most of the game-changing papers of the last century were rejected by multiple peer reviewers at multiple journals.</p><p>People who try to defend a scientific assertion by claiming it appears in a peer reviewed journal are making the weakest defense possible for the assertion. All it means is that some editor and the reviewers he selected thought it met their minimum quality standards for publishing. Once you raise the specter of political corruption on the part of editors and peer reviewers, it doesn't even mean that.</p><p>Replication and proven predictive power, not the opinions of peers, test science assertions. Those iron objective tests separate science from all other disciplines.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <a href="http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10481.html" title="chicagoboyz.net">Link</a> [chicagoboyz.net]</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature is a journal that publishes " peer reviewed " articles .
However the article linked in the OP is not peer reviewed .
It is clearly marked as an " Editorial " .
Furthermore , as it is unsigned , we do not know who wrote it , whether he , she , it , or they know whereof they speak , nor the nature and sources of their biases and viewpoints.Furthermore : " Peer Review " is not synonymous with audited , verified , nor replicated : In the end , it is the anonymous and secret nature of the peer review process that marks it as not part of actual science .
The entire point of science is that all observers of a phenomenon can agree they see the same thing .
Critical to creating that agreement is ruthless transparency .
Secrecy is antithetical to the functioning of science , and peer review is a secret process .
...Mere peer review should never be the basis of public policy , because when you get right down to it , we have only the word of the journal 's editor that a peer review was even performed .
There is no formal mechanism to assure that peer reviewed is performed or that the reviewers have the competence to review the paper in question .
If the journal 's editor is corrupt , then there is no independent mechanism that forces a peer review or ensures its quality .
The entire system is based on a presumption of trust and on the discipline of the free market in scientific publishing .
...Even if everyone is honest , the inevitable professional biases of peer reviewers can cause them to reject papers that call into question the tenets upon which the reviewer 's own work rests .
If a scientific field is relatively small and all the peers share the same scientific blind spots or misapprehensions , then peer review ca n't catch even gross errors that become obvious in hindsight .
It is common for peer reviewers to repeatedly reject papers that substantially alter a major tenet of a field .
Most of the game-changing papers of the last century were rejected by multiple peer reviewers at multiple journals.People who try to defend a scientific assertion by claiming it appears in a peer reviewed journal are making the weakest defense possible for the assertion .
All it means is that some editor and the reviewers he selected thought it met their minimum quality standards for publishing .
Once you raise the specter of political corruption on the part of editors and peer reviewers , it does n't even mean that.Replication and proven predictive power , not the opinions of peers , test science assertions .
Those iron objective tests separate science from all other disciplines .
... Link [ chicagoboyz.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature is a journal that publishes "peer reviewed" articles.
However the article linked in the OP is not peer reviewed.
It is clearly marked as an "Editorial".
Furthermore, as it is unsigned, we do not know who wrote it, whether he, she, it, or they know whereof they speak, nor the nature and sources of their biases and viewpoints.Furthermore: "Peer Review" is not synonymous with audited, verified, nor replicated:In the end, it is the anonymous and secret nature of the peer review process that marks it as not part of actual science.
The entire point of science is that all observers of a phenomenon can agree they see the same thing.
Critical to creating that agreement is ruthless transparency.
Secrecy is antithetical to the functioning of science, and peer review is a secret process.
...Mere peer review should never be the basis of public policy, because when you get right down to it, we have only the word of the journal's editor that a peer review was even performed.
There is no formal mechanism to assure that peer reviewed is performed or that the reviewers have the competence to review the paper in question.
If the journal's editor is corrupt, then there is no independent mechanism that forces a peer review or ensures its quality.
The entire system is based on a presumption of trust and on the discipline of the free market in scientific publishing.
...Even if everyone is honest, the inevitable professional biases of peer reviewers can cause them to reject papers that call into question the tenets upon which the reviewer's own work rests.
If a scientific field is relatively small and all the peers share the same scientific blind spots or misapprehensions, then peer review can't catch even gross errors that become obvious in hindsight.
It is common for peer reviewers to repeatedly reject papers that substantially alter a major tenet of a field.
Most of the game-changing papers of the last century were rejected by multiple peer reviewers at multiple journals.People who try to defend a scientific assertion by claiming it appears in a peer reviewed journal are making the weakest defense possible for the assertion.
All it means is that some editor and the reviewers he selected thought it met their minimum quality standards for publishing.
Once you raise the specter of political corruption on the part of editors and peer reviewers, it doesn't even mean that.Replication and proven predictive power, not the opinions of peers, test science assertions.
Those iron objective tests separate science from all other disciplines.
... Link [chicagoboyz.net] 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335494</id>
	<title>Re:How they acted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260033300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> In the one email, the author is quoted saying that he "adjusted the numbers." Last time I checked "adjusted" is past tense meaning that he did something. That's not the same as "I can adjust the numbers if you want me to."</p><p>If AGW was actually happening, there would be no need to "adjust" numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emails.</p></div><p>Assume that you are a climate scientist. You get data from Siberia. You notice that one data point states<br>that on friday, 13th, 6:16 am, the temperature was 102C in Irkutsk.</p><p>What do you do with that?</p><p>a) adjust it to 10.2C<br>b) remove that data point, as it is obviously wrong<br>c) use that data point in your computation (your code then crashes, and you get no results whatsoever<br>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the one email , the author is quoted saying that he " adjusted the numbers .
" Last time I checked " adjusted " is past tense meaning that he did something .
That 's not the same as " I can adjust the numbers if you want me to .
" If AGW was actually happening , there would be no need to " adjust " numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emails.Assume that you are a climate scientist .
You get data from Siberia .
You notice that one data point statesthat on friday , 13th , 6 : 16 am , the temperature was 102C in Irkutsk.What do you do with that ? a ) adjust it to 10.2Cb ) remove that data point , as it is obviously wrongc ) use that data point in your computation ( your code then crashes , and you get no results whatsoever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In the one email, the author is quoted saying that he "adjusted the numbers.
" Last time I checked "adjusted" is past tense meaning that he did something.
That's not the same as "I can adjust the numbers if you want me to.
"If AGW was actually happening, there would be no need to "adjust" numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emails.Assume that you are a climate scientist.
You get data from Siberia.
You notice that one data point statesthat on friday, 13th, 6:16 am, the temperature was 102C in Irkutsk.What do you do with that?a) adjust it to 10.2Cb) remove that data point, as it is obviously wrongc) use that data point in your computation (your code then crashes, and you get no results whatsoever?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338190</id>
	<title>Re:Those that want to be bamboozled...</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1260007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if life really was like the movies, some introverted genius hacker would have those two sentences superimposed over Glenn Beck the whole time he's pointing to nonsense on a blackboard trying to look smart. And the general public would suddenly all understand and peace and love would break out and the hacker gets the girl.
<br> <br>
But real life isn't like that. Most people aren't that good at critical thinking and are comforted by the TV telling them they're right, and get very angry when it makes them feel dumb. And that hacker is busy furiously posting to a message board about how the entire GTK+ toolkit is the worst thing since Windows for Workgroups.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if life really was like the movies , some introverted genius hacker would have those two sentences superimposed over Glenn Beck the whole time he 's pointing to nonsense on a blackboard trying to look smart .
And the general public would suddenly all understand and peace and love would break out and the hacker gets the girl .
But real life is n't like that .
Most people are n't that good at critical thinking and are comforted by the TV telling them they 're right , and get very angry when it makes them feel dumb .
And that hacker is busy furiously posting to a message board about how the entire GTK + toolkit is the worst thing since Windows for Workgroups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if life really was like the movies, some introverted genius hacker would have those two sentences superimposed over Glenn Beck the whole time he's pointing to nonsense on a blackboard trying to look smart.
And the general public would suddenly all understand and peace and love would break out and the hacker gets the girl.
But real life isn't like that.
Most people aren't that good at critical thinking and are comforted by the TV telling them they're right, and get very angry when it makes them feel dumb.
And that hacker is busy furiously posting to a message board about how the entire GTK+ toolkit is the worst thing since Windows for Workgroups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335232</id>
	<title>I am VERY VERY sorry, this is NONSENSE</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1260030960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an ex-UK academic, this is conclusive evidence of collusion and corruption in the AGW camp, as well as the complete corruption of, at least, the UK peer review process. Especially as it has to do with politicized decisions.<br><br>The whole tone of the editorial "<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... stolen" "<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... difficult" instantly gives the game away, and shows that the xSRC(s) in the UK need to be immediately abolished so that some honest scientists and social scientists can take back their game from endlessly corrupt politicians.<br><br>The likely release was by whistle-blower, not hacking and, in any case, is publicly funded research and this reaction from Nature, New Scientist and the BBC is disgusting. These used to be respected journals and are now as corrupted as ISO.<br><br>The US has rightly pointed at corruption at the UN, but this brings subverting world institutions for gain to a new level.<br><br>They are however right about one thing, no matter how they spin, this game is over, since both in the EU and US, remember Mann is at Penn State, the raw data will now be subpoenaed, and the CON is OVER!, whether the subpoena issues from the Hill or a US FOI request.<br><br>These crooks need to go to jail like the Ponzi artists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an ex-UK academic , this is conclusive evidence of collusion and corruption in the AGW camp , as well as the complete corruption of , at least , the UK peer review process .
Especially as it has to do with politicized decisions.The whole tone of the editorial " ... stolen " " ... difficult " instantly gives the game away , and shows that the xSRC ( s ) in the UK need to be immediately abolished so that some honest scientists and social scientists can take back their game from endlessly corrupt politicians.The likely release was by whistle-blower , not hacking and , in any case , is publicly funded research and this reaction from Nature , New Scientist and the BBC is disgusting .
These used to be respected journals and are now as corrupted as ISO.The US has rightly pointed at corruption at the UN , but this brings subverting world institutions for gain to a new level.They are however right about one thing , no matter how they spin , this game is over , since both in the EU and US , remember Mann is at Penn State , the raw data will now be subpoenaed , and the CON is OVER ! , whether the subpoena issues from the Hill or a US FOI request.These crooks need to go to jail like the Ponzi artists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an ex-UK academic, this is conclusive evidence of collusion and corruption in the AGW camp, as well as the complete corruption of, at least, the UK peer review process.
Especially as it has to do with politicized decisions.The whole tone of the editorial " ... stolen" " ... difficult" instantly gives the game away, and shows that the xSRC(s) in the UK need to be immediately abolished so that some honest scientists and social scientists can take back their game from endlessly corrupt politicians.The likely release was by whistle-blower, not hacking and, in any case, is publicly funded research and this reaction from Nature, New Scientist and the BBC is disgusting.
These used to be respected journals and are now as corrupted as ISO.The US has rightly pointed at corruption at the UN, but this brings subverting world institutions for gain to a new level.They are however right about one thing, no matter how they spin, this game is over, since both in the EU and US, remember Mann is at Penn State, the raw data will now be subpoenaed, and the CON is OVER!, whether the subpoena issues from the Hill or a US FOI request.These crooks need to go to jail like the Ponzi artists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338052</id>
	<title>the conspiracy</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1260005940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we all know that <i>Nature</i>, NASA, and the U.N. are prime players in the conspiracy. As are NOAA, the National Academy of Sciences, and the science academies of Brazil, China and India.

</p><p>I mean, either there's a massive conspiracy by climatologists all around the world, or a handful of corporate shills and religious true believers (including both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist propertarians) have the media's ear and are quoting stuff out of context and flat-out inventing shit. And that's <a href="http://unreasonable.org/node/3242" title="unreasonable.org" rel="nofollow">impossible</a> [unreasonable.org], right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we all know that Nature , NASA , and the U.N. are prime players in the conspiracy .
As are NOAA , the National Academy of Sciences , and the science academies of Brazil , China and India .
I mean , either there 's a massive conspiracy by climatologists all around the world , or a handful of corporate shills and religious true believers ( including both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist propertarians ) have the media 's ear and are quoting stuff out of context and flat-out inventing shit .
And that 's impossible [ unreasonable.org ] , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we all know that Nature, NASA, and the U.N. are prime players in the conspiracy.
As are NOAA, the National Academy of Sciences, and the science academies of Brazil, China and India.
I mean, either there's a massive conspiracy by climatologists all around the world, or a handful of corporate shills and religious true believers (including both fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist propertarians) have the media's ear and are quoting stuff out of context and flat-out inventing shit.
And that's impossible [unreasonable.org], right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340260</id>
	<title>+1 Strawman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260024180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We really really really need this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We really really really need this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We really really really need this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336314</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Also, pretty much all debate on global warming has already ended--the scientific debate, anyway.</i></p><p>This is a point that's often glazed over by the people raising a stink - they complain about a lack of objectivity re: the existence of agw, but forget that it's already been proven. They end up defining 'objectivity' as 'endlessly humoring loud-mouthed imbeciles who don't know what they're talking about'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , pretty much all debate on global warming has already ended--the scientific debate , anyway.This is a point that 's often glazed over by the people raising a stink - they complain about a lack of objectivity re : the existence of agw , but forget that it 's already been proven .
They end up defining 'objectivity ' as 'endlessly humoring loud-mouthed imbeciles who do n't know what they 're talking about' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, pretty much all debate on global warming has already ended--the scientific debate, anyway.This is a point that's often glazed over by the people raising a stink - they complain about a lack of objectivity re: the existence of agw, but forget that it's already been proven.
They end up defining 'objectivity' as 'endlessly humoring loud-mouthed imbeciles who don't know what they're talking about'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337060</id>
	<title>Corruption matters</title>
	<author>Dobeln</author>
	<datestamp>1260042600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real."</p><p>The corrupt culture of "science" (word used broadly) on display obviously most certainly undermines the case.</p><p>For a long time, climatology has been unique among the sciences, as it has faced a starkly politicized incentive structure for researchers.</p><p>Thanks to the emails, we now know beyond a doubt (among other things) that the entire process of peer review in the field (especially with regards to the critical IPCC reports) has been messed up on purpose by Jones, Mann, et al.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real .
" The corrupt culture of " science " ( word used broadly ) on display obviously most certainly undermines the case.For a long time , climatology has been unique among the sciences , as it has faced a starkly politicized incentive structure for researchers.Thanks to the emails , we now know beyond a doubt ( among other things ) that the entire process of peer review in the field ( especially with regards to the critical IPCC reports ) has been messed up on purpose by Jones , Mann , et al .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real.
"The corrupt culture of "science" (word used broadly) on display obviously most certainly undermines the case.For a long time, climatology has been unique among the sciences, as it has faced a starkly politicized incentive structure for researchers.Thanks to the emails, we now know beyond a doubt (among other things) that the entire process of peer review in the field (especially with regards to the critical IPCC reports) has been messed up on purpose by Jones, Mann, et al.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338076</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260006060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>History is FILLED with examples of established scientific theories being debunked. Your straw-man arguments in the second paragraph are completely irrelevant, and you yourself admit that there "is some uncertainty in the ultimate extent of climate change." So maybe there are a few things left to talk about, hmm?</p><p>It sounds to me like you're the conspiracy theorist here. In the face of many who choose to question some aspects of climatological theory in the tradition of the scientific method, you put up the blinders and claim them all denialists who want nothing more than to further some right-wing agenda. Gimme a break!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>History is FILLED with examples of established scientific theories being debunked .
Your straw-man arguments in the second paragraph are completely irrelevant , and you yourself admit that there " is some uncertainty in the ultimate extent of climate change .
" So maybe there are a few things left to talk about , hmm ? It sounds to me like you 're the conspiracy theorist here .
In the face of many who choose to question some aspects of climatological theory in the tradition of the scientific method , you put up the blinders and claim them all denialists who want nothing more than to further some right-wing agenda .
Gim me a break !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>History is FILLED with examples of established scientific theories being debunked.
Your straw-man arguments in the second paragraph are completely irrelevant, and you yourself admit that there "is some uncertainty in the ultimate extent of climate change.
" So maybe there are a few things left to talk about, hmm?It sounds to me like you're the conspiracy theorist here.
In the face of many who choose to question some aspects of climatological theory in the tradition of the scientific method, you put up the blinders and claim them all denialists who want nothing more than to further some right-wing agenda.
Gimme a break!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336222</id>
	<title>For the closet statistical anlysts out there...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260037620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... why not play with the raw source data:</p><p>http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091205.html</p><p>I wonder if the oil companies (that some seem to be in awe of) can fudge these numbers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... why not play with the raw source data : http : //www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091205.htmlI wonder if the oil companies ( that some seem to be in awe of ) can fudge these numbers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... why not play with the raw source data:http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091205.htmlI wonder if the oil companies (that some seem to be in awe of) can fudge these numbers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335390</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>Orp</author>
	<datestamp>1260032460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well stated. The thing is, most everyday people do not understand how science and research is done and hence they filter everything through the lens of their own non-science-understanding experiences. They leap to extraordinary conclusions based upon sketchy data or anecdotal evidence. Unless you've published and been through the peer review process and have actually collected data and done exhaustive literature review etc., it's easy to think that research results could be easily manipulated like an accountant cooking the books. The big difference is that in science, there is a global "community" of scientists scrutinizing your output, somewhat like the open-source many-eyes model that just about everyone here praises.</p><p>As researcher in meteorology the CRU stuff has been an obvious source of hallway chatter between myself and my colleagues. If you could summarize our conclusions, it's mostly that (a) this looks band, but will blow over (b) we scientists just want to be left alone to do science and finally (c) most people just don't understand anything about the scientific process. Few of us are good at relating what we do to the general public or handling the press. When you peek behind the curtain and ask us to explain ourselves, don't expect a slick press release. Many of us want to scurry away to our dark labs and put our hands over our ears and work on the plodding, grudging, often infinitesimally satisfying world of scientific discovery.</p><p>Either that, or THE CONSPIRACY GOES DEEPER THAN I EVER IMAGINED POSSIBLE!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well stated .
The thing is , most everyday people do not understand how science and research is done and hence they filter everything through the lens of their own non-science-understanding experiences .
They leap to extraordinary conclusions based upon sketchy data or anecdotal evidence .
Unless you 've published and been through the peer review process and have actually collected data and done exhaustive literature review etc. , it 's easy to think that research results could be easily manipulated like an accountant cooking the books .
The big difference is that in science , there is a global " community " of scientists scrutinizing your output , somewhat like the open-source many-eyes model that just about everyone here praises.As researcher in meteorology the CRU stuff has been an obvious source of hallway chatter between myself and my colleagues .
If you could summarize our conclusions , it 's mostly that ( a ) this looks band , but will blow over ( b ) we scientists just want to be left alone to do science and finally ( c ) most people just do n't understand anything about the scientific process .
Few of us are good at relating what we do to the general public or handling the press .
When you peek behind the curtain and ask us to explain ourselves , do n't expect a slick press release .
Many of us want to scurry away to our dark labs and put our hands over our ears and work on the plodding , grudging , often infinitesimally satisfying world of scientific discovery.Either that , or THE CONSPIRACY GOES DEEPER THAN I EVER IMAGINED POSSIBLE ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well stated.
The thing is, most everyday people do not understand how science and research is done and hence they filter everything through the lens of their own non-science-understanding experiences.
They leap to extraordinary conclusions based upon sketchy data or anecdotal evidence.
Unless you've published and been through the peer review process and have actually collected data and done exhaustive literature review etc., it's easy to think that research results could be easily manipulated like an accountant cooking the books.
The big difference is that in science, there is a global "community" of scientists scrutinizing your output, somewhat like the open-source many-eyes model that just about everyone here praises.As researcher in meteorology the CRU stuff has been an obvious source of hallway chatter between myself and my colleagues.
If you could summarize our conclusions, it's mostly that (a) this looks band, but will blow over (b) we scientists just want to be left alone to do science and finally (c) most people just don't understand anything about the scientific process.
Few of us are good at relating what we do to the general public or handling the press.
When you peek behind the curtain and ask us to explain ourselves, don't expect a slick press release.
Many of us want to scurry away to our dark labs and put our hands over our ears and work on the plodding, grudging, often infinitesimally satisfying world of scientific discovery.Either that, or THE CONSPIRACY GOES DEEPER THAN I EVER IMAGINED POSSIBLE!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340046</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>tiqui</author>
	<datestamp>1260022140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The continual stream of false accusations that their opponents are all funded by the oil industry was probably the first thing that got me to suspect something was wrong with AGW. If the sciencee is on your side, then you have no need to ascribe false motives and paymasters to <b>everyone</b> who disagrees with you.</p><p>Why is it that nobody assumes all these government-funded people who produce results that say governments should get bigger and more powerful are themselves biased by their funding sources?</p><p>Governments have spent <b>billions</b> on AGW research, and are preparing to spend <b>trillions</b> on it. The power and money that governments will control if they can convince everyone of AGW dwarfs anything any corporation ever dreamed of</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The continual stream of false accusations that their opponents are all funded by the oil industry was probably the first thing that got me to suspect something was wrong with AGW .
If the sciencee is on your side , then you have no need to ascribe false motives and paymasters to everyone who disagrees with you.Why is it that nobody assumes all these government-funded people who produce results that say governments should get bigger and more powerful are themselves biased by their funding sources ? Governments have spent billions on AGW research , and are preparing to spend trillions on it .
The power and money that governments will control if they can convince everyone of AGW dwarfs anything any corporation ever dreamed of</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The continual stream of false accusations that their opponents are all funded by the oil industry was probably the first thing that got me to suspect something was wrong with AGW.
If the sciencee is on your side, then you have no need to ascribe false motives and paymasters to everyone who disagrees with you.Why is it that nobody assumes all these government-funded people who produce results that say governments should get bigger and more powerful are themselves biased by their funding sources?Governments have spent billions on AGW research, and are preparing to spend trillions on it.
The power and money that governments will control if they can convince everyone of AGW dwarfs anything any corporation ever dreamed of</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335346</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1260032220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me, they do. When they point to data tampering, weeding out data that does not confirm to one's desires, caballas against dissenters, politicking...</p><p>These emails prove those guys are out to make a buck and a name for themselves, at the expense of anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , they do .
When they point to data tampering , weeding out data that does not confirm to one 's desires , caballas against dissenters , politicking...These emails prove those guys are out to make a buck and a name for themselves , at the expense of anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, they do.
When they point to data tampering, weeding out data that does not confirm to one's desires, caballas against dissenters, politicking...These emails prove those guys are out to make a buck and a name for themselves, at the expense of anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335358</id>
	<title>Good Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260032280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good scientists spend just as much time (if not more) trying to disprove their own theories than the spend trying to prove them. From the leaked information, it seems clear this is not what has been done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good scientists spend just as much time ( if not more ) trying to disprove their own theories than the spend trying to prove them .
From the leaked information , it seems clear this is not what has been done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good scientists spend just as much time (if not more) trying to disprove their own theories than the spend trying to prove them.
From the leaked information, it seems clear this is not what has been done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336006</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1260036360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I don't think you appreciate how insignificant the problem is. Nobody gives a fuck except the far right (and you can't argue they aren't far-right websites you go to if <i>Slashdot</i> looks 'mostly liberal' to you). The world has not stopped believing "ANY temperature data any more". You only see it as the end of the world for AGW because you have a horribly distorted view of the world from hanging out at websites full of people who seek to discredit good science because it conflicts with their ideology.</p><p>Also, pretty much all debate on global warming has already ended--the scientific debate, anyway. The theory of AGW has broad scientific consensus, and most debate is about whether we're very very fucked or very very <i>very</i> fucked if we don't take drastic measures now. The only debate this leak affects is the political debate, which carries about as much weight in science as the political debate over evolution does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I do n't think you appreciate how insignificant the problem is .
Nobody gives a fuck except the far right ( and you ca n't argue they are n't far-right websites you go to if Slashdot looks 'mostly liberal ' to you ) .
The world has not stopped believing " ANY temperature data any more " .
You only see it as the end of the world for AGW because you have a horribly distorted view of the world from hanging out at websites full of people who seek to discredit good science because it conflicts with their ideology.Also , pretty much all debate on global warming has already ended--the scientific debate , anyway .
The theory of AGW has broad scientific consensus , and most debate is about whether we 're very very fucked or very very very fucked if we do n't take drastic measures now .
The only debate this leak affects is the political debate , which carries about as much weight in science as the political debate over evolution does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I don't think you appreciate how insignificant the problem is.
Nobody gives a fuck except the far right (and you can't argue they aren't far-right websites you go to if Slashdot looks 'mostly liberal' to you).
The world has not stopped believing "ANY temperature data any more".
You only see it as the end of the world for AGW because you have a horribly distorted view of the world from hanging out at websites full of people who seek to discredit good science because it conflicts with their ideology.Also, pretty much all debate on global warming has already ended--the scientific debate, anyway.
The theory of AGW has broad scientific consensus, and most debate is about whether we're very very fucked or very very very fucked if we don't take drastic measures now.
The only debate this leak affects is the political debate, which carries about as much weight in science as the political debate over evolution does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888</id>
	<title>Loss of trust</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1260028440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From reading comments on this and the other stories about the CRU leak, it's pretty obvious to me that nobody here appreciates just how big the problem is. That's understandable, of course, since most Slashdotters are liberals and don't read right wing sites like I do. You see, the reason science works is that we trust the researchers to not intentionally mislead us, and that if they do, we could look at the data and see for ourselves whether their conclusions are true. In this case, however, it is the data itself that is now in question, so nobody can see for himself. Consequently, it doesn't matter at all if all the data is released, if all the source code for the models is released, if everybody apologizes and tries to sell the leak as a pack of lies. The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more. Personally, I'm tacitly accepting of AGW, but even I will no longer put any value on that data. Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources, I'm not going to believe it. The political influence is just too strong.</p><p>Without any data, all debate on global warming is simply going to end. Advocates will preach their side, detractors will preach their side, and neither side will have any evidence. And without any evidence, there is absolutely no way you'll be able to convince anybody. That's how big the problem is, and it's time you liberals started to realize it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From reading comments on this and the other stories about the CRU leak , it 's pretty obvious to me that nobody here appreciates just how big the problem is .
That 's understandable , of course , since most Slashdotters are liberals and do n't read right wing sites like I do .
You see , the reason science works is that we trust the researchers to not intentionally mislead us , and that if they do , we could look at the data and see for ourselves whether their conclusions are true .
In this case , however , it is the data itself that is now in question , so nobody can see for himself .
Consequently , it does n't matter at all if all the data is released , if all the source code for the models is released , if everybody apologizes and tries to sell the leak as a pack of lies .
The damage is done : nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more .
Personally , I 'm tacitly accepting of AGW , but even I will no longer put any value on that data .
Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources , I 'm not going to believe it .
The political influence is just too strong.Without any data , all debate on global warming is simply going to end .
Advocates will preach their side , detractors will preach their side , and neither side will have any evidence .
And without any evidence , there is absolutely no way you 'll be able to convince anybody .
That 's how big the problem is , and it 's time you liberals started to realize it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From reading comments on this and the other stories about the CRU leak, it's pretty obvious to me that nobody here appreciates just how big the problem is.
That's understandable, of course, since most Slashdotters are liberals and don't read right wing sites like I do.
You see, the reason science works is that we trust the researchers to not intentionally mislead us, and that if they do, we could look at the data and see for ourselves whether their conclusions are true.
In this case, however, it is the data itself that is now in question, so nobody can see for himself.
Consequently, it doesn't matter at all if all the data is released, if all the source code for the models is released, if everybody apologizes and tries to sell the leak as a pack of lies.
The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more.
Personally, I'm tacitly accepting of AGW, but even I will no longer put any value on that data.
Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources, I'm not going to believe it.
The political influence is just too strong.Without any data, all debate on global warming is simply going to end.
Advocates will preach their side, detractors will preach their side, and neither side will have any evidence.
And without any evidence, there is absolutely no way you'll be able to convince anybody.
That's how big the problem is, and it's time you liberals started to realize it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334770</id>
	<title>Almost</title>
	<author>dreamchaser</author>
	<datestamp>1260027480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point. <b>We can't let a few suspect emails destroy millions of dollars in research grants</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>Fixed it for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point .
We ca n't let a few suspect emails destroy millions of dollars in research grants.Fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point.
We can't let a few suspect emails destroy millions of dollars in research grants.Fixed it for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334884</id>
	<title>Re:Almost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260028440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>except the denialists &amp; obstructionists pay better, so if anyone was in the climate science debate for the purely money they'd be writing papers denying or refuting the existing science... and there has been no real scientist publishing real science refuting the current understanding of our climate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>except the denialists &amp; obstructionists pay better , so if anyone was in the climate science debate for the purely money they 'd be writing papers denying or refuting the existing science... and there has been no real scientist publishing real science refuting the current understanding of our climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>except the denialists &amp; obstructionists pay better, so if anyone was in the climate science debate for the purely money they'd be writing papers denying or refuting the existing science... and there has been no real scientist publishing real science refuting the current understanding of our climate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335198</id>
	<title>Civilization was on trial</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1260030600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.</p></div></blockquote><p>The Humanity in general and the Western civilization in particular were <em>on trial</em>. We are accused of "destroying Gaia" and facing the punishment of huge fines and severe drop in the quality of life (such as living with worms <a href="http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/04/29/21/2754-82/index.xml" title="metro.us">composting our garbage</a> [metro.us]).

</p><p>So, guess what? When, suddenly, thanks to a whistle-blower (whom the prominent Illiberals in Congress <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe" title="thehill.com">want prosecuted</a> [thehill.com], BTW), we learn of the massive <em>prosecutorial misconduct</em> (some of it, such as deleting files after receiving Freedom of Information requests, outright <em>criminal</em>), that affects a substantial amount of evidence against us, we move for the "court" to <strong>dismiss the entire case</strong>.

</p><p>Those "millions of man hours" are now tainted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.The Humanity in general and the Western civilization in particular were on trial .
We are accused of " destroying Gaia " and facing the punishment of huge fines and severe drop in the quality of life ( such as living with worms composting our garbage [ metro.us ] ) .
So , guess what ?
When , suddenly , thanks to a whistle-blower ( whom the prominent Illiberals in Congress want prosecuted [ thehill.com ] , BTW ) , we learn of the massive prosecutorial misconduct ( some of it , such as deleting files after receiving Freedom of Information requests , outright criminal ) , that affects a substantial amount of evidence against us , we move for the " court " to dismiss the entire case .
Those " millions of man hours " are now tainted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.The Humanity in general and the Western civilization in particular were on trial.
We are accused of "destroying Gaia" and facing the punishment of huge fines and severe drop in the quality of life (such as living with worms composting our garbage [metro.us]).
So, guess what?
When, suddenly, thanks to a whistle-blower (whom the prominent Illiberals in Congress want prosecuted [thehill.com], BTW), we learn of the massive prosecutorial misconduct (some of it, such as deleting files after receiving Freedom of Information requests, outright criminal), that affects a substantial amount of evidence against us, we move for the "court" to dismiss the entire case.
Those "millions of man hours" are now tainted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334936</id>
	<title>Worst case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260028860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) they're guilty of not properly responding to a FOIA request<br>2) they've said nasty things about certain colleagues work (but still cited it)<br>3) they've discarded some data for reasons they should have better explained (reasons that were valid -- it wasn't properly calibrated)</p><p>Bad for them personally, but <i>utterly irrelevant</i> to the scientific issue, unless you think it's some kind of surprise that scientists are human and sometimes make mistakes.  As the Nature article says, it's laughable.  Where's the global conspiracy?  Where's the outright fraud of <i>substantial</i> masses of crucial data?  Nowhere.</p><p>It's worth investigating for the possibility of misconduct, but, sheesh, the actual scientific impact is so overblown it's ridiculous.  This is why you have many, many other scientists working on the same issues and completely independent ones: so that even if one of them makes an honest or a dishonest mistake, or one method yields incorrect results, the other people and techniques are likely to find the flaw and correct it.</p><p>The only "trick" here is the propaganda trick climate-change denialists are using to divert attention from the actual data and results of the last few decades.</p><p>Smoking gun?  It's like they've (illegally) broken into the house owned by someone they've publicly accused of murder for a decade and found a plastic gun replica that shoots Nerf balls.  Aha!!  Gotcha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) they 're guilty of not properly responding to a FOIA request2 ) they 've said nasty things about certain colleagues work ( but still cited it ) 3 ) they 've discarded some data for reasons they should have better explained ( reasons that were valid -- it was n't properly calibrated ) Bad for them personally , but utterly irrelevant to the scientific issue , unless you think it 's some kind of surprise that scientists are human and sometimes make mistakes .
As the Nature article says , it 's laughable .
Where 's the global conspiracy ?
Where 's the outright fraud of substantial masses of crucial data ?
Nowhere.It 's worth investigating for the possibility of misconduct , but , sheesh , the actual scientific impact is so overblown it 's ridiculous .
This is why you have many , many other scientists working on the same issues and completely independent ones : so that even if one of them makes an honest or a dishonest mistake , or one method yields incorrect results , the other people and techniques are likely to find the flaw and correct it.The only " trick " here is the propaganda trick climate-change denialists are using to divert attention from the actual data and results of the last few decades.Smoking gun ?
It 's like they 've ( illegally ) broken into the house owned by someone they 've publicly accused of murder for a decade and found a plastic gun replica that shoots Nerf balls .
Aha ! ! Gotcha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) they're guilty of not properly responding to a FOIA request2) they've said nasty things about certain colleagues work (but still cited it)3) they've discarded some data for reasons they should have better explained (reasons that were valid -- it wasn't properly calibrated)Bad for them personally, but utterly irrelevant to the scientific issue, unless you think it's some kind of surprise that scientists are human and sometimes make mistakes.
As the Nature article says, it's laughable.
Where's the global conspiracy?
Where's the outright fraud of substantial masses of crucial data?
Nowhere.It's worth investigating for the possibility of misconduct, but, sheesh, the actual scientific impact is so overblown it's ridiculous.
This is why you have many, many other scientists working on the same issues and completely independent ones: so that even if one of them makes an honest or a dishonest mistake, or one method yields incorrect results, the other people and techniques are likely to find the flaw and correct it.The only "trick" here is the propaganda trick climate-change denialists are using to divert attention from the actual data and results of the last few decades.Smoking gun?
It's like they've (illegally) broken into the house owned by someone they've publicly accused of murder for a decade and found a plastic gun replica that shoots Nerf balls.
Aha!!  Gotcha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30390102</id>
	<title>What about the models</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone think the climate models are capable of this type of prediction. The sheer number of unknowables you'd need to estimate just to attempt a model make any long term prediction questionable (solar incidence, the spectral reflectivity of Kansas for the next 100yrs, ice in the upper atm...). Combine that with a highly couple set of non linear PDEs that exhibit chaotic behavior and you can make that model say anything.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone think the climate models are capable of this type of prediction .
The sheer number of unknowables you 'd need to estimate just to attempt a model make any long term prediction questionable ( solar incidence , the spectral reflectivity of Kansas for the next 100yrs , ice in the upper atm... ) .
Combine that with a highly couple set of non linear PDEs that exhibit chaotic behavior and you can make that model say anything.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone think the climate models are capable of this type of prediction.
The sheer number of unknowables you'd need to estimate just to attempt a model make any long term prediction questionable (solar incidence, the spectral reflectivity of Kansas for the next 100yrs, ice in the upper atm...).
Combine that with a highly couple set of non linear PDEs that exhibit chaotic behavior and you can make that model say anything.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334922</id>
	<title>Re:Peer-reviewed journal?</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1260028740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously?</p></div><p>No, it's a scientific journal.  They don't write about sports.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No surprise that they won't investigate anything.</p></div><p>If you read the article and summary, you'll discover that they <b>did</b> investigate, and found nothing wrong.</p><p>Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.  Learning a bit about the scientific method would help too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously ? No , it 's a scientific journal .
They do n't write about sports.No surprise that they wo n't investigate anything.If you read the article and summary , you 'll discover that they did investigate , and found nothing wrong.Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills .
Learning a bit about the scientific method would help too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously?No, it's a scientific journal.
They don't write about sports.No surprise that they won't investigate anything.If you read the article and summary, you'll discover that they did investigate, and found nothing wrong.Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
Learning a bit about the scientific method would help too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336730</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1260040560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Consequently, it doesn't matter at all if all the data is released, if all the source code for the models is released, if everybody apologizes and tries to sell the leak as a pack of lies. The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more. Personally, I'm tacitly accepting of AGW, but even I will no longer put any value on that data. Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources, I'm not going to believe it. The political influence is just too strong.</p></div><p>So that means you decided already and will refuse to consider any future facts no matter how relevant or well researched. Hence, this reply isn't directed at you.<br> <br>

For the rest of the world, this is one of the bigger problems with bias and unscientific behavior (such as demonstrated in the CRU case). It solidifies the beliefs of the more irrational. I doubt the scandal will have a long term impact, but these problems could have been settled at the very beginning by providing all the data and procedures used. Sure, supposedly the data is proprietary, but at the least, you can state where you obtained all your data from, even if you aren't personally allowed to provide access to the data. I should be able to, with modest effort (and maybe purchasing the data, if necessary), replicate the results of your published research using your tools and your data. If I can't, then it isn't science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consequently , it does n't matter at all if all the data is released , if all the source code for the models is released , if everybody apologizes and tries to sell the leak as a pack of lies .
The damage is done : nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more .
Personally , I 'm tacitly accepting of AGW , but even I will no longer put any value on that data .
Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources , I 'm not going to believe it .
The political influence is just too strong.So that means you decided already and will refuse to consider any future facts no matter how relevant or well researched .
Hence , this reply is n't directed at you .
For the rest of the world , this is one of the bigger problems with bias and unscientific behavior ( such as demonstrated in the CRU case ) .
It solidifies the beliefs of the more irrational .
I doubt the scandal will have a long term impact , but these problems could have been settled at the very beginning by providing all the data and procedures used .
Sure , supposedly the data is proprietary , but at the least , you can state where you obtained all your data from , even if you are n't personally allowed to provide access to the data .
I should be able to , with modest effort ( and maybe purchasing the data , if necessary ) , replicate the results of your published research using your tools and your data .
If I ca n't , then it is n't science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consequently, it doesn't matter at all if all the data is released, if all the source code for the models is released, if everybody apologizes and tries to sell the leak as a pack of lies.
The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more.
Personally, I'm tacitly accepting of AGW, but even I will no longer put any value on that data.
Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources, I'm not going to believe it.
The political influence is just too strong.So that means you decided already and will refuse to consider any future facts no matter how relevant or well researched.
Hence, this reply isn't directed at you.
For the rest of the world, this is one of the bigger problems with bias and unscientific behavior (such as demonstrated in the CRU case).
It solidifies the beliefs of the more irrational.
I doubt the scandal will have a long term impact, but these problems could have been settled at the very beginning by providing all the data and procedures used.
Sure, supposedly the data is proprietary, but at the least, you can state where you obtained all your data from, even if you aren't personally allowed to provide access to the data.
I should be able to, with modest effort (and maybe purchasing the data, if necessary), replicate the results of your published research using your tools and your data.
If I can't, then it isn't science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339232</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1260015180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>funny the post a bit above you, perhaps by awg scientist, moted world government as possibly a necessity.  I like more complicated conspiracy theories than al gore is behind it all, but if someone thinks there is a conspiracy to loot his standard of living, i think he is being very objective.  it is not yet useful, but it is the right view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>funny the post a bit above you , perhaps by awg scientist , moted world government as possibly a necessity .
I like more complicated conspiracy theories than al gore is behind it all , but if someone thinks there is a conspiracy to loot his standard of living , i think he is being very objective .
it is not yet useful , but it is the right view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>funny the post a bit above you, perhaps by awg scientist, moted world government as possibly a necessity.
I like more complicated conspiracy theories than al gore is behind it all, but if someone thinks there is a conspiracy to loot his standard of living, i think he is being very objective.
it is not yet useful, but it is the right view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339892</id>
	<title>Posting to remove erroneous moderation</title>
	<author>Petrushka</author>
	<datestamp>1260020700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Posting to remove erroneous moderation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting to remove erroneous moderation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting to remove erroneous moderation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335138</id>
	<title>Re:Peer-reviewed journal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260030120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously? No surprise that they won't investigate anything.</p></div><p>The reviewers thought the paper had merit, therefore they're obviously part of a conspiracy? Do you have any evidence that <i>Nature</i> is being totally biased or do you generally just assume that people that don't agree with you are wrong?</p><p>And what would ending anonymous peer-review do?  If anything it would leave the system even more open to abuse.  "Hah!  Dr Bloggs refused to give my last paper the all clear, so now that I'm reviewing his paper I'll reject it without even reading it!"</p><p>As for open sourcing programs, that's not going to happen.  How can scientists open-source programs they don't own? You seem to be under the impression that all scientists write their own software. They don't, and many wouldn't have the skills to do so, which is why there is a market for commercial software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously ?
No surprise that they wo n't investigate anything.The reviewers thought the paper had merit , therefore they 're obviously part of a conspiracy ?
Do you have any evidence that Nature is being totally biased or do you generally just assume that people that do n't agree with you are wrong ? And what would ending anonymous peer-review do ?
If anything it would leave the system even more open to abuse .
" Hah ! Dr Bloggs refused to give my last paper the all clear , so now that I 'm reviewing his paper I 'll reject it without even reading it !
" As for open sourcing programs , that 's not going to happen .
How can scientists open-source programs they do n't own ?
You seem to be under the impression that all scientists write their own software .
They do n't , and many would n't have the skills to do so , which is why there is a market for commercial software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously?
No surprise that they won't investigate anything.The reviewers thought the paper had merit, therefore they're obviously part of a conspiracy?
Do you have any evidence that Nature is being totally biased or do you generally just assume that people that don't agree with you are wrong?And what would ending anonymous peer-review do?
If anything it would leave the system even more open to abuse.
"Hah!  Dr Bloggs refused to give my last paper the all clear, so now that I'm reviewing his paper I'll reject it without even reading it!
"As for open sourcing programs, that's not going to happen.
How can scientists open-source programs they don't own?
You seem to be under the impression that all scientists write their own software.
They don't, and many wouldn't have the skills to do so, which is why there is a market for commercial software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335466</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>Orp</author>
	<datestamp>1260033120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more. Personally, I'm tacitly accepting of AGW, but even I will no longer put any value on that data. Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources, I'm not going to believe it. The political influence is just too strong.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nice projection. You, Chemisor, will not believe any temperature data any more. The rest of the world will make up its own mind. Belief has no place in science anyway. That belongs to religion.</p><p>People like you have an influence through the political process, but you have no influence in the realm of scientific research. You can pick and choose what to believe. We scientists will continue to do research and publish our results using established scientific guidelines accepted by scientists all around the world, and our results will be made public. You, Chemisor, have the option of ignoring these results, cherrypicking the bits which fit your worldview, or trying to take a step back and analyzing the data like a scientist and drawing a rational conclusion. We cannot do this for you. Good luck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The damage is done : nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more .
Personally , I 'm tacitly accepting of AGW , but even I will no longer put any value on that data .
Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources , I 'm not going to believe it .
The political influence is just too strong.Nice projection .
You , Chemisor , will not believe any temperature data any more .
The rest of the world will make up its own mind .
Belief has no place in science anyway .
That belongs to religion.People like you have an influence through the political process , but you have no influence in the realm of scientific research .
You can pick and choose what to believe .
We scientists will continue to do research and publish our results using established scientific guidelines accepted by scientists all around the world , and our results will be made public .
You , Chemisor , have the option of ignoring these results , cherrypicking the bits which fit your worldview , or trying to take a step back and analyzing the data like a scientist and drawing a rational conclusion .
We can not do this for you .
Good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more.
Personally, I'm tacitly accepting of AGW, but even I will no longer put any value on that data.
Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources, I'm not going to believe it.
The political influence is just too strong.Nice projection.
You, Chemisor, will not believe any temperature data any more.
The rest of the world will make up its own mind.
Belief has no place in science anyway.
That belongs to religion.People like you have an influence through the political process, but you have no influence in the realm of scientific research.
You can pick and choose what to believe.
We scientists will continue to do research and publish our results using established scientific guidelines accepted by scientists all around the world, and our results will be made public.
You, Chemisor, have the option of ignoring these results, cherrypicking the bits which fit your worldview, or trying to take a step back and analyzing the data like a scientist and drawing a rational conclusion.
We cannot do this for you.
Good luck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336946</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260041880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering. They are clueless about how to handle it. They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated. They think they are being quote mined, quoted out of context. The journalists are giving totally irrelevant and completely debunked theorists equal time for balance. So they go about in their clueless ways to counter it. They over react, they try to be more guarded, they are trying to write sentences that could not be quote mined. </p></div><p>From http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=35&amp;filename=876437553.txt</p><p><div class="quote"><p>From: Joseph Alcamo <br>To: m.hulme@REDACTED, Rob.Swart@REDACTED<br>Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement<br>Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100<br>Reply-to: alcamo@REDACTED</p><p>Mike, Rob,</p><p>Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.</p><p>I would like to weigh in on two important questions --</p><p>Distribution for Endorsements --<br>I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as<br>possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is<br>numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500<br>signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000<br>without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a<br>different story.</p><p>Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking<br>them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those<br>names!</p><p>Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.<br>1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was<br>a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect<br>that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.<br>2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am<br>afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any<br>time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear<br>about it.<br>3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have<br>it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread<br>the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so<br>bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a<br>diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two<br>very different directions.</p><p>Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17<br>November at the latest.</p><p>Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to compete<br>with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still<br>willing to send you what I have, if you wish.</p><p>Best wishes,</p><p>Joe Alcamo</p><p>Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director<br>Center for Environmental Systems Research<br>University of Kassel<br>Kurt Wolters Strasse 3<br>D-34109 Kassel<br>Germany</p></div><p>Please note that this email is dated 9-Oct-1997. These folks have been playing <b>and winning</b> the PR game for over 12 years.</p><p>Now go back and re-read the first "Conclusion" paragraph in the email. To paraphrase: "Don't worry about the quality of the data, just get the message out." That mindset is at the heart of the matter, isn't it?</p><p>To characterize these folks as egg-headed academics naive to the ways of the world is disingenuous at best. These are very intelligent people who know exactly what they're doing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism , spin meistering .
They are clueless about how to handle it .
They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated .
They think they are being quote mined , quoted out of context .
The journalists are giving totally irrelevant and completely debunked theorists equal time for balance .
So they go about in their clueless ways to counter it .
They over react , they try to be more guarded , they are trying to write sentences that could not be quote mined .
From http : //www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php ? eid = 35&amp;filename = 876437553.txtFrom : Joseph Alcamo To : m.hulme @ REDACTED , Rob.Swart @ REDACTEDSubject : Timing , Distribution of the StatementDate : Thu , 9 Oct 1997 18 : 52 : 33 0100Reply-to : alcamo @ REDACTEDMike , Rob,Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.I would like to weigh in on two important questions --Distribution for Endorsements --I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution aspossible for endorsements .
I think the only thing that counts isnumbers .
The media is going to say " 1000 scientists signed " or " 1500signed " .
No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000without .
They will mention the prominent ones , but that is adifferent story.Conclusion -- Forget the screening , forget askingthem about their last publication ( most will ignore you .
) Get thosenames ! Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.1 .
We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there wasa sag in related news , but in the week before Kyoto we should expectthat we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.2 .
If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I amafraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have anytime to pay attention to it .
We should give them a few weeks to hearabout it.3 .
If Greenpeace is having an event the week before , we should haveit a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spreadthe word about the Statement .
On the other hand , it would n't be sobad to release the Statement in the same week , but on adiffeent day .
The media might enjoy hearing the message from twovery different directions.Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November , or the week of 17November at the latest.Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to competewith the list you can get from the Dutch .
But I am stillwilling to send you what I have , if you wish.Best wishes,Joe AlcamoProf .
Dr. Joseph Alcamo , DirectorCenter for Environmental Systems ResearchUniversity of KasselKurt Wolters Strasse 3D-34109 KasselGermanyPlease note that this email is dated 9-Oct-1997 .
These folks have been playing and winning the PR game for over 12 years.Now go back and re-read the first " Conclusion " paragraph in the email .
To paraphrase : " Do n't worry about the quality of the data , just get the message out .
" That mindset is at the heart of the matter , is n't it ? To characterize these folks as egg-headed academics naive to the ways of the world is disingenuous at best .
These are very intelligent people who know exactly what they 're doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering.
They are clueless about how to handle it.
They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated.
They think they are being quote mined, quoted out of context.
The journalists are giving totally irrelevant and completely debunked theorists equal time for balance.
So they go about in their clueless ways to counter it.
They over react, they try to be more guarded, they are trying to write sentences that could not be quote mined.
From http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=35&amp;filename=876437553.txtFrom: Joseph Alcamo To: m.hulme@REDACTED, Rob.Swart@REDACTEDSubject: Timing, Distribution of the StatementDate: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100Reply-to: alcamo@REDACTEDMike, Rob,Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.I would like to weigh in on two important questions --Distribution for Endorsements --I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution aspossible for endorsements.
I think the only thing that counts isnumbers.
The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500signed".
No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000without.
They will mention the prominent ones, but that is adifferent story.Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget askingthem about their last publication (most will ignore you.
) Get thosenames!Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.1.
We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there wasa sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expectthat we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.2.
If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I amafraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have anytime to pay attention to it.
We should give them a few weeks to hearabout it.3.
If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should haveit a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spreadthe word about the Statement.
On the other hand, it wouldn't be sobad to release the Statement in the same week, but on adiffeent day.
The media might enjoy hearing the message from twovery different directions.Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17November at the latest.Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to competewith the list you can get from the Dutch.
But I am stillwilling to send you what I have, if you wish.Best wishes,Joe AlcamoProf.
Dr. Joseph Alcamo, DirectorCenter for Environmental Systems ResearchUniversity of KasselKurt Wolters Strasse 3D-34109 KasselGermanyPlease note that this email is dated 9-Oct-1997.
These folks have been playing and winning the PR game for over 12 years.Now go back and re-read the first "Conclusion" paragraph in the email.
To paraphrase: "Don't worry about the quality of the data, just get the message out.
" That mindset is at the heart of the matter, isn't it?To characterize these folks as egg-headed academics naive to the ways of the world is disingenuous at best.
These are very intelligent people who know exactly what they're doing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338102</id>
	<title>Re:Why the need to supress debate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260006300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean by "debate"?  Solid, published research presenting new data or methods and challenging the mainstream view is good for science.  Laypeople generating "reports" or endlessly rehashing the same old themes on blogs isn't terribly useful.  There appears to be strikingly little of the former, but a whole lot of the latter, and the latter is used to justify a perpetual delay in making any sort of potentially preventative measures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean by " debate " ?
Solid , published research presenting new data or methods and challenging the mainstream view is good for science .
Laypeople generating " reports " or endlessly rehashing the same old themes on blogs is n't terribly useful .
There appears to be strikingly little of the former , but a whole lot of the latter , and the latter is used to justify a perpetual delay in making any sort of potentially preventative measures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean by "debate"?
Solid, published research presenting new data or methods and challenging the mainstream view is good for science.
Laypeople generating "reports" or endlessly rehashing the same old themes on blogs isn't terribly useful.
There appears to be strikingly little of the former, but a whole lot of the latter, and the latter is used to justify a perpetual delay in making any sort of potentially preventative measures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341394</id>
	<title>Clearly you have the improper mindset</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1260039120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you see??? By saying that their investigation found nothing wrong, they have proven their complicity in the conspiracy!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you see ? ? ?
By saying that their investigation found nothing wrong , they have proven their complicity in the conspiracy !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you see???
By saying that their investigation found nothing wrong, they have proven their complicity in the conspiracy!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338308</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1260008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>No surprises here. Both of these publications long ago transitioned from hard science to activism, and having made their bed with the Warmites they're going to defend it no matter what the facts say.</i> <br> <br>Which makes you wonder what else these publications might be being less than honest about.<br> <br> <i>As a modeling and simulations expert, I've studied some of the code and find it abominable. Where I work these people would be *fired*, immediately and without reservation, for the work they did. The emails are *bad*, the code is *damning*.</i> <br> <br>Even (supposedly) much better models can't predict the weather. So what hope have any models of predicting "climate" over even a short period of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No surprises here .
Both of these publications long ago transitioned from hard science to activism , and having made their bed with the Warmites they 're going to defend it no matter what the facts say .
Which makes you wonder what else these publications might be being less than honest about .
As a modeling and simulations expert , I 've studied some of the code and find it abominable .
Where I work these people would be * fired * , immediately and without reservation , for the work they did .
The emails are * bad * , the code is * damning * .
Even ( supposedly ) much better models ca n't predict the weather .
So what hope have any models of predicting " climate " over even a short period of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No surprises here.
Both of these publications long ago transitioned from hard science to activism, and having made their bed with the Warmites they're going to defend it no matter what the facts say.
Which makes you wonder what else these publications might be being less than honest about.
As a modeling and simulations expert, I've studied some of the code and find it abominable.
Where I work these people would be *fired*, immediately and without reservation, for the work they did.
The emails are *bad*, the code is *damning*.
Even (supposedly) much better models can't predict the weather.
So what hope have any models of predicting "climate" over even a short period of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335810</id>
	<title>Re:How they acted?</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1260035280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ironic thing is that what the so-called skeptics are doing is adjusting the data to fit their preconceived idea that climate change is not happening.  They decided in advance what the e-mails and source code mean and they are refusing to consider any data that disagrees with those pre-determined conclusions.  It would be nice if these skeptic would simply apply the scientific method to the data (e-mails and source code) and revise their hypothesis (that there is evidence for fraud) accordingly.  Instead they are adjusting the data (taking e-mails out of context, mis-reading source code) to get the answer that they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ironic thing is that what the so-called skeptics are doing is adjusting the data to fit their preconceived idea that climate change is not happening .
They decided in advance what the e-mails and source code mean and they are refusing to consider any data that disagrees with those pre-determined conclusions .
It would be nice if these skeptic would simply apply the scientific method to the data ( e-mails and source code ) and revise their hypothesis ( that there is evidence for fraud ) accordingly .
Instead they are adjusting the data ( taking e-mails out of context , mis-reading source code ) to get the answer that they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ironic thing is that what the so-called skeptics are doing is adjusting the data to fit their preconceived idea that climate change is not happening.
They decided in advance what the e-mails and source code mean and they are refusing to consider any data that disagrees with those pre-determined conclusions.
It would be nice if these skeptic would simply apply the scientific method to the data (e-mails and source code) and revise their hypothesis (that there is evidence for fraud) accordingly.
Instead they are adjusting the data (taking e-mails out of context, mis-reading source code) to get the answer that they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335054</id>
	<title>Re:Peer-reviewed journal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260029640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're this sceptical of the peer-review process, then why aren't you dismissing everything else in science as well? It's done by exactly the same process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're this sceptical of the peer-review process , then why are n't you dismissing everything else in science as well ?
It 's done by exactly the same process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're this sceptical of the peer-review process, then why aren't you dismissing everything else in science as well?
It's done by exactly the same process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766</id>
	<title>The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>funwithBSD</author>
	<datestamp>1260027420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Denialists.</p><p>That's right, anyone who "denies" global warming is human caused is denying the truth.</p><p>Some  "climate-change-denialist fringe" (also their words in the link) who deny  the "scientific case" of human-caused (their words, and honest ones. It does not rise to the level of a theory)<br>No, they could not be credible scientists that look at the data and see other hypothesis. Nor could they be credible in questioning the base data. The "debate is over".</p><p>Sorry Nature, epic fail.</p><p>Starting your argument with a personal attack is not good form. You expose your own bias to believe the human-caused global warming hypothesis by doing the very thing the scientists in the emails do: attack and discredit those who disagree with you.</p><p>Every scientific theory, and even "laws" like gravity, must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning... or they are merely pseudo-religious beliefs. You might as well declare Al Gore the Global Warming Pope and set up a church in Copenhagen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Denialists.That 's right , anyone who " denies " global warming is human caused is denying the truth.Some " climate-change-denialist fringe " ( also their words in the link ) who deny the " scientific case " of human-caused ( their words , and honest ones .
It does not rise to the level of a theory ) No , they could not be credible scientists that look at the data and see other hypothesis .
Nor could they be credible in questioning the base data .
The " debate is over " .Sorry Nature , epic fail.Starting your argument with a personal attack is not good form .
You expose your own bias to believe the human-caused global warming hypothesis by doing the very thing the scientists in the emails do : attack and discredit those who disagree with you.Every scientific theory , and even " laws " like gravity , must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning... or they are merely pseudo-religious beliefs .
You might as well declare Al Gore the Global Warming Pope and set up a church in Copenhagen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Denialists.That's right, anyone who "denies" global warming is human caused is denying the truth.Some  "climate-change-denialist fringe" (also their words in the link) who deny  the "scientific case" of human-caused (their words, and honest ones.
It does not rise to the level of a theory)No, they could not be credible scientists that look at the data and see other hypothesis.
Nor could they be credible in questioning the base data.
The "debate is over".Sorry Nature, epic fail.Starting your argument with a personal attack is not good form.
You expose your own bias to believe the human-caused global warming hypothesis by doing the very thing the scientists in the emails do: attack and discredit those who disagree with you.Every scientific theory, and even "laws" like gravity, must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning... or they are merely pseudo-religious beliefs.
You might as well declare Al Gore the Global Warming Pope and set up a church in Copenhagen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335040</id>
	<title>Re:Almost</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1260029520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point. A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research..</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't care what you say or what happens to my children or anyone else's children. I'm keeping my SUV.</p></div><p>Fixed it for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point .
A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research..I do n't care what you say or what happens to my children or anyone else 's children .
I 'm keeping my SUV.Fixed it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point.
A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research..I don't care what you say or what happens to my children or anyone else's children.
I'm keeping my SUV.Fixed it for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334940</id>
	<title>Need to start over</title>
	<author>gravesb</author>
	<datestamp>1260028860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, these guys are assholes who should never work again.  That does not mean, however, that their work is incorrect.  The problem is that everyone is working at two or three levels removed.  Stop trying to analyze the source code.  None of their theories is scientific unless we can replicate the tests.  Write new source code to map whatever raw data is still around.  If that comes to similar conclusions, then maybe the harm is minimal.  (The harm to science as an institution is great, I think, at least in the mind of the public.).  If it comes to wildly different conclusions, then we can work from there.  Any work that is based on data no longer available should not be considered valid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , these guys are assholes who should never work again .
That does not mean , however , that their work is incorrect .
The problem is that everyone is working at two or three levels removed .
Stop trying to analyze the source code .
None of their theories is scientific unless we can replicate the tests .
Write new source code to map whatever raw data is still around .
If that comes to similar conclusions , then maybe the harm is minimal .
( The harm to science as an institution is great , I think , at least in the mind of the public. ) .
If it comes to wildly different conclusions , then we can work from there .
Any work that is based on data no longer available should not be considered valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, these guys are assholes who should never work again.
That does not mean, however, that their work is incorrect.
The problem is that everyone is working at two or three levels removed.
Stop trying to analyze the source code.
None of their theories is scientific unless we can replicate the tests.
Write new source code to map whatever raw data is still around.
If that comes to similar conclusions, then maybe the harm is minimal.
(The harm to science as an institution is great, I think, at least in the mind of the public.).
If it comes to wildly different conclusions, then we can work from there.
Any work that is based on data no longer available should not be considered valid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338796</id>
	<title>FORGET the emails--look at the code</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1260011940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget the emails. All they show is a few very prestigious climate scientists "hiding behind" intellectual property rights, refusing to adhere to FOIA rules (both of these normally anathema to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers), deleteing data and emails that might be incrimintory, revealing that they have manipulated peer review by keeping skeptical papers out, even to the point of changing the definition of peer review, refusing to release their data, caliming a peer reviewed article = 'settled science', exulting in the death of skeptics, attempting (successfully) to get editors they don't like fired. Just normal boys will beboys stuff. Nothing to see here&gt; Move along.</p><p>But this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. How about looking at the code? Like here: <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/</a> [wattsupwiththat.com] or how about a little sympathy for a programmer, Harry. See what he has to say: <a href="http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY\_READ\_ME.txt" title="anenglishmanscastle.com">http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY\_READ\_ME.txt</a> [anenglishmanscastle.com] or look here: <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p><p>Or how about daling with teh mathematics of it all: <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the\_mathematics\_of\_global\_warm.html" title="americanthinker.com">http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the\_mathematics\_of\_global\_warm.html</a> [americanthinker.com]</p><p>So forget the emails; look at the code. Then come back here and say, with a straight face, that the data has not been manipulated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget the emails .
All they show is a few very prestigious climate scientists " hiding behind " intellectual property rights , refusing to adhere to FOIA rules ( both of these normally anathema to /.ers ) , deleteing data and emails that might be incrimintory , revealing that they have manipulated peer review by keeping skeptical papers out , even to the point of changing the definition of peer review , refusing to release their data , caliming a peer reviewed article = 'settled science ' , exulting in the death of skeptics , attempting ( successfully ) to get editors they do n't like fired .
Just normal boys will beboys stuff .
Nothing to see here &gt; Move along.But this is / .
How about looking at the code ?
Like here : http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/ [ wattsupwiththat.com ] or how about a little sympathy for a programmer , Harry .
See what he has to say : http : //www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY \ _READ \ _ME.txt [ anenglishmanscastle.com ] or look here : http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/ [ wattsupwiththat.com ] Or how about daling with teh mathematics of it all : http : //www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the \ _mathematics \ _of \ _global \ _warm.html [ americanthinker.com ] So forget the emails ; look at the code .
Then come back here and say , with a straight face , that the data has not been manipulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget the emails.
All they show is a few very prestigious climate scientists "hiding behind" intellectual property rights, refusing to adhere to FOIA rules (both of these normally anathema to /.ers), deleteing data and emails that might be incrimintory, revealing that they have manipulated peer review by keeping skeptical papers out, even to the point of changing the definition of peer review, refusing to release their data, caliming a peer reviewed article = 'settled science', exulting in the death of skeptics, attempting (successfully) to get editors they don't like fired.
Just normal boys will beboys stuff.
Nothing to see here&gt; Move along.But this is /.
How about looking at the code?
Like here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/ [wattsupwiththat.com] or how about a little sympathy for a programmer, Harry.
See what he has to say: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY\_READ\_ME.txt [anenglishmanscastle.com] or look here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/ [wattsupwiththat.com]Or how about daling with teh mathematics of it all: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the\_mathematics\_of\_global\_warm.html [americanthinker.com]So forget the emails; look at the code.
Then come back here and say, with a straight face, that the data has not been manipulated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335470</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>TerryCary</author>
	<datestamp>1260033120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. It wasn't a few suspect emails
2. Logically, yes they can - it's like saying a few minutes of blank audio tape can't take down a sitting president.

Read them, read the source code and comments used to generate the falsified data. Read the enormous number of emails to the Peers to falsify the review. And then look at the roll these same journals played in this scheme.

Your statement is inaccurate and shows your agenda. More lies to cover up the lies that have been revealed. Nothing new.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
It was n't a few suspect emails 2 .
Logically , yes they can - it 's like saying a few minutes of blank audio tape ca n't take down a sitting president .
Read them , read the source code and comments used to generate the falsified data .
Read the enormous number of emails to the Peers to falsify the review .
And then look at the roll these same journals played in this scheme .
Your statement is inaccurate and shows your agenda .
More lies to cover up the lies that have been revealed .
Nothing new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
It wasn't a few suspect emails
2.
Logically, yes they can - it's like saying a few minutes of blank audio tape can't take down a sitting president.
Read them, read the source code and comments used to generate the falsified data.
Read the enormous number of emails to the Peers to falsify the review.
And then look at the roll these same journals played in this scheme.
Your statement is inaccurate and shows your agenda.
More lies to cover up the lies that have been revealed.
Nothing new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706</id>
	<title>Peer-reviewed journal?</title>
	<author>dusanv</author>
	<datestamp>1260027000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously? No surprise that they won't investigate anything.</p><p>I think open source is the answer here. Open source the data, methodologies, any programs used. Anybody else should be able to reproduce the results by themselves. All that research is paid for by the public dime anyway and it's used to set public policy so it shouldn't be kept secret. Oh, and no anonymous peer "reviewing" would be really nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously ?
No surprise that they wo n't investigate anything.I think open source is the answer here .
Open source the data , methodologies , any programs used .
Anybody else should be able to reproduce the results by themselves .
All that research is paid for by the public dime anyway and it 's used to set public policy so it should n't be kept secret .
Oh , and no anonymous peer " reviewing " would be really nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously?
No surprise that they won't investigate anything.I think open source is the answer here.
Open source the data, methodologies, any programs used.
Anybody else should be able to reproduce the results by themselves.
All that research is paid for by the public dime anyway and it's used to set public policy so it shouldn't be kept secret.
Oh, and no anonymous peer "reviewing" would be really nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</id>
	<title>Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1260026520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same with <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&amp;nsref=online-news" title="newscientist.com">newscientist </a> [newscientist.com] <br>
I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point. A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same with newscientist [ newscientist.com ] I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point .
A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same with newscientist  [newscientist.com] 
I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point.
A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334988</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260029220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly right and exactly the point. AGW is a theory that should be open to scientific debate, just like any other scientific theory. The emails demonstrate that these scientists actively tried to suppress scientific debate, and that's wrong. Period. The endless nitpicking from both sides of the issue about the language and wording of the emails is misdirection. There is a debate about the validity of AGW. If that wasn't true, this wouldn't have happened in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly right and exactly the point .
AGW is a theory that should be open to scientific debate , just like any other scientific theory .
The emails demonstrate that these scientists actively tried to suppress scientific debate , and that 's wrong .
Period. The endless nitpicking from both sides of the issue about the language and wording of the emails is misdirection .
There is a debate about the validity of AGW .
If that was n't true , this would n't have happened in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly right and exactly the point.
AGW is a theory that should be open to scientific debate, just like any other scientific theory.
The emails demonstrate that these scientists actively tried to suppress scientific debate, and that's wrong.
Period. The endless nitpicking from both sides of the issue about the language and wording of the emails is misdirection.
There is a debate about the validity of AGW.
If that wasn't true, this wouldn't have happened in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335004</id>
	<title>What's next? Pedophilia?</title>
	<author>GrantRobertson</author>
	<datestamp>1260029280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Next, the professional climate deniers will be accusing climate researchers of pedophilia. It is the conservative smear tactic of last resort. And since their smear campaigns are always completely bull, they are inevitably forced into using their last resort.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next , the professional climate deniers will be accusing climate researchers of pedophilia .
It is the conservative smear tactic of last resort .
And since their smear campaigns are always completely bull , they are inevitably forced into using their last resort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next, the professional climate deniers will be accusing climate researchers of pedophilia.
It is the conservative smear tactic of last resort.
And since their smear campaigns are always completely bull, they are inevitably forced into using their last resort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335166</id>
	<title>Re:Nice explanation in potholer54's video</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1260030420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you people find the time to watch silly videos? Is there an accurate transcript? With still images? Perhaps a normal web page?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you people find the time to watch silly videos ?
Is there an accurate transcript ?
With still images ?
Perhaps a normal web page ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you people find the time to watch silly videos?
Is there an accurate transcript?
With still images?
Perhaps a normal web page?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341858</id>
	<title>Re:Why the need to supress debate?</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1260091200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's god-damned good science, then really there shouldn't be any debate. Should we be debating whether gravity exists at all? Or whether the laws of conservation of energy is real? Or for that matter, whether 1+1=2 and Pi = 3.1415926... ?</p><p>If you open these topics for debate, only crackpots will respond.</p><p>Of course, I don't think Climate Science is "god-damned good science", at least not to the level of the ones I mentioned above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's god-damned good science , then really there should n't be any debate .
Should we be debating whether gravity exists at all ?
Or whether the laws of conservation of energy is real ?
Or for that matter , whether 1 + 1 = 2 and Pi = 3.1415926... ? If you open these topics for debate , only crackpots will respond.Of course , I do n't think Climate Science is " god-damned good science " , at least not to the level of the ones I mentioned above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's god-damned good science, then really there shouldn't be any debate.
Should we be debating whether gravity exists at all?
Or whether the laws of conservation of energy is real?
Or for that matter, whether 1+1=2 and Pi = 3.1415926... ?If you open these topics for debate, only crackpots will respond.Of course, I don't think Climate Science is "god-damned good science", at least not to the level of the ones I mentioned above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334808</id>
	<title>No surprise here</title>
	<author>Mr. Firewall</author>
	<datestamp>1260027780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Nothing to see here, move along"</p><p>Just like every "investigation" where the ones doing the "investigating" are the same ones as (or good buddies of) the ones who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Just like a police dept. "internal investigation".</p><p>They could be child pornographers, and they would still find "nothing wrong".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nothing to see here , move along " Just like every " investigation " where the ones doing the " investigating " are the same ones as ( or good buddies of ) the ones who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar .
Just like a police dept .
" internal investigation " .They could be child pornographers , and they would still find " nothing wrong " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nothing to see here, move along"Just like every "investigation" where the ones doing the "investigating" are the same ones as (or good buddies of) the ones who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Just like a police dept.
"internal investigation".They could be child pornographers, and they would still find "nothing wrong".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336970</id>
	<title>Honest Peer Review</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1260042060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Writing as an ex UK academic, who saw all this stuff comming 20 years ago it really is very simple, we need Honesty in Peer Review, Promotion and the Award of Grants. In Mathematics, more Hard Science, much more Soft Science, much, much more Social Science and most in Medicine and Health Care we desparately need honest in-corruptable players. The problem is we have almost NONE.<br><br>In two generations we have done this to ourselves, destroyed the Enlightenment and Objectivism; repaced it with FOX and CNN and Murdoch's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... crap. This is the real disaster, far far more important than AGW or any other single issue.<br><br>Most honest men have learned to keep their head down, or be professionally and personally destroyed. Shirly Williams set the agenda for politiziation in place. The seed has grown, and now threatens both Tertiary Education but also all Research in Universities and SRCs. In retrospect this was entirely deliberate and a generation of top University Administrators, VCs and Registrars baught it hook, line and sinker. How sad!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Writing as an ex UK academic , who saw all this stuff comming 20 years ago it really is very simple , we need Honesty in Peer Review , Promotion and the Award of Grants .
In Mathematics , more Hard Science , much more Soft Science , much , much more Social Science and most in Medicine and Health Care we desparately need honest in-corruptable players .
The problem is we have almost NONE.In two generations we have done this to ourselves , destroyed the Enlightenment and Objectivism ; repaced it with FOX and CNN and Murdoch 's ... crap. This is the real disaster , far far more important than AGW or any other single issue.Most honest men have learned to keep their head down , or be professionally and personally destroyed .
Shirly Williams set the agenda for politiziation in place .
The seed has grown , and now threatens both Tertiary Education but also all Research in Universities and SRCs .
In retrospect this was entirely deliberate and a generation of top University Administrators , VCs and Registrars baught it hook , line and sinker .
How sad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Writing as an ex UK academic, who saw all this stuff comming 20 years ago it really is very simple, we need Honesty in Peer Review, Promotion and the Award of Grants.
In Mathematics, more Hard Science, much more Soft Science, much, much more Social Science and most in Medicine and Health Care we desparately need honest in-corruptable players.
The problem is we have almost NONE.In two generations we have done this to ourselves, destroyed the Enlightenment and Objectivism; repaced it with FOX and CNN and Murdoch's ... crap. This is the real disaster, far far more important than AGW or any other single issue.Most honest men have learned to keep their head down, or be professionally and personally destroyed.
Shirly Williams set the agenda for politiziation in place.
The seed has grown, and now threatens both Tertiary Education but also all Research in Universities and SRCs.
In retrospect this was entirely deliberate and a generation of top University Administrators, VCs and Registrars baught it hook, line and sinker.
How sad!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337028</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1260042480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we shouldn't worry that this critically important science was (potentially) screwed up, because "at least it wasn't a conspiracy!" Ok, so they screwed it up on accident-- is that better? Of course not. Sane people never believed the conspiracy theories anyway.</p><p><i>These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering. They are clueless about how to handle it. They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated.</i></p><p>And some jackass on Slashdot is pretending to speak for them, to boot!</p><p><i>Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists, compare that to say, the hacked emails of Sarah Palin, See where you find more smoking guns.</i></p><p>I don't recall the finding of any smoking guns in Palin's email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we should n't worry that this critically important science was ( potentially ) screwed up , because " at least it was n't a conspiracy !
" Ok , so they screwed it up on accident-- is that better ?
Of course not .
Sane people never believed the conspiracy theories anyway.These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism , spin meistering .
They are clueless about how to handle it .
They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated.And some jackass on Slashdot is pretending to speak for them , to boot ! Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists , compare that to say , the hacked emails of Sarah Palin , See where you find more smoking guns.I do n't recall the finding of any smoking guns in Palin 's email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we shouldn't worry that this critically important science was (potentially) screwed up, because "at least it wasn't a conspiracy!
" Ok, so they screwed it up on accident-- is that better?
Of course not.
Sane people never believed the conspiracy theories anyway.These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering.
They are clueless about how to handle it.
They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated.And some jackass on Slashdot is pretending to speak for them, to boot!Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists, compare that to say, the hacked emails of Sarah Palin, See where you find more smoking guns.I don't recall the finding of any smoking guns in Palin's email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337710</id>
	<title>Re:Why the need to supress debate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260003720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you talking about climate change denialism or creationism?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you talking about climate change denialism or creationism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you talking about climate change denialism or creationism?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334948</id>
	<title>Re:How they acted?</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1260028920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If AGW was actually happening, there would be no need to "adjust" numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emails</p></div><p>Here in the southern hemisphere we have just started our summer. According to my measurements, it is hotter now than it was six months ago. As you say, there is no need to adjust any numbers, so this means we have proof of global warming.</p><p>But seriously, there are plenty of reasons why you might need to adjust some data. New measuring equipment (from alternative manufacturers), procedural changes meaning measurements are taken at different times of the day or even a different place. An organisation might stop measuring a particular reading and you have to go to another source.</p><p>Remember, these measurements have been taken over many decades through different political administrations, through budget cuts, and through technology changes. Even the reasons for taking a certain measurement might change over time, resulting in new methodologies for data collection.</p><p>This is not just one big experiment. This is a series of thousands of different scientific endeavours all coming together. There will have to be a normalisation process involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If AGW was actually happening , there would be no need to " adjust " numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emailsHere in the southern hemisphere we have just started our summer .
According to my measurements , it is hotter now than it was six months ago .
As you say , there is no need to adjust any numbers , so this means we have proof of global warming.But seriously , there are plenty of reasons why you might need to adjust some data .
New measuring equipment ( from alternative manufacturers ) , procedural changes meaning measurements are taken at different times of the day or even a different place .
An organisation might stop measuring a particular reading and you have to go to another source.Remember , these measurements have been taken over many decades through different political administrations , through budget cuts , and through technology changes .
Even the reasons for taking a certain measurement might change over time , resulting in new methodologies for data collection.This is not just one big experiment .
This is a series of thousands of different scientific endeavours all coming together .
There will have to be a normalisation process involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If AGW was actually happening, there would be no need to "adjust" numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emailsHere in the southern hemisphere we have just started our summer.
According to my measurements, it is hotter now than it was six months ago.
As you say, there is no need to adjust any numbers, so this means we have proof of global warming.But seriously, there are plenty of reasons why you might need to adjust some data.
New measuring equipment (from alternative manufacturers), procedural changes meaning measurements are taken at different times of the day or even a different place.
An organisation might stop measuring a particular reading and you have to go to another source.Remember, these measurements have been taken over many decades through different political administrations, through budget cuts, and through technology changes.
Even the reasons for taking a certain measurement might change over time, resulting in new methodologies for data collection.This is not just one big experiment.
This is a series of thousands of different scientific endeavours all coming together.
There will have to be a normalisation process involved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335218</id>
	<title>I tried that.</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1260030840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You might as well declare Al Gore the Global Warming Pope and set up a church in Copenhagen.</p></div><p>He's Baptist - no can do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might as well declare Al Gore the Global Warming Pope and set up a church in Copenhagen.He 's Baptist - no can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might as well declare Al Gore the Global Warming Pope and set up a church in Copenhagen.He's Baptist - no can do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335184</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260030540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Every scientific theory, and even "laws" like gravity, must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning... or they are merely pseudo-religious beliefs. You might as well declare Al Gore the Global Warming Pope and set up a church in Copenhagen."</p><p>Yet the Earth still warms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Every scientific theory , and even " laws " like gravity , must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning... or they are merely pseudo-religious beliefs .
You might as well declare Al Gore the Global Warming Pope and set up a church in Copenhagen .
" Yet the Earth still warms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Every scientific theory, and even "laws" like gravity, must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning... or they are merely pseudo-religious beliefs.
You might as well declare Al Gore the Global Warming Pope and set up a church in Copenhagen.
"Yet the Earth still warms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341968</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1260093720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I used to have doubts about AGW because I heard so many skeptics, but now</p></div><p>That is, in a sense, a strawman argument too. The strawman right-wing nut. Either the AGW proponents have proved their case, or they have not. It shouldn't matter that their opponents are even less credible than they are.</p><p>In this leaked email scandal, the case of the AGW has gotten weaker. Is it weak enough to discredit AGW? I personally think not. Is it bad though? Hell yes it is. Those who believe that AGW is infallible should take a second look at the available evidence, and try to figure out the implications if AGW is still supported by scientific evidence even if we disregard the results of the scientists involved in this scandal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to have doubts about AGW because I heard so many skeptics , but nowThat is , in a sense , a strawman argument too .
The strawman right-wing nut .
Either the AGW proponents have proved their case , or they have not .
It should n't matter that their opponents are even less credible than they are.In this leaked email scandal , the case of the AGW has gotten weaker .
Is it weak enough to discredit AGW ?
I personally think not .
Is it bad though ?
Hell yes it is .
Those who believe that AGW is infallible should take a second look at the available evidence , and try to figure out the implications if AGW is still supported by scientific evidence even if we disregard the results of the scientists involved in this scandal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to have doubts about AGW because I heard so many skeptics, but nowThat is, in a sense, a strawman argument too.
The strawman right-wing nut.
Either the AGW proponents have proved their case, or they have not.
It shouldn't matter that their opponents are even less credible than they are.In this leaked email scandal, the case of the AGW has gotten weaker.
Is it weak enough to discredit AGW?
I personally think not.
Is it bad though?
Hell yes it is.
Those who believe that AGW is infallible should take a second look at the available evidence, and try to figure out the implications if AGW is still supported by scientific evidence even if we disregard the results of the scientists involved in this scandal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339008</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1260013740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i am not aware of any human endeavor where consensus is equivalent to truth, although i suspect a sophist might disagree with me.</p><p>so in science, maybe the 30's, some crazy chemist thought the continents moved.  I guess everyone had to die off before the idea was accepted.</p><p>there was, pauling, with his ideas about vitamin C.  so this guy i think had a nobel prize in another field and then switched fields.  i suppose he had enough of a reputation that he was humored for a while, but in the end it was not very nice for him.</p><p>so tell me about consensus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i am not aware of any human endeavor where consensus is equivalent to truth , although i suspect a sophist might disagree with me.so in science , maybe the 30 's , some crazy chemist thought the continents moved .
I guess everyone had to die off before the idea was accepted.there was , pauling , with his ideas about vitamin C. so this guy i think had a nobel prize in another field and then switched fields .
i suppose he had enough of a reputation that he was humored for a while , but in the end it was not very nice for him.so tell me about consensus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i am not aware of any human endeavor where consensus is equivalent to truth, although i suspect a sophist might disagree with me.so in science, maybe the 30's, some crazy chemist thought the continents moved.
I guess everyone had to die off before the idea was accepted.there was, pauling, with his ideas about vitamin C.  so this guy i think had a nobel prize in another field and then switched fields.
i suppose he had enough of a reputation that he was humored for a while, but in the end it was not very nice for him.so tell me about consensus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336036</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>Ferretman</author>
	<datestamp>1260036540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No surprises here.

Both of these publications long ago transitioned from hard science to activism, and having made their bed with the Warmites they're going to defend it no matter what the facts say.

As a modeling and simulations expert, I've studied some of the code and find it abominable.  Where I work these people would be *fired*, immediately and without reservation, for the work they did.

The emails are *bad*, the code is *damning*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No surprises here .
Both of these publications long ago transitioned from hard science to activism , and having made their bed with the Warmites they 're going to defend it no matter what the facts say .
As a modeling and simulations expert , I 've studied some of the code and find it abominable .
Where I work these people would be * fired * , immediately and without reservation , for the work they did .
The emails are * bad * , the code is * damning * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No surprises here.
Both of these publications long ago transitioned from hard science to activism, and having made their bed with the Warmites they're going to defend it no matter what the facts say.
As a modeling and simulations expert, I've studied some of the code and find it abominable.
Where I work these people would be *fired*, immediately and without reservation, for the work they did.
The emails are *bad*, the code is *damning*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334676</id>
	<title>Omg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260026700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wtf bbq</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wtf bbq</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wtf bbq</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335234</id>
	<title>It is in the interest of Nature to find nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260030960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like the rest of the media, if they find something, then it means they haven't been doing their due diligence and that they were wrong.</p><p>I tend to think that AGW is either not real or wont be that destructive (maybe even beneficial).  Either way, until there are some accurate predictions, I dont want billions and trillions of dollars spent of public money spent on it.  Plus time is on our side.  Technology will increase and prices will drop the longer we wait.  Just think of what would have happened if we followed the global cooling head on in the 70s.</p><p>The one thing i took from reading the emails is not that it disproved AGW, but that AGW is not be practiced scientificly.  There should be no talk about trying to silence people, release your data, release your code.  The FOIA stuff is ridiculous.  They get tons of money from the public, they shouldn't own any of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like the rest of the media , if they find something , then it means they have n't been doing their due diligence and that they were wrong.I tend to think that AGW is either not real or wont be that destructive ( maybe even beneficial ) .
Either way , until there are some accurate predictions , I dont want billions and trillions of dollars spent of public money spent on it .
Plus time is on our side .
Technology will increase and prices will drop the longer we wait .
Just think of what would have happened if we followed the global cooling head on in the 70s.The one thing i took from reading the emails is not that it disproved AGW , but that AGW is not be practiced scientificly .
There should be no talk about trying to silence people , release your data , release your code .
The FOIA stuff is ridiculous .
They get tons of money from the public , they should n't own any of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like the rest of the media, if they find something, then it means they haven't been doing their due diligence and that they were wrong.I tend to think that AGW is either not real or wont be that destructive (maybe even beneficial).
Either way, until there are some accurate predictions, I dont want billions and trillions of dollars spent of public money spent on it.
Plus time is on our side.
Technology will increase and prices will drop the longer we wait.
Just think of what would have happened if we followed the global cooling head on in the 70s.The one thing i took from reading the emails is not that it disproved AGW, but that AGW is not be practiced scientificly.
There should be no talk about trying to silence people, release your data, release your code.
The FOIA stuff is ridiculous.
They get tons of money from the public, they shouldn't own any of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341902</id>
	<title>Re:Can't extrapolate to whole community</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1260091920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Johnny runs Linux. Johnny also stole Windows 7, therefore all linux useres steal Windows 7."</p></div><p>How about: <i>Linus Torvalds runs Linux. Linus stole Windows 7.</i></p><p>Sure, there are other Linux developers, but then it would still be a huge scandal and a huge problem.</p><p>And Phil Jones and CRU is where much of the surface temperature research is coming from. He *is* the Linus in that field.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Johnny runs Linux .
Johnny also stole Windows 7 , therefore all linux useres steal Windows 7 .
" How about : Linus Torvalds runs Linux .
Linus stole Windows 7.Sure , there are other Linux developers , but then it would still be a huge scandal and a huge problem.And Phil Jones and CRU is where much of the surface temperature research is coming from .
He * is * the Linus in that field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Johnny runs Linux.
Johnny also stole Windows 7, therefore all linux useres steal Windows 7.
"How about: Linus Torvalds runs Linux.
Linus stole Windows 7.Sure, there are other Linux developers, but then it would still be a huge scandal and a huge problem.And Phil Jones and CRU is where much of the surface temperature research is coming from.
He *is* the Linus in that field.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335300</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1260031620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Denialists.</p></div><p> <b>Donny</b>: Are these the Nazis, Walter?<br>
<b>Walter</b>: No, Donny, these men are denialists, there's nothing to be afraid of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Denialists .
Donny : Are these the Nazis , Walter ?
Walter : No , Donny , these men are denialists , there 's nothing to be afraid of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Denialists.
Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Walter: No, Donny, these men are denialists, there's nothing to be afraid of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340956</id>
	<title>Re:How they acted?</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1260032280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without context on what "adjust" means here, your claim contains no information. Having used that word recently in emails on some on our research, I was referring to subtracting a DC offset so we could more clearly analyze the signal, and filtering out noise.</p><p>Now those particular techniques aren't applicable to the CRU afaik, but frequently in scientific discourse words are used in subtly different ways. In my experience, you don't sweep dishonesty under the rug. You can't afford to, a few bad conclusions can screw up everything. I just had to go through debunking something I'd hoped would be true and it's not fun, but believe me, the cost of being wrong is not something scientists want to gamble with. The payoff just isn't worth it.</p><p>People don't go into science to make money and they don't go into science to be famous outside their little world. They go into science to learn more about the universe and to make a name for themselves in their field, and to build up a reputation as intelligent, incisive, and diligent. A single minor mishap will bring the judgment and shunning of your peers; many of us take it as seriously as if you killed your wife.</p><p>Your own friends, your own grad students, your own professors, will turn you in. Read about some of the famous cases, and what ended up happening. Some are acquitted, and some are convicted. Millikan's famous oil drop, the scandals in the Hood lab at Caltech, the cold fusion incident, the Stanford particle physics forgeries, that guy who drew spots on mice with a sharpie to pretend he'd bred it into them, the Bell Labs scientist who fabricated lies instead of chips. See what makes a case and what doesn't, and how science deals with traitors: with a jury of their peers.</p><p>Spend years analyzing both the emails and raw data and other data from the CRU. Replicate all the work these people did, and perform your one analysis. Then you have a right to come to conclusions about them, as will those who will try them. See their research from their perspective, and see whether it checks out, and, if not, why not.</p><p>I'm sorry but this has McScandal written all over it, especially the timing of it. There's as much money and power pushing climate change denial as there is pushing in favor of going green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without context on what " adjust " means here , your claim contains no information .
Having used that word recently in emails on some on our research , I was referring to subtracting a DC offset so we could more clearly analyze the signal , and filtering out noise.Now those particular techniques are n't applicable to the CRU afaik , but frequently in scientific discourse words are used in subtly different ways .
In my experience , you do n't sweep dishonesty under the rug .
You ca n't afford to , a few bad conclusions can screw up everything .
I just had to go through debunking something I 'd hoped would be true and it 's not fun , but believe me , the cost of being wrong is not something scientists want to gamble with .
The payoff just is n't worth it.People do n't go into science to make money and they do n't go into science to be famous outside their little world .
They go into science to learn more about the universe and to make a name for themselves in their field , and to build up a reputation as intelligent , incisive , and diligent .
A single minor mishap will bring the judgment and shunning of your peers ; many of us take it as seriously as if you killed your wife.Your own friends , your own grad students , your own professors , will turn you in .
Read about some of the famous cases , and what ended up happening .
Some are acquitted , and some are convicted .
Millikan 's famous oil drop , the scandals in the Hood lab at Caltech , the cold fusion incident , the Stanford particle physics forgeries , that guy who drew spots on mice with a sharpie to pretend he 'd bred it into them , the Bell Labs scientist who fabricated lies instead of chips .
See what makes a case and what does n't , and how science deals with traitors : with a jury of their peers.Spend years analyzing both the emails and raw data and other data from the CRU .
Replicate all the work these people did , and perform your one analysis .
Then you have a right to come to conclusions about them , as will those who will try them .
See their research from their perspective , and see whether it checks out , and , if not , why not.I 'm sorry but this has McScandal written all over it , especially the timing of it .
There 's as much money and power pushing climate change denial as there is pushing in favor of going green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without context on what "adjust" means here, your claim contains no information.
Having used that word recently in emails on some on our research, I was referring to subtracting a DC offset so we could more clearly analyze the signal, and filtering out noise.Now those particular techniques aren't applicable to the CRU afaik, but frequently in scientific discourse words are used in subtly different ways.
In my experience, you don't sweep dishonesty under the rug.
You can't afford to, a few bad conclusions can screw up everything.
I just had to go through debunking something I'd hoped would be true and it's not fun, but believe me, the cost of being wrong is not something scientists want to gamble with.
The payoff just isn't worth it.People don't go into science to make money and they don't go into science to be famous outside their little world.
They go into science to learn more about the universe and to make a name for themselves in their field, and to build up a reputation as intelligent, incisive, and diligent.
A single minor mishap will bring the judgment and shunning of your peers; many of us take it as seriously as if you killed your wife.Your own friends, your own grad students, your own professors, will turn you in.
Read about some of the famous cases, and what ended up happening.
Some are acquitted, and some are convicted.
Millikan's famous oil drop, the scandals in the Hood lab at Caltech, the cold fusion incident, the Stanford particle physics forgeries, that guy who drew spots on mice with a sharpie to pretend he'd bred it into them, the Bell Labs scientist who fabricated lies instead of chips.
See what makes a case and what doesn't, and how science deals with traitors: with a jury of their peers.Spend years analyzing both the emails and raw data and other data from the CRU.
Replicate all the work these people did, and perform your one analysis.
Then you have a right to come to conclusions about them, as will those who will try them.
See their research from their perspective, and see whether it checks out, and, if not, why not.I'm sorry but this has McScandal written all over it, especially the timing of it.
There's as much money and power pushing climate change denial as there is pushing in favor of going green.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335506</id>
	<title>Of course there is nothing notable</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1260033420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you have gigabytes of private correspondence to sift through of course you can cherry pick / quote mine something to make it look like a conspiracy. That is all some anti-global warmer bloggers have done. They have engaged in the same sort of quotemining that creationists like to go in for which says a lot about the strength of their arguments.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you have gigabytes of private correspondence to sift through of course you can cherry pick / quote mine something to make it look like a conspiracy .
That is all some anti-global warmer bloggers have done .
They have engaged in the same sort of quotemining that creationists like to go in for which says a lot about the strength of their arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you have gigabytes of private correspondence to sift through of course you can cherry pick / quote mine something to make it look like a conspiracy.
That is all some anti-global warmer bloggers have done.
They have engaged in the same sort of quotemining that creationists like to go in for which says a lot about the strength of their arguments.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335846</id>
	<title>Re:Same with newscientist</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1260035460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do, however, kind of destroy the pretense of usefulness of peer review in this area, because the scientists were taking the positions of:</p><p>a) If your theory is so great, why can't you get it in the peer-reviewed literature?</p><p>b) We're keeping you out of the peer reviewed literature because you disagree with us.</p><p>Um, not how it's supposed to work, sorry.</p><p>And the whole tone of it is like peer review is just some formality rather than a way of enhancing our ability to find the truth.  They say the equivalent of, "So we challenged these nutbags for proof and they had a clever way of jumping *that* hurdle -- they *provided* proof.  What are we supposed to do now?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do , however , kind of destroy the pretense of usefulness of peer review in this area , because the scientists were taking the positions of : a ) If your theory is so great , why ca n't you get it in the peer-reviewed literature ? b ) We 're keeping you out of the peer reviewed literature because you disagree with us.Um , not how it 's supposed to work , sorry.And the whole tone of it is like peer review is just some formality rather than a way of enhancing our ability to find the truth .
They say the equivalent of , " So we challenged these nutbags for proof and they had a clever way of jumping * that * hurdle -- they * provided * proof .
What are we supposed to do now ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do, however, kind of destroy the pretense of usefulness of peer review in this area, because the scientists were taking the positions of:a) If your theory is so great, why can't you get it in the peer-reviewed literature?b) We're keeping you out of the peer reviewed literature because you disagree with us.Um, not how it's supposed to work, sorry.And the whole tone of it is like peer review is just some formality rather than a way of enhancing our ability to find the truth.
They say the equivalent of, "So we challenged these nutbags for proof and they had a clever way of jumping *that* hurdle -- they *provided* proof.
What are we supposed to do now?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336798</id>
	<title>Re:Those that want to be bamboozled...</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1260041040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The evidence for this is literally all around us. Throw all of the CRU data out if you want. It won't change a thing.</p></div><p>Sure it will. The AGW thesis is that human activity is causing (and will cause more) unprecedented (in the past few hundred thousand years) global warming. If it's not, then no amount of "evidence" will change that. Even if human activity is causing AGW, it may still be better to take global warming than the consequences of reduced economic activity. The CRU scandal indicates that some pro-AGW parties are engaging in dubious and unscientific behavior. Further, due to their close connections to the IPCC (some of their allies apparently had and used the power to exclude undesired rival research).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The evidence for this is literally all around us .
Throw all of the CRU data out if you want .
It wo n't change a thing.Sure it will .
The AGW thesis is that human activity is causing ( and will cause more ) unprecedented ( in the past few hundred thousand years ) global warming .
If it 's not , then no amount of " evidence " will change that .
Even if human activity is causing AGW , it may still be better to take global warming than the consequences of reduced economic activity .
The CRU scandal indicates that some pro-AGW parties are engaging in dubious and unscientific behavior .
Further , due to their close connections to the IPCC ( some of their allies apparently had and used the power to exclude undesired rival research ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The evidence for this is literally all around us.
Throw all of the CRU data out if you want.
It won't change a thing.Sure it will.
The AGW thesis is that human activity is causing (and will cause more) unprecedented (in the past few hundred thousand years) global warming.
If it's not, then no amount of "evidence" will change that.
Even if human activity is causing AGW, it may still be better to take global warming than the consequences of reduced economic activity.
The CRU scandal indicates that some pro-AGW parties are engaging in dubious and unscientific behavior.
Further, due to their close connections to the IPCC (some of their allies apparently had and used the power to exclude undesired rival research).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334762</id>
	<title>Time to investigate steroids in baseball?</title>
	<author>Blappo</author>
	<datestamp>1260027420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But we don't have time to look into this?</p><p>Congress, don't take your cue from Nature, do your job advocate of the people who are paying for this research and do an honest investigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But we do n't have time to look into this ? Congress , do n't take your cue from Nature , do your job advocate of the people who are paying for this research and do an honest investigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But we don't have time to look into this?Congress, don't take your cue from Nature, do your job advocate of the people who are paying for this research and do an honest investigation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335310</id>
	<title>Re:Peer-reviewed journal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260031740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that... CRU was specifically attacking journals that DID NOT agree with them. You may want to actually read the emails, or at least excerpts from them. They're pretty unbelievable.</p><p>For Nature, which was indeed a great journal, to "investigate" and "find nothing wrong" is the real shocker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that... CRU was specifically attacking journals that DID NOT agree with them .
You may want to actually read the emails , or at least excerpts from them .
They 're pretty unbelievable.For Nature , which was indeed a great journal , to " investigate " and " find nothing wrong " is the real shocker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that... CRU was specifically attacking journals that DID NOT agree with them.
You may want to actually read the emails, or at least excerpts from them.
They're pretty unbelievable.For Nature, which was indeed a great journal, to "investigate" and "find nothing wrong" is the real shocker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335074</id>
	<title>Can't extrapolate to whole community</title>
	<author>Strider-</author>
	<datestamp>1260029820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if the actions of these people were nefarious, which it doesn't seem to be (playing with different scenarios nd what not) to claim that all the reserch is bogus because of it is a logical fallacy at best, and outright stupidity and ignorance at worst.  The argument basically goes lik ethis: "Johnny runs Linux.  Johnny also stole Windows 7, therefore all linux useres steal Windows 7."

<p> There are dozens of independant sources of data, and independant researchers.  I would be far, far more suspect if it all matched up perfectly.  It doesn't, and that's good.  It promotes discussion within the scientific community.

</p><p> The "skeptics" in this case just don't know what they're talking about, and are guilty of fraud in and of themselves for claiming that a single case can be extrapolated to the entire body of research at large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the actions of these people were nefarious , which it does n't seem to be ( playing with different scenarios nd what not ) to claim that all the reserch is bogus because of it is a logical fallacy at best , and outright stupidity and ignorance at worst .
The argument basically goes lik ethis : " Johnny runs Linux .
Johnny also stole Windows 7 , therefore all linux useres steal Windows 7 .
" There are dozens of independant sources of data , and independant researchers .
I would be far , far more suspect if it all matched up perfectly .
It does n't , and that 's good .
It promotes discussion within the scientific community .
The " skeptics " in this case just do n't know what they 're talking about , and are guilty of fraud in and of themselves for claiming that a single case can be extrapolated to the entire body of research at large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the actions of these people were nefarious, which it doesn't seem to be (playing with different scenarios nd what not) to claim that all the reserch is bogus because of it is a logical fallacy at best, and outright stupidity and ignorance at worst.
The argument basically goes lik ethis: "Johnny runs Linux.
Johnny also stole Windows 7, therefore all linux useres steal Windows 7.
"

 There are dozens of independant sources of data, and independant researchers.
I would be far, far more suspect if it all matched up perfectly.
It doesn't, and that's good.
It promotes discussion within the scientific community.
The "skeptics" in this case just don't know what they're talking about, and are guilty of fraud in and of themselves for claiming that a single case can be extrapolated to the entire body of research at large.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335392</id>
	<title>Re:Peer-reviewed journal?</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1260032520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was that before or after the editorial attacked people who questioned the methodology by calling them "fringe-denialists."  Seriously is that supposed to be an editorial in a respectable journal?  What the in bloody hell is that?  About the time I hit that, I cancelled my subscription and I've been getting Nature delivered to me for around 15 years.  Since I got my first job, figured out I was a geek.  And enjoyed geeky stuff.</p><p>If you can't question objectively in an editorial your bias is showing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was that before or after the editorial attacked people who questioned the methodology by calling them " fringe-denialists .
" Seriously is that supposed to be an editorial in a respectable journal ?
What the in bloody hell is that ?
About the time I hit that , I cancelled my subscription and I 've been getting Nature delivered to me for around 15 years .
Since I got my first job , figured out I was a geek .
And enjoyed geeky stuff.If you ca n't question objectively in an editorial your bias is showing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was that before or after the editorial attacked people who questioned the methodology by calling them "fringe-denialists.
"  Seriously is that supposed to be an editorial in a respectable journal?
What the in bloody hell is that?
About the time I hit that, I cancelled my subscription and I've been getting Nature delivered to me for around 15 years.
Since I got my first job, figured out I was a geek.
And enjoyed geeky stuff.If you can't question objectively in an editorial your bias is showing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334974</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260029100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it fascinating that denailists like yourself express wild fantasies with religious overtones when complaining about science.  I also find it interesting how you are so willing to assert conspiracies of gigantic proportions to explain consensus in the scientific community.  It's pretty pathetic to see people so divorced from reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it fascinating that denailists like yourself express wild fantasies with religious overtones when complaining about science .
I also find it interesting how you are so willing to assert conspiracies of gigantic proportions to explain consensus in the scientific community .
It 's pretty pathetic to see people so divorced from reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it fascinating that denailists like yourself express wild fantasies with religious overtones when complaining about science.
I also find it interesting how you are so willing to assert conspiracies of gigantic proportions to explain consensus in the scientific community.
It's pretty pathetic to see people so divorced from reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30349764</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260126540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only difference is that the ideology behind it is a little more popular -- the strawman liberal is apparently a more plausible villain to most people than the strawman atheist.</p></div><p>And judging from your post, the ad hominem is still largely en vogue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only difference is that the ideology behind it is a little more popular -- the strawman liberal is apparently a more plausible villain to most people than the strawman atheist.And judging from your post , the ad hominem is still largely en vogue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only difference is that the ideology behind it is a little more popular -- the strawman liberal is apparently a more plausible villain to most people than the strawman atheist.And judging from your post, the ad hominem is still largely en vogue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335348</id>
	<title>Re:How they acted?</title>
	<author>bhima</author>
	<datestamp>1260032220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you are clearly posting in a position of ignorance let me clear a few things up for you.</p><p>1: "Scientific Journal" describes "Nature", it is not the journal's name.  It is a peer reviewed international weekly journal of science.<br>2: They &amp; hundreds of other scientists reviewed the leaked data &amp; correspondence and the published data.  They concluded that there is nothing in this stolen data which effects our current understanding of climate science in any way.<br>3: They also concluded that many people are taking some phrases out of context and insisting that they mean something completely different than the context otherwise indicates.  This is what you are doing.<br>4: Anthropogenic climate change is on going and there is ample evidence of it, even if we were to unfairly discount the work of CRU or the scientists named in this manufactured controversy.<br>5: That you assert if something was real there would have to be no data analysis or manipulation suggests to me that you have never done any kind of serious scientific investigation... or used a measurement or diagnostic device of any complexity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you are clearly posting in a position of ignorance let me clear a few things up for you.1 : " Scientific Journal " describes " Nature " , it is not the journal 's name .
It is a peer reviewed international weekly journal of science.2 : They &amp; hundreds of other scientists reviewed the leaked data &amp; correspondence and the published data .
They concluded that there is nothing in this stolen data which effects our current understanding of climate science in any way.3 : They also concluded that many people are taking some phrases out of context and insisting that they mean something completely different than the context otherwise indicates .
This is what you are doing.4 : Anthropogenic climate change is on going and there is ample evidence of it , even if we were to unfairly discount the work of CRU or the scientists named in this manufactured controversy.5 : That you assert if something was real there would have to be no data analysis or manipulation suggests to me that you have never done any kind of serious scientific investigation... or used a measurement or diagnostic device of any complexity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you are clearly posting in a position of ignorance let me clear a few things up for you.1: "Scientific Journal" describes "Nature", it is not the journal's name.
It is a peer reviewed international weekly journal of science.2: They &amp; hundreds of other scientists reviewed the leaked data &amp; correspondence and the published data.
They concluded that there is nothing in this stolen data which effects our current understanding of climate science in any way.3: They also concluded that many people are taking some phrases out of context and insisting that they mean something completely different than the context otherwise indicates.
This is what you are doing.4: Anthropogenic climate change is on going and there is ample evidence of it, even if we were to unfairly discount the work of CRU or the scientists named in this manufactured controversy.5: That you assert if something was real there would have to be no data analysis or manipulation suggests to me that you have never done any kind of serious scientific investigation... or used a measurement or diagnostic device of any complexity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335866</id>
	<title>Conspiracy Arguments?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260035580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not going to say whether this is conspiracy or not. However I see a lot of people completely ruling it out simply because there is no mention of conspiracy in the emails. That is foolish. Why? Because you're overrating the perceived importance of the scientists themselves. Scientists are a low man on the totem pole when it comes to the perceptions of politicians and those influencing the politicians. Do you really think they would be told anything? Things like this are exactly why, scientists are not trained to speak with people and influence others. They are trained technically. Best if one doing the influencing shuts his mouth and hands over money, and find groups of scientists who believe what they are paid to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not going to say whether this is conspiracy or not .
However I see a lot of people completely ruling it out simply because there is no mention of conspiracy in the emails .
That is foolish .
Why ? Because you 're overrating the perceived importance of the scientists themselves .
Scientists are a low man on the totem pole when it comes to the perceptions of politicians and those influencing the politicians .
Do you really think they would be told anything ?
Things like this are exactly why , scientists are not trained to speak with people and influence others .
They are trained technically .
Best if one doing the influencing shuts his mouth and hands over money , and find groups of scientists who believe what they are paid to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not going to say whether this is conspiracy or not.
However I see a lot of people completely ruling it out simply because there is no mention of conspiracy in the emails.
That is foolish.
Why? Because you're overrating the perceived importance of the scientists themselves.
Scientists are a low man on the totem pole when it comes to the perceptions of politicians and those influencing the politicians.
Do you really think they would be told anything?
Things like this are exactly why, scientists are not trained to speak with people and influence others.
They are trained technically.
Best if one doing the influencing shuts his mouth and hands over money, and find groups of scientists who believe what they are paid to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338866</id>
	<title>Re:The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>Paradigma11</author>
	<datestamp>1260012480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I beg your pardon but falsifying science seems far easier than cooking accounting books. This article gives some nice examples <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/physics-and-pixie-dust" title="americanscientist.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/physics-and-pixie-dust</a> [americanscientist.org] . Many of these examples have been published in nature&amp;co and are not even very sophisticated in their forgery.<br>That being said, i do not think that the emails in question are nefarious. They are tons of private emails there are bound to be many that look problematic for outsiders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I beg your pardon but falsifying science seems far easier than cooking accounting books .
This article gives some nice examples http : //www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/physics-and-pixie-dust [ americanscientist.org ] .
Many of these examples have been published in nature&amp;co and are not even very sophisticated in their forgery.That being said , i do not think that the emails in question are nefarious .
They are tons of private emails there are bound to be many that look problematic for outsiders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I beg your pardon but falsifying science seems far easier than cooking accounting books.
This article gives some nice examples http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/physics-and-pixie-dust [americanscientist.org] .
Many of these examples have been published in nature&amp;co and are not even very sophisticated in their forgery.That being said, i do not think that the emails in question are nefarious.
They are tons of private emails there are bound to be many that look problematic for outsiders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772</id>
	<title>The dog that did not bark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone seems to be focused on what is found in the emails and what is significant and what is not etc. But just look at what is <b>NOT</b> there. For years the skeptics side has been alleging a conspiracy, funded by communists, socialists, George Soros, Al Gore... Some global anti-American organization slyly orchestrating a campaign to emasculate America!<p>

What do you see in these mails? Remember these scientists think they are talking in private and never anticipated being found out. Are there mentions or references to dark projects? Some references to their agents and their handlers? Strong ideological opinions to destroy Capitalism and install a world Government?</p><p>

What happened is very simple. These scientists are used to one kind of debate and one kind of rules. Where "the conclusions reached by Kogen, et al [8] is not supported by the evidence presented by them [9],[10],[11]" would be considered a grave insult and might cause loss of reputation. In the question and answer session in a seminar someone saying, "But, Dr Kaplansky, with a sample size of 27, the correlation coefficient you have arrived at is less than experimental error" wouild result in a collective gasp and "ole!" from the assembled people, usually about 20 people who could actually understand the paper being presented.</p><p>


These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering. They are clueless about how to handle it. They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated. They think they are being quote mined, quoted out of context. The journalists are giving totally irrelevant and completely debunked theorists equal time for balance. So they go about in their clueless ways to counter it. They over react, they try to be more guarded, they are trying to write sentences that could not be quote mined. </p><p>

Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists, compare that to say, the hacked emails of Sarah Palin, See where you find more smoking guns.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone seems to be focused on what is found in the emails and what is significant and what is not etc .
But just look at what is NOT there .
For years the skeptics side has been alleging a conspiracy , funded by communists , socialists , George Soros , Al Gore... Some global anti-American organization slyly orchestrating a campaign to emasculate America !
What do you see in these mails ?
Remember these scientists think they are talking in private and never anticipated being found out .
Are there mentions or references to dark projects ?
Some references to their agents and their handlers ?
Strong ideological opinions to destroy Capitalism and install a world Government ?
What happened is very simple .
These scientists are used to one kind of debate and one kind of rules .
Where " the conclusions reached by Kogen , et al [ 8 ] is not supported by the evidence presented by them [ 9 ] , [ 10 ] , [ 11 ] " would be considered a grave insult and might cause loss of reputation .
In the question and answer session in a seminar someone saying , " But , Dr Kaplansky , with a sample size of 27 , the correlation coefficient you have arrived at is less than experimental error " wouild result in a collective gasp and " ole !
" from the assembled people , usually about 20 people who could actually understand the paper being presented .
These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism , spin meistering .
They are clueless about how to handle it .
They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated .
They think they are being quote mined , quoted out of context .
The journalists are giving totally irrelevant and completely debunked theorists equal time for balance .
So they go about in their clueless ways to counter it .
They over react , they try to be more guarded , they are trying to write sentences that could not be quote mined .
Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists , compare that to say , the hacked emails of Sarah Palin , See where you find more smoking guns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone seems to be focused on what is found in the emails and what is significant and what is not etc.
But just look at what is NOT there.
For years the skeptics side has been alleging a conspiracy, funded by communists, socialists, George Soros, Al Gore... Some global anti-American organization slyly orchestrating a campaign to emasculate America!
What do you see in these mails?
Remember these scientists think they are talking in private and never anticipated being found out.
Are there mentions or references to dark projects?
Some references to their agents and their handlers?
Strong ideological opinions to destroy Capitalism and install a world Government?
What happened is very simple.
These scientists are used to one kind of debate and one kind of rules.
Where "the conclusions reached by Kogen, et al [8] is not supported by the evidence presented by them [9],[10],[11]" would be considered a grave insult and might cause loss of reputation.
In the question and answer session in a seminar someone saying, "But, Dr Kaplansky, with a sample size of 27, the correlation coefficient you have arrived at is less than experimental error" wouild result in a collective gasp and "ole!
" from the assembled people, usually about 20 people who could actually understand the paper being presented.
These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering.
They are clueless about how to handle it.
They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated.
They think they are being quote mined, quoted out of context.
The journalists are giving totally irrelevant and completely debunked theorists equal time for balance.
So they go about in their clueless ways to counter it.
They over react, they try to be more guarded, they are trying to write sentences that could not be quote mined.
Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists, compare that to say, the hacked emails of Sarah Palin, See where you find more smoking guns.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334876</id>
	<title>Re:Data thrown away</title>
	<author>niiler</author>
	<datestamp>1260028320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a small portion of the data which is opensource: (see <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate\_data\_raw" title="realclimate.org">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate\_data\_raw</a> [realclimate.org])<ul>
<li> <a href="ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2" title="noaa.gov">GHCN v.2</a> [noaa.gov] (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)</li><li>USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (<a href="ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/" title="noaa.gov">v.1</a> [noaa.gov] and <a href="ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/" title="noaa.gov">v.2</a> [noaa.gov])</li><li>Antarctic <a href="http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER" title="antarctica.ac.uk">weather stations</a> [antarctica.ac.uk] </li><li>European weather stations (<a href="http://eca.knmi.nl/" title="eca.knmi.nl">ECA</a> [eca.knmi.nl])</li><li>Satellite feeds (<a href="http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/" title="colostate.edu">AMSU</a> [colostate.edu], <a href="http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&amp;project=SORCE" title="nasa.gov">SORCE</a> [nasa.gov] (Solar irradiance), <a href="http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd" title="nasa.gov">NASA A-train</a> [nasa.gov])</li><li>Tide Gauges (<a href="http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html" title="pol.ac.uk">Proudman Oceanographic Lab</a> [pol.ac.uk])</li><li> <a href="http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html" title="unizh.ch">World Glacier Monitoring Service</a> [unizh.ch] </li><li> <a href="http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ttchen/argo/gmap.htm" title="csiro.au">Argo float data</a> [csiro.au] </li><li> <a href="http://icoads.noaa.gov/" title="noaa.gov">International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set </a> [noaa.gov](ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)</li><li> <a href="http://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/" title="nasa.gov">AERONET</a> [nasa.gov] Aerosol information</li></ul><p>
You can follow the original link to realclimate.org to find many other links to data sources.  I have posted the data sources above only because many critics of AGW won't even bother with realclimate.org as they are thought to be part of the conspiracy.  The data exists and is public as is the source code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a small portion of the data which is opensource : ( see http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ # Climate \ _data \ _raw [ realclimate.org ] ) GHCN v.2 [ noaa.gov ] ( Global Historical Climate Network : weather station records from around the world , temperature and precipitation ) USHCN US .
Historical Climate Network ( v.1 [ noaa.gov ] and v.2 [ noaa.gov ] ) Antarctic weather stations [ antarctica.ac.uk ] European weather stations ( ECA [ eca.knmi.nl ] ) Satellite feeds ( AMSU [ colostate.edu ] , SORCE [ nasa.gov ] ( Solar irradiance ) , NASA A-train [ nasa.gov ] ) Tide Gauges ( Proudman Oceanographic Lab [ pol.ac.uk ] ) World Glacier Monitoring Service [ unizh.ch ] Argo float data [ csiro.au ] International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set [ noaa.gov ] ( ICOADS ) ( Oceanic in situ observations ) AERONET [ nasa.gov ] Aerosol information You can follow the original link to realclimate.org to find many other links to data sources .
I have posted the data sources above only because many critics of AGW wo n't even bother with realclimate.org as they are thought to be part of the conspiracy .
The data exists and is public as is the source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a small portion of the data which is opensource: (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate\_data\_raw [realclimate.org])
 GHCN v.2 [noaa.gov] (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)USHCN US.
Historical Climate Network (v.1 [noaa.gov] and v.2 [noaa.gov])Antarctic weather stations [antarctica.ac.uk] European weather stations (ECA [eca.knmi.nl])Satellite feeds (AMSU [colostate.edu], SORCE [nasa.gov] (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train [nasa.gov])Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab [pol.ac.uk]) World Glacier Monitoring Service [unizh.ch]  Argo float data [csiro.au]  International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set  [noaa.gov](ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations) AERONET [nasa.gov] Aerosol information
You can follow the original link to realclimate.org to find many other links to data sources.
I have posted the data sources above only because many critics of AGW won't even bother with realclimate.org as they are thought to be part of the conspiracy.
The data exists and is public as is the source code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30356652</id>
	<title>Re:The most telling word in the whole article:</title>
	<author>funwithBSD</author>
	<datestamp>1260218040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HIV and lung cancer are different, you have controls.<br>People who don't have the HIV virus do not have AIDS. Those that do, have AIDS symptoms based on the advanced stage of the virus.</p><p>Same with lung cancer. Control group does not smoke, and those that do smoke have higher rates of cancer.</p><p>Show me the control for Earth where it does not have Humans to eliminate the contributions of Greenhouse gas and not only will we have proved it we will have a quantitative proof that we can decide how much we need to reduce as humans.</p><p>(there is a control: Mars. Ice caps are melting. But GW people don't like to discuss it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HIV and lung cancer are different , you have controls.People who do n't have the HIV virus do not have AIDS .
Those that do , have AIDS symptoms based on the advanced stage of the virus.Same with lung cancer .
Control group does not smoke , and those that do smoke have higher rates of cancer.Show me the control for Earth where it does not have Humans to eliminate the contributions of Greenhouse gas and not only will we have proved it we will have a quantitative proof that we can decide how much we need to reduce as humans .
( there is a control : Mars .
Ice caps are melting .
But GW people do n't like to discuss it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HIV and lung cancer are different, you have controls.People who don't have the HIV virus do not have AIDS.
Those that do, have AIDS symptoms based on the advanced stage of the virus.Same with lung cancer.
Control group does not smoke, and those that do smoke have higher rates of cancer.Show me the control for Earth where it does not have Humans to eliminate the contributions of Greenhouse gas and not only will we have proved it we will have a quantitative proof that we can decide how much we need to reduce as humans.
(there is a control: Mars.
Ice caps are melting.
But GW people don't like to discuss it)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30342224</id>
	<title>Re:Loss of trust</title>
	<author>Kattspya</author>
	<datestamp>1260098880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you come up with a single thing "the right" has done that even approaches what was done in the soviet union with Lysenkoism?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you come up with a single thing " the right " has done that even approaches what was done in the soviet union with Lysenkoism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you come up with a single thing "the right" has done that even approaches what was done in the soviet union with Lysenkoism?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334700</id>
	<title>Let me save the UN the time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260026880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the UN investigation outcome, "those emails mean nothing".</p><p>Just wait for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the UN investigation outcome , " those emails mean nothing " .Just wait for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the UN investigation outcome, "those emails mean nothing".Just wait for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30342224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30349764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30394948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30357890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30356652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_137203_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30349764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30342224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30357890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30356652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30394948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30340956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30337060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30338190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30339852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30341394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30336512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30335138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_137203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_137203.30334724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
