<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_10_1524211</id>
	<title>The Science Credibility Bubble</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1260459780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"The real fallout of <a href="//politics.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1747257/Climatic-Research-Unit-Hacked-Files-Leaked">climategate</a> may have nothing to do with the credibility of climate change.  Daniel Henninger thinks it's a bigger problem for the scientific community as a whole and he <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html?mod=loomia&amp;loomia\_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.05417:b29264966">calls out the real problem as seen through the eyes of a lay person</a> in an opinion piece for the WSJ.  Henninger muses, 'I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them,' and carries on in that vein, saying, 'This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies.'  While <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/12/05/137203/Scientific-Journal-emNatureem-Finds-Nothing-Notable-In-CRU-Leak">nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals</a>, he explains that the attacks against scientists in these leaked e-mails for proposing opposite views will recall the reader to the persecution of Galileo.  In doing so, it will make the lay person unsure of the credibility of <em>all</em> sciences without fully seeing proof of it, but assuming that infighting exists in them all.  Is this a serious risk?  Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " The real fallout of climategate may have nothing to do with the credibility of climate change .
Daniel Henninger thinks it 's a bigger problem for the scientific community as a whole and he calls out the real problem as seen through the eyes of a lay person in an opinion piece for the WSJ .
Henninger muses , 'I do n't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them, ' and carries on in that vein , saying , 'This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally .
Hard science , alongside medicine , was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons .
But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction , as politicized and " messy " as , say , gender studies .
' While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals , he explains that the attacks against scientists in these leaked e-mails for proposing opposite views will recall the reader to the persecution of Galileo .
In doing so , it will make the lay person unsure of the credibility of all sciences without fully seeing proof of it , but assuming that infighting exists in them all .
Is this a serious risk ?
Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "The real fallout of climategate may have nothing to do with the credibility of climate change.
Daniel Henninger thinks it's a bigger problem for the scientific community as a whole and he calls out the real problem as seen through the eyes of a lay person in an opinion piece for the WSJ.
Henninger muses, 'I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them,' and carries on in that vein, saying, 'This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally.
Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons.
But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies.
'  While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals, he explains that the attacks against scientists in these leaked e-mails for proposing opposite views will recall the reader to the persecution of Galileo.
In doing so, it will make the lay person unsure of the credibility of all sciences without fully seeing proof of it, but assuming that infighting exists in them all.
Is this a serious risk?
Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389550</id>
	<title>Modern-Day Galileo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of us have noticed this about cosmology for a long, long time now.  Global warming is just a trendier issue so it gets noticed first, that's all.
<br> <br>
<i>&ldquo;Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the &lsquo;snowball effect&rsquo; or &lsquo;groupthink&rsquo;. We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.&rdquo;<br>
&mdash;Martin Lopez-Corredoira, astrophysicist. </i>
<br>
<a href="http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=bqx15w21" title="holoscience.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=bqx15w21</a> [holoscience.com]
<br> <br>
Some of you more knee-jerk types would also benefit from <a href="http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/descott.htm" title="thunderbolts.info" rel="nofollow">this article</a> [thunderbolts.info] because some of you use some really weak arguments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us have noticed this about cosmology for a long , long time now .
Global warming is just a trendier issue so it gets noticed first , that 's all .
   Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled .
Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists ; however , most cosmologists do not heed these .
This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect , but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the    snowball effect    or    groupthink    .
We might wonder whether cosmology , the study of the Universe as a whole , is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.       Martin Lopez-Corredoira , astrophysicist .
http : //www.holoscience.com/news.php ? article = bqx15w21 [ holoscience.com ] Some of you more knee-jerk types would also benefit from this article [ thunderbolts.info ] because some of you use some really weak arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us have noticed this about cosmology for a long, long time now.
Global warming is just a trendier issue so it gets noticed first, that's all.
“Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled.
Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these.
This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the ‘snowball effect’ or ‘groupthink’.
We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.”
—Martin Lopez-Corredoira, astrophysicist.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=bqx15w21 [holoscience.com]
 
Some of you more knee-jerk types would also benefit from this article [thunderbolts.info] because some of you use some really weak arguments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390654</id>
	<title>Re:Peer Review and Grant Awards</title>
	<author>orzetto</author>
	<datestamp>1260469860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's impossible. Only scientists with proven track record are competent enough to review a scientific paper. There might be an amateur or two with the right stuff, but for a referee (who generally does not have specific competence) it would be impossible to know whether they were actually knowledgeable or just posing.</p><p>Also, that "subversion" of the peer-review process you talk about was nothing evil. Some researchers felt that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climagate#Mann\_e-mail\_of\_11\_Mar\_2003" title="wikipedia.org">a journal was publishing bullshit</a> [wikipedia.org], and advised people to shun it. That's like the old adage "Don't feed the trolls" on the Intertubes. If the deniers really were right, people would gradually flock to their journal anyway, and the other journals would die out.</p><p>I am a scientist. I know that there are bad papers around. I found one last month with four sign errors in thermodynamics, one for each term, which made the final equation right&mdash;no idea how that got past peer review. Peer review is certainly not perfect, but it is the best possible system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists.That 's impossible .
Only scientists with proven track record are competent enough to review a scientific paper .
There might be an amateur or two with the right stuff , but for a referee ( who generally does not have specific competence ) it would be impossible to know whether they were actually knowledgeable or just posing.Also , that " subversion " of the peer-review process you talk about was nothing evil .
Some researchers felt that a journal was publishing bullshit [ wikipedia.org ] , and advised people to shun it .
That 's like the old adage " Do n't feed the trolls " on the Intertubes .
If the deniers really were right , people would gradually flock to their journal anyway , and the other journals would die out.I am a scientist .
I know that there are bad papers around .
I found one last month with four sign errors in thermodynamics , one for each term , which made the final equation right    no idea how that got past peer review .
Peer review is certainly not perfect , but it is the best possible system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists.That's impossible.
Only scientists with proven track record are competent enough to review a scientific paper.
There might be an amateur or two with the right stuff, but for a referee (who generally does not have specific competence) it would be impossible to know whether they were actually knowledgeable or just posing.Also, that "subversion" of the peer-review process you talk about was nothing evil.
Some researchers felt that a journal was publishing bullshit [wikipedia.org], and advised people to shun it.
That's like the old adage "Don't feed the trolls" on the Intertubes.
If the deniers really were right, people would gradually flock to their journal anyway, and the other journals would die out.I am a scientist.
I know that there are bad papers around.
I found one last month with four sign errors in thermodynamics, one for each term, which made the final equation right—no idea how that got past peer review.
Peer review is certainly not perfect, but it is the best possible system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388968</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?</p></div><p>Well, science by definition can't finance itself. So what do you propose, corporations? bean counters would not allow any basic science, only applied and only in situations where ROI is clear enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science ? Well , science by definition ca n't finance itself .
So what do you propose , corporations ?
bean counters would not allow any basic science , only applied and only in situations where ROI is clear enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?Well, science by definition can't finance itself.
So what do you propose, corporations?
bean counters would not allow any basic science, only applied and only in situations where ROI is clear enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389990</id>
	<title>Again, alot of the Galileo stuff is myth</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1260467760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the first thing is that Galileo was a proponent of the earth moving but he didn't actually have any evidence. The evidence he did have (phases of Venus, moons of Jupiter, the moon's surface.) the church actually agreed with his findings since they had their own astronomers that confirmed this. (The church eventually went with the Tychonic system for what it's worth.) One theory is he only really got in trouble because he called his college drinking buddy stupid when he had his back up to this point. (So the pope figured he'd let him sweat for being a jerk.) Another version is that the pope was under alot of political pressure at the time(about heresy) and Galileo was being a loud mouth dick about everything so the pope needed to have him quiet it down. (I mean seriously, Galileo was playing a political game around 1600AD and doing it clumsily. What did anybody think was going to happen?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the first thing is that Galileo was a proponent of the earth moving but he did n't actually have any evidence .
The evidence he did have ( phases of Venus , moons of Jupiter , the moon 's surface .
) the church actually agreed with his findings since they had their own astronomers that confirmed this .
( The church eventually went with the Tychonic system for what it 's worth .
) One theory is he only really got in trouble because he called his college drinking buddy stupid when he had his back up to this point .
( So the pope figured he 'd let him sweat for being a jerk .
) Another version is that the pope was under alot of political pressure at the time ( about heresy ) and Galileo was being a loud mouth dick about everything so the pope needed to have him quiet it down .
( I mean seriously , Galileo was playing a political game around 1600AD and doing it clumsily .
What did anybody think was going to happen ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the first thing is that Galileo was a proponent of the earth moving but he didn't actually have any evidence.
The evidence he did have (phases of Venus, moons of Jupiter, the moon's surface.
) the church actually agreed with his findings since they had their own astronomers that confirmed this.
(The church eventually went with the Tychonic system for what it's worth.
) One theory is he only really got in trouble because he called his college drinking buddy stupid when he had his back up to this point.
(So the pope figured he'd let him sweat for being a jerk.
) Another version is that the pope was under alot of political pressure at the time(about heresy) and Galileo was being a loud mouth dick about everything so the pope needed to have him quiet it down.
(I mean seriously, Galileo was playing a political game around 1600AD and doing it clumsily.
What did anybody think was going to happen?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390416</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticism requires more than just questioning</title>
	<author>somethingwicked</author>
	<datestamp>1260469080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an analogy that works for most people, but maybe not Slashdotters, as it involves talking about girlfriends (use "My Guild is the best and undefeatable" as a substitute)</p><p>You claim your girlfriend is 100\% trustworthy.</p><p>When some jerk thinks you're wrong, and decides he wants to hit on her, you throw a fit saying any doubt can not be tolerated.  (Instead, let him publically embarass himself, and show him how its really done when he goes down in flames)</p><p>When someone shows proof she's been texting her ex, you throw it out (though, if you looked into it, you might find a good explanation: you might find she was just trying to get back her hottest lingerie to wear for you, or she wanted the phone number of the smoking hot babe she told him no about, but she wants the threesome with you)</p><p>If you are confident, these things aren't a problem.</p><p>And though I think they are likely correct about their conclusions, their lack of WELCOMING contrary points of view makes this the issue.</p><p>Though I will never claim to understand all of the science, I can see immediately their fear of even being questioned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an analogy that works for most people , but maybe not Slashdotters , as it involves talking about girlfriends ( use " My Guild is the best and undefeatable " as a substitute ) You claim your girlfriend is 100 \ % trustworthy.When some jerk thinks you 're wrong , and decides he wants to hit on her , you throw a fit saying any doubt can not be tolerated .
( Instead , let him publically embarass himself , and show him how its really done when he goes down in flames ) When someone shows proof she 's been texting her ex , you throw it out ( though , if you looked into it , you might find a good explanation : you might find she was just trying to get back her hottest lingerie to wear for you , or she wanted the phone number of the smoking hot babe she told him no about , but she wants the threesome with you ) If you are confident , these things are n't a problem.And though I think they are likely correct about their conclusions , their lack of WELCOMING contrary points of view makes this the issue.Though I will never claim to understand all of the science , I can see immediately their fear of even being questioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an analogy that works for most people, but maybe not Slashdotters, as it involves talking about girlfriends (use "My Guild is the best and undefeatable" as a substitute)You claim your girlfriend is 100\% trustworthy.When some jerk thinks you're wrong, and decides he wants to hit on her, you throw a fit saying any doubt can not be tolerated.
(Instead, let him publically embarass himself, and show him how its really done when he goes down in flames)When someone shows proof she's been texting her ex, you throw it out (though, if you looked into it, you might find a good explanation: you might find she was just trying to get back her hottest lingerie to wear for you, or she wanted the phone number of the smoking hot babe she told him no about, but she wants the threesome with you)If you are confident, these things aren't a problem.And though I think they are likely correct about their conclusions, their lack of WELCOMING contrary points of view makes this the issue.Though I will never claim to understand all of the science, I can see immediately their fear of even being questioned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388900</id>
	<title>Are scientists complaining about skepticism?</title>
	<author>AlphaBit</author>
	<datestamp>1260464580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"And in doing so will make the lay person unsure of the credibility of ALL sciences without fully seeing proof of it but assuming that infighting exists in them all. Is this a serious risk?"<br>
<br>
No, having doubt and skepticism is called being scientific.  I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've seen complaints that "lay" people aren't scientifically critical enough.  Maybe if people actually questioned what "scientists" tell them, fewer would fall victim to the bottomless sea of unproven alternative medical treatments.<br>
<br>
And infighting does exists in all sciences, at least if it's an active field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And in doing so will make the lay person unsure of the credibility of ALL sciences without fully seeing proof of it but assuming that infighting exists in them all .
Is this a serious risk ?
" No , having doubt and skepticism is called being scientific .
I could n't begin to count the number of times I 've seen complaints that " lay " people are n't scientifically critical enough .
Maybe if people actually questioned what " scientists " tell them , fewer would fall victim to the bottomless sea of unproven alternative medical treatments .
And infighting does exists in all sciences , at least if it 's an active field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And in doing so will make the lay person unsure of the credibility of ALL sciences without fully seeing proof of it but assuming that infighting exists in them all.
Is this a serious risk?
"

No, having doubt and skepticism is called being scientific.
I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've seen complaints that "lay" people aren't scientifically critical enough.
Maybe if people actually questioned what "scientists" tell them, fewer would fall victim to the bottomless sea of unproven alternative medical treatments.
And infighting does exists in all sciences, at least if it's an active field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392372</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1260475620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The journal, Science? (Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action. Does that sound like the scientific method to you?</p></div><p>No, that sounds like an individual editor, or maybe even several editors, at "the journal" jumping the gun or overstating things in an attempt to generate more publicity for their publication.  What it does -not- sound like is a global conspiracy of scientists.  Talk to any researcher who has submitted a paper to whichever journal it is you're talking about: they will tell you that the staff at those places are wrong sometimes.  In fact, they'll -probably- tell you that they're downright stupid and may use colorful language.  It doesn't mean that science as a whole or even the publication are wrong.</p><p>Compare it to non-scientific media.  Every paper has at some point, weekly even, published extremely stupid opinions that are not endorsed as policy by the publication.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The journal , Science ?
( Nature ? -- it 's one of them ) declared several years ago , after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed , that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action .
Does that sound like the scientific method to you ? No , that sounds like an individual editor , or maybe even several editors , at " the journal " jumping the gun or overstating things in an attempt to generate more publicity for their publication .
What it does -not- sound like is a global conspiracy of scientists .
Talk to any researcher who has submitted a paper to whichever journal it is you 're talking about : they will tell you that the staff at those places are wrong sometimes .
In fact , they 'll -probably- tell you that they 're downright stupid and may use colorful language .
It does n't mean that science as a whole or even the publication are wrong.Compare it to non-scientific media .
Every paper has at some point , weekly even , published extremely stupid opinions that are not endorsed as policy by the publication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The journal, Science?
(Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action.
Does that sound like the scientific method to you?No, that sounds like an individual editor, or maybe even several editors, at "the journal" jumping the gun or overstating things in an attempt to generate more publicity for their publication.
What it does -not- sound like is a global conspiracy of scientists.
Talk to any researcher who has submitted a paper to whichever journal it is you're talking about: they will tell you that the staff at those places are wrong sometimes.
In fact, they'll -probably- tell you that they're downright stupid and may use colorful language.
It doesn't mean that science as a whole or even the publication are wrong.Compare it to non-scientific media.
Every paper has at some point, weekly even, published extremely stupid opinions that are not endorsed as policy by the publication.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391098</id>
	<title>Re:Global-warming denier papers are usually garbag</title>
	<author>azaris</author>
	<datestamp>1260471240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To remove the noise, the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations.
 </p><p>This is global-warming-denier science at its finest, folks: Using a derivative operation to remove noise!</p><p>The real scandal is that this paper actually made into the Journal of Geophysical Research!</p><p>Is it any wonder that Mann and Co. were pissed?</p><p>But how do you explain all this to your average Sarah Palin follower?  That's the scientists' conundrum here.</p></div><p>Removing noise doesn't sound right, but differencing time series is a legitimate technique for processing time series in order to remove autocorrelation so that the resulting time series is stationary (has statistical properties that are constant in time). Notice that at that point they are working with 12-month running mean data, so have effectively integrated their time series to remove some of the noise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To remove the noise , the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations .
This is global-warming-denier science at its finest , folks : Using a derivative operation to remove noise ! The real scandal is that this paper actually made into the Journal of Geophysical Research ! Is it any wonder that Mann and Co. were pissed ? But how do you explain all this to your average Sarah Palin follower ?
That 's the scientists ' conundrum here.Removing noise does n't sound right , but differencing time series is a legitimate technique for processing time series in order to remove autocorrelation so that the resulting time series is stationary ( has statistical properties that are constant in time ) .
Notice that at that point they are working with 12-month running mean data , so have effectively integrated their time series to remove some of the noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To remove the noise, the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations.
This is global-warming-denier science at its finest, folks: Using a derivative operation to remove noise!The real scandal is that this paper actually made into the Journal of Geophysical Research!Is it any wonder that Mann and Co. were pissed?But how do you explain all this to your average Sarah Palin follower?
That's the scientists' conundrum here.Removing noise doesn't sound right, but differencing time series is a legitimate technique for processing time series in order to remove autocorrelation so that the resulting time series is stationary (has statistical properties that are constant in time).
Notice that at that point they are working with 12-month running mean data, so have effectively integrated their time series to remove some of the noise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388950</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>Mitchell314</author>
	<datestamp>1260464700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dammit, I knew NASA was just a political ploy . . . <br>
<br>
They're made to do whatever evils their funding overlords tell them to do. Which is to . . . uh . . . let me get back to you on that one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dammit , I knew NASA was just a political ploy .
. .
They 're made to do whatever evils their funding overlords tell them to do .
Which is to .
. .
uh .
. .
let me get back to you on that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dammit, I knew NASA was just a political ploy .
. .
They're made to do whatever evils their funding overlords tell them to do.
Which is to .
. .
uh .
. .
let me get back to you on that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1260467100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Problem is, people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves. </p></div><p>This is a serious problem.  On the one hand, a democratic society holds that each member can and should act independently, weighing the factors that they find personally important, to come to vital decisions.  On the other hand, most people are ignorant on nearly every subject, and lack the means, ability, incentive, or time to become expert on each subject as it comes along.  Making medical decisions is one of the most important examples of this.  When presented with a treatment for a condition, who among us can really make an informed decision?  Are we ever even given the proper tools to make decisions (such as percentages of success, side-effect, and failure for the treatment, practioner, or hospital?  Hardly.  Instead we have FUD like, "OMFG they're putting POISON in vaccines."  I work in neuroscience research at a big hospital, and *I* don't know why thimerisol is used as a standard preservative in multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccine.  I don't even know how much mercury would end up being in a standard dose of a vaccine, or if that is enough to cause neurological issues long-term.  If I'm in the same general field, and I don't have the proper tools to evaluate the risks, how possibly can the general public?</p><p>Right.  They can't.  Not possible; not even remotely possible.  It would take a motivated, highly educated person with a lot of money to pay for scientific articles (they aren't by-and-large free except when you have a university affiliation), and lost of time to comb through stacks and stacks of papers in order to make an informed decision about one treatment.  This is a barrier to knowledge that is not realistic.  Expecting the lay person to make good, informed decisions is a joke. Expecting that the lay person can understand the myriad of complexities about climate change when the very idea of a static climate is demonstrably bogus is nothing more than political propaganda.</p><p>So, people have been brainwashed into thinking they can become experts on any subject in a few short minutes (witness all of the "well, why dont' they just do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." comments on Slashdot where readers who are familiar with a subject for the time it takes to read a condensed summary presume to be able to second guess experts who have devoted their lives to a particular field).  They clearly cannot do this, and nothing is going to get any better in that regard as science and technology continue to make astonishing advances.  We, the scientists, must therefore be absolutely certain and vigilant about promulgating only truth, and fighting propaganda at every turn.</p><p>I am not a climate scientist.  I am not a geologist.  I have friends who are, and from my second-hand understanding of anthropogenic climate change, no one really understands what is going on.  Sure, there's some evidence for anthropogenic climate changes (like the ozone hole over Antarctica), but *I* lack the skills and knowledge to understand the issues.  So when I hear Al Gore saying things like, "we dump billions of tons of CO2 into our thin atmosphere like it was a sewer," it makes me angry that anyone is listening to that drivel at all.  He might be right, anthropogenic CO2 may be a really, really big problem, but delivering that message with distortions and distractions that make the Soviet propaganda machine appear tame in comparison, ultimately is doing far more harm than good.</p><p>Blind trust in authority is bad.  But so is what we have now where fear, uncertainty and doubt determines what the public thinks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is , people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves .
This is a serious problem .
On the one hand , a democratic society holds that each member can and should act independently , weighing the factors that they find personally important , to come to vital decisions .
On the other hand , most people are ignorant on nearly every subject , and lack the means , ability , incentive , or time to become expert on each subject as it comes along .
Making medical decisions is one of the most important examples of this .
When presented with a treatment for a condition , who among us can really make an informed decision ?
Are we ever even given the proper tools to make decisions ( such as percentages of success , side-effect , and failure for the treatment , practioner , or hospital ?
Hardly. Instead we have FUD like , " OMFG they 're putting POISON in vaccines .
" I work in neuroscience research at a big hospital , and * I * do n't know why thimerisol is used as a standard preservative in multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccine .
I do n't even know how much mercury would end up being in a standard dose of a vaccine , or if that is enough to cause neurological issues long-term .
If I 'm in the same general field , and I do n't have the proper tools to evaluate the risks , how possibly can the general public ? Right .
They ca n't .
Not possible ; not even remotely possible .
It would take a motivated , highly educated person with a lot of money to pay for scientific articles ( they are n't by-and-large free except when you have a university affiliation ) , and lost of time to comb through stacks and stacks of papers in order to make an informed decision about one treatment .
This is a barrier to knowledge that is not realistic .
Expecting the lay person to make good , informed decisions is a joke .
Expecting that the lay person can understand the myriad of complexities about climate change when the very idea of a static climate is demonstrably bogus is nothing more than political propaganda.So , people have been brainwashed into thinking they can become experts on any subject in a few short minutes ( witness all of the " well , why dont ' they just do ... " comments on Slashdot where readers who are familiar with a subject for the time it takes to read a condensed summary presume to be able to second guess experts who have devoted their lives to a particular field ) .
They clearly can not do this , and nothing is going to get any better in that regard as science and technology continue to make astonishing advances .
We , the scientists , must therefore be absolutely certain and vigilant about promulgating only truth , and fighting propaganda at every turn.I am not a climate scientist .
I am not a geologist .
I have friends who are , and from my second-hand understanding of anthropogenic climate change , no one really understands what is going on .
Sure , there 's some evidence for anthropogenic climate changes ( like the ozone hole over Antarctica ) , but * I * lack the skills and knowledge to understand the issues .
So when I hear Al Gore saying things like , " we dump billions of tons of CO2 into our thin atmosphere like it was a sewer , " it makes me angry that anyone is listening to that drivel at all .
He might be right , anthropogenic CO2 may be a really , really big problem , but delivering that message with distortions and distractions that make the Soviet propaganda machine appear tame in comparison , ultimately is doing far more harm than good.Blind trust in authority is bad .
But so is what we have now where fear , uncertainty and doubt determines what the public thinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is, people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves.
This is a serious problem.
On the one hand, a democratic society holds that each member can and should act independently, weighing the factors that they find personally important, to come to vital decisions.
On the other hand, most people are ignorant on nearly every subject, and lack the means, ability, incentive, or time to become expert on each subject as it comes along.
Making medical decisions is one of the most important examples of this.
When presented with a treatment for a condition, who among us can really make an informed decision?
Are we ever even given the proper tools to make decisions (such as percentages of success, side-effect, and failure for the treatment, practioner, or hospital?
Hardly.  Instead we have FUD like, "OMFG they're putting POISON in vaccines.
"  I work in neuroscience research at a big hospital, and *I* don't know why thimerisol is used as a standard preservative in multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccine.
I don't even know how much mercury would end up being in a standard dose of a vaccine, or if that is enough to cause neurological issues long-term.
If I'm in the same general field, and I don't have the proper tools to evaluate the risks, how possibly can the general public?Right.
They can't.
Not possible; not even remotely possible.
It would take a motivated, highly educated person with a lot of money to pay for scientific articles (they aren't by-and-large free except when you have a university affiliation), and lost of time to comb through stacks and stacks of papers in order to make an informed decision about one treatment.
This is a barrier to knowledge that is not realistic.
Expecting the lay person to make good, informed decisions is a joke.
Expecting that the lay person can understand the myriad of complexities about climate change when the very idea of a static climate is demonstrably bogus is nothing more than political propaganda.So, people have been brainwashed into thinking they can become experts on any subject in a few short minutes (witness all of the "well, why dont' they just do ..." comments on Slashdot where readers who are familiar with a subject for the time it takes to read a condensed summary presume to be able to second guess experts who have devoted their lives to a particular field).
They clearly cannot do this, and nothing is going to get any better in that regard as science and technology continue to make astonishing advances.
We, the scientists, must therefore be absolutely certain and vigilant about promulgating only truth, and fighting propaganda at every turn.I am not a climate scientist.
I am not a geologist.
I have friends who are, and from my second-hand understanding of anthropogenic climate change, no one really understands what is going on.
Sure, there's some evidence for anthropogenic climate changes (like the ozone hole over Antarctica), but *I* lack the skills and knowledge to understand the issues.
So when I hear Al Gore saying things like, "we dump billions of tons of CO2 into our thin atmosphere like it was a sewer," it makes me angry that anyone is listening to that drivel at all.
He might be right, anthropogenic CO2 may be a really, really big problem, but delivering that message with distortions and distractions that make the Soviet propaganda machine appear tame in comparison, ultimately is doing far more harm than good.Blind trust in authority is bad.
But so is what we have now where fear, uncertainty and doubt determines what the public thinks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393340</id>
	<title>evolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260436380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>science</i> is not <i>science</i> today. It's science exploitation.
<br>
<br>
I was once a scientist back in the early 90's and at the university on scholarship, but my adviser was lame (ignorant), my professors hated the way I did things and my learning method (I was unorthodox), didn't publish much (but had cool ideas/experiments), and I wasn't in the nerdy "click"/social circle of grad-students and cross-university professors. Basically I didn't fit into the "mold" of what I concluded as science exploitation (publishing, patenting, finding funding, winning prizes, networking with peers, taking "over the world" with my ideas). I just wanted to do basic science: like the way Newton did.
<br>
<br>
So I left, went into industry, made a name for myself and lost a lot of what I learned (QED, NMR, Space Physics). And I'm much happier now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>science is not science today .
It 's science exploitation .
I was once a scientist back in the early 90 's and at the university on scholarship , but my adviser was lame ( ignorant ) , my professors hated the way I did things and my learning method ( I was unorthodox ) , did n't publish much ( but had cool ideas/experiments ) , and I was n't in the nerdy " click " /social circle of grad-students and cross-university professors .
Basically I did n't fit into the " mold " of what I concluded as science exploitation ( publishing , patenting , finding funding , winning prizes , networking with peers , taking " over the world " with my ideas ) .
I just wanted to do basic science : like the way Newton did .
So I left , went into industry , made a name for myself and lost a lot of what I learned ( QED , NMR , Space Physics ) .
And I 'm much happier now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>science is not science today.
It's science exploitation.
I was once a scientist back in the early 90's and at the university on scholarship, but my adviser was lame (ignorant), my professors hated the way I did things and my learning method (I was unorthodox), didn't publish much (but had cool ideas/experiments), and I wasn't in the nerdy "click"/social circle of grad-students and cross-university professors.
Basically I didn't fit into the "mold" of what I concluded as science exploitation (publishing, patenting, finding funding, winning prizes, networking with peers, taking "over the world" with my ideas).
I just wanted to do basic science: like the way Newton did.
So I left, went into industry, made a name for myself and lost a lot of what I learned (QED, NMR, Space Physics).
And I'm much happier now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393614</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1260437280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nature just came out and said that the emails show nothing wrong and the ends justify the means. Does that sound like the scientific method to you?</p></div><p>No, actually, nature said the emails showed nothing wrong, and that the discussion about whether two studies should be included in their report, was overshadowed because, in the end, they included those studies. The article never said "the ends justify the means", although they could have said "actions speak louder than words". And considering how poorly you remember an article that you read last week, I am very curious what the truth is about this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The journal, Science? (Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action. Does that sound like the scientific method to you?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature just came out and said that the emails show nothing wrong and the ends justify the means .
Does that sound like the scientific method to you ? No , actually , nature said the emails showed nothing wrong , and that the discussion about whether two studies should be included in their report , was overshadowed because , in the end , they included those studies .
The article never said " the ends justify the means " , although they could have said " actions speak louder than words " .
And considering how poorly you remember an article that you read last week , I am very curious what the truth is about this : The journal , Science ?
( Nature ? -- it 's one of them ) declared several years ago , after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed , that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action .
Does that sound like the scientific method to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature just came out and said that the emails show nothing wrong and the ends justify the means.
Does that sound like the scientific method to you?No, actually, nature said the emails showed nothing wrong, and that the discussion about whether two studies should be included in their report, was overshadowed because, in the end, they included those studies.
The article never said "the ends justify the means", although they could have said "actions speak louder than words".
And considering how poorly you remember an article that you read last week, I am very curious what the truth is about this:The journal, Science?
(Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action.
Does that sound like the scientific method to you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399336</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>angel'o'sphere</author>
	<datestamp>1260524820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>The journal, Science? (Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action. Does that sound like the scientific method to you?<br></i></p><p>Sigh, global warming is not new. It is literally 100 years old. How can it be that I learned about it in school over 30 years ago and you think it is <b>new?</b> The whole world is concerned since years, even CO2 emission trading is in effect since 2005 (in europe) and the talks about it started something in 1995, the science behind it started in 1968. The only country in the world where people believe the world is only 6000 years old and where people believe there is no global warming: is the USA. The funny thing is: you are the country that likely will suffer the most from it.</p><p>I can not understand your (as the people) stupidity (or your last governments stupidity).</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The journal , Science ?
( Nature ? -- it 's one of them ) declared several years ago , after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed , that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action .
Does that sound like the scientific method to you ? Sigh , global warming is not new .
It is literally 100 years old .
How can it be that I learned about it in school over 30 years ago and you think it is new ?
The whole world is concerned since years , even CO2 emission trading is in effect since 2005 ( in europe ) and the talks about it started something in 1995 , the science behind it started in 1968 .
The only country in the world where people believe the world is only 6000 years old and where people believe there is no global warming : is the USA .
The funny thing is : you are the country that likely will suffer the most from it.I can not understand your ( as the people ) stupidity ( or your last governments stupidity ) .angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The journal, Science?
(Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action.
Does that sound like the scientific method to you?Sigh, global warming is not new.
It is literally 100 years old.
How can it be that I learned about it in school over 30 years ago and you think it is new?
The whole world is concerned since years, even CO2 emission trading is in effect since 2005 (in europe) and the talks about it started something in 1995, the science behind it started in 1968.
The only country in the world where people believe the world is only 6000 years old and where people believe there is no global warming: is the USA.
The funny thing is: you are the country that likely will suffer the most from it.I can not understand your (as the people) stupidity (or your last governments stupidity).angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391292</id>
	<title>Science as a priesthood</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1260471840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science retains credibility to the extent that it helps to produce useful things or makes accurate predictions.
<br> <br>
Where climategate hit really hard was on the second part of that.  Climate scientists are in the midst of the most ambitious modeling project in the history of man.  They are trying to model the entire solar system and make predictions based on those models.  So it is understandable that they really didn't like to see a decade of cooling amidst record increases in CO2.  So having emails back and forth about fixing the data gives the layperson good reason to be concerned about the overall robustness of their model.
<br> <br>
No one should trust a scientist because they say "it is too complex, you just have to trust me".  In that instance it is no better than religion.  Science is the ultimate "show me" activity and must remain so in order to hold the trust of the public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science retains credibility to the extent that it helps to produce useful things or makes accurate predictions .
Where climategate hit really hard was on the second part of that .
Climate scientists are in the midst of the most ambitious modeling project in the history of man .
They are trying to model the entire solar system and make predictions based on those models .
So it is understandable that they really did n't like to see a decade of cooling amidst record increases in CO2 .
So having emails back and forth about fixing the data gives the layperson good reason to be concerned about the overall robustness of their model .
No one should trust a scientist because they say " it is too complex , you just have to trust me " .
In that instance it is no better than religion .
Science is the ultimate " show me " activity and must remain so in order to hold the trust of the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science retains credibility to the extent that it helps to produce useful things or makes accurate predictions.
Where climategate hit really hard was on the second part of that.
Climate scientists are in the midst of the most ambitious modeling project in the history of man.
They are trying to model the entire solar system and make predictions based on those models.
So it is understandable that they really didn't like to see a decade of cooling amidst record increases in CO2.
So having emails back and forth about fixing the data gives the layperson good reason to be concerned about the overall robustness of their model.
No one should trust a scientist because they say "it is too complex, you just have to trust me".
In that instance it is no better than religion.
Science is the ultimate "show me" activity and must remain so in order to hold the trust of the public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390942</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Bongo</author>
	<datestamp>1260470760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started out believing all the climate science stuff, on the basis that it is science.</p><p>But after a while, as more was said, the inconsistencies in what the scientists themselves were saying began to bother me. I'm not talking about subtleties about statistics, where I have no stats training whatsoever, I'm talking about stuff like, "our rocket achieved orbit!" and I'm wondering, "so what's that giant fireball and pile of rubble over there?"</p><p>If they could present a clear case, I'd be believing it again. Simple as that. You can follow the arguments and counter arguments back and forth, and the thing I'm left wondering is, given all that, how can they be so sure?</p><p>Here is a simple one: the computer models are considered consistent with climate change, but ten years of relatively little or no warming is only weather noise... so if recent temps are just noise, then what are they comparing their models against to show they have skill? All that is left is hindcasting. And how can hindcasting be taken as basis for "virtual certainty" regards the future?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started out believing all the climate science stuff , on the basis that it is science.But after a while , as more was said , the inconsistencies in what the scientists themselves were saying began to bother me .
I 'm not talking about subtleties about statistics , where I have no stats training whatsoever , I 'm talking about stuff like , " our rocket achieved orbit !
" and I 'm wondering , " so what 's that giant fireball and pile of rubble over there ?
" If they could present a clear case , I 'd be believing it again .
Simple as that .
You can follow the arguments and counter arguments back and forth , and the thing I 'm left wondering is , given all that , how can they be so sure ? Here is a simple one : the computer models are considered consistent with climate change , but ten years of relatively little or no warming is only weather noise... so if recent temps are just noise , then what are they comparing their models against to show they have skill ?
All that is left is hindcasting .
And how can hindcasting be taken as basis for " virtual certainty " regards the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started out believing all the climate science stuff, on the basis that it is science.But after a while, as more was said, the inconsistencies in what the scientists themselves were saying began to bother me.
I'm not talking about subtleties about statistics, where I have no stats training whatsoever, I'm talking about stuff like, "our rocket achieved orbit!
" and I'm wondering, "so what's that giant fireball and pile of rubble over there?
"If they could present a clear case, I'd be believing it again.
Simple as that.
You can follow the arguments and counter arguments back and forth, and the thing I'm left wondering is, given all that, how can they be so sure?Here is a simple one: the computer models are considered consistent with climate change, but ten years of relatively little or no warming is only weather noise... so if recent temps are just noise, then what are they comparing their models against to show they have skill?
All that is left is hindcasting.
And how can hindcasting be taken as basis for "virtual certainty" regards the future?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388892</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>Attack DAWWG</author>
	<datestamp>1260464520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>hundreds of billions of dollars from governments</em> </p></div><p>. . . Which is a tiny amount compared to what corporations have spent promoting their own "scientific" agenda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hundreds of billions of dollars from governments .
. .
Which is a tiny amount compared to what corporations have spent promoting their own " scientific " agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> hundreds of billions of dollars from governments .
. .
Which is a tiny amount compared to what corporations have spent promoting their own "scientific" agenda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390646</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260469860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can falsify by finding data that makes no sense to your current theory and should be explained by the current theory.  But thanks for playing.<br> <br>I mean, would you also like us to recreate the Big Bang so we can "run a true experiment" on it or would you rather we look at observable data and draw a reasonable conclusion that Big Bang did happen?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can falsify by finding data that makes no sense to your current theory and should be explained by the current theory .
But thanks for playing .
I mean , would you also like us to recreate the Big Bang so we can " run a true experiment " on it or would you rather we look at observable data and draw a reasonable conclusion that Big Bang did happen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can falsify by finding data that makes no sense to your current theory and should be explained by the current theory.
But thanks for playing.
I mean, would you also like us to recreate the Big Bang so we can "run a true experiment" on it or would you rather we look at observable data and draw a reasonable conclusion that Big Bang did happen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389840</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing interesting? Look at the code</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1260467400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you expect that? Just because you've never written code that way doesn't mean nobody does. I have. It didn't matter because it was private and nobody was going to see it, so as long as the author knew what was going on, who cares?</p><p>The documentation of what's been done is in the publications, not the notes or the source code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you expect that ?
Just because you 've never written code that way does n't mean nobody does .
I have .
It did n't matter because it was private and nobody was going to see it , so as long as the author knew what was going on , who cares ? The documentation of what 's been done is in the publications , not the notes or the source code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you expect that?
Just because you've never written code that way doesn't mean nobody does.
I have.
It didn't matter because it was private and nobody was going to see it, so as long as the author knew what was going on, who cares?The documentation of what's been done is in the publications, not the notes or the source code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390036</id>
	<title>Much Ado</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mistake here is that the practice of science is assumed to be somehow always pure, perfect, and pristine.  But anyone who is intimately familiar with the history of science knows that all areas of research and investigation have been replete with errors, controversy, and even outright fraud.  A simple perusal of the past scientific literature will reveal many attempts to promote ideas and concepts that seem bizarre and even foolish by current standards.</p><p>Science is a human activity and it will always be tainted by human foibles. But science does differ from other wanton human pursuits in the fact that it enforces the scientific method.  This aspect insures that science will eventually purge the falsehoods and misdirections that swirl within it at any given time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mistake here is that the practice of science is assumed to be somehow always pure , perfect , and pristine .
But anyone who is intimately familiar with the history of science knows that all areas of research and investigation have been replete with errors , controversy , and even outright fraud .
A simple perusal of the past scientific literature will reveal many attempts to promote ideas and concepts that seem bizarre and even foolish by current standards.Science is a human activity and it will always be tainted by human foibles .
But science does differ from other wanton human pursuits in the fact that it enforces the scientific method .
This aspect insures that science will eventually purge the falsehoods and misdirections that swirl within it at any given time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mistake here is that the practice of science is assumed to be somehow always pure, perfect, and pristine.
But anyone who is intimately familiar with the history of science knows that all areas of research and investigation have been replete with errors, controversy, and even outright fraud.
A simple perusal of the past scientific literature will reveal many attempts to promote ideas and concepts that seem bizarre and even foolish by current standards.Science is a human activity and it will always be tainted by human foibles.
But science does differ from other wanton human pursuits in the fact that it enforces the scientific method.
This aspect insures that science will eventually purge the falsehoods and misdirections that swirl within it at any given time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388984</id>
	<title>Hard sciences...</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1260464820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...generally involve the opinions of scientists. Scientists see some evidence, form an opinion about it (hypothesis), wait for more numbers, and then reform their opinion. Or the more corrupt ones tweak the numbers. Physics also works this way. The hard sciences are a sequence of increasingly accurate opinions.<br>
<br>
Math is entirely different. When mathematicians form an opinion, they back it up with pure, unfiltered logic. They prove it with the axioms of that field or consequences of those axioms. The only place the opinion still matters are for things that are unproven.<br>
<br>
Either which way, lay people shouldn't automatically believe or disbelieve anything. I should hope they weigh and ponder science and math the same way they (hopefully) weigh and ponder politics and religion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...generally involve the opinions of scientists .
Scientists see some evidence , form an opinion about it ( hypothesis ) , wait for more numbers , and then reform their opinion .
Or the more corrupt ones tweak the numbers .
Physics also works this way .
The hard sciences are a sequence of increasingly accurate opinions .
Math is entirely different .
When mathematicians form an opinion , they back it up with pure , unfiltered logic .
They prove it with the axioms of that field or consequences of those axioms .
The only place the opinion still matters are for things that are unproven .
Either which way , lay people should n't automatically believe or disbelieve anything .
I should hope they weigh and ponder science and math the same way they ( hopefully ) weigh and ponder politics and religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...generally involve the opinions of scientists.
Scientists see some evidence, form an opinion about it (hypothesis), wait for more numbers, and then reform their opinion.
Or the more corrupt ones tweak the numbers.
Physics also works this way.
The hard sciences are a sequence of increasingly accurate opinions.
Math is entirely different.
When mathematicians form an opinion, they back it up with pure, unfiltered logic.
They prove it with the axioms of that field or consequences of those axioms.
The only place the opinion still matters are for things that are unproven.
Either which way, lay people shouldn't automatically believe or disbelieve anything.
I should hope they weigh and ponder science and math the same way they (hopefully) weigh and ponder politics and religion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389022</id>
	<title>a good thing</title>
	<author>Peter La Casse</author>
	<datestamp>1260464940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies.'</p></div></blockquote><p>That would be a good thing, because "hard science" is not a single anthropomorphic entity but a collection of disparate opinions, equations, experiments and hypotheses.  Ideal scientists are skeptics, willing to change their minds to follow the evidence, but actual scientists are flawed human beings subject to the same cognitive failures as you and I.  The Feynman quote from <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/climategate\_was\_data\_faked.php" title="theatlantic.com">this Megan McArdle column</a> [theatlantic.com] illustrates it well:

</p><blockquote><div><p>We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.</p></div> </blockquote><blockquote><div><p>Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Since the goal of the scientific method is greater understanding, how is it a bad thing for the general public to have a greater understanding of it?  Scientists are not high priests.  When ordinary people set aside their blind "faith in science" in favor of a more realistic understanding of what it takes for a hypothesis to survive in the shark tank long enough to be called a theory, it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard science , alongside medicine , was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons .
But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction , as politicized and " messy " as , say , gender studies .
'That would be a good thing , because " hard science " is not a single anthropomorphic entity but a collection of disparate opinions , equations , experiments and hypotheses .
Ideal scientists are skeptics , willing to change their minds to follow the evidence , but actual scientists are flawed human beings subject to the same cognitive failures as you and I. The Feynman quote from this Megan McArdle column [ theatlantic.com ] illustrates it well : We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves .
One example : Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops , and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right .
It 's a little bit off , because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air .
It 's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron , after Millikan .
If you plot them as a function of time , you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan 's , and the next one 's a little bit bigger than that , and the next one 's a little bit bigger than that , until finally they settle down to a number which is higher .
Why did n't they discover that the new number was higher right away ?
It 's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it 's apparent that people did things like this : When they got a number that was too high above Millikan 's , they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong .
When they got a number closer to Millikan 's value they did n't look so hard .
And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off , and did other things like that .
Since the goal of the scientific method is greater understanding , how is it a bad thing for the general public to have a greater understanding of it ?
Scientists are not high priests .
When ordinary people set aside their blind " faith in science " in favor of a more realistic understanding of what it takes for a hypothesis to survive in the shark tank long enough to be called a theory , it 's not a bad thing , it 's a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons.
But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies.
'That would be a good thing, because "hard science" is not a single anthropomorphic entity but a collection of disparate opinions, equations, experiments and hypotheses.
Ideal scientists are skeptics, willing to change their minds to follow the evidence, but actual scientists are flawed human beings subject to the same cognitive failures as you and I.  The Feynman quote from this Megan McArdle column [theatlantic.com] illustrates it well:

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves.
One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right.
It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air.
It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan.
If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away?
It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong.
When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard.
And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
Since the goal of the scientific method is greater understanding, how is it a bad thing for the general public to have a greater understanding of it?
Scientists are not high priests.
When ordinary people set aside their blind "faith in science" in favor of a more realistic understanding of what it takes for a hypothesis to survive in the shark tank long enough to be called a theory, it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389710</id>
	<title>Problem is structural</title>
	<author>sweetser</author>
	<datestamp>1260466980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is Storytelling versus the Scientific Method, both done by people.
<p>People have been telling stories - meaning making shit up - since the advent of language.  If I was a storyteller, I would say that happened 120,000 years ago on a grassy plane when when one guy hunting warned his buddy about a lion on his left.  A scientist would give a huge range of years, large tracks of land, and a long list of other qualifiers to describe when storytelling began.
</p><p>The modern scientific method began about 400 years ago.  A historian of science could give important events and dates.  Nature doesn't want to give up her answers.  It takes training to learn how to question.
</p><p>There are many profitable storytelling businesses: movies, music, and the news.  News organizations tell stories.  Some try to make sure the story is accurate, an art called editing.  Some try to get lots of attention.  That can be done using pretty woman or hyping conflict.
</p><p>In science, you can tell someone they are wrong.  You can write out the reason they are wrong.  And that wrong person can continue to claim they are correct.  I have done that with someone who claims to have shown Einstein's special theory of relativity is wrong, all it takes is a little algebra.  He is paying Google to advertise his message to the world.  I looked into his math.  If you only have a little algebra, you would not recognize a linear system of equations.  I wrote him, making an effort to explain the idea that Nature sometimes uses 4 equations in place of 1 for spacetime, and it is wrong to think one of those four should say exactly the same thing as the others.  He did not accept this idea, and ads to Google's sales to this day.  Accepting a critique is rare.
</p><p>There will always be many places for storytellers to complain about the process and results of the scientific method.  These conflict can get personal, they can get ugly.  Storytellers can profit from that situation.

</p><p>Doug Sweetser
<br>Telling stories of new visual math at visualphysics.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is Storytelling versus the Scientific Method , both done by people .
People have been telling stories - meaning making shit up - since the advent of language .
If I was a storyteller , I would say that happened 120,000 years ago on a grassy plane when when one guy hunting warned his buddy about a lion on his left .
A scientist would give a huge range of years , large tracks of land , and a long list of other qualifiers to describe when storytelling began .
The modern scientific method began about 400 years ago .
A historian of science could give important events and dates .
Nature does n't want to give up her answers .
It takes training to learn how to question .
There are many profitable storytelling businesses : movies , music , and the news .
News organizations tell stories .
Some try to make sure the story is accurate , an art called editing .
Some try to get lots of attention .
That can be done using pretty woman or hyping conflict .
In science , you can tell someone they are wrong .
You can write out the reason they are wrong .
And that wrong person can continue to claim they are correct .
I have done that with someone who claims to have shown Einstein 's special theory of relativity is wrong , all it takes is a little algebra .
He is paying Google to advertise his message to the world .
I looked into his math .
If you only have a little algebra , you would not recognize a linear system of equations .
I wrote him , making an effort to explain the idea that Nature sometimes uses 4 equations in place of 1 for spacetime , and it is wrong to think one of those four should say exactly the same thing as the others .
He did not accept this idea , and ads to Google 's sales to this day .
Accepting a critique is rare .
There will always be many places for storytellers to complain about the process and results of the scientific method .
These conflict can get personal , they can get ugly .
Storytellers can profit from that situation .
Doug Sweetser Telling stories of new visual math at visualphysics.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is Storytelling versus the Scientific Method, both done by people.
People have been telling stories - meaning making shit up - since the advent of language.
If I was a storyteller, I would say that happened 120,000 years ago on a grassy plane when when one guy hunting warned his buddy about a lion on his left.
A scientist would give a huge range of years, large tracks of land, and a long list of other qualifiers to describe when storytelling began.
The modern scientific method began about 400 years ago.
A historian of science could give important events and dates.
Nature doesn't want to give up her answers.
It takes training to learn how to question.
There are many profitable storytelling businesses: movies, music, and the news.
News organizations tell stories.
Some try to make sure the story is accurate, an art called editing.
Some try to get lots of attention.
That can be done using pretty woman or hyping conflict.
In science, you can tell someone they are wrong.
You can write out the reason they are wrong.
And that wrong person can continue to claim they are correct.
I have done that with someone who claims to have shown Einstein's special theory of relativity is wrong, all it takes is a little algebra.
He is paying Google to advertise his message to the world.
I looked into his math.
If you only have a little algebra, you would not recognize a linear system of equations.
I wrote him, making an effort to explain the idea that Nature sometimes uses 4 equations in place of 1 for spacetime, and it is wrong to think one of those four should say exactly the same thing as the others.
He did not accept this idea, and ads to Google's sales to this day.
Accepting a critique is rare.
There will always be many places for storytellers to complain about the process and results of the scientific method.
These conflict can get personal, they can get ugly.
Storytellers can profit from that situation.
Doug Sweetser
Telling stories of new visual math at visualphysics.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392204</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260475080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Doubt is good"</p><p>You mean like how the Catholic church doubted Galileo?</p><p>Looks like there's different kinds of doubt to be taken into account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Doubt is good " You mean like how the Catholic church doubted Galileo ? Looks like there 's different kinds of doubt to be taken into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Doubt is good"You mean like how the Catholic church doubted Galileo?Looks like there's different kinds of doubt to be taken into account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395348</id>
	<title>Physics rigorous?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260444000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well yes in general. But string theory? Really? It has a long way to go in terms of undoubtable expiremental results before it's taken to be as axiomatic as Newton's laws and Maxwell's Equations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well yes in general .
But string theory ?
Really ? It has a long way to go in terms of undoubtable expiremental results before it 's taken to be as axiomatic as Newton 's laws and Maxwell 's Equations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well yes in general.
But string theory?
Really? It has a long way to go in terms of undoubtable expiremental results before it's taken to be as axiomatic as Newton's laws and Maxwell's Equations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390834</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>Cedric Tsui</author>
	<datestamp>1260470460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Global cooling is real. It's the main reason why the global temperature graph is hockey stick shaped instead of a more gradual increase. Then scrubbers were installed on coal and oil furnaces to remove the sulfur from the exhaust gas. <br>
Sulfur dioxide DOES cool the earth, and that is why it is considered as a potential tool for 'climate engineering.' We can use it to control the earth's temperature if things start going out of whack. But at the significant cost of acid rain.<p><div class="quote"><p>"Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda."</p></div><p>
What agenda is that? The wealthy first world nations want an excuse to transfer their wealth to poorer nations in a socialistic scheme? <br> Eh. Sorry. That was a bit dumb. Sonnejwo. If you do have a plausible agenda. I would like to hear it. But maybe it just makes sense to contribute 1\% of the global GDP as an insurance policy against what could potentially be a disaster.<br> <br>
I will give you one thing. There is a lot of uncertainty in climate science. There isn't any regarding whether the world is warming or whether humans are causing some part of that warming. The debate is on how serious of a problem global warming is. Is the system dominated by positive or negative feedback? In the worst case scenario, are we looking at a world at +1C or at +6C? If the answer is the former, then there's no reason to worry about CO2 emissions at all. If it's the latter, then the future of our world looks like something out of a science fiction novel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Global cooling is real .
It 's the main reason why the global temperature graph is hockey stick shaped instead of a more gradual increase .
Then scrubbers were installed on coal and oil furnaces to remove the sulfur from the exhaust gas .
Sulfur dioxide DOES cool the earth , and that is why it is considered as a potential tool for 'climate engineering .
' We can use it to control the earth 's temperature if things start going out of whack .
But at the significant cost of acid rain .
" Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda .
" What agenda is that ?
The wealthy first world nations want an excuse to transfer their wealth to poorer nations in a socialistic scheme ?
Eh. Sorry .
That was a bit dumb .
Sonnejwo. If you do have a plausible agenda .
I would like to hear it .
But maybe it just makes sense to contribute 1 \ % of the global GDP as an insurance policy against what could potentially be a disaster .
I will give you one thing .
There is a lot of uncertainty in climate science .
There is n't any regarding whether the world is warming or whether humans are causing some part of that warming .
The debate is on how serious of a problem global warming is .
Is the system dominated by positive or negative feedback ?
In the worst case scenario , are we looking at a world at + 1C or at + 6C ?
If the answer is the former , then there 's no reason to worry about CO2 emissions at all .
If it 's the latter , then the future of our world looks like something out of a science fiction novel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global cooling is real.
It's the main reason why the global temperature graph is hockey stick shaped instead of a more gradual increase.
Then scrubbers were installed on coal and oil furnaces to remove the sulfur from the exhaust gas.
Sulfur dioxide DOES cool the earth, and that is why it is considered as a potential tool for 'climate engineering.
' We can use it to control the earth's temperature if things start going out of whack.
But at the significant cost of acid rain.
"Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda.
"
What agenda is that?
The wealthy first world nations want an excuse to transfer their wealth to poorer nations in a socialistic scheme?
Eh. Sorry.
That was a bit dumb.
Sonnejwo. If you do have a plausible agenda.
I would like to hear it.
But maybe it just makes sense to contribute 1\% of the global GDP as an insurance policy against what could potentially be a disaster.
I will give you one thing.
There is a lot of uncertainty in climate science.
There isn't any regarding whether the world is warming or whether humans are causing some part of that warming.
The debate is on how serious of a problem global warming is.
Is the system dominated by positive or negative feedback?
In the worst case scenario, are we looking at a world at +1C or at +6C?
If the answer is the former, then there's no reason to worry about CO2 emissions at all.
If it's the latter, then the future of our world looks like something out of a science fiction novel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397408</id>
	<title>Re:Science Should Always be Questioned</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1260455100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While this is true, one must at this point watch the "argument clinic" sketch. There's a difference - especially in a scientific setting - between constructive questioning of the conventional wisdom and just saying "no it isn't" over and over again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this is true , one must at this point watch the " argument clinic " sketch .
There 's a difference - especially in a scientific setting - between constructive questioning of the conventional wisdom and just saying " no it is n't " over and over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this is true, one must at this point watch the "argument clinic" sketch.
There's a difference - especially in a scientific setting - between constructive questioning of the conventional wisdom and just saying "no it isn't" over and over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389928</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>systemeng</author>
	<datestamp>1260467580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've noticed that the internet tends to exacerbate the problems on recognizing science in a sea of opinions.  I've been sharing my research in materials science on an internet forum and posting about other topics in technical forums.  I've noticed that the most voluminous and most vociferous speakers tend to believed by the masses on the internet far above people who actually have credible knowledge.  The knowledgable tend to explain their facts once or twice and answer questions.  The unknowledgable tend to continuously post the same drivel.  If you google the question you end up with 100 posts of that drivel and 2 with the correct information.  Pagerank tends to lead people to bad information in the hard sciences.<br> <br>Laypeople who base their knowledge on google concensus rather than fact get a very skewed answer to certain questions.When these same laypeople google the climate debate, I suspect all they find is the right leaning and left leaning conspiracy theories.  Good information is replicated once because to those in the know, facts stand on their own and need not be repeated.  Stupid information is posted again and again because belief in non-factual theories (in keeping with ones own minimally informed beliefs) is essentially a form of religion.  Until scientists continuously post the correct information with the same religious fervor, the masses will continue to believe what they want to since its all they hear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noticed that the internet tends to exacerbate the problems on recognizing science in a sea of opinions .
I 've been sharing my research in materials science on an internet forum and posting about other topics in technical forums .
I 've noticed that the most voluminous and most vociferous speakers tend to believed by the masses on the internet far above people who actually have credible knowledge .
The knowledgable tend to explain their facts once or twice and answer questions .
The unknowledgable tend to continuously post the same drivel .
If you google the question you end up with 100 posts of that drivel and 2 with the correct information .
Pagerank tends to lead people to bad information in the hard sciences .
Laypeople who base their knowledge on google concensus rather than fact get a very skewed answer to certain questions.When these same laypeople google the climate debate , I suspect all they find is the right leaning and left leaning conspiracy theories .
Good information is replicated once because to those in the know , facts stand on their own and need not be repeated .
Stupid information is posted again and again because belief in non-factual theories ( in keeping with ones own minimally informed beliefs ) is essentially a form of religion .
Until scientists continuously post the correct information with the same religious fervor , the masses will continue to believe what they want to since its all they hear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noticed that the internet tends to exacerbate the problems on recognizing science in a sea of opinions.
I've been sharing my research in materials science on an internet forum and posting about other topics in technical forums.
I've noticed that the most voluminous and most vociferous speakers tend to believed by the masses on the internet far above people who actually have credible knowledge.
The knowledgable tend to explain their facts once or twice and answer questions.
The unknowledgable tend to continuously post the same drivel.
If you google the question you end up with 100 posts of that drivel and 2 with the correct information.
Pagerank tends to lead people to bad information in the hard sciences.
Laypeople who base their knowledge on google concensus rather than fact get a very skewed answer to certain questions.When these same laypeople google the climate debate, I suspect all they find is the right leaning and left leaning conspiracy theories.
Good information is replicated once because to those in the know, facts stand on their own and need not be repeated.
Stupid information is posted again and again because belief in non-factual theories (in keeping with ones own minimally informed beliefs) is essentially a form of religion.
Until scientists continuously post the correct information with the same religious fervor, the masses will continue to believe what they want to since its all they hear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391314</id>
	<title>Scientists are just as dumb as the skeptics!</title>
	<author>Theovon</author>
	<datestamp>1260471900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a scientist, and my father was before me.  Between the two of us, we've encounted an innumerable number of total boobs who call themselves "scientists."</p><p>We scientists like to go on and on about how stupid lay people are regarding science.  And it's true.  They are stupid about science.</p><p>But scientsts are people too and just as often just as stupid about science.  You see, we're humans, we make mistakes, and we're motivated by our political views and our desire to further our careers.  There really is no such thing as an objective scientist, and the main thing that keeps the whole community in line is peer review, and that works because every scientists wants to bury his competitors.  Other scientists compete for grant money, and your main weapons are getting on review committees and poking holes in other people's articles.  The articles that get published are the ones that are better science but also the ones that offend the politics and agendas of the fewest reviewers.  Scientists also want to more favorably review their friends' works, and even in double-blind reviews, they figure who is who.</p><p>The ideal scientist tries to disprove his own work.  The real scientist does just enough of this to try to ensure his work gets published.  Hell, we even use the review process to vet our work just as much as we try to do it ourselves.  When submitting a journal paper, the main question isn't "is this good science, novel and interesting" but "have I worded it cleverly enough to trick the reviewers into thinking it doesn't offend their biases."  In the world of "science", the primary motivating factors are publishing, publishing, and publishing.  Oh, and money -- to fund the research you need to do in order to publish.</p><p>Conferences REALLY show you what it's all about.  Yes, there are very interesting presentation sessions.  We people who enjoy science go to these and learn something.  But what's really telling is what happens BETWEEN sessions.  Do scientists go to lunch and talk about science?  A little.  But mostly, the socializing is all about getting noticed and meeting the big-wigs in your field.  Oh, and grant money.  Most of us struggle to get the once-in-a-lifetime NSF grant, while the REALLY big guys have money coming out their ears.  If they like you, they'll recommend you and give you some of their cast-offs.</p><p>Don't kid yourselves, people.  This isn't some utopia of god-like minds creating the future here.  Most scientists are just average people who just happened to end up in that career and are clever enough to climb the right ladders and end up in the good-old-boys-club.</p><p>Am I surprised at all that the global warming people look really bad right now?  No.  Not at all.  They weren't careful enough, made very human mistakes, and didn't do transparent-enough science.</p><p>Frankly, the scientific community NEEDS this kind of bubble-burst.  For far too long, scientists (and physicians too) have enjoyed the same status that the priesthood once had, and we've come to rest on our laurels.  For too long, we've expected laypeople to just "believe our conclusions, because it's too complicated for you to understand it," which is the exact same thing that caused the Catholic church to fall from the power they once had.  Scientists, like priests, are our mediators between us and God, except this time, God is an equally nebulous thing called "Science".</p><p>Just like the priests used to perform sermons in Latin long past the point where anyone understood, scientists obfuscate their knowledge in jargon that few even in their own fields understand.  (Some reviewers are even intimitidated into giving a good review by thinking they're not smart enough to get what you wrote.)  Yes, there is most certainly a time and a place for using semantically dense terminology, equations, and the like.  But scientists also have a duty to their paritioners to teach the science that they have discovered.  There are a few scientists out there who take it upon themselves to help laypeople to understand, by writing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a scientist , and my father was before me .
Between the two of us , we 've encounted an innumerable number of total boobs who call themselves " scientists .
" We scientists like to go on and on about how stupid lay people are regarding science .
And it 's true .
They are stupid about science.But scientsts are people too and just as often just as stupid about science .
You see , we 're humans , we make mistakes , and we 're motivated by our political views and our desire to further our careers .
There really is no such thing as an objective scientist , and the main thing that keeps the whole community in line is peer review , and that works because every scientists wants to bury his competitors .
Other scientists compete for grant money , and your main weapons are getting on review committees and poking holes in other people 's articles .
The articles that get published are the ones that are better science but also the ones that offend the politics and agendas of the fewest reviewers .
Scientists also want to more favorably review their friends ' works , and even in double-blind reviews , they figure who is who.The ideal scientist tries to disprove his own work .
The real scientist does just enough of this to try to ensure his work gets published .
Hell , we even use the review process to vet our work just as much as we try to do it ourselves .
When submitting a journal paper , the main question is n't " is this good science , novel and interesting " but " have I worded it cleverly enough to trick the reviewers into thinking it does n't offend their biases .
" In the world of " science " , the primary motivating factors are publishing , publishing , and publishing .
Oh , and money -- to fund the research you need to do in order to publish.Conferences REALLY show you what it 's all about .
Yes , there are very interesting presentation sessions .
We people who enjoy science go to these and learn something .
But what 's really telling is what happens BETWEEN sessions .
Do scientists go to lunch and talk about science ?
A little .
But mostly , the socializing is all about getting noticed and meeting the big-wigs in your field .
Oh , and grant money .
Most of us struggle to get the once-in-a-lifetime NSF grant , while the REALLY big guys have money coming out their ears .
If they like you , they 'll recommend you and give you some of their cast-offs.Do n't kid yourselves , people .
This is n't some utopia of god-like minds creating the future here .
Most scientists are just average people who just happened to end up in that career and are clever enough to climb the right ladders and end up in the good-old-boys-club.Am I surprised at all that the global warming people look really bad right now ?
No. Not at all .
They were n't careful enough , made very human mistakes , and did n't do transparent-enough science.Frankly , the scientific community NEEDS this kind of bubble-burst .
For far too long , scientists ( and physicians too ) have enjoyed the same status that the priesthood once had , and we 've come to rest on our laurels .
For too long , we 've expected laypeople to just " believe our conclusions , because it 's too complicated for you to understand it , " which is the exact same thing that caused the Catholic church to fall from the power they once had .
Scientists , like priests , are our mediators between us and God , except this time , God is an equally nebulous thing called " Science " .Just like the priests used to perform sermons in Latin long past the point where anyone understood , scientists obfuscate their knowledge in jargon that few even in their own fields understand .
( Some reviewers are even intimitidated into giving a good review by thinking they 're not smart enough to get what you wrote .
) Yes , there is most certainly a time and a place for using semantically dense terminology , equations , and the like .
But scientists also have a duty to their paritioners to teach the science that they have discovered .
There are a few scientists out there who take it upon themselves to help laypeople to understand , by writing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a scientist, and my father was before me.
Between the two of us, we've encounted an innumerable number of total boobs who call themselves "scientists.
"We scientists like to go on and on about how stupid lay people are regarding science.
And it's true.
They are stupid about science.But scientsts are people too and just as often just as stupid about science.
You see, we're humans, we make mistakes, and we're motivated by our political views and our desire to further our careers.
There really is no such thing as an objective scientist, and the main thing that keeps the whole community in line is peer review, and that works because every scientists wants to bury his competitors.
Other scientists compete for grant money, and your main weapons are getting on review committees and poking holes in other people's articles.
The articles that get published are the ones that are better science but also the ones that offend the politics and agendas of the fewest reviewers.
Scientists also want to more favorably review their friends' works, and even in double-blind reviews, they figure who is who.The ideal scientist tries to disprove his own work.
The real scientist does just enough of this to try to ensure his work gets published.
Hell, we even use the review process to vet our work just as much as we try to do it ourselves.
When submitting a journal paper, the main question isn't "is this good science, novel and interesting" but "have I worded it cleverly enough to trick the reviewers into thinking it doesn't offend their biases.
"  In the world of "science", the primary motivating factors are publishing, publishing, and publishing.
Oh, and money -- to fund the research you need to do in order to publish.Conferences REALLY show you what it's all about.
Yes, there are very interesting presentation sessions.
We people who enjoy science go to these and learn something.
But what's really telling is what happens BETWEEN sessions.
Do scientists go to lunch and talk about science?
A little.
But mostly, the socializing is all about getting noticed and meeting the big-wigs in your field.
Oh, and grant money.
Most of us struggle to get the once-in-a-lifetime NSF grant, while the REALLY big guys have money coming out their ears.
If they like you, they'll recommend you and give you some of their cast-offs.Don't kid yourselves, people.
This isn't some utopia of god-like minds creating the future here.
Most scientists are just average people who just happened to end up in that career and are clever enough to climb the right ladders and end up in the good-old-boys-club.Am I surprised at all that the global warming people look really bad right now?
No.  Not at all.
They weren't careful enough, made very human mistakes, and didn't do transparent-enough science.Frankly, the scientific community NEEDS this kind of bubble-burst.
For far too long, scientists (and physicians too) have enjoyed the same status that the priesthood once had, and we've come to rest on our laurels.
For too long, we've expected laypeople to just "believe our conclusions, because it's too complicated for you to understand it," which is the exact same thing that caused the Catholic church to fall from the power they once had.
Scientists, like priests, are our mediators between us and God, except this time, God is an equally nebulous thing called "Science".Just like the priests used to perform sermons in Latin long past the point where anyone understood, scientists obfuscate their knowledge in jargon that few even in their own fields understand.
(Some reviewers are even intimitidated into giving a good review by thinking they're not smart enough to get what you wrote.
)  Yes, there is most certainly a time and a place for using semantically dense terminology, equations, and the like.
But scientists also have a duty to their paritioners to teach the science that they have discovered.
There are a few scientists out there who take it upon themselves to help laypeople to understand, by writing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>monoqlith</author>
	<datestamp>1260464700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics."</p><p>The upside to this is that science appears to hold itself to a higher standard of truth than religion and politics. The downside to this is <i>also</i> that science appears to hold itself to a higher standard of truth than religion and politics. Science always says first to its student: "Doubt me." It's a tough marketing job from there on out. As science has skepticism as a built-in requirement, people will always doubt its findings more than the claims of religion or the promises of politicians. Of course, science has the added benefit of being difficult to understand, much unlike the  prescriptions of religion. This all creates a situation where knowledge and rational skepticism actually have no political force, and their antitheses, ignorance and hysteria, drive our political discussion.</p><p>
&nbsp; If people reserved nearly as much skepticism for religion as they did for science, we would live in a much more sensible world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment , people will pay attention to you , regardless of politics .
" The upside to this is that science appears to hold itself to a higher standard of truth than religion and politics .
The downside to this is also that science appears to hold itself to a higher standard of truth than religion and politics .
Science always says first to its student : " Doubt me .
" It 's a tough marketing job from there on out .
As science has skepticism as a built-in requirement , people will always doubt its findings more than the claims of religion or the promises of politicians .
Of course , science has the added benefit of being difficult to understand , much unlike the prescriptions of religion .
This all creates a situation where knowledge and rational skepticism actually have no political force , and their antitheses , ignorance and hysteria , drive our political discussion .
  If people reserved nearly as much skepticism for religion as they did for science , we would live in a much more sensible world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.
"The upside to this is that science appears to hold itself to a higher standard of truth than religion and politics.
The downside to this is also that science appears to hold itself to a higher standard of truth than religion and politics.
Science always says first to its student: "Doubt me.
" It's a tough marketing job from there on out.
As science has skepticism as a built-in requirement, people will always doubt its findings more than the claims of religion or the promises of politicians.
Of course, science has the added benefit of being difficult to understand, much unlike the  prescriptions of religion.
This all creates a situation where knowledge and rational skepticism actually have no political force, and their antitheses, ignorance and hysteria, drive our political discussion.
  If people reserved nearly as much skepticism for religion as they did for science, we would live in a much more sensible world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389008</id>
	<title>Hundreds of billions???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hundreds of billions??? You have the wrong side. 20 Billion dollars over 30 years for the entire world. Compared with 37Bn dollars given as subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear power industry *EACH* *YEAR* by the *US* ALONE* and I think you find the finger points a different direction.</p><p>How many people would want a piece of THAT action?</p><p>Much more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hundreds of billions ? ? ?
You have the wrong side .
20 Billion dollars over 30 years for the entire world .
Compared with 37Bn dollars given as subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear power industry * EACH * * YEAR * by the * US * ALONE * and I think you find the finger points a different direction.How many people would want a piece of THAT action ? Much more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hundreds of billions???
You have the wrong side.
20 Billion dollars over 30 years for the entire world.
Compared with 37Bn dollars given as subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear power industry *EACH* *YEAR* by the *US* ALONE* and I think you find the finger points a different direction.How many people would want a piece of THAT action?Much more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392804</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1260477540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.</i> </p><p>
If you can get published. Suppressing publication of contradictory theories/evidence seems to have been part of the problem here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment , people will pay attention to you , regardless of politics .
If you can get published .
Suppressing publication of contradictory theories/evidence seems to have been part of the problem here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.
If you can get published.
Suppressing publication of contradictory theories/evidence seems to have been part of the problem here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394404</id>
	<title>Re:These "scientists" weren't</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1260440700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then I would argue it is bad data. You don't actually use bad data. You find new data if you can.</p><p>Just because bad data is the best data you have available doesn't mean that you should use it.</p><p>I have plenty of examples where I work, where the raw data has been, shall we say "misplaced" from years ago.</p><p>I don't use it. If someone wants it, I will give it out, but I put a disclaimer on it cautioning its use. Someone can certainly FOI it, and use it however they like. However if I was doing a serious study, I would never use the stuff, even if it proves my pet theory.</p><p>Also the older the data the less metadata that is available, usually various methods of data collection were used, most of them not the same as today and will influence the results. Without an understanding of all these variables, you can come to monstrous conclusions that are really horribly incorrect.</p><p>I believe this is one of the things they were trying to correct for in the tree ring stuff I keep hearing about.</p><p>Anyway all I am saying, is if you don't have the data available to prove your point, just any old data won't do I am sorry.</p><p>To me it certainly sounds like: "Hey we got this data, but it doesn't really prove anything, but hey we have this old data that is shite, but totally proves our point. Bonus!". That's Sciencetacular!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then I would argue it is bad data .
You do n't actually use bad data .
You find new data if you can.Just because bad data is the best data you have available does n't mean that you should use it.I have plenty of examples where I work , where the raw data has been , shall we say " misplaced " from years ago.I do n't use it .
If someone wants it , I will give it out , but I put a disclaimer on it cautioning its use .
Someone can certainly FOI it , and use it however they like .
However if I was doing a serious study , I would never use the stuff , even if it proves my pet theory.Also the older the data the less metadata that is available , usually various methods of data collection were used , most of them not the same as today and will influence the results .
Without an understanding of all these variables , you can come to monstrous conclusions that are really horribly incorrect.I believe this is one of the things they were trying to correct for in the tree ring stuff I keep hearing about.Anyway all I am saying , is if you do n't have the data available to prove your point , just any old data wo n't do I am sorry.To me it certainly sounds like : " Hey we got this data , but it does n't really prove anything , but hey we have this old data that is shite , but totally proves our point .
Bonus ! " . That 's Sciencetacular !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then I would argue it is bad data.
You don't actually use bad data.
You find new data if you can.Just because bad data is the best data you have available doesn't mean that you should use it.I have plenty of examples where I work, where the raw data has been, shall we say "misplaced" from years ago.I don't use it.
If someone wants it, I will give it out, but I put a disclaimer on it cautioning its use.
Someone can certainly FOI it, and use it however they like.
However if I was doing a serious study, I would never use the stuff, even if it proves my pet theory.Also the older the data the less metadata that is available, usually various methods of data collection were used, most of them not the same as today and will influence the results.
Without an understanding of all these variables, you can come to monstrous conclusions that are really horribly incorrect.I believe this is one of the things they were trying to correct for in the tree ring stuff I keep hearing about.Anyway all I am saying, is if you don't have the data available to prove your point, just any old data won't do I am sorry.To me it certainly sounds like: "Hey we got this data, but it doesn't really prove anything, but hey we have this old data that is shite, but totally proves our point.
Bonus!". That's Sciencetacular!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391018</id>
	<title>Philosophy of Science</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1260471000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even among the "hard" sciences, there is a incredible tendency among scientist to view their fields as infallible, or at least lack an appreciation of how science hangs together with everything else. Really how many science departments at University mandate Philosophy of Science courses or even any basic history of science courses as a core part of the requirement to graduate their programs?</p><p>Even more interesting however is scientist of any given generation will look down on the scientist that came before (or failed to come before), and also view other competing fields as less than their own.</p><p>In some sense, I would say the average layman has a healthier scepticism and objectivity than often professional scientist do when it comes to their own fields place in the World. They are basically too close to the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even among the " hard " sciences , there is a incredible tendency among scientist to view their fields as infallible , or at least lack an appreciation of how science hangs together with everything else .
Really how many science departments at University mandate Philosophy of Science courses or even any basic history of science courses as a core part of the requirement to graduate their programs ? Even more interesting however is scientist of any given generation will look down on the scientist that came before ( or failed to come before ) , and also view other competing fields as less than their own.In some sense , I would say the average layman has a healthier scepticism and objectivity than often professional scientist do when it comes to their own fields place in the World .
They are basically too close to the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even among the "hard" sciences, there is a incredible tendency among scientist to view their fields as infallible, or at least lack an appreciation of how science hangs together with everything else.
Really how many science departments at University mandate Philosophy of Science courses or even any basic history of science courses as a core part of the requirement to graduate their programs?Even more interesting however is scientist of any given generation will look down on the scientist that came before (or failed to come before), and also view other competing fields as less than their own.In some sense, I would say the average layman has a healthier scepticism and objectivity than often professional scientist do when it comes to their own fields place in the World.
They are basically too close to the subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398526</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1260468360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?<br> <br>

-Peter</p></div></blockquote><p>

Right, because the government did it.<br> <br>

Lets just ignore the thousands of billions paid by corporations to "create" science with an agenda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science ?
-Peter Right , because the government did it .
Lets just ignore the thousands of billions paid by corporations to " create " science with an agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?
-Peter

Right, because the government did it.
Lets just ignore the thousands of billions paid by corporations to "create" science with an agenda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393128</id>
	<title>We do already</title>
	<author>tacokill</author>
	<datestamp>1260435600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>While we are at it, let's do the same thing for how inflation, unemployment, public health statistics, education metrics, and poverty rates are calculated.</i>
<br>
<br>
Inflation is measured by the CPI, aka the consumer price index.  There is also the PPI, the producers price index.  There are half a dozen other indexes that attempt to measure inflation.  All of them are published and available to anyone who wants to review the details.
<br>
<br>
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes unemployment data.  Again, it's available to anyone who wants to read and inspect it.   Same for education metrics and poverty.  Every metric collected is published and reviewable by the public, however, you could easily argue we are not collecting the <b>right</b> metrics and data.  To me, that is a fair point but it does not address the openness of the data.
<br>
<br>
In other words, the data for these items you laid out is available, well studied, and well debated.  Climate change is nowhere near as "open" as these other subjects you mention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While we are at it , let 's do the same thing for how inflation , unemployment , public health statistics , education metrics , and poverty rates are calculated .
Inflation is measured by the CPI , aka the consumer price index .
There is also the PPI , the producers price index .
There are half a dozen other indexes that attempt to measure inflation .
All of them are published and available to anyone who wants to review the details .
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes unemployment data .
Again , it 's available to anyone who wants to read and inspect it .
Same for education metrics and poverty .
Every metric collected is published and reviewable by the public , however , you could easily argue we are not collecting the right metrics and data .
To me , that is a fair point but it does not address the openness of the data .
In other words , the data for these items you laid out is available , well studied , and well debated .
Climate change is nowhere near as " open " as these other subjects you mention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we are at it, let's do the same thing for how inflation, unemployment, public health statistics, education metrics, and poverty rates are calculated.
Inflation is measured by the CPI, aka the consumer price index.
There is also the PPI, the producers price index.
There are half a dozen other indexes that attempt to measure inflation.
All of them are published and available to anyone who wants to review the details.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes unemployment data.
Again, it's available to anyone who wants to read and inspect it.
Same for education metrics and poverty.
Every metric collected is published and reviewable by the public, however, you could easily argue we are not collecting the right metrics and data.
To me, that is a fair point but it does not address the openness of the data.
In other words, the data for these items you laid out is available, well studied, and well debated.
Climate change is nowhere near as "open" as these other subjects you mention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664</id>
	<title>Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>etymxris</author>
	<datestamp>1260463680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science is empirical, math is not. Scientific hypotheses are inductively tested, mathematical hypotheses are deductively proven. (And mathematical "induction" is still deductive in that the premises subsume the conclusion.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is empirical , math is not .
Scientific hypotheses are inductively tested , mathematical hypotheses are deductively proven .
( And mathematical " induction " is still deductive in that the premises subsume the conclusion .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is empirical, math is not.
Scientific hypotheses are inductively tested, mathematical hypotheses are deductively proven.
(And mathematical "induction" is still deductive in that the premises subsume the conclusion.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390496</id>
	<title>On the topic of money influencing science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260469320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read many comments here that we should be skeptical of scientific results in particular because there is the incentive to fudge/alter results due to funding concerns. However, what I found extremely interesting and disturbing is that these people conveniently ignored the other half of the money issue. Just as the GOP is blocking Healthcare reform by focusing on the projected costs while completely ignoring the monetary benefits that will be derived there from (simple example: sick people are more productive at work - since they are spending their time working instead of being sick/dead. This leads to an increase in domestic production - GDP - as well bringing in more income tax revenue.) In this case we have tremendous monetary pressure from multiple international industry conglomerates to stifle the policy changes that are needed to deal with climate change. The pressure to affect policy and scientific outcomes in form of cold hard cash is very real from both sides. You can't call foul on one without acknowledging the effects of the other.</p><p>Furthermore, even if the science isn't perfect, and we can't conclude that we (humans) are primarily responsible for the climate shift, the fact remains that it is STILL OUR PROBLEM. It doesn't actually MATTER why the changes are happening, the fact is that they are, and we are directly impacted by them. Therefore, it should follow that we should do everything in our power to slow or reverse these changes, even if it wasn't our fault to begin with. The fact that people refuse to realize this reminds me of the frog phenomena, where a frog placed in a pot of cool water will sit unperturbed as the water reaches boiling, and will die in the same manner. Maybe the heating water around you won't kill you, but there is a chance it will. You don't always get into a car accident, but you still want to wear seat belts, don't you? I just can't understand why people treat the world they live in any differently.</p><p>"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read many comments here that we should be skeptical of scientific results in particular because there is the incentive to fudge/alter results due to funding concerns .
However , what I found extremely interesting and disturbing is that these people conveniently ignored the other half of the money issue .
Just as the GOP is blocking Healthcare reform by focusing on the projected costs while completely ignoring the monetary benefits that will be derived there from ( simple example : sick people are more productive at work - since they are spending their time working instead of being sick/dead .
This leads to an increase in domestic production - GDP - as well bringing in more income tax revenue .
) In this case we have tremendous monetary pressure from multiple international industry conglomerates to stifle the policy changes that are needed to deal with climate change .
The pressure to affect policy and scientific outcomes in form of cold hard cash is very real from both sides .
You ca n't call foul on one without acknowledging the effects of the other.Furthermore , even if the science is n't perfect , and we ca n't conclude that we ( humans ) are primarily responsible for the climate shift , the fact remains that it is STILL OUR PROBLEM .
It does n't actually MATTER why the changes are happening , the fact is that they are , and we are directly impacted by them .
Therefore , it should follow that we should do everything in our power to slow or reverse these changes , even if it was n't our fault to begin with .
The fact that people refuse to realize this reminds me of the frog phenomena , where a frog placed in a pot of cool water will sit unperturbed as the water reaches boiling , and will die in the same manner .
Maybe the heating water around you wo n't kill you , but there is a chance it will .
You do n't always get into a car accident , but you still want to wear seat belts , do n't you ?
I just ca n't understand why people treat the world they live in any differently .
" The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read many comments here that we should be skeptical of scientific results in particular because there is the incentive to fudge/alter results due to funding concerns.
However, what I found extremely interesting and disturbing is that these people conveniently ignored the other half of the money issue.
Just as the GOP is blocking Healthcare reform by focusing on the projected costs while completely ignoring the monetary benefits that will be derived there from (simple example: sick people are more productive at work - since they are spending their time working instead of being sick/dead.
This leads to an increase in domestic production - GDP - as well bringing in more income tax revenue.
) In this case we have tremendous monetary pressure from multiple international industry conglomerates to stifle the policy changes that are needed to deal with climate change.
The pressure to affect policy and scientific outcomes in form of cold hard cash is very real from both sides.
You can't call foul on one without acknowledging the effects of the other.Furthermore, even if the science isn't perfect, and we can't conclude that we (humans) are primarily responsible for the climate shift, the fact remains that it is STILL OUR PROBLEM.
It doesn't actually MATTER why the changes are happening, the fact is that they are, and we are directly impacted by them.
Therefore, it should follow that we should do everything in our power to slow or reverse these changes, even if it wasn't our fault to begin with.
The fact that people refuse to realize this reminds me of the frog phenomena, where a frog placed in a pot of cool water will sit unperturbed as the water reaches boiling, and will die in the same manner.
Maybe the heating water around you won't kill you, but there is a chance it will.
You don't always get into a car accident, but you still want to wear seat belts, don't you?
I just can't understand why people treat the world they live in any differently.
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388938</id>
	<title>Is Mathematics a science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't science involve experimentation? I don't remember running any experiments in my University Mathematics courses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't science involve experimentation ?
I do n't remember running any experiments in my University Mathematics courses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't science involve experimentation?
I don't remember running any experiments in my University Mathematics courses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397888</id>
	<title>Re:Science will do just fine...</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1260459300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Wall Street Journal is part of Rupert Murdoch media empire. That's a first point to note.</p></div></blockquote><p>Murdoch is a million miles to the left of Fox but he knows what sells.  In other words I think your point is irrelevent even if he is an evil old bastard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wall Street Journal is part of Rupert Murdoch media empire .
That 's a first point to note.Murdoch is a million miles to the left of Fox but he knows what sells .
In other words I think your point is irrelevent even if he is an evil old bastard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wall Street Journal is part of Rupert Murdoch media empire.
That's a first point to note.Murdoch is a million miles to the left of Fox but he knows what sells.
In other words I think your point is irrelevent even if he is an evil old bastard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389632</id>
	<title>Dumbing Down, Capitalism, Sympathy Trolls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All ideas proposed by some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers as beingt the reason the public doubt is now center stage.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Once again in history, the elitist reigns supreme and yesterday where it was the church, as pointed out ad nauseum by the atheist<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'er, today its the scientist working in concert with the politician aka- the lawyer.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; One corrupts the other as it always has in a 2 way hand washing.</p><p>Science should always be questioned since the scientist is no more and no better than the avg person who spent more time rehearsing the rotely memorized and handed down information which to some degree and as proven by history, always amounts to some inclusion of dogma.</p><p>Yesterday it was the church of god, the cult of the pious</p><p>Today its the church of the elitist brainiac, the cult of the pompous,  with no more sense than the next layperson and worst of all, less integrity. Power corrupts and ultimate power destroys.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; And politics, well lets just examine what political belief system was the most fervent proponent of this Hoax, that would be the cult of LIBERALISM.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You remember that when the next populist libtard gets on his taxpayer funded soapbox and begins to preach of our evils while keeping one arm behind his back with his fingers crossed wink wink!</p><p>P.S. I TOLD YOU SO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All ideas proposed by some /.ers as beingt the reason the public doubt is now center stage .
      Once again in history , the elitist reigns supreme and yesterday where it was the church , as pointed out ad nauseum by the atheist / .
'er , today its the scientist working in concert with the politician aka- the lawyer .
      One corrupts the other as it always has in a 2 way hand washing.Science should always be questioned since the scientist is no more and no better than the avg person who spent more time rehearsing the rotely memorized and handed down information which to some degree and as proven by history , always amounts to some inclusion of dogma.Yesterday it was the church of god , the cult of the piousToday its the church of the elitist brainiac , the cult of the pompous , with no more sense than the next layperson and worst of all , less integrity .
Power corrupts and ultimate power destroys .
    And politics , well lets just examine what political belief system was the most fervent proponent of this Hoax , that would be the cult of LIBERALISM .
      You remember that when the next populist libtard gets on his taxpayer funded soapbox and begins to preach of our evils while keeping one arm behind his back with his fingers crossed wink wink ! P.S .
I TOLD YOU SO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All ideas proposed by some /.ers as beingt the reason the public doubt is now center stage.
      Once again in history, the elitist reigns supreme and yesterday where it was the church, as pointed out ad nauseum by the atheist /.
'er, today its the scientist working in concert with the politician aka- the lawyer.
      One corrupts the other as it always has in a 2 way hand washing.Science should always be questioned since the scientist is no more and no better than the avg person who spent more time rehearsing the rotely memorized and handed down information which to some degree and as proven by history, always amounts to some inclusion of dogma.Yesterday it was the church of god, the cult of the piousToday its the church of the elitist brainiac, the cult of the pompous,  with no more sense than the next layperson and worst of all, less integrity.
Power corrupts and ultimate power destroys.
    And politics, well lets just examine what political belief system was the most fervent proponent of this Hoax, that would be the cult of LIBERALISM.
      You remember that when the next populist libtard gets on his taxpayer funded soapbox and begins to preach of our evils while keeping one arm behind his back with his fingers crossed wink wink!P.S.
I TOLD YOU SO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391618</id>
	<title>"Tells it all" == out of context</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260472920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, one picture certainly does NOT tell it all.  I noticed you conveniently avoided linking to the explanation, http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html</p><p>In a nutshell, the difference is due to bias corrections accounting for changing time of observation, thermometer type, station moves, etc.  The specific adjustments are shown in http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_pg.gif and the corresponding algorithms are described in the webpage above.  There are published papers for these adjustment procedures, and you can go read them (and by "read them" I mean the slogging through the methods section, not skimming the abstract) if you like, but somehow I doubt you will.</p><p>Corrections to raw data are made all the time.  Yes, you can introduce more error during this process than you remove.  Depending on what specifically you are doing and how you're doing it, there may be statistical means of checking for that.</p><p>It's people like you who make me, as a scientist, cringe, because I have to consider every possible way any figure or text I create could be taken out of context.  People seem to have this expectation that science should be easy, and that if something requires background to understand, we're being deceptive.  No, we're not.  Science is hard work, and if you're going to criticize intelligently, you have to understand the methods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , one picture certainly does NOT tell it all .
I noticed you conveniently avoided linking to the explanation , http : //lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.htmlIn a nutshell , the difference is due to bias corrections accounting for changing time of observation , thermometer type , station moves , etc .
The specific adjustments are shown in http : //lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn \ _anom25 \ _diffs \ _pg.gif and the corresponding algorithms are described in the webpage above .
There are published papers for these adjustment procedures , and you can go read them ( and by " read them " I mean the slogging through the methods section , not skimming the abstract ) if you like , but somehow I doubt you will.Corrections to raw data are made all the time .
Yes , you can introduce more error during this process than you remove .
Depending on what specifically you are doing and how you 're doing it , there may be statistical means of checking for that.It 's people like you who make me , as a scientist , cringe , because I have to consider every possible way any figure or text I create could be taken out of context .
People seem to have this expectation that science should be easy , and that if something requires background to understand , we 're being deceptive .
No , we 're not .
Science is hard work , and if you 're going to criticize intelligently , you have to understand the methods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, one picture certainly does NOT tell it all.
I noticed you conveniently avoided linking to the explanation, http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.htmlIn a nutshell, the difference is due to bias corrections accounting for changing time of observation, thermometer type, station moves, etc.
The specific adjustments are shown in http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_pg.gif and the corresponding algorithms are described in the webpage above.
There are published papers for these adjustment procedures, and you can go read them (and by "read them" I mean the slogging through the methods section, not skimming the abstract) if you like, but somehow I doubt you will.Corrections to raw data are made all the time.
Yes, you can introduce more error during this process than you remove.
Depending on what specifically you are doing and how you're doing it, there may be statistical means of checking for that.It's people like you who make me, as a scientist, cringe, because I have to consider every possible way any figure or text I create could be taken out of context.
People seem to have this expectation that science should be easy, and that if something requires background to understand, we're being deceptive.
No, we're not.
Science is hard work, and if you're going to criticize intelligently, you have to understand the methods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388834</id>
	<title>Doubt is justified</title>
	<author>Eukariote</author>
	<datestamp>1260464400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A measure of doubt in science is justified because much of science has devolved into religion (theories elevated to dogma). As these things come out in the open, people will be utterly amazed at just how much science is bunk. I can say this with confidence because I know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models. The Big Bang cosmology, for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A measure of doubt in science is justified because much of science has devolved into religion ( theories elevated to dogma ) .
As these things come out in the open , people will be utterly amazed at just how much science is bunk .
I can say this with confidence because I know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models .
The Big Bang cosmology , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A measure of doubt in science is justified because much of science has devolved into religion (theories elevated to dogma).
As these things come out in the open, people will be utterly amazed at just how much science is bunk.
I can say this with confidence because I know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models.
The Big Bang cosmology, for example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389388</id>
	<title>Science is fine until it becomes political.</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1260466140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's always the same story. Scientist are left alone to do their work until their findings have political repercusion.<br><br>If the truth doesn't suit the current political view it will get you burned.<br><br>And more I'm into GW the more I see it as religious fight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always the same story .
Scientist are left alone to do their work until their findings have political repercusion.If the truth does n't suit the current political view it will get you burned.And more I 'm into GW the more I see it as religious fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always the same story.
Scientist are left alone to do their work until their findings have political repercusion.If the truth doesn't suit the current political view it will get you burned.And more I'm into GW the more I see it as religious fight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390532</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1260469380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But, at least one scientist who was going to study the validity of the ice core methodology was told that it would be immoral to undercut this important foundation for global warming and he was fired so his institute could continue to get funding.</p></div><p>Ahh. Yes. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, who released a paper named <i>Reliability of Ice Core Records for Climatic Projections</i> in 1996 was fired because of this from an institute <i>he left in 1990</i>. Who are you trying to fool here?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , at least one scientist who was going to study the validity of the ice core methodology was told that it would be immoral to undercut this important foundation for global warming and he was fired so his institute could continue to get funding.Ahh .
Yes. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski , who released a paper named Reliability of Ice Core Records for Climatic Projections in 1996 was fired because of this from an institute he left in 1990 .
Who are you trying to fool here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, at least one scientist who was going to study the validity of the ice core methodology was told that it would be immoral to undercut this important foundation for global warming and he was fired so his institute could continue to get funding.Ahh.
Yes. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, who released a paper named Reliability of Ice Core Records for Climatic Projections in 1996 was fired because of this from an institute he left in 1990.
Who are you trying to fool here?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389528</id>
	<title>Re:Science Should Always be Questioned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trusting Bill Nye and a layman questioning physical laws are nowhere even close to related. "Law" isn't bandied about carelessly in modern science, and anyone can go and get a PhD if they're so sure that momentum isn't conserved. What's most damaging to scientific credibility is the confusion of hypotheses, theories, and laws by way of shoddy journalism. And you're not helping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trusting Bill Nye and a layman questioning physical laws are nowhere even close to related .
" Law " is n't bandied about carelessly in modern science , and anyone can go and get a PhD if they 're so sure that momentum is n't conserved .
What 's most damaging to scientific credibility is the confusion of hypotheses , theories , and laws by way of shoddy journalism .
And you 're not helping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trusting Bill Nye and a layman questioning physical laws are nowhere even close to related.
"Law" isn't bandied about carelessly in modern science, and anyone can go and get a PhD if they're so sure that momentum isn't conserved.
What's most damaging to scientific credibility is the confusion of hypotheses, theories, and laws by way of shoddy journalism.
And you're not helping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392466</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>rock\_climbing\_guy</author>
	<datestamp>1260476040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...end up electing the scientific ignoramuses who dominate one of the US national political parties.</i> </p><p>Which political party?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...end up electing the scientific ignoramuses who dominate one of the US national political parties .
Which political party ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...end up electing the scientific ignoramuses who dominate one of the US national political parties.
Which political party?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30408442</id>
	<title>Re:Laypeople.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260534360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Religion is for people who are too stupid to understand Science."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Religion is for people who are too stupid to understand Science .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Religion is for people who are too stupid to understand Science.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389158</id>
	<title>Acknowledge fuzziness</title>
	<author>AkiraRoberts</author>
	<datestamp>1260465360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing that's happening here is that what's becoming more obvious to the general public is the sort of fuzziness of scientific truth. From the scientific perspective, this isn't exactly a huge revelation. You're always sort of struggling towards this "Truth" which is always going to be unreachable and the process of struggling is messy and politicized. Big deal. Happens in physics just as much as in climatology, just that the latter involves way more money and touches directly on areas of public policy.
<br> <br>
But the problem is that the public still has this illusion, on some level or another, of what science is, reifying it as this pure pursuit of a knowledge that is, in the end, both perfectly attainable and absolute. When you acknowledge the fuzziness, they see that as an acknowledgement that the whole lot is fallible and sort of useless. It's the whole multiple definition of "theory" thing all over again. The public is a lot less comfortable with doubt, messy processes and fuzzy goals than are scientists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that 's happening here is that what 's becoming more obvious to the general public is the sort of fuzziness of scientific truth .
From the scientific perspective , this is n't exactly a huge revelation .
You 're always sort of struggling towards this " Truth " which is always going to be unreachable and the process of struggling is messy and politicized .
Big deal .
Happens in physics just as much as in climatology , just that the latter involves way more money and touches directly on areas of public policy .
But the problem is that the public still has this illusion , on some level or another , of what science is , reifying it as this pure pursuit of a knowledge that is , in the end , both perfectly attainable and absolute .
When you acknowledge the fuzziness , they see that as an acknowledgement that the whole lot is fallible and sort of useless .
It 's the whole multiple definition of " theory " thing all over again .
The public is a lot less comfortable with doubt , messy processes and fuzzy goals than are scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that's happening here is that what's becoming more obvious to the general public is the sort of fuzziness of scientific truth.
From the scientific perspective, this isn't exactly a huge revelation.
You're always sort of struggling towards this "Truth" which is always going to be unreachable and the process of struggling is messy and politicized.
Big deal.
Happens in physics just as much as in climatology, just that the latter involves way more money and touches directly on areas of public policy.
But the problem is that the public still has this illusion, on some level or another, of what science is, reifying it as this pure pursuit of a knowledge that is, in the end, both perfectly attainable and absolute.
When you acknowledge the fuzziness, they see that as an acknowledgement that the whole lot is fallible and sort of useless.
It's the whole multiple definition of "theory" thing all over again.
The public is a lot less comfortable with doubt, messy processes and fuzzy goals than are scientists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395848</id>
	<title>Re:Peer Review and Grant Awards</title>
	<author>MasterPatricko</author>
	<datestamp>1260445800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Either you're an excellent troll or you really have no idea of how scientific journals work.<br>Every faction, in all the sciences, have their own journal. As a scientist, your goal is to get published - so you submit to the journal with the editors that are most likely to approve your article. You then become associated closely with that journal and then become invited to peer-review other articles for inclusion in that same journal.<br>Inevitably that means that the cycle continues and journals develop a reputation for a certain point of view on specific issues, similar to newspapers developing a certain political affiliation.<br>The peer-review process is not perfect, but like democracy, its the best system we've got.<br><br>"Climate debate aside, we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists.  Any suggestions?"<br><br>Aside from your gross generalization of "scientists" as a class of people, who else could you possibly suggest to understand and evaluate SCIENTIFIC proposals and SCIENTIFIC papers besides SCIENTISTS?<br><br>In any case, in the specific case of climate science, it is true that "skeptic" papers very rarely get published in respected scientific journals. This is not, however, due to some vast conspiracy where "some rejected should not have been" - it is because the science is truly bad in most of these papers.<br>Besides, being published in a journal does not make it the truth - if someone truly believes in their research they are free to disseminate it in other ways, especially in "the internet age".<br><br>As for the famous quote "even if I have to redefine what peer-review literature is" - just because he is a scientist doesn't mean everything he writes has to be taken literally. He is annoyed, privately I might add, at people pushing what he views as bad science and is simply voicing his opinion. There is no evidence that any papers were actually excluded, and there are a few decent "skeptic" papers cited in the IPCC report referenced in the emails. There is no censorship going on.<br><br>There is far more money available on the "denialist" side - than from publicly funded climate research, especially in today's economic climate when governments are trillions in debt and the public opinion of science in general is a confused mess.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either you 're an excellent troll or you really have no idea of how scientific journals work.Every faction , in all the sciences , have their own journal .
As a scientist , your goal is to get published - so you submit to the journal with the editors that are most likely to approve your article .
You then become associated closely with that journal and then become invited to peer-review other articles for inclusion in that same journal.Inevitably that means that the cycle continues and journals develop a reputation for a certain point of view on specific issues , similar to newspapers developing a certain political affiliation.The peer-review process is not perfect , but like democracy , its the best system we 've got .
" Climate debate aside , we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists .
Any suggestions ?
" Aside from your gross generalization of " scientists " as a class of people , who else could you possibly suggest to understand and evaluate SCIENTIFIC proposals and SCIENTIFIC papers besides SCIENTISTS ? In any case , in the specific case of climate science , it is true that " skeptic " papers very rarely get published in respected scientific journals .
This is not , however , due to some vast conspiracy where " some rejected should not have been " - it is because the science is truly bad in most of these papers.Besides , being published in a journal does not make it the truth - if someone truly believes in their research they are free to disseminate it in other ways , especially in " the internet age " .As for the famous quote " even if I have to redefine what peer-review literature is " - just because he is a scientist does n't mean everything he writes has to be taken literally .
He is annoyed , privately I might add , at people pushing what he views as bad science and is simply voicing his opinion .
There is no evidence that any papers were actually excluded , and there are a few decent " skeptic " papers cited in the IPCC report referenced in the emails .
There is no censorship going on.There is far more money available on the " denialist " side - than from publicly funded climate research , especially in today 's economic climate when governments are trillions in debt and the public opinion of science in general is a confused mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either you're an excellent troll or you really have no idea of how scientific journals work.Every faction, in all the sciences, have their own journal.
As a scientist, your goal is to get published - so you submit to the journal with the editors that are most likely to approve your article.
You then become associated closely with that journal and then become invited to peer-review other articles for inclusion in that same journal.Inevitably that means that the cycle continues and journals develop a reputation for a certain point of view on specific issues, similar to newspapers developing a certain political affiliation.The peer-review process is not perfect, but like democracy, its the best system we've got.
"Climate debate aside, we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists.
Any suggestions?
"Aside from your gross generalization of "scientists" as a class of people, who else could you possibly suggest to understand and evaluate SCIENTIFIC proposals and SCIENTIFIC papers besides SCIENTISTS?In any case, in the specific case of climate science, it is true that "skeptic" papers very rarely get published in respected scientific journals.
This is not, however, due to some vast conspiracy where "some rejected should not have been" - it is because the science is truly bad in most of these papers.Besides, being published in a journal does not make it the truth - if someone truly believes in their research they are free to disseminate it in other ways, especially in "the internet age".As for the famous quote "even if I have to redefine what peer-review literature is" - just because he is a scientist doesn't mean everything he writes has to be taken literally.
He is annoyed, privately I might add, at people pushing what he views as bad science and is simply voicing his opinion.
There is no evidence that any papers were actually excluded, and there are a few decent "skeptic" papers cited in the IPCC report referenced in the emails.
There is no censorship going on.There is far more money available on the "denialist" side - than from publicly funded climate research, especially in today's economic climate when governments are trillions in debt and the public opinion of science in general is a confused mess.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389346</id>
	<title>Re:Science Should Always be Questioned</title>
	<author>Volante3192</author>
	<datestamp>1260465960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/guides/2009/11/the-complicated-truth-behind-scientific-findings.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/science/guides/2009/11/the-complicated-truth-behind-scientific-findings.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p><p>It's hard to even explain seemingly obvious scientific truisms when it takes a 300 year history lesson on one topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //arstechnica.com/science/guides/2009/11/the-complicated-truth-behind-scientific-findings.ars [ arstechnica.com ] It 's hard to even explain seemingly obvious scientific truisms when it takes a 300 year history lesson on one topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://arstechnica.com/science/guides/2009/11/the-complicated-truth-behind-scientific-findings.ars [arstechnica.com]It's hard to even explain seemingly obvious scientific truisms when it takes a 300 year history lesson on one topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392554</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>acheron12</author>
	<datestamp>1260476400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&amp;id=1623" title="smbc-comics.com" rel="nofollow">Obligatory SMBC</a> [smbc-comics.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory SMBC [ smbc-comics.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory SMBC [smbc-comics.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389586</id>
	<title>BIG surprise! Journals found nothing interesting!</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1260466680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course the journals found "nothing interesting. They have been part of the problem. Finding something "interesting" now (from their view) would reduce their already low credibility.
<br> <br>
Let's not forget that "peer reviewed journals" have some serious problems. Like when <i>Science</i> and <i>Nature</i> were both not just willing but eager to print numerous papers by Hendrik Sch&#246;n who, back in 2002, was the biggest scientific scammer of this century, and who was pumping out as much as 7 new papers a month... a quantity that is simply not credible, even to a layperson. He was even given an award by the Materials Research Society.
<br> <br>
Can you say "incompetence and utter failure of the peer review system"? Sure. I knew you could.
<br> <br>
And then there was Hwang Woo-Suk, remember? Who printed influential papers in <i>Science</i> in 2004 and 2005, regarding cloning and stem cells?
<br> <br>
Well, scandals like this are nothing new, and the fact that papers have been printed in peer-reviewed journals is only very slight evidence in their favor. It hardly carries much weight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the journals found " nothing interesting .
They have been part of the problem .
Finding something " interesting " now ( from their view ) would reduce their already low credibility .
Let 's not forget that " peer reviewed journals " have some serious problems .
Like when Science and Nature were both not just willing but eager to print numerous papers by Hendrik Sch   n who , back in 2002 , was the biggest scientific scammer of this century , and who was pumping out as much as 7 new papers a month... a quantity that is simply not credible , even to a layperson .
He was even given an award by the Materials Research Society .
Can you say " incompetence and utter failure of the peer review system " ?
Sure. I knew you could .
And then there was Hwang Woo-Suk , remember ?
Who printed influential papers in Science in 2004 and 2005 , regarding cloning and stem cells ?
Well , scandals like this are nothing new , and the fact that papers have been printed in peer-reviewed journals is only very slight evidence in their favor .
It hardly carries much weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the journals found "nothing interesting.
They have been part of the problem.
Finding something "interesting" now (from their view) would reduce their already low credibility.
Let's not forget that "peer reviewed journals" have some serious problems.
Like when Science and Nature were both not just willing but eager to print numerous papers by Hendrik Schön who, back in 2002, was the biggest scientific scammer of this century, and who was pumping out as much as 7 new papers a month... a quantity that is simply not credible, even to a layperson.
He was even given an award by the Materials Research Society.
Can you say "incompetence and utter failure of the peer review system"?
Sure. I knew you could.
And then there was Hwang Woo-Suk, remember?
Who printed influential papers in Science in 2004 and 2005, regarding cloning and stem cells?
Well, scandals like this are nothing new, and the fact that papers have been printed in peer-reviewed journals is only very slight evidence in their favor.
It hardly carries much weight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393620</id>
	<title>Re:Skeptical of science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260437280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confusing issues. Religion does not promise to make you a perfect being without sin - not Christianity at least. If you want perfection and achievement of enlightment look at Buddhism.<br>Pedo-priests are priests with pedophilia and tele-evangelists are guys who should be stand up comedians and politicians and not clerics. There is no reason why a few pedophiles in the Catholic Church and some Bible thumpers on TV should discredit Christianity especially that Christianity continually preaches that people are both good and imperfect. A pedo priest or Bible thumper who<br>teaches the good message is not destroying that message. The people who think so are confused and attack religious teachings on the basis of false understanding.</p><p>Scientists on the other hand have their pet theories and sometimes go too far to prove them. They bend the rules in order to obtain fame and or funding. These are issues of ethics but<br>science itself teaches objective observation and not ethics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing issues .
Religion does not promise to make you a perfect being without sin - not Christianity at least .
If you want perfection and achievement of enlightment look at Buddhism.Pedo-priests are priests with pedophilia and tele-evangelists are guys who should be stand up comedians and politicians and not clerics .
There is no reason why a few pedophiles in the Catholic Church and some Bible thumpers on TV should discredit Christianity especially that Christianity continually preaches that people are both good and imperfect .
A pedo priest or Bible thumper whoteaches the good message is not destroying that message .
The people who think so are confused and attack religious teachings on the basis of false understanding.Scientists on the other hand have their pet theories and sometimes go too far to prove them .
They bend the rules in order to obtain fame and or funding .
These are issues of ethics butscience itself teaches objective observation and not ethics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing issues.
Religion does not promise to make you a perfect being without sin - not Christianity at least.
If you want perfection and achievement of enlightment look at Buddhism.Pedo-priests are priests with pedophilia and tele-evangelists are guys who should be stand up comedians and politicians and not clerics.
There is no reason why a few pedophiles in the Catholic Church and some Bible thumpers on TV should discredit Christianity especially that Christianity continually preaches that people are both good and imperfect.
A pedo priest or Bible thumper whoteaches the good message is not destroying that message.
The people who think so are confused and attack religious teachings on the basis of false understanding.Scientists on the other hand have their pet theories and sometimes go too far to prove them.
They bend the rules in order to obtain fame and or funding.
These are issues of ethics butscience itself teaches objective observation and not ethics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399264</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>angel'o'sphere</author>
	<datestamp>1260523740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists, a true "global warming experiment" can't be run.<br></i></p><p>Oh man this makes me so sad.</p><p>What about this: fake sun! A Sun consisting of a lamp radiation a lot of IR (yes!! HEAT!! like used in a terrarium!!)</p><p>A glasshouse! A glass cube relatively air tight! A thermometer in the glass house. Probably you have to work with various pressures<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to simulate somehow the "height" of the true atmosphere.</p><p>Then you vary the CO2 level in the glass house, change the distance of the lamp, cover parts of the ground in the glass house with white paper (ICE, yes, ice!), or cover it with brown paper (the ground below melted ice).</p><p>And so on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>No, this does not give you a climate model of the earth. But you see if you put more CO2 into the glass cube the temperature inside changes, without any change to the lamp or anything else.</p><p>To observe this you don't need a computer, no model, just NORTHING except your eyes looking at the thermometer.</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists , a true " global warming experiment " ca n't be run.Oh man this makes me so sad.What about this : fake sun !
A Sun consisting of a lamp radiation a lot of IR ( yes ! !
HEAT ! ! like used in a terrarium ! !
) A glasshouse !
A glass cube relatively air tight !
A thermometer in the glass house .
Probably you have to work with various pressures ... to simulate somehow the " height " of the true atmosphere.Then you vary the CO2 level in the glass house , change the distance of the lamp , cover parts of the ground in the glass house with white paper ( ICE , yes , ice !
) , or cover it with brown paper ( the ground below melted ice ) .And so on ...No , this does not give you a climate model of the earth .
But you see if you put more CO2 into the glass cube the temperature inside changes , without any change to the lamp or anything else.To observe this you do n't need a computer , no model , just NORTHING except your eyes looking at the thermometer.angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists, a true "global warming experiment" can't be run.Oh man this makes me so sad.What about this: fake sun!
A Sun consisting of a lamp radiation a lot of IR (yes!!
HEAT!! like used in a terrarium!!
)A glasshouse!
A glass cube relatively air tight!
A thermometer in the glass house.
Probably you have to work with various pressures ... to simulate somehow the "height" of the true atmosphere.Then you vary the CO2 level in the glass house, change the distance of the lamp, cover parts of the ground in the glass house with white paper (ICE, yes, ice!
), or cover it with brown paper (the ground below melted ice).And so on ...No, this does not give you a climate model of the earth.
But you see if you put more CO2 into the glass cube the temperature inside changes, without any change to the lamp or anything else.To observe this you don't need a computer, no model, just NORTHING except your eyes looking at the thermometer.angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388850</id>
	<title>Physics? Rigorous?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hahahahahahaha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hahahahahahaha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hahahahahahaha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389544</id>
	<title>Just shooting messengers.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1260466560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientists are the same as they have always been. Science has always been politicized. It's just now, scientists are delivering a lot of bad news. Viruses are hard and not as likely to be cured.  Serious cancer vaccines elude us.  There is no magic energy bullet.  We're using too much resources and probably screwing up the planet. That's all bad news, and scientists used to bring good news.</p><p>So, what do people do?  They turn away from the guys that bring bad news and go for the guys that bring good news.</p><p>It's just human nature. Everything else is just an excuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists are the same as they have always been .
Science has always been politicized .
It 's just now , scientists are delivering a lot of bad news .
Viruses are hard and not as likely to be cured .
Serious cancer vaccines elude us .
There is no magic energy bullet .
We 're using too much resources and probably screwing up the planet .
That 's all bad news , and scientists used to bring good news.So , what do people do ?
They turn away from the guys that bring bad news and go for the guys that bring good news.It 's just human nature .
Everything else is just an excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists are the same as they have always been.
Science has always been politicized.
It's just now, scientists are delivering a lot of bad news.
Viruses are hard and not as likely to be cured.
Serious cancer vaccines elude us.
There is no magic energy bullet.
We're using too much resources and probably screwing up the planet.
That's all bad news, and scientists used to bring good news.So, what do people do?
They turn away from the guys that bring bad news and go for the guys that bring good news.It's just human nature.
Everything else is just an excuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391210</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260471600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Any person can still do their own filtering.</p><p>You're telling me that someone without a degree, or with some third rate degree in  that spends all their time partying and playing games has the mental equipment and training to evaluate a complex scientific hypothesis? Or your average student who can't form a coherent argument about anything? Really?</p><p>Most people can't even understand the most basic of fallacies and statistical arguments. The vast majority of researchers can't even spot a lot of statistical issues (read some psych papers one day, a huge amount of wisdom in that field is based on shoddy experiments with terrible statistics). Never mind the huge amount of domain-specific knowledge required for evaluating even a simple hypothesis. Never mind the math involved in any of these arguments and the underlying models. No, the whole point is that the layman has absolutely no chance of evaluating any of this research, and telling them they do is misleading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Any person can still do their own filtering.You 're telling me that someone without a degree , or with some third rate degree in that spends all their time partying and playing games has the mental equipment and training to evaluate a complex scientific hypothesis ?
Or your average student who ca n't form a coherent argument about anything ?
Really ? Most people ca n't even understand the most basic of fallacies and statistical arguments .
The vast majority of researchers ca n't even spot a lot of statistical issues ( read some psych papers one day , a huge amount of wisdom in that field is based on shoddy experiments with terrible statistics ) .
Never mind the huge amount of domain-specific knowledge required for evaluating even a simple hypothesis .
Never mind the math involved in any of these arguments and the underlying models .
No , the whole point is that the layman has absolutely no chance of evaluating any of this research , and telling them they do is misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Any person can still do their own filtering.You're telling me that someone without a degree, or with some third rate degree in  that spends all their time partying and playing games has the mental equipment and training to evaluate a complex scientific hypothesis?
Or your average student who can't form a coherent argument about anything?
Really?Most people can't even understand the most basic of fallacies and statistical arguments.
The vast majority of researchers can't even spot a lot of statistical issues (read some psych papers one day, a huge amount of wisdom in that field is based on shoddy experiments with terrible statistics).
Never mind the huge amount of domain-specific knowledge required for evaluating even a simple hypothesis.
Never mind the math involved in any of these arguments and the underlying models.
No, the whole point is that the layman has absolutely no chance of evaluating any of this research, and telling them they do is misleading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392210</id>
	<title>The bubble is there, but not from Climate Change</title>
	<author>assertation</author>
	<datestamp>1260475080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bubble is there, but it didn't start with the emails from the British Climate Change scientists.</p><p>In the U.S. the extreme fundamentalist Christians opening up natural history museums claiming that the Earth is only 5000 years old and that people coexisted with dinosaurs preceded the email leaks.</p><p>Then there is the example of otherwise intelligent and educated parents being anti-vaccine despite NIH (as well as other ) studies showing that vaccines are safe, are not linked to autism etc.</p><p>My personal opinion is that poor science education, especially education in the scientific method, education in how to think and encouragement to be *thinkers* - not memorizes is at the root of it.</p><p>Regardless, it did not start with the Climate Scientist scandal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bubble is there , but it did n't start with the emails from the British Climate Change scientists.In the U.S. the extreme fundamentalist Christians opening up natural history museums claiming that the Earth is only 5000 years old and that people coexisted with dinosaurs preceded the email leaks.Then there is the example of otherwise intelligent and educated parents being anti-vaccine despite NIH ( as well as other ) studies showing that vaccines are safe , are not linked to autism etc.My personal opinion is that poor science education , especially education in the scientific method , education in how to think and encouragement to be * thinkers * - not memorizes is at the root of it.Regardless , it did not start with the Climate Scientist scandal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bubble is there, but it didn't start with the emails from the British Climate Change scientists.In the U.S. the extreme fundamentalist Christians opening up natural history museums claiming that the Earth is only 5000 years old and that people coexisted with dinosaurs preceded the email leaks.Then there is the example of otherwise intelligent and educated parents being anti-vaccine despite NIH (as well as other ) studies showing that vaccines are safe, are not linked to autism etc.My personal opinion is that poor science education, especially education in the scientific method, education in how to think and encouragement to be *thinkers* - not memorizes is at the root of it.Regardless, it did not start with the Climate Scientist scandal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30408232</id>
	<title>Re:How to restore healthy debate</title>
	<author>MillenneumMan</author>
	<datestamp>1260533400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the great explanation.  By "our" government I meant the United States.<p>Regarding robust code, I was thinking of the Linux community when I suggested open sourcing the climate software...I am sure this statement will be debated but I perceive that the Linux community effort produces continuous improvement and it was that kind of concept I felt could unify more people in the global warming debate; at a minimum I would hope it would prevent the current science credibility issue.
</p><p>I am not ready to accept that there was no dishonesty in the task.  The e-mails clearly call out tricks to suppress undesirable results as well as methods to dilute the credibility of dissenting opinions.
</p><p>At any rate, thanks for taking the time to respond and broaden my understanding of the academic process associated with this issue.  We all want a solution and the confidence that our taxes are spent wisely</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the great explanation .
By " our " government I meant the United States.Regarding robust code , I was thinking of the Linux community when I suggested open sourcing the climate software...I am sure this statement will be debated but I perceive that the Linux community effort produces continuous improvement and it was that kind of concept I felt could unify more people in the global warming debate ; at a minimum I would hope it would prevent the current science credibility issue .
I am not ready to accept that there was no dishonesty in the task .
The e-mails clearly call out tricks to suppress undesirable results as well as methods to dilute the credibility of dissenting opinions .
At any rate , thanks for taking the time to respond and broaden my understanding of the academic process associated with this issue .
We all want a solution and the confidence that our taxes are spent wisely</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the great explanation.
By "our" government I meant the United States.Regarding robust code, I was thinking of the Linux community when I suggested open sourcing the climate software...I am sure this statement will be debated but I perceive that the Linux community effort produces continuous improvement and it was that kind of concept I felt could unify more people in the global warming debate; at a minimum I would hope it would prevent the current science credibility issue.
I am not ready to accept that there was no dishonesty in the task.
The e-mails clearly call out tricks to suppress undesirable results as well as methods to dilute the credibility of dissenting opinions.
At any rate, thanks for taking the time to respond and broaden my understanding of the academic process associated with this issue.
We all want a solution and the confidence that our taxes are spent wisely</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391676</id>
	<title>Re:Science will do just fine...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260473220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Wall Street Journal is part of Rupert Murdoch media empire. That's a first point to note.</p></div><p>...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the way it won over organized ignorance</p></div><p>You mean like self important snots on Slashdot who traffic in ad hominem fallacies? Hit the books, kid. You have a LONG way to go.

But I guess invoking bogeymen and not carrying your analysis past the article's title is easier than actually putting your neurons to work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wall Street Journal is part of Rupert Murdoch media empire .
That 's a first point to note....the way it won over organized ignoranceYou mean like self important snots on Slashdot who traffic in ad hominem fallacies ?
Hit the books , kid .
You have a LONG way to go .
But I guess invoking bogeymen and not carrying your analysis past the article 's title is easier than actually putting your neurons to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wall Street Journal is part of Rupert Murdoch media empire.
That's a first point to note....the way it won over organized ignoranceYou mean like self important snots on Slashdot who traffic in ad hominem fallacies?
Hit the books, kid.
You have a LONG way to go.
But I guess invoking bogeymen and not carrying your analysis past the article's title is easier than actually putting your neurons to work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468</id>
	<title>Skepticism requires more than just questioning</title>
	<author>orthancstone</author>
	<datestamp>1260466380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Doubt is good. Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.</p></div><p>Healthy skepticism is good when the skeptic understands the underlying ideas that go into the subject matter.  If they don't understand the basics of, say, scientific theory, they aren't intellectually involved in the first place.  That's a relevant issue with many lay people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doubt is good .
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.Healthy skepticism is good when the skeptic understands the underlying ideas that go into the subject matter .
If they do n't understand the basics of , say , scientific theory , they are n't intellectually involved in the first place .
That 's a relevant issue with many lay people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doubt is good.
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.Healthy skepticism is good when the skeptic understands the underlying ideas that go into the subject matter.
If they don't understand the basics of, say, scientific theory, they aren't intellectually involved in the first place.
That's a relevant issue with many lay people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389984</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, and most climate change proponents, are forgetting what is for me a <i>default position</i>: no one has any clue what is going on. The first barrier you have to get past is to prove to me that your claims are knowable in the first place, with our present data and technology. Knowing historical temperatures is not the same as having a climate model, and having a climate model is not the same as predicting large-scale climate shifts over millennia, or the impact of specific elements on that equation. I realize that science needs to <i>try</i>. Just don't expect me to listen to their musings until they have proven their models to have significant predictive power. Right now Ptolemaic astronomy has more proven predictive power than climate science, even though its underlying theories were disproved a thousand years ago. I realize that we might not figure it out in time to save the planet, but that doesn't change our current epistemological position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , and most climate change proponents , are forgetting what is for me a default position : no one has any clue what is going on .
The first barrier you have to get past is to prove to me that your claims are knowable in the first place , with our present data and technology .
Knowing historical temperatures is not the same as having a climate model , and having a climate model is not the same as predicting large-scale climate shifts over millennia , or the impact of specific elements on that equation .
I realize that science needs to try .
Just do n't expect me to listen to their musings until they have proven their models to have significant predictive power .
Right now Ptolemaic astronomy has more proven predictive power than climate science , even though its underlying theories were disproved a thousand years ago .
I realize that we might not figure it out in time to save the planet , but that does n't change our current epistemological position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, and most climate change proponents, are forgetting what is for me a default position: no one has any clue what is going on.
The first barrier you have to get past is to prove to me that your claims are knowable in the first place, with our present data and technology.
Knowing historical temperatures is not the same as having a climate model, and having a climate model is not the same as predicting large-scale climate shifts over millennia, or the impact of specific elements on that equation.
I realize that science needs to try.
Just don't expect me to listen to their musings until they have proven their models to have significant predictive power.
Right now Ptolemaic astronomy has more proven predictive power than climate science, even though its underlying theories were disproved a thousand years ago.
I realize that we might not figure it out in time to save the planet, but that doesn't change our current epistemological position.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391710</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1260473340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which goes to show that the distrust goes both ways. Under less embattled circumstances there would be no desire to "manage the message". The problem seems to me to be one where the people with the least to contribute to the debate, actually contribute the most. By that, I mean that the loudest opinions seem to be those that have little actual data to back them up. If we back scientists into a corner they will have to manage the message. We get the science we deserve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which goes to show that the distrust goes both ways .
Under less embattled circumstances there would be no desire to " manage the message " .
The problem seems to me to be one where the people with the least to contribute to the debate , actually contribute the most .
By that , I mean that the loudest opinions seem to be those that have little actual data to back them up .
If we back scientists into a corner they will have to manage the message .
We get the science we deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which goes to show that the distrust goes both ways.
Under less embattled circumstances there would be no desire to "manage the message".
The problem seems to me to be one where the people with the least to contribute to the debate, actually contribute the most.
By that, I mean that the loudest opinions seem to be those that have little actual data to back them up.
If we back scientists into a corner they will have to manage the message.
We get the science we deserve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391112</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260471300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer to what you have just said is NO.</p><p>Steve McIntyre falsified Mann's Hockey Stick theory. Mathematically. Comprehensively. And no one paid attentuion to him, because Mann used politics to paint him as a 'denier'.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to what you have just said is NO.Steve McIntyre falsified Mann 's Hockey Stick theory .
Mathematically. Comprehensively .
And no one paid attentuion to him , because Mann used politics to paint him as a 'denier'.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to what you have just said is NO.Steve McIntyre falsified Mann's Hockey Stick theory.
Mathematically. Comprehensively.
And no one paid attentuion to him, because Mann used politics to paint him as a 'denier'.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389666</id>
	<title>Quoting Sagan</title>
	<author>heidaro</author>
	<datestamp>1260466860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact..."

"If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you  On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones."

Then again he spoke for rather than against global warming. But he makes a damn good point. Everyone is demanding that the world be gullible and people who (healthily) doubt things are apparently terrible individuals. This is not what science is about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads .
But to find the truth , we need imagination and skepticism both .
We will not be afraid to speculate , but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact... " " If you are only skeptical , then no new ideas make it through to you On the other hand , if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you , then you can not distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones .
" Then again he spoke for rather than against global warming .
But he makes a damn good point .
Everyone is demanding that the world be gullible and people who ( healthily ) doubt things are apparently terrible individuals .
This is not what science is about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads.
But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both.
We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact..."

"If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you  On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones.
"

Then again he spoke for rather than against global warming.
But he makes a damn good point.
Everyone is demanding that the world be gullible and people who (healthily) doubt things are apparently terrible individuals.
This is not what science is about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398126</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260462360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As if Al Gore was doing anything other than interpreting and transmitting, correctly, the information he was given by scientists. It's called popularization, not to say vulgarization. Someone's got to do it. Al Gore has never claimed to have done the basic science himself. Get your facts straight. Some people do science. Some people write books about science. They're not always the same person nor do they have to be for the result to be credible and worthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As if Al Gore was doing anything other than interpreting and transmitting , correctly , the information he was given by scientists .
It 's called popularization , not to say vulgarization .
Someone 's got to do it .
Al Gore has never claimed to have done the basic science himself .
Get your facts straight .
Some people do science .
Some people write books about science .
They 're not always the same person nor do they have to be for the result to be credible and worthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if Al Gore was doing anything other than interpreting and transmitting, correctly, the information he was given by scientists.
It's called popularization, not to say vulgarization.
Someone's got to do it.
Al Gore has never claimed to have done the basic science himself.
Get your facts straight.
Some people do science.
Some people write books about science.
They're not always the same person nor do they have to be for the result to be credible and worthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389560</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1260466560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't public mistrust of science, it's crusading scientists.</p><p>Scientists, like, military commanders and supreme court judges, need to be apolitical.  If you want to be an advocate for a cause, you need to not be involved in the science associated with the cause or your motivations and credibility will be called into question.</p><p>Even if your motivations are consciously honest or true, its still possible that strong belief in your cause may influence your science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't public mistrust of science , it 's crusading scientists.Scientists , like , military commanders and supreme court judges , need to be apolitical .
If you want to be an advocate for a cause , you need to not be involved in the science associated with the cause or your motivations and credibility will be called into question.Even if your motivations are consciously honest or true , its still possible that strong belief in your cause may influence your science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't public mistrust of science, it's crusading scientists.Scientists, like, military commanders and supreme court judges, need to be apolitical.
If you want to be an advocate for a cause, you need to not be involved in the science associated with the cause or your motivations and credibility will be called into question.Even if your motivations are consciously honest or true, its still possible that strong belief in your cause may influence your science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391030</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1260471060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climatology is a science.  You've artificially restricted the set of "science" to experimental science.</p><p>Climatology is one of the sciences that does suffer a general inability to do experiments.  There are some experiments that can fall under the heading of climatology, but far fewer than other sciences.  Also in this category are things like epidemiology, parts of psychology, astronomy, etc.</p><p>That doesn't make them non-sciences.  Instead their practitioners have to use tools like simulations and more subtle statistical tools.  You can still develop climatological theories, make hypotheses, and test them scientifically.</p><p>As with any science, results and conclusions in climatology need to be judged by the evidence that supports them.  Often, because of the frequent inability to do experiments, that evidence is poorer than, say, in physics.  That means you need to treat climatological results more cautiously, NOT that climatology is not a science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climatology is a science .
You 've artificially restricted the set of " science " to experimental science.Climatology is one of the sciences that does suffer a general inability to do experiments .
There are some experiments that can fall under the heading of climatology , but far fewer than other sciences .
Also in this category are things like epidemiology , parts of psychology , astronomy , etc.That does n't make them non-sciences .
Instead their practitioners have to use tools like simulations and more subtle statistical tools .
You can still develop climatological theories , make hypotheses , and test them scientifically.As with any science , results and conclusions in climatology need to be judged by the evidence that supports them .
Often , because of the frequent inability to do experiments , that evidence is poorer than , say , in physics .
That means you need to treat climatological results more cautiously , NOT that climatology is not a science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climatology is a science.
You've artificially restricted the set of "science" to experimental science.Climatology is one of the sciences that does suffer a general inability to do experiments.
There are some experiments that can fall under the heading of climatology, but far fewer than other sciences.
Also in this category are things like epidemiology, parts of psychology, astronomy, etc.That doesn't make them non-sciences.
Instead their practitioners have to use tools like simulations and more subtle statistical tools.
You can still develop climatological theories, make hypotheses, and test them scientifically.As with any science, results and conclusions in climatology need to be judged by the evidence that supports them.
Often, because of the frequent inability to do experiments, that evidence is poorer than, say, in physics.
That means you need to treat climatological results more cautiously, NOT that climatology is not a science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393546</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260437040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda</p></div><p>They are attacking a hypothesis, not "the" science.  And that's a good thing.  That's how a hypothesis comes to merit belief -- by surviving vigorous attempts to disprove it.  For that to happen, it helps for there to be people who are strongly prejudiced against the hypothesis and are looking for every possible thing that might be wrong with it. Only by making it through such a gauntlet can we come to have some confidence in a hypothesis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agendaThey are attacking a hypothesis , not " the " science .
And that 's a good thing .
That 's how a hypothesis comes to merit belief -- by surviving vigorous attempts to disprove it .
For that to happen , it helps for there to be people who are strongly prejudiced against the hypothesis and are looking for every possible thing that might be wrong with it .
Only by making it through such a gauntlet can we come to have some confidence in a hypothesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agendaThey are attacking a hypothesis, not "the" science.
And that's a good thing.
That's how a hypothesis comes to merit belief -- by surviving vigorous attempts to disprove it.
For that to happen, it helps for there to be people who are strongly prejudiced against the hypothesis and are looking for every possible thing that might be wrong with it.
Only by making it through such a gauntlet can we come to have some confidence in a hypothesis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396046</id>
	<title>Re:Peer Review and Grant Awards</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1260446580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Climate debate aside, we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists.  Any suggestions?</p></div><p>How about this: all papers that anyone submits to any journal are made available online exactly as submitted (probably only to the journal's subscribers).  Those that are reviewed have the reviewers' comments posted along with the submission, in full.  Scientists who want to know what the journal's editors and peer reviewers think is good, or cite peer-reviewed results, can stick to reading the journal proper.  Anyone who wants to double-check the reviewing methods can analyze the full data set using whatever method they like.  Should be very easy to do; any journals up for it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate debate aside , we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists .
Any suggestions ? How about this : all papers that anyone submits to any journal are made available online exactly as submitted ( probably only to the journal 's subscribers ) .
Those that are reviewed have the reviewers ' comments posted along with the submission , in full .
Scientists who want to know what the journal 's editors and peer reviewers think is good , or cite peer-reviewed results , can stick to reading the journal proper .
Anyone who wants to double-check the reviewing methods can analyze the full data set using whatever method they like .
Should be very easy to do ; any journals up for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate debate aside, we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists.
Any suggestions?How about this: all papers that anyone submits to any journal are made available online exactly as submitted (probably only to the journal's subscribers).
Those that are reviewed have the reviewers' comments posted along with the submission, in full.
Scientists who want to know what the journal's editors and peer reviewers think is good, or cite peer-reviewed results, can stick to reading the journal proper.
Anyone who wants to double-check the reviewing methods can analyze the full data set using whatever method they like.
Should be very easy to do; any journals up for it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390614</id>
	<title>The problem is not science itself</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1260469740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but in that politics has corrupted scientists and scientific reports in the same way politics has corrupted religion and churches.</p><p>Both science and religion were once pure and not corrupted by politics, but both the left and right corrupted both science and religion.</p><p>Science was the last thing untouched by politics, if there was one thing people could trust it was science. But now with the political corruption from the right and the left, who can trust science anymore?</p><p>Even though there are logical fallacies, cherry picked numbers, political corruption, climate change can still be true, but just flawed. But we'll never know that until an unbiased and random sample (not cherry picked) third party neutral tests are done with a scientific model that works and is understood and a proper hypothesis that can be proven true or false and is thus falsifiable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but in that politics has corrupted scientists and scientific reports in the same way politics has corrupted religion and churches.Both science and religion were once pure and not corrupted by politics , but both the left and right corrupted both science and religion.Science was the last thing untouched by politics , if there was one thing people could trust it was science .
But now with the political corruption from the right and the left , who can trust science anymore ? Even though there are logical fallacies , cherry picked numbers , political corruption , climate change can still be true , but just flawed .
But we 'll never know that until an unbiased and random sample ( not cherry picked ) third party neutral tests are done with a scientific model that works and is understood and a proper hypothesis that can be proven true or false and is thus falsifiable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but in that politics has corrupted scientists and scientific reports in the same way politics has corrupted religion and churches.Both science and religion were once pure and not corrupted by politics, but both the left and right corrupted both science and religion.Science was the last thing untouched by politics, if there was one thing people could trust it was science.
But now with the political corruption from the right and the left, who can trust science anymore?Even though there are logical fallacies, cherry picked numbers, political corruption, climate change can still be true, but just flawed.
But we'll never know that until an unbiased and random sample (not cherry picked) third party neutral tests are done with a scientific model that works and is understood and a proper hypothesis that can be proven true or false and is thus falsifiable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390462</id>
	<title>Plato's Republic</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1260469200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC, Plato's argument against democracy in favor of an intellectual meritocracy was that the ignorant have as much decision-making power as the informed.</p><p>Kinda seductive in this age of <a href="http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/1820" title="buzzflash.com">Flygate</a> [buzzflash.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , Plato 's argument against democracy in favor of an intellectual meritocracy was that the ignorant have as much decision-making power as the informed.Kinda seductive in this age of Flygate [ buzzflash.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, Plato's argument against democracy in favor of an intellectual meritocracy was that the ignorant have as much decision-making power as the informed.Kinda seductive in this age of Flygate [buzzflash.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390560</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1260469500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So attack the scientists for being human if you must, but the science is sound and must be heeded.</i></p><p>This is exactly the problem:  arrogant over-confidence on the part of the ignorant on both sides with regard to what "sound" science means for public policy.</p><p>Most climate research is sound science.  Climate researchers are doing the best they can to understand a ferociously complex system that is dominated by turbulent and chaotic phenomena on all pretty much all scales, a complex fluid whose thermodynamic properties vary in all dimensions and is subject to feedbacks that are at best understood approximately, and modelled with codes that are, at root, profoundly unnphysical.</p><p>Some of the predictions they make seem to be validated by the data (the pattern of glacial retreat, for example) but others seem to be contradicted (long-term single-point temperature records that show no warming even withouth heat-island correction when models predict warming for those regions.)</p><p>Nothing like a robust, closed-form argument exists for anthropogenic global warming.  We have unphysical computer models and imperfect data.  That's all sound science.</p><p>And then some smug bastard comes along and says we "must" do XYZ (insert the smug bastard's favourite policy options here) on the basis of "sound science."</p><p>Well yeah, the science is sound.  But that doesn't remotely mean it is adequate as a basis for public policy, even on the basis of the precautionary principle, which must be applied to economic as well as environmental consequences.</p><p>On the other side of the debate, we have Big Hydrocarbons, which wants to keep raping the planet with impunity, and can come up with some plausibility arguments as to why we should ignore the cases where climate science is in agreement with the data, in the same way AGW advocates can come up with plausibility arguments as to why we should ignore the cases where climate science predictions disagree with the data.</p><p>But plausibility arguments are lame.  Only more data, more research, more science will help.</p><p>In the meantime, there are a lots of reasons--independently of the risks of AGW--to rein in Big Hydrocarbons, not least of which is the general protection of everyone's interest in the atmospheric commons.</p><p>But by linking the policy debate to the "soundness" of the science, the climate community has made it politically problematic to revise their conclusions in certain ways.  That is damaging to science:  far moreso than the fairly weak attacks that Big Hydrocarbons have launched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So attack the scientists for being human if you must , but the science is sound and must be heeded.This is exactly the problem : arrogant over-confidence on the part of the ignorant on both sides with regard to what " sound " science means for public policy.Most climate research is sound science .
Climate researchers are doing the best they can to understand a ferociously complex system that is dominated by turbulent and chaotic phenomena on all pretty much all scales , a complex fluid whose thermodynamic properties vary in all dimensions and is subject to feedbacks that are at best understood approximately , and modelled with codes that are , at root , profoundly unnphysical.Some of the predictions they make seem to be validated by the data ( the pattern of glacial retreat , for example ) but others seem to be contradicted ( long-term single-point temperature records that show no warming even withouth heat-island correction when models predict warming for those regions .
) Nothing like a robust , closed-form argument exists for anthropogenic global warming .
We have unphysical computer models and imperfect data .
That 's all sound science.And then some smug bastard comes along and says we " must " do XYZ ( insert the smug bastard 's favourite policy options here ) on the basis of " sound science .
" Well yeah , the science is sound .
But that does n't remotely mean it is adequate as a basis for public policy , even on the basis of the precautionary principle , which must be applied to economic as well as environmental consequences.On the other side of the debate , we have Big Hydrocarbons , which wants to keep raping the planet with impunity , and can come up with some plausibility arguments as to why we should ignore the cases where climate science is in agreement with the data , in the same way AGW advocates can come up with plausibility arguments as to why we should ignore the cases where climate science predictions disagree with the data.But plausibility arguments are lame .
Only more data , more research , more science will help.In the meantime , there are a lots of reasons--independently of the risks of AGW--to rein in Big Hydrocarbons , not least of which is the general protection of everyone 's interest in the atmospheric commons.But by linking the policy debate to the " soundness " of the science , the climate community has made it politically problematic to revise their conclusions in certain ways .
That is damaging to science : far moreso than the fairly weak attacks that Big Hydrocarbons have launched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So attack the scientists for being human if you must, but the science is sound and must be heeded.This is exactly the problem:  arrogant over-confidence on the part of the ignorant on both sides with regard to what "sound" science means for public policy.Most climate research is sound science.
Climate researchers are doing the best they can to understand a ferociously complex system that is dominated by turbulent and chaotic phenomena on all pretty much all scales, a complex fluid whose thermodynamic properties vary in all dimensions and is subject to feedbacks that are at best understood approximately, and modelled with codes that are, at root, profoundly unnphysical.Some of the predictions they make seem to be validated by the data (the pattern of glacial retreat, for example) but others seem to be contradicted (long-term single-point temperature records that show no warming even withouth heat-island correction when models predict warming for those regions.
)Nothing like a robust, closed-form argument exists for anthropogenic global warming.
We have unphysical computer models and imperfect data.
That's all sound science.And then some smug bastard comes along and says we "must" do XYZ (insert the smug bastard's favourite policy options here) on the basis of "sound science.
"Well yeah, the science is sound.
But that doesn't remotely mean it is adequate as a basis for public policy, even on the basis of the precautionary principle, which must be applied to economic as well as environmental consequences.On the other side of the debate, we have Big Hydrocarbons, which wants to keep raping the planet with impunity, and can come up with some plausibility arguments as to why we should ignore the cases where climate science is in agreement with the data, in the same way AGW advocates can come up with plausibility arguments as to why we should ignore the cases where climate science predictions disagree with the data.But plausibility arguments are lame.
Only more data, more research, more science will help.In the meantime, there are a lots of reasons--independently of the risks of AGW--to rein in Big Hydrocarbons, not least of which is the general protection of everyone's interest in the atmospheric commons.But by linking the policy debate to the "soundness" of the science, the climate community has made it politically problematic to revise their conclusions in certain ways.
That is damaging to science:  far moreso than the fairly weak attacks that Big Hydrocarbons have launched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388978</id>
	<title>We need to eat our own dog food</title>
	<author>fooslacker</author>
	<datestamp>1260464760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Part of the problem is what we call science.  We regularly equate well known laws of the physical universe with theories at various stages of testing.  We regularly seek to prove positive ideas we believe are true but don't have facts for yet sometimes even disregarding negative results.  We regularly act as though because we can make a correlation we have shown causation.  And all of this we insist on calling science.  Just like Christians who choose to throw out the peace and judge not portions of scripture in favor of the "shall nots" or vice-versa and just like democracies that decide when basic freedoms should be valid based on circumstance we do ourselves irreparable harm when we violate scientific protocols and principles because we "know something should be true" or we justify our conclusions with "the consequences are just too high not to go this way".  We can't have it both ways and we need to be true to our fundamental principles if we're going to hold science up as a framework for understanding.
<br> <br>
I think some of this is applicable to climategate but to be absolutely clear I'm not qualified to make a truly informed opinion on that subject as I haven't studied any global warming data unless you count watching the Al Gore movie.  I think this is a much deeper problem that affects various areas of scientific inquiry and how we teach what science is to our next generations of scientists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the problem is what we call science .
We regularly equate well known laws of the physical universe with theories at various stages of testing .
We regularly seek to prove positive ideas we believe are true but do n't have facts for yet sometimes even disregarding negative results .
We regularly act as though because we can make a correlation we have shown causation .
And all of this we insist on calling science .
Just like Christians who choose to throw out the peace and judge not portions of scripture in favor of the " shall nots " or vice-versa and just like democracies that decide when basic freedoms should be valid based on circumstance we do ourselves irreparable harm when we violate scientific protocols and principles because we " know something should be true " or we justify our conclusions with " the consequences are just too high not to go this way " .
We ca n't have it both ways and we need to be true to our fundamental principles if we 're going to hold science up as a framework for understanding .
I think some of this is applicable to climategate but to be absolutely clear I 'm not qualified to make a truly informed opinion on that subject as I have n't studied any global warming data unless you count watching the Al Gore movie .
I think this is a much deeper problem that affects various areas of scientific inquiry and how we teach what science is to our next generations of scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the problem is what we call science.
We regularly equate well known laws of the physical universe with theories at various stages of testing.
We regularly seek to prove positive ideas we believe are true but don't have facts for yet sometimes even disregarding negative results.
We regularly act as though because we can make a correlation we have shown causation.
And all of this we insist on calling science.
Just like Christians who choose to throw out the peace and judge not portions of scripture in favor of the "shall nots" or vice-versa and just like democracies that decide when basic freedoms should be valid based on circumstance we do ourselves irreparable harm when we violate scientific protocols and principles because we "know something should be true" or we justify our conclusions with "the consequences are just too high not to go this way".
We can't have it both ways and we need to be true to our fundamental principles if we're going to hold science up as a framework for understanding.
I think some of this is applicable to climategate but to be absolutely clear I'm not qualified to make a truly informed opinion on that subject as I haven't studied any global warming data unless you count watching the Al Gore movie.
I think this is a much deeper problem that affects various areas of scientific inquiry and how we teach what science is to our next generations of scientists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389452</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>james\_shoemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1260466320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "No mathematics has any reality of its own, not even common arithmetic. All mathematics is purely an invention of the mind, with no connection with the world around us, except that we find some mathematics convenient in describing things."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No mathematics has any reality of its own , not even common arithmetic .
All mathematics is purely an invention of the mind , with no connection with the world around us , except that we find some mathematics convenient in describing things .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "No mathematics has any reality of its own, not even common arithmetic.
All mathematics is purely an invention of the mind, with no connection with the world around us, except that we find some mathematics convenient in describing things.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392854</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260477720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing unique or new about this. Back when the economy started to go downhill there was a lot of discussion on these pages and in other places about alternate economic theories that could not get journal space because they disagreed with the economic communities 'accepted' wisdom. Seems no one likes dissenting points of view, particularly when it is about the future or making money from promulgating a viewpoint.</p><p>The other issue that crossed my mind in reading some of the climategate emails was the messiness of real data and how much scrubbing needs to be done to get a 'clean' picture. Theories are neat, clean and simple -- the real world is not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing unique or new about this .
Back when the economy started to go downhill there was a lot of discussion on these pages and in other places about alternate economic theories that could not get journal space because they disagreed with the economic communities 'accepted ' wisdom .
Seems no one likes dissenting points of view , particularly when it is about the future or making money from promulgating a viewpoint.The other issue that crossed my mind in reading some of the climategate emails was the messiness of real data and how much scrubbing needs to be done to get a 'clean ' picture .
Theories are neat , clean and simple -- the real world is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing unique or new about this.
Back when the economy started to go downhill there was a lot of discussion on these pages and in other places about alternate economic theories that could not get journal space because they disagreed with the economic communities 'accepted' wisdom.
Seems no one likes dissenting points of view, particularly when it is about the future or making money from promulgating a viewpoint.The other issue that crossed my mind in reading some of the climategate emails was the messiness of real data and how much scrubbing needs to be done to get a 'clean' picture.
Theories are neat, clean and simple -- the real world is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390698</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260470100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah well, who's to say that 1+1=2?</p><p>That "truth" comes from a handful of basically arbitrary axioms, that don't really have any basis in reality.</p><p>Sure, the impressive gedankenexperiment that was build on those axioms known as mathematics happens to match reallife observations - validating the whole thing for practical reasons alone.</p><p>But when you realize how little basis in reality it actually has, it's only natural to either doubt it, or to put it into the same realm as religion. As something to have faith in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah well , who 's to say that 1 + 1 = 2 ? That " truth " comes from a handful of basically arbitrary axioms , that do n't really have any basis in reality.Sure , the impressive gedankenexperiment that was build on those axioms known as mathematics happens to match reallife observations - validating the whole thing for practical reasons alone.But when you realize how little basis in reality it actually has , it 's only natural to either doubt it , or to put it into the same realm as religion .
As something to have faith in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah well, who's to say that 1+1=2?That "truth" comes from a handful of basically arbitrary axioms, that don't really have any basis in reality.Sure, the impressive gedankenexperiment that was build on those axioms known as mathematics happens to match reallife observations - validating the whole thing for practical reasons alone.But when you realize how little basis in reality it actually has, it's only natural to either doubt it, or to put it into the same realm as religion.
As something to have faith in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392658</id>
	<title>"Belief" is irrelevent here</title>
	<author>heavyion</author>
	<datestamp>1260476880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole point of science is that no belief is required.  Science is a method, a process by which we hope to learn something about reality.  Nobody has to resort to believing anything, just look at the data.  People can and will sometimes disagree about the correct interpretation of the data, but that's very different from "believing".  As stated several times above by others, the real problem here is people who know little about the scientific process being very loud about their uninformed opinions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of science is that no belief is required .
Science is a method , a process by which we hope to learn something about reality .
Nobody has to resort to believing anything , just look at the data .
People can and will sometimes disagree about the correct interpretation of the data , but that 's very different from " believing " .
As stated several times above by others , the real problem here is people who know little about the scientific process being very loud about their uninformed opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of science is that no belief is required.
Science is a method, a process by which we hope to learn something about reality.
Nobody has to resort to believing anything, just look at the data.
People can and will sometimes disagree about the correct interpretation of the data, but that's very different from "believing".
As stated several times above by others, the real problem here is people who know little about the scientific process being very loud about their uninformed opinions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392996</id>
	<title>Science thrives on contradiction.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260478320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Money carries an agenda. Scientists who work for sponsors, including foundations, oil companies or even governments AND who disagree with the predispositions of the above are soon out of money, out of work, out of science.</p></div><p>Besides NASA climatologists getting shut up during the Bush administration, you mean?</p><p>You show an unsurprising lack of knowledge about how actual professional science is conducted. Any scientist who could put forth convincing evidence to counter any prevailing theory will get their grant money.  Someone who can prove that the globe isn't warming, or that it's not human released CO2 that's doing it, is in for a lot of research cash.</p><p>It should also be noted that the whole "global warming hypothesis" doesn't just come out of someone's ass-- it's based on observation first.  The globe is warming, and scientists went looking for a good explanation for the observed phenomena.  Human activity is the one that best fits the available data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Money carries an agenda .
Scientists who work for sponsors , including foundations , oil companies or even governments AND who disagree with the predispositions of the above are soon out of money , out of work , out of science.Besides NASA climatologists getting shut up during the Bush administration , you mean ? You show an unsurprising lack of knowledge about how actual professional science is conducted .
Any scientist who could put forth convincing evidence to counter any prevailing theory will get their grant money .
Someone who can prove that the globe is n't warming , or that it 's not human released CO2 that 's doing it , is in for a lot of research cash.It should also be noted that the whole " global warming hypothesis " does n't just come out of someone 's ass-- it 's based on observation first .
The globe is warming , and scientists went looking for a good explanation for the observed phenomena .
Human activity is the one that best fits the available data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money carries an agenda.
Scientists who work for sponsors, including foundations, oil companies or even governments AND who disagree with the predispositions of the above are soon out of money, out of work, out of science.Besides NASA climatologists getting shut up during the Bush administration, you mean?You show an unsurprising lack of knowledge about how actual professional science is conducted.
Any scientist who could put forth convincing evidence to counter any prevailing theory will get their grant money.
Someone who can prove that the globe isn't warming, or that it's not human released CO2 that's doing it, is in for a lot of research cash.It should also be noted that the whole "global warming hypothesis" doesn't just come out of someone's ass-- it's based on observation first.
The globe is warming, and scientists went looking for a good explanation for the observed phenomena.
Human activity is the one that best fits the available data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390274</id>
	<title>CRU vs. the scientific method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is incontrovertibly true, we are in a warm period and have been for 11,000 years, since the last ice age.   There have been a few cold snaps like the late 1770's and a few warm periods such as when the Vikings inhabited Greenland.  There is no doubt most glaciers are melting.   Clearly, climate changes both warming and cooling have happened in the past without human causes and have been reversed without human action.</p><p>The only real scientific debate is:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1.. has this current warming period been triggered or amplified by human use of fossil fuels, and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2.. can any possible change in human behavior significantly lesson or reverse this warming.</p><p>It is not certain humans caused the current warming trends.  Given the many fluctuations of the past and the inherently noisy data no one should be absolutely sure of this either way.</p><p>More importantly, It is very doubtful any reasonable change in governmental policy can reduce the warming that will occur over the next several decades.  The reason we can not take decisive action is that there are just too many of us.  China is now producing more green house gas than the U.S.  It can not refuse to modernize the living standards of the 75\% of its people who now live in poverty.  So China has refused to even accept the goal of reduced emissions.  Thus, even if the U.S. were to eliminate all greenhouse gasses the world level will continue to rise.</p><p>It is not politically correct to point this out but we should probably not have more than about a billion people living on the earth but we have almost seven billion.  That number is seriously damaging the planet in many ways even if we did not cause global warming.   Unless we get our population under control, we will see the whole planet go the way of Easter Island.</p><p>None of this however justifies climatologist refusing to open their data and models to full examination by their critics which is the basis of the scientific method.  None of it justifies cherry picking and distorting data and findings in published reports.  None of it justifies trying to restrict alternate views from the peer review journals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is incontrovertibly true , we are in a warm period and have been for 11,000 years , since the last ice age .
There have been a few cold snaps like the late 1770 's and a few warm periods such as when the Vikings inhabited Greenland .
There is no doubt most glaciers are melting .
Clearly , climate changes both warming and cooling have happened in the past without human causes and have been reversed without human action.The only real scientific debate is :     1.. has this current warming period been triggered or amplified by human use of fossil fuels , and     2.. can any possible change in human behavior significantly lesson or reverse this warming.It is not certain humans caused the current warming trends .
Given the many fluctuations of the past and the inherently noisy data no one should be absolutely sure of this either way.More importantly , It is very doubtful any reasonable change in governmental policy can reduce the warming that will occur over the next several decades .
The reason we can not take decisive action is that there are just too many of us .
China is now producing more green house gas than the U.S. It can not refuse to modernize the living standards of the 75 \ % of its people who now live in poverty .
So China has refused to even accept the goal of reduced emissions .
Thus , even if the U.S. were to eliminate all greenhouse gasses the world level will continue to rise.It is not politically correct to point this out but we should probably not have more than about a billion people living on the earth but we have almost seven billion .
That number is seriously damaging the planet in many ways even if we did not cause global warming .
Unless we get our population under control , we will see the whole planet go the way of Easter Island.None of this however justifies climatologist refusing to open their data and models to full examination by their critics which is the basis of the scientific method .
None of it justifies cherry picking and distorting data and findings in published reports .
None of it justifies trying to restrict alternate views from the peer review journals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is incontrovertibly true, we are in a warm period and have been for 11,000 years, since the last ice age.
There have been a few cold snaps like the late 1770's and a few warm periods such as when the Vikings inhabited Greenland.
There is no doubt most glaciers are melting.
Clearly, climate changes both warming and cooling have happened in the past without human causes and have been reversed without human action.The only real scientific debate is:
    1.. has this current warming period been triggered or amplified by human use of fossil fuels, and
    2.. can any possible change in human behavior significantly lesson or reverse this warming.It is not certain humans caused the current warming trends.
Given the many fluctuations of the past and the inherently noisy data no one should be absolutely sure of this either way.More importantly, It is very doubtful any reasonable change in governmental policy can reduce the warming that will occur over the next several decades.
The reason we can not take decisive action is that there are just too many of us.
China is now producing more green house gas than the U.S.  It can not refuse to modernize the living standards of the 75\% of its people who now live in poverty.
So China has refused to even accept the goal of reduced emissions.
Thus, even if the U.S. were to eliminate all greenhouse gasses the world level will continue to rise.It is not politically correct to point this out but we should probably not have more than about a billion people living on the earth but we have almost seven billion.
That number is seriously damaging the planet in many ways even if we did not cause global warming.
Unless we get our population under control, we will see the whole planet go the way of Easter Island.None of this however justifies climatologist refusing to open their data and models to full examination by their critics which is the basis of the scientific method.
None of it justifies cherry picking and distorting data and findings in published reports.
None of it justifies trying to restrict alternate views from the peer review journals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389682</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1260466920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even assuming that your numbers are right, what's your alternative? There are two options: corporate funded research, or personal funding. If a corporation funds research, it's a) directly targeted at the corporate bottom line, and b) still political, by virtue of scientists fighting for corporate funding. If you're arguing for self-funded research, you just restricted science to a hobby on the scale of RC copters.</p><p>The problem is not that government funds science. The problem is that scientists are people, and the public has a responsibility to not regard them as mere oracles. But that's much harder than posting a blithe big-government-is-bad diatribe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even assuming that your numbers are right , what 's your alternative ?
There are two options : corporate funded research , or personal funding .
If a corporation funds research , it 's a ) directly targeted at the corporate bottom line , and b ) still political , by virtue of scientists fighting for corporate funding .
If you 're arguing for self-funded research , you just restricted science to a hobby on the scale of RC copters.The problem is not that government funds science .
The problem is that scientists are people , and the public has a responsibility to not regard them as mere oracles .
But that 's much harder than posting a blithe big-government-is-bad diatribe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even assuming that your numbers are right, what's your alternative?
There are two options: corporate funded research, or personal funding.
If a corporation funds research, it's a) directly targeted at the corporate bottom line, and b) still political, by virtue of scientists fighting for corporate funding.
If you're arguing for self-funded research, you just restricted science to a hobby on the scale of RC copters.The problem is not that government funds science.
The problem is that scientists are people, and the public has a responsibility to not regard them as mere oracles.
But that's much harder than posting a blithe big-government-is-bad diatribe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394152</id>
	<title>Re:Hundreds of billions???</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1260439620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL</p><p>No citations and posted as Anonymous Coward... Nice!</p><p>I believe this is what this discussion is all about.</p><p>"You want facts! I'll give you some friggin' facts you idiot! Take that! Eat those facts! You are SO wrong you jerk! CLIMATE CHANNGE ARGH!!!!"</p><p>"Care to actually *prove* anything you just said?"</p><p>"..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOLNo citations and posted as Anonymous Coward... Nice ! I believe this is what this discussion is all about .
" You want facts !
I 'll give you some friggin ' facts you idiot !
Take that !
Eat those facts !
You are SO wrong you jerk !
CLIMATE CHANNGE ARGH ! ! ! !
" " Care to actually * prove * anything you just said ? " " .. .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOLNo citations and posted as Anonymous Coward... Nice!I believe this is what this discussion is all about.
"You want facts!
I'll give you some friggin' facts you idiot!
Take that!
Eat those facts!
You are SO wrong you jerk!
CLIMATE CHANNGE ARGH!!!!
""Care to actually *prove* anything you just said?""...
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392670</id>
	<title>Hope author of TFA never builds a bridge</title>
	<author>mpsmps</author>
	<datestamp>1260476940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA said (as essentially its main point):</p><blockquote><div><p>Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.</p></div></blockquote><p> Actually, this is one of the most basic principles of how civil engineers build bridges. It's called "margin of safety." You don't build to the worst you can prove will happen. You build to the worst that you can't prove will not happen.</p><p>One thing I do agree with the TFA is that the public doesn't understand how science works (obviously neither does the author) and that is creating a huge public relations crisis. Science needs some articulate advocates who are actual real scientists (or at least deeply understand what science is), not the politicians (Gore) and editorialists (Henninger) who seem to be framing the discussion now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA said ( as essentially its main point ) : Again , this puts hard science in the new position of saying , close enough is good enough .
One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory .
Actually , this is one of the most basic principles of how civil engineers build bridges .
It 's called " margin of safety .
" You do n't build to the worst you can prove will happen .
You build to the worst that you ca n't prove will not happen.One thing I do agree with the TFA is that the public does n't understand how science works ( obviously neither does the author ) and that is creating a huge public relations crisis .
Science needs some articulate advocates who are actual real scientists ( or at least deeply understand what science is ) , not the politicians ( Gore ) and editorialists ( Henninger ) who seem to be framing the discussion now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA said (as essentially its main point):Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough.
One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.
Actually, this is one of the most basic principles of how civil engineers build bridges.
It's called "margin of safety.
" You don't build to the worst you can prove will happen.
You build to the worst that you can't prove will not happen.One thing I do agree with the TFA is that the public doesn't understand how science works (obviously neither does the author) and that is creating a huge public relations crisis.
Science needs some articulate advocates who are actual real scientists (or at least deeply understand what science is), not the politicians (Gore) and editorialists (Henninger) who seem to be framing the discussion now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389552</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>icensnow</author>
	<datestamp>1260466560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is so bogus. There are many fields of scientific study where all we can do is observe what happens now, try to reconstruct, often from proxy data, what has happened in the past before the era of human observation, and use extrapolations from physical principles (i.e., numerical models) to try to better understand processes. Climatology, geology, ecology, paleontology, much of astronomy, much of what we think we know about evolution, and a lot of oceanography -- in other words most things having to do with the large scale, have the same observational, not lab-experimental, basis. Climatology is at least physically based enough that we can try to project the future (arguing about accuracy of those predictions is fair, and that argument is a robust part of current climate research).
<p>
The canard about what we know in the 1970s is getting really stale. In the early 1970s, climate modeling was in its infancy and we were trying to nail down what, among many possible climate problems, was most likely. If your library has a copy of S.H.Schneider's <i>The Genesis Strategy</i>, look it up for a view of the uncertainty we had back then. News magazines picked up on the ice age side of things more back then, not because there was any scientific consensus at all, but because it sold magazines. By the early 1980s, the scientific consensus was that CO2-greenhouse gases were the imminent concern. Nobody has been seriously pushing the encroaching ice age as a problem for 30 years. This is how science works: hypotheses lead to research which leads to corrections and improvements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is so bogus .
There are many fields of scientific study where all we can do is observe what happens now , try to reconstruct , often from proxy data , what has happened in the past before the era of human observation , and use extrapolations from physical principles ( i.e. , numerical models ) to try to better understand processes .
Climatology , geology , ecology , paleontology , much of astronomy , much of what we think we know about evolution , and a lot of oceanography -- in other words most things having to do with the large scale , have the same observational , not lab-experimental , basis .
Climatology is at least physically based enough that we can try to project the future ( arguing about accuracy of those predictions is fair , and that argument is a robust part of current climate research ) .
The canard about what we know in the 1970s is getting really stale .
In the early 1970s , climate modeling was in its infancy and we were trying to nail down what , among many possible climate problems , was most likely .
If your library has a copy of S.H.Schneider 's The Genesis Strategy , look it up for a view of the uncertainty we had back then .
News magazines picked up on the ice age side of things more back then , not because there was any scientific consensus at all , but because it sold magazines .
By the early 1980s , the scientific consensus was that CO2-greenhouse gases were the imminent concern .
Nobody has been seriously pushing the encroaching ice age as a problem for 30 years .
This is how science works : hypotheses lead to research which leads to corrections and improvements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is so bogus.
There are many fields of scientific study where all we can do is observe what happens now, try to reconstruct, often from proxy data, what has happened in the past before the era of human observation, and use extrapolations from physical principles (i.e., numerical models) to try to better understand processes.
Climatology, geology, ecology, paleontology, much of astronomy, much of what we think we know about evolution, and a lot of oceanography -- in other words most things having to do with the large scale, have the same observational, not lab-experimental, basis.
Climatology is at least physically based enough that we can try to project the future (arguing about accuracy of those predictions is fair, and that argument is a robust part of current climate research).
The canard about what we know in the 1970s is getting really stale.
In the early 1970s, climate modeling was in its infancy and we were trying to nail down what, among many possible climate problems, was most likely.
If your library has a copy of S.H.Schneider's The Genesis Strategy, look it up for a view of the uncertainty we had back then.
News magazines picked up on the ice age side of things more back then, not because there was any scientific consensus at all, but because it sold magazines.
By the early 1980s, the scientific consensus was that CO2-greenhouse gases were the imminent concern.
Nobody has been seriously pushing the encroaching ice age as a problem for 30 years.
This is how science works: hypotheses lead to research which leads to corrections and improvements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390606</id>
	<title>stupidity bubble</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1260469680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although scientists do have an obligation to communicate scientific results and issues clearly to the public, the public needs to have basic scientific literacy to follow; it's something both sides need to invest work in.  But people want to use all the nifty things that science produces, but they don't actually want to bother to actually learn to understand how science works. That's a serious problem for the world, because people with no understanding of science end up needing to make policy decisions--sometimes life-and-death decisions for millions of people--involving scientific questions.</p><p>We really should let people only use the level of technology that they actually understand; for most people on this earth, including the majority of Americans and Europeans, that means basically living like the Amish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although scientists do have an obligation to communicate scientific results and issues clearly to the public , the public needs to have basic scientific literacy to follow ; it 's something both sides need to invest work in .
But people want to use all the nifty things that science produces , but they do n't actually want to bother to actually learn to understand how science works .
That 's a serious problem for the world , because people with no understanding of science end up needing to make policy decisions--sometimes life-and-death decisions for millions of people--involving scientific questions.We really should let people only use the level of technology that they actually understand ; for most people on this earth , including the majority of Americans and Europeans , that means basically living like the Amish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although scientists do have an obligation to communicate scientific results and issues clearly to the public, the public needs to have basic scientific literacy to follow; it's something both sides need to invest work in.
But people want to use all the nifty things that science produces, but they don't actually want to bother to actually learn to understand how science works.
That's a serious problem for the world, because people with no understanding of science end up needing to make policy decisions--sometimes life-and-death decisions for millions of people--involving scientific questions.We really should let people only use the level of technology that they actually understand; for most people on this earth, including the majority of Americans and Europeans, that means basically living like the Amish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388772</id>
	<title>Science Should Always be Questioned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If people are afraid to question what we now consider laws in physics, mathematics, etc, then there will never be breakthroughs in learning.<br> <br>I mean, there are extremes, and people shouldn't be disbelieving scientists just because they're scientists, but at the same time, we shouldn't always take things at face value just because Bill Nye the Science Guy says so. There is a happy medium...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people are afraid to question what we now consider laws in physics , mathematics , etc , then there will never be breakthroughs in learning .
I mean , there are extremes , and people should n't be disbelieving scientists just because they 're scientists , but at the same time , we should n't always take things at face value just because Bill Nye the Science Guy says so .
There is a happy medium.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people are afraid to question what we now consider laws in physics, mathematics, etc, then there will never be breakthroughs in learning.
I mean, there are extremes, and people shouldn't be disbelieving scientists just because they're scientists, but at the same time, we shouldn't always take things at face value just because Bill Nye the Science Guy says so.
There is a happy medium...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390552</id>
	<title>how naive are you?</title>
	<author>jwiegley</author>
	<datestamp>1260469500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but assuming that infighting exists in them all.</p></div><p>duh... That's a pretty good assumption. If there wasn't a disagreement then there really isn't
anything to investigate is there?</p><p>I *WANT* everybody to be skeptical and question the result. Assume that there was some bias and look for it. Point out the assumptions and the weaknesses. Figure out what the non-scientific agendas are. All of us should be doing that before we react to "data".</p><p>It's the lack of this kind of critical thinking (both from the lay-person and from the scientists themselves) that has gotten us into these messes in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but assuming that infighting exists in them all.duh... That 's a pretty good assumption .
If there was n't a disagreement then there really is n't anything to investigate is there ? I * WANT * everybody to be skeptical and question the result .
Assume that there was some bias and look for it .
Point out the assumptions and the weaknesses .
Figure out what the non-scientific agendas are .
All of us should be doing that before we react to " data " .It 's the lack of this kind of critical thinking ( both from the lay-person and from the scientists themselves ) that has gotten us into these messes in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but assuming that infighting exists in them all.duh... That's a pretty good assumption.
If there wasn't a disagreement then there really isn't
anything to investigate is there?I *WANT* everybody to be skeptical and question the result.
Assume that there was some bias and look for it.
Point out the assumptions and the weaknesses.
Figure out what the non-scientific agendas are.
All of us should be doing that before we react to "data".It's the lack of this kind of critical thinking (both from the lay-person and from the scientists themselves) that has gotten us into these messes in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392758</id>
	<title>A "Hard Science" look at Global Warming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260477360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a link to an article "Five GraphsThat Will Change Your Mind" by David Brooks.</p><p>Brooks is a theoretical physicist who is not a protagonist in the (pro or con) Global Warming gaggle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a link to an article " Five GraphsThat Will Change Your Mind " by David Brooks.Brooks is a theoretical physicist who is not a protagonist in the ( pro or con ) Global Warming gaggle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a link to an article "Five GraphsThat Will Change Your Mind" by David Brooks.Brooks is a theoretical physicist who is not a protagonist in the (pro or con) Global Warming gaggle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388994</id>
	<title>What does he mean, begin to doubt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics?</em>

<br> <br>

Some people already doubt science in general, to limit it to just math and physics belies the current trend of refusing to accept what science, in all its forms, tells us.

<br> <br>

Men on the moon?  Nope, can't be done because of .  WTC towers collapsed because of structural damage compounded by extreme temperatures? Nope, it was a government plot because .  Vaccines help prevent acquisition of serious diseases? Nope, doesn't work because .  Evolution? It's impossible because .

<br> <br>

There will always be those who will find any excuse to deny the scientific evidence.  That doesn't mean one shouldn't question the evidence or how it's gathered.  Rather, instead of saying, "See!  They used the word 'hide' so they must be falsifying the data!", one should look at the entire context of quotes and information to see what is meant.

<br> <br>

Science, in all its forms, is one of those areas where there will always be discussion about something, but once someone, or some group, comes up with an explanation, their data and processes can be checked by others to see if those people get the same results.  If not, go back and see what the differences were.  If still failure, back to square one.

<br> <br>

I am reminded of the one CSI episode* where after doing all the evidence gathering, interviewing suspects and finally finding the body, the only conclusion was that the girl, upon trying to retrieve her waste can from a garbage bin, had been partially crushed between the bin and the wall when a vehicle came by and accidentally clipped the bin.

<br> <br>

The parents were sure their daughter was murdered and planned on hiring their own investigator to find out who killed her.  Grissom remarks, "Mrs. Rycoff there is no one guilty of this."

<br> <br>

"Because you say so?"

<br> <br>

"Because the evidence says so."

<br> <br>

*The episode is called Chaos Theory and is one of my all-time favorite CSI shows.  Right up there with Fur and Loathing (the plushy and furry convention episode).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics ?
Some people already doubt science in general , to limit it to just math and physics belies the current trend of refusing to accept what science , in all its forms , tells us .
Men on the moon ?
Nope , ca n't be done because of .
WTC towers collapsed because of structural damage compounded by extreme temperatures ?
Nope , it was a government plot because .
Vaccines help prevent acquisition of serious diseases ?
Nope , does n't work because .
Evolution ? It 's impossible because .
There will always be those who will find any excuse to deny the scientific evidence .
That does n't mean one should n't question the evidence or how it 's gathered .
Rather , instead of saying , " See !
They used the word 'hide ' so they must be falsifying the data !
" , one should look at the entire context of quotes and information to see what is meant .
Science , in all its forms , is one of those areas where there will always be discussion about something , but once someone , or some group , comes up with an explanation , their data and processes can be checked by others to see if those people get the same results .
If not , go back and see what the differences were .
If still failure , back to square one .
I am reminded of the one CSI episode * where after doing all the evidence gathering , interviewing suspects and finally finding the body , the only conclusion was that the girl , upon trying to retrieve her waste can from a garbage bin , had been partially crushed between the bin and the wall when a vehicle came by and accidentally clipped the bin .
The parents were sure their daughter was murdered and planned on hiring their own investigator to find out who killed her .
Grissom remarks , " Mrs. Rycoff there is no one guilty of this .
" " Because you say so ?
" " Because the evidence says so .
" * The episode is called Chaos Theory and is one of my all-time favorite CSI shows .
Right up there with Fur and Loathing ( the plushy and furry convention episode ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics?
Some people already doubt science in general, to limit it to just math and physics belies the current trend of refusing to accept what science, in all its forms, tells us.
Men on the moon?
Nope, can't be done because of .
WTC towers collapsed because of structural damage compounded by extreme temperatures?
Nope, it was a government plot because .
Vaccines help prevent acquisition of serious diseases?
Nope, doesn't work because .
Evolution? It's impossible because .
There will always be those who will find any excuse to deny the scientific evidence.
That doesn't mean one shouldn't question the evidence or how it's gathered.
Rather, instead of saying, "See!
They used the word 'hide' so they must be falsifying the data!
", one should look at the entire context of quotes and information to see what is meant.
Science, in all its forms, is one of those areas where there will always be discussion about something, but once someone, or some group, comes up with an explanation, their data and processes can be checked by others to see if those people get the same results.
If not, go back and see what the differences were.
If still failure, back to square one.
I am reminded of the one CSI episode* where after doing all the evidence gathering, interviewing suspects and finally finding the body, the only conclusion was that the girl, upon trying to retrieve her waste can from a garbage bin, had been partially crushed between the bin and the wall when a vehicle came by and accidentally clipped the bin.
The parents were sure their daughter was murdered and planned on hiring their own investigator to find out who killed her.
Grissom remarks, "Mrs. Rycoff there is no one guilty of this.
"

 

"Because you say so?
"

 

"Because the evidence says so.
"

 

*The episode is called Chaos Theory and is one of my all-time favorite CSI shows.
Right up there with Fur and Loathing (the plushy and furry convention episode).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389942</id>
	<title>Re:When politics/religion meddle with science</title>
	<author>stainless-steel-vash</author>
	<datestamp>1260467640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Educating the children is probably the best way:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_cCC8a6HMz4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_cCC8a6HMz4</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Yeah, cartoons, science and some catchy music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Educating the children is probably the best way : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = \ _cCC8a6HMz4 [ youtube.com ] Yeah , cartoons , science and some catchy music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Educating the children is probably the best way:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_cCC8a6HMz4 [youtube.com]Yeah, cartoons, science and some catchy music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391260</id>
	<title>Start Over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260471780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone should blindly trust the scientists. After all, their prior prophecies of the world imminently dying from the ozone layer, HIV, global freezing, overpopulation, bird flu, swine flu, and so forth have all been correct. Also we should blindly listen to environmentalists, like when they stopped the spraying of DDT and killed over 10 million Africans via an immediate malaria epidemic.</p><p>The entire foundation of science is under assault when any portion of it is politicized. We need loud and unanimous condemnation of the CRU, an immediate suspension of all global-warming related grants, a moratorium on GW policies, a re-review of all GW peer-reviewed papers and an end to politicization of science. Only then can credibility begin to occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone should blindly trust the scientists .
After all , their prior prophecies of the world imminently dying from the ozone layer , HIV , global freezing , overpopulation , bird flu , swine flu , and so forth have all been correct .
Also we should blindly listen to environmentalists , like when they stopped the spraying of DDT and killed over 10 million Africans via an immediate malaria epidemic.The entire foundation of science is under assault when any portion of it is politicized .
We need loud and unanimous condemnation of the CRU , an immediate suspension of all global-warming related grants , a moratorium on GW policies , a re-review of all GW peer-reviewed papers and an end to politicization of science .
Only then can credibility begin to occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone should blindly trust the scientists.
After all, their prior prophecies of the world imminently dying from the ozone layer, HIV, global freezing, overpopulation, bird flu, swine flu, and so forth have all been correct.
Also we should blindly listen to environmentalists, like when they stopped the spraying of DDT and killed over 10 million Africans via an immediate malaria epidemic.The entire foundation of science is under assault when any portion of it is politicized.
We need loud and unanimous condemnation of the CRU, an immediate suspension of all global-warming related grants, a moratorium on GW policies, a re-review of all GW peer-reviewed papers and an end to politicization of science.
Only then can credibility begin to occur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397448</id>
	<title>Re:Laypeople.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260455460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Want to guess why?</i> </p><p>A) Because the issue is politicized.  It is not simply about religion but also about the highly political issue of education.  They don't want that crowd teaching "Suzy Has Two Daddys" either.<br>B) Because the issues is inaccurately described.  Too often, evolution is described as 'we descended from apes' or 'we evolved from monkies'.  It just is not true.  The creatures from which we evolved don't walk the earth and apes/monkies will never - by nature - evolve into humans.  Something else, maybe, not humans.  That are common answers are primates is irrelevant.<br>C) Because people aren't paid for the 'right' answer.  Ask me if Hillary Clinton is a lesbian hermaphrodite and you will get a big yes.  Pay me to answer the question truthfully from a multiple choice of answers, then you are likely to get the true answer (for a sufficient sum of money - $5).</p><p>There is not a damn thing scary about the graph unless you are a giant pussy.  You're not a giant pussy?</p><p>The same phononmenon occurs with abortion.  Pro-abortion people will say human life does not begin at conception.  Do they know the number of chromosomes in that little glob of cells?  Do they think it is canine or feline life?  Do they think those cells are inanimate?  No, no, no, no.  The question "Does human life begin at conception?" is parsed as "Should we outlaw abortion?"  If you are afraid about diversity in thought and political opinion then you are a big giant pussy.  Stupid too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to guess why ?
A ) Because the issue is politicized .
It is not simply about religion but also about the highly political issue of education .
They do n't want that crowd teaching " Suzy Has Two Daddys " either.B ) Because the issues is inaccurately described .
Too often , evolution is described as 'we descended from apes ' or 'we evolved from monkies' .
It just is not true .
The creatures from which we evolved do n't walk the earth and apes/monkies will never - by nature - evolve into humans .
Something else , maybe , not humans .
That are common answers are primates is irrelevant.C ) Because people are n't paid for the 'right ' answer .
Ask me if Hillary Clinton is a lesbian hermaphrodite and you will get a big yes .
Pay me to answer the question truthfully from a multiple choice of answers , then you are likely to get the true answer ( for a sufficient sum of money - $ 5 ) .There is not a damn thing scary about the graph unless you are a giant pussy .
You 're not a giant pussy ? The same phononmenon occurs with abortion .
Pro-abortion people will say human life does not begin at conception .
Do they know the number of chromosomes in that little glob of cells ?
Do they think it is canine or feline life ?
Do they think those cells are inanimate ?
No , no , no , no .
The question " Does human life begin at conception ?
" is parsed as " Should we outlaw abortion ?
" If you are afraid about diversity in thought and political opinion then you are a big giant pussy .
Stupid too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to guess why?
A) Because the issue is politicized.
It is not simply about religion but also about the highly political issue of education.
They don't want that crowd teaching "Suzy Has Two Daddys" either.B) Because the issues is inaccurately described.
Too often, evolution is described as 'we descended from apes' or 'we evolved from monkies'.
It just is not true.
The creatures from which we evolved don't walk the earth and apes/monkies will never - by nature - evolve into humans.
Something else, maybe, not humans.
That are common answers are primates is irrelevant.C) Because people aren't paid for the 'right' answer.
Ask me if Hillary Clinton is a lesbian hermaphrodite and you will get a big yes.
Pay me to answer the question truthfully from a multiple choice of answers, then you are likely to get the true answer (for a sufficient sum of money - $5).There is not a damn thing scary about the graph unless you are a giant pussy.
You're not a giant pussy?The same phononmenon occurs with abortion.
Pro-abortion people will say human life does not begin at conception.
Do they know the number of chromosomes in that little glob of cells?
Do they think it is canine or feline life?
Do they think those cells are inanimate?
No, no, no, no.
The question "Does human life begin at conception?
" is parsed as "Should we outlaw abortion?
"  If you are afraid about diversity in thought and political opinion then you are a big giant pussy.
Stupid too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390370</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Hythlodaeus</author>
	<datestamp>1260468960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Doubt is good. Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.</p></div><p>Now if only the people doubting science weren't turning to creationism/fundamentalism/angels/aliens/homeopathy/etc instead...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doubt is good .
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.Now if only the people doubting science were n't turning to creationism/fundamentalism/angels/aliens/homeopathy/etc instead.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doubt is good.
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.Now if only the people doubting science weren't turning to creationism/fundamentalism/angels/aliens/homeopathy/etc instead...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390344</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing interesting? Look at the code</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1260468840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's amazing the poster can claim with a stright [sic] face "nothing interesting" was found<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>Why don't you read what I wrote?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While nothing interesting was found <b>by most scientific journals</b></p> </div><p>And I linked to one of many journals that--shock of all shocks--didn't publish anything regarding the leak.  I didn't say anything about what you, me, Slashdot or blogs found in those leaks.  Instead I tried to relay that the general consensus seemed to be, from what I read, that there was nothing to get excited about.  The journals might be wrong but I was just trying to tell you what I noticed from them after the leak.  <br> <br>

You did a really good job of quoting me out of context.  You did an even better job of quoting source code out of context.  I'm also pretty certain you probably got that from another site.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Which to me, is pretty damning stuff.</p></div><p>What can I say?  We're all entitled to our own opinions.  Write a paper on this and submit it to the journal of Nature.  See what happens.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Furthermore, the use of this is commented out NOW.</p></div><p>It's pretty damning but it's commented out.  If you read the comments of the Slashdot article I linked, you'll see that this source code isn't automatically accepted as the word of god and is actually under heavy debate.  But why bother?  You've clearly already judged me as having some political agenda by submitting stories to Slashdot.  I probably can already be identified as a liberal since I'm posting here, right?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So all the output they have produced is simply not science</p></div><p>I'm supposed to believe you but I'm not supposed to believe the scientific journal of Nature?  When digesting second or third hand information, I'll go with the latter, thank you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing the poster can claim with a stright [ sic ] face " nothing interesting " was found ... Why do n't you read what I wrote ? While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals And I linked to one of many journals that--shock of all shocks--did n't publish anything regarding the leak .
I did n't say anything about what you , me , Slashdot or blogs found in those leaks .
Instead I tried to relay that the general consensus seemed to be , from what I read , that there was nothing to get excited about .
The journals might be wrong but I was just trying to tell you what I noticed from them after the leak .
You did a really good job of quoting me out of context .
You did an even better job of quoting source code out of context .
I 'm also pretty certain you probably got that from another site.Which to me , is pretty damning stuff.What can I say ?
We 're all entitled to our own opinions .
Write a paper on this and submit it to the journal of Nature .
See what happens.Furthermore , the use of this is commented out NOW.It 's pretty damning but it 's commented out .
If you read the comments of the Slashdot article I linked , you 'll see that this source code is n't automatically accepted as the word of god and is actually under heavy debate .
But why bother ?
You 've clearly already judged me as having some political agenda by submitting stories to Slashdot .
I probably can already be identified as a liberal since I 'm posting here , right ? So all the output they have produced is simply not scienceI 'm supposed to believe you but I 'm not supposed to believe the scientific journal of Nature ?
When digesting second or third hand information , I 'll go with the latter , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing the poster can claim with a stright [sic] face "nothing interesting" was found ... Why don't you read what I wrote?While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals And I linked to one of many journals that--shock of all shocks--didn't publish anything regarding the leak.
I didn't say anything about what you, me, Slashdot or blogs found in those leaks.
Instead I tried to relay that the general consensus seemed to be, from what I read, that there was nothing to get excited about.
The journals might be wrong but I was just trying to tell you what I noticed from them after the leak.
You did a really good job of quoting me out of context.
You did an even better job of quoting source code out of context.
I'm also pretty certain you probably got that from another site.Which to me, is pretty damning stuff.What can I say?
We're all entitled to our own opinions.
Write a paper on this and submit it to the journal of Nature.
See what happens.Furthermore, the use of this is commented out NOW.It's pretty damning but it's commented out.
If you read the comments of the Slashdot article I linked, you'll see that this source code isn't automatically accepted as the word of god and is actually under heavy debate.
But why bother?
You've clearly already judged me as having some political agenda by submitting stories to Slashdot.
I probably can already be identified as a liberal since I'm posting here, right?So all the output they have produced is simply not scienceI'm supposed to believe you but I'm not supposed to believe the scientific journal of Nature?
When digesting second or third hand information, I'll go with the latter, thank you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30403566</id>
	<title>Credibility Questioned? I hope so.</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1260554400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our schools don't really teach science.  They give lip service to the 'scientific method' and it's application in experimental sciences.  (It's really hard to do experiments in geology, stellar evolution, cosmology, meteorology.)</p><p>Most of the science is presented as tablets presented from on high.  (This is how you do stoichiometry problems...This is Charles law, Boyles law...)</p><p>We need to teach people:</p><p>1.  Science is a process.  Not a result.</p><p>2.  If we teach science well, we teach people to doubt, to question, to be critical in their evaluation of facts, and authorities.  Coupled with the ability to think numerically -- to estimate problems with 10-20\% errors, this is a valuable life skill.</p><p>3.  Science is a process done by human beings.  Scientists have their foibles, biases, prejudices just like the rest of us.</p><p>My fantasy science class is to walk in on the first day, and talk about "Earth, air, fire, and water" and teach it as fact.</p><p>Then the next day, come in and contradict myself.</p><p>***</p><p>Show a picture of the night sky.  Show a sequence.  Point out the wanderers.  Get the kids to figure out how to keep track.  Get them to figure out how to keep track without using paper.  Show the weird motions.  Teach about the celestial crystal sphere.  That the heavens are perfect, and the circle is the only perfect shape, therefore, planets must move in circular motion.  Epicycles, Eccentrics, the whole Ptolomeic structure of the universe.</p><p>Flash forward to the Kepler and Copernicus crowd.</p><p>Have detour to Galileo.  Consternation from extra things -- moons of Jupiter.  Venus with phases.  Mountains on the moon. Sunspots.</p><p>***</p><p>Throughout the course start out with folk wisdom -- common sense, go through the Aristotealian view, then more modern views.  In all cases present each layer as fact.  Stress that 'current view is that..." when we get to modern times.</p><p>Talk about proof, and the nature of proof.</p><p>Talk about "What would you consider to be evidence" for odd ball things such as UFO's re-incarnation, Mu and Atlantis, astrology, sasquatch,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our schools do n't really teach science .
They give lip service to the 'scientific method ' and it 's application in experimental sciences .
( It 's really hard to do experiments in geology , stellar evolution , cosmology , meteorology .
) Most of the science is presented as tablets presented from on high .
( This is how you do stoichiometry problems...This is Charles law , Boyles law... ) We need to teach people : 1 .
Science is a process .
Not a result.2 .
If we teach science well , we teach people to doubt , to question , to be critical in their evaluation of facts , and authorities .
Coupled with the ability to think numerically -- to estimate problems with 10-20 \ % errors , this is a valuable life skill.3 .
Science is a process done by human beings .
Scientists have their foibles , biases , prejudices just like the rest of us.My fantasy science class is to walk in on the first day , and talk about " Earth , air , fire , and water " and teach it as fact.Then the next day , come in and contradict myself .
* * * Show a picture of the night sky .
Show a sequence .
Point out the wanderers .
Get the kids to figure out how to keep track .
Get them to figure out how to keep track without using paper .
Show the weird motions .
Teach about the celestial crystal sphere .
That the heavens are perfect , and the circle is the only perfect shape , therefore , planets must move in circular motion .
Epicycles , Eccentrics , the whole Ptolomeic structure of the universe.Flash forward to the Kepler and Copernicus crowd.Have detour to Galileo .
Consternation from extra things -- moons of Jupiter .
Venus with phases .
Mountains on the moon .
Sunspots. * * * Throughout the course start out with folk wisdom -- common sense , go through the Aristotealian view , then more modern views .
In all cases present each layer as fact .
Stress that 'current view is that... " when we get to modern times.Talk about proof , and the nature of proof.Talk about " What would you consider to be evidence " for odd ball things such as UFO 's re-incarnation , Mu and Atlantis , astrology , sasquatch,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our schools don't really teach science.
They give lip service to the 'scientific method' and it's application in experimental sciences.
(It's really hard to do experiments in geology, stellar evolution, cosmology, meteorology.
)Most of the science is presented as tablets presented from on high.
(This is how you do stoichiometry problems...This is Charles law, Boyles law...)We need to teach people:1.
Science is a process.
Not a result.2.
If we teach science well, we teach people to doubt, to question, to be critical in their evaluation of facts, and authorities.
Coupled with the ability to think numerically -- to estimate problems with 10-20\% errors, this is a valuable life skill.3.
Science is a process done by human beings.
Scientists have their foibles, biases, prejudices just like the rest of us.My fantasy science class is to walk in on the first day, and talk about "Earth, air, fire, and water" and teach it as fact.Then the next day, come in and contradict myself.
***Show a picture of the night sky.
Show a sequence.
Point out the wanderers.
Get the kids to figure out how to keep track.
Get them to figure out how to keep track without using paper.
Show the weird motions.
Teach about the celestial crystal sphere.
That the heavens are perfect, and the circle is the only perfect shape, therefore, planets must move in circular motion.
Epicycles, Eccentrics, the whole Ptolomeic structure of the universe.Flash forward to the Kepler and Copernicus crowd.Have detour to Galileo.
Consternation from extra things -- moons of Jupiter.
Venus with phases.
Mountains on the moon.
Sunspots.***Throughout the course start out with folk wisdom -- common sense, go through the Aristotealian view, then more modern views.
In all cases present each layer as fact.
Stress that 'current view is that..." when we get to modern times.Talk about proof, and the nature of proof.Talk about "What would you consider to be evidence" for odd ball things such as UFO's re-incarnation, Mu and Atlantis, astrology, sasquatch,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389018</id>
	<title>Dr. Richard Lindzen</title>
	<author>QuantumPion</author>
	<datestamp>1260464940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would highly suggest watching this lecture by Dr. Richard Lindzen. He describes precisely how the field has become so politicized and corrupt.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would highly suggest watching this lecture by Dr. Richard Lindzen .
He describes precisely how the field has become so politicized and corrupt.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = -sHg3ZztDAw [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would highly suggest watching this lecture by Dr. Richard Lindzen.
He describes precisely how the field has become so politicized and corrupt.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390236</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1260468600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And thus we get the Sarah Palins of this world.  People like her because is as ignorant and stupid and vacuous as they are.</p><p>It takes a long time to achieve expertise on any topic.  Most people are lazy, ignorant, and stupid and don't want to put in the years of schooling and thought required to understand a topic.  It's much easier to stand in the back of the room, and yell "Bullshit!" than it is to actually mount a reasonable argument.</p><p>The problem we seem to have now is that we have a lot of people in the back of the room.  And never, ever forget that we have a lot of powerful and rich people, who, for the sake of getting richer and more powerful, don't want science to succeed, so they foster the growth of the crowd in the back of the room.  And we have a whole slew of radio personalities who have found a gravy train encouraging those in the back of the room.</p><p>"If I can't understand it, it must be wrong" is not a scientific theory, but it seems to be the prevailing one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And thus we get the Sarah Palins of this world .
People like her because is as ignorant and stupid and vacuous as they are.It takes a long time to achieve expertise on any topic .
Most people are lazy , ignorant , and stupid and do n't want to put in the years of schooling and thought required to understand a topic .
It 's much easier to stand in the back of the room , and yell " Bullshit !
" than it is to actually mount a reasonable argument.The problem we seem to have now is that we have a lot of people in the back of the room .
And never , ever forget that we have a lot of powerful and rich people , who , for the sake of getting richer and more powerful , do n't want science to succeed , so they foster the growth of the crowd in the back of the room .
And we have a whole slew of radio personalities who have found a gravy train encouraging those in the back of the room .
" If I ca n't understand it , it must be wrong " is not a scientific theory , but it seems to be the prevailing one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thus we get the Sarah Palins of this world.
People like her because is as ignorant and stupid and vacuous as they are.It takes a long time to achieve expertise on any topic.
Most people are lazy, ignorant, and stupid and don't want to put in the years of schooling and thought required to understand a topic.
It's much easier to stand in the back of the room, and yell "Bullshit!
" than it is to actually mount a reasonable argument.The problem we seem to have now is that we have a lot of people in the back of the room.
And never, ever forget that we have a lot of powerful and rich people, who, for the sake of getting richer and more powerful, don't want science to succeed, so they foster the growth of the crowd in the back of the room.
And we have a whole slew of radio personalities who have found a gravy train encouraging those in the back of the room.
"If I can't understand it, it must be wrong" is not a scientific theory, but it seems to be the prevailing one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388894</id>
	<title>Skeptical of science?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1260464580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I'm sorry. I guess that we can't really thank science for medicine, computers, airplanes, the food on our table. I guess that one murderous programmer working on an open source file system means all of Linux is shit, too. And you know what? I got taken for a ride buying speculative real estate in Florida. I guess this means that you can't make money in real estate, that the whole thing's a rotten idea. Incidentally, I threw out the bath water. Where'd the baby go?</p><p>I'll buy that argument once religious whackadoodles promise to renounce their faith because of televangelists and pedo-priests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I 'm sorry .
I guess that we ca n't really thank science for medicine , computers , airplanes , the food on our table .
I guess that one murderous programmer working on an open source file system means all of Linux is shit , too .
And you know what ?
I got taken for a ride buying speculative real estate in Florida .
I guess this means that you ca n't make money in real estate , that the whole thing 's a rotten idea .
Incidentally , I threw out the bath water .
Where 'd the baby go ? I 'll buy that argument once religious whackadoodles promise to renounce their faith because of televangelists and pedo-priests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I'm sorry.
I guess that we can't really thank science for medicine, computers, airplanes, the food on our table.
I guess that one murderous programmer working on an open source file system means all of Linux is shit, too.
And you know what?
I got taken for a ride buying speculative real estate in Florida.
I guess this means that you can't make money in real estate, that the whole thing's a rotten idea.
Incidentally, I threw out the bath water.
Where'd the baby go?I'll buy that argument once religious whackadoodles promise to renounce their faith because of televangelists and pedo-priests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391628</id>
	<title>Re:Peer Review and Grant Awards</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1260473040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no way.  Peer review is the best method we've ever discovered.  Now, the mechanics of how peer review actually happens are almost certainly not ideal.</p><p>An important first step would be to make reviews for all papers, accepted and rejected, part of of the public record, including the names of reviewers.  That way both the reviewers and the authors are responsible for what they write, and that record can be examined retrospectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no way .
Peer review is the best method we 've ever discovered .
Now , the mechanics of how peer review actually happens are almost certainly not ideal.An important first step would be to make reviews for all papers , accepted and rejected , part of of the public record , including the names of reviewers .
That way both the reviewers and the authors are responsible for what they write , and that record can be examined retrospectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no way.
Peer review is the best method we've ever discovered.
Now, the mechanics of how peer review actually happens are almost certainly not ideal.An important first step would be to make reviews for all papers, accepted and rejected, part of of the public record, including the names of reviewers.
That way both the reviewers and the authors are responsible for what they write, and that record can be examined retrospectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches, or their new TV is even thinner.</p><p>Thing is, do they even realise that is science?</p><p>In their mind science is a term for the fuzzy stuff that they read about in the papers - like is a glass of wine good or bad for you? Are potatoes/fish/eggs/etc good or bad for you? And all the U-turns since. Science is the word they associate with anything that goes wrong or seems to be a stupid waste of money to research.</p><p>The media has propagated this view of science, because journalists could never hack the subjects themselves, and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches , or their new TV is even thinner.Thing is , do they even realise that is science ? In their mind science is a term for the fuzzy stuff that they read about in the papers - like is a glass of wine good or bad for you ?
Are potatoes/fish/eggs/etc good or bad for you ?
And all the U-turns since .
Science is the word they associate with anything that goes wrong or seems to be a stupid waste of money to research.The media has propagated this view of science , because journalists could never hack the subjects themselves , and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches, or their new TV is even thinner.Thing is, do they even realise that is science?In their mind science is a term for the fuzzy stuff that they read about in the papers - like is a glass of wine good or bad for you?
Are potatoes/fish/eggs/etc good or bad for you?
And all the U-turns since.
Science is the word they associate with anything that goes wrong or seems to be a stupid waste of money to research.The media has propagated this view of science, because journalists could never hack the subjects themselves, and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391674</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1260473220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old</p></div></blockquote><p>Research into global warming has been going on since the 1970s</p><blockquote><div><p>many of the initial predictions failed</p></div></blockquote><p>[citation needed]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>declared several years ago , after global warming was only a few years oldResearch into global warming has been going on since the 1970smany of the initial predictions failed [ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years oldResearch into global warming has been going on since the 1970smany of the initial predictions failed[citation needed]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389024</id>
	<title>When politics/religion meddle with science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has always been a problem and there has probably never been a time when politics and/or religion did not have inappropriate influence over scientific research.</p><p>Some (lay) people see science as a religion in and of itself having its own agenda.  This is a failure in the sense that since attempts to deal with understanding the most absolute reality possible and tries to be impartial to any particular point of view.  (Let's not get into the politics within science itself, I know it exists, but let's stick with idealism for a moment while I make my point.)  In politics and religion, there is a propensity to believe "if you're not with us, you are against us" sort of ideas and so when data that is unfavorable to their position emerges, they tend to respond to it as if it were an enemy rather than a new facet of reality.  (Fighting an enemy is one thing.  Fighting reality is another!)</p><p>All science is to be doubted and disputed.  This is part of how things work.  However, lay people see a doubting of science as a problem of trust or faith because they know of no other context in which to process falsified or incorrect scientific data.  While it was a tremendous disservice to the whole scientific community to have "climategate" surface, it is not as big of a problem within the community as it is outside of the community.</p><p>It would be really nice if people were able to acquire the simple understanding of what science is and is not and how it should be treated.  The public knows that the weatherman is not always accurate but must always be depended upon nevertheless.  The public knows that the weatherman does not control the weather and only reports his observations and renders predictions based on those observations.  The public, in general understands and appreciates this correctly and fully.  What the public needs to do, then, is expand this understanding to ALL of science and not just meteorology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has always been a problem and there has probably never been a time when politics and/or religion did not have inappropriate influence over scientific research.Some ( lay ) people see science as a religion in and of itself having its own agenda .
This is a failure in the sense that since attempts to deal with understanding the most absolute reality possible and tries to be impartial to any particular point of view .
( Let 's not get into the politics within science itself , I know it exists , but let 's stick with idealism for a moment while I make my point .
) In politics and religion , there is a propensity to believe " if you 're not with us , you are against us " sort of ideas and so when data that is unfavorable to their position emerges , they tend to respond to it as if it were an enemy rather than a new facet of reality .
( Fighting an enemy is one thing .
Fighting reality is another !
) All science is to be doubted and disputed .
This is part of how things work .
However , lay people see a doubting of science as a problem of trust or faith because they know of no other context in which to process falsified or incorrect scientific data .
While it was a tremendous disservice to the whole scientific community to have " climategate " surface , it is not as big of a problem within the community as it is outside of the community.It would be really nice if people were able to acquire the simple understanding of what science is and is not and how it should be treated .
The public knows that the weatherman is not always accurate but must always be depended upon nevertheless .
The public knows that the weatherman does not control the weather and only reports his observations and renders predictions based on those observations .
The public , in general understands and appreciates this correctly and fully .
What the public needs to do , then , is expand this understanding to ALL of science and not just meteorology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has always been a problem and there has probably never been a time when politics and/or religion did not have inappropriate influence over scientific research.Some (lay) people see science as a religion in and of itself having its own agenda.
This is a failure in the sense that since attempts to deal with understanding the most absolute reality possible and tries to be impartial to any particular point of view.
(Let's not get into the politics within science itself, I know it exists, but let's stick with idealism for a moment while I make my point.
)  In politics and religion, there is a propensity to believe "if you're not with us, you are against us" sort of ideas and so when data that is unfavorable to their position emerges, they tend to respond to it as if it were an enemy rather than a new facet of reality.
(Fighting an enemy is one thing.
Fighting reality is another!
)All science is to be doubted and disputed.
This is part of how things work.
However, lay people see a doubting of science as a problem of trust or faith because they know of no other context in which to process falsified or incorrect scientific data.
While it was a tremendous disservice to the whole scientific community to have "climategate" surface, it is not as big of a problem within the community as it is outside of the community.It would be really nice if people were able to acquire the simple understanding of what science is and is not and how it should be treated.
The public knows that the weatherman is not always accurate but must always be depended upon nevertheless.
The public knows that the weatherman does not control the weather and only reports his observations and renders predictions based on those observations.
The public, in general understands and appreciates this correctly and fully.
What the public needs to do, then, is expand this understanding to ALL of science and not just meteorology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390910</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>frogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1260470700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The journal, Science? (Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action.  Does that sound like the scientific method to you?</p></div><p>This is a political statement or a statement of a need for political will.  It's editorial commentary.   That's not a problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The journal , Science ?
( Nature ? -- it 's one of them ) declared several years ago , after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed , that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action .
Does that sound like the scientific method to you ? This is a political statement or a statement of a need for political will .
It 's editorial commentary .
That 's not a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The journal, Science?
(Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action.
Does that sound like the scientific method to you?This is a political statement or a statement of a need for political will.
It's editorial commentary.
That's not a problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389118</id>
	<title>Re:These "scientists" weren't</title>
	<author>gowen</author>
	<datestamp>1260465240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>They obviously had an agenda, and they threw out raw data, keeping only their "massaged" data.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>They threw out the data 25 years ago -- long before the majority of these scientists had any agenda at all, besides getting laid, because it was on magnetic tape and punch cards, and they were moving buildings.  But hey, don't let a few facts interfere with your conspiracy theory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They obviously had an agenda , and they threw out raw data , keeping only their " massaged " data .
They threw out the data 25 years ago -- long before the majority of these scientists had any agenda at all , besides getting laid , because it was on magnetic tape and punch cards , and they were moving buildings .
But hey , do n't let a few facts interfere with your conspiracy theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They obviously had an agenda, and they threw out raw data, keeping only their "massaged" data.
They threw out the data 25 years ago -- long before the majority of these scientists had any agenda at all, besides getting laid, because it was on magnetic tape and punch cards, and they were moving buildings.
But hey, don't let a few facts interfere with your conspiracy theory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390836</id>
	<title>Re:How to restore healthy debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260470460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Change the system.  There is no academic benefit in publishing anywhere else than a Journal, and no journal wants pages and pages of details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Change the system .
There is no academic benefit in publishing anywhere else than a Journal , and no journal wants pages and pages of details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Change the system.
There is no academic benefit in publishing anywhere else than a Journal, and no journal wants pages and pages of details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390434</id>
	<title>But is it science?</title>
	<author>thermagen</author>
	<datestamp>1260469140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Climatology is a mixed bag: part chemistry, part model-building and, now, part politics. Watts, Mann et al. are engaged in the latter two. They build questionable mathematical models from cherry-picked data to push a political agenda. The problem with model-building is that it does not result in a p-value for a controlled experiment with reproducible data which tests a defeasible hypothesis, i.e. it is not science. The molecular effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is confirmed science. The buffering effect of oceanic CO2 is unconfirmed science. The effect of industrialization on past temperature is 50\% science. A 10-year prediction of global warming is 10\% science. A 100-year prediction of global warming is 100\% fantasy.

The damage of climategate is not that it calls into question science as a whole, but that it is confused with science in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climatology is a mixed bag : part chemistry , part model-building and , now , part politics .
Watts , Mann et al .
are engaged in the latter two .
They build questionable mathematical models from cherry-picked data to push a political agenda .
The problem with model-building is that it does not result in a p-value for a controlled experiment with reproducible data which tests a defeasible hypothesis , i.e .
it is not science .
The molecular effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is confirmed science .
The buffering effect of oceanic CO2 is unconfirmed science .
The effect of industrialization on past temperature is 50 \ % science .
A 10-year prediction of global warming is 10 \ % science .
A 100-year prediction of global warming is 100 \ % fantasy .
The damage of climategate is not that it calls into question science as a whole , but that it is confused with science in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climatology is a mixed bag: part chemistry, part model-building and, now, part politics.
Watts, Mann et al.
are engaged in the latter two.
They build questionable mathematical models from cherry-picked data to push a political agenda.
The problem with model-building is that it does not result in a p-value for a controlled experiment with reproducible data which tests a defeasible hypothesis, i.e.
it is not science.
The molecular effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is confirmed science.
The buffering effect of oceanic CO2 is unconfirmed science.
The effect of industrialization on past temperature is 50\% science.
A 10-year prediction of global warming is 10\% science.
A 100-year prediction of global warming is 100\% fantasy.
The damage of climategate is not that it calls into question science as a whole, but that it is confused with science in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390576</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260469560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although my degree is in physics I make no claims of being a scientist. I have been more of a fence sitter in all this climate change stuff, however I am uneasy with the lack of openness by the climatology researchers. When you are dealing with science (particularly the hard sciences) I think a few general rules should be followed.</p><p>Any mathematical or computational algorithms should be open to ALL for inspection, no exception. Unless you are a private company and engaging in product R&amp;D rather than science in general (in which case the eventual product is all the proof you need) there is no excuse for hiding your methods.</p><p>Any data collected should be shared with all. If you disposed of data for whatever reason, you should probably dump any results you acquired from that data (or at least only use the data for reference not as proof). If in the future those results become needed again, collect more data and re-calculate the results. Don't try to make global social/economic changes based on data your dog ate.</p><p>Address, don't suppress questioning from others outside your clique. There are obviously times to write off wild accusations, but input from experts in other fields could be VERY relevant to an issue as complicated as this. Stand by your facts and processes (you have made publicly available) and hash out the differences where they exists.</p><p>The scale of social and economic change being requested by climate change is absolutely mind blowing. So, to make these claims and not have been 100\% transparent is what is unsettling. When any tiny bit of your research is "hidden" and there is this much money/power on the line, people are going to question your motives.</p><p>Finally, I don't think that people will start writing off hard science in general, but I do think there will be a greater appreciation (or at least awareness) for the scientific process in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although my degree is in physics I make no claims of being a scientist .
I have been more of a fence sitter in all this climate change stuff , however I am uneasy with the lack of openness by the climatology researchers .
When you are dealing with science ( particularly the hard sciences ) I think a few general rules should be followed.Any mathematical or computational algorithms should be open to ALL for inspection , no exception .
Unless you are a private company and engaging in product R&amp;D rather than science in general ( in which case the eventual product is all the proof you need ) there is no excuse for hiding your methods.Any data collected should be shared with all .
If you disposed of data for whatever reason , you should probably dump any results you acquired from that data ( or at least only use the data for reference not as proof ) .
If in the future those results become needed again , collect more data and re-calculate the results .
Do n't try to make global social/economic changes based on data your dog ate.Address , do n't suppress questioning from others outside your clique .
There are obviously times to write off wild accusations , but input from experts in other fields could be VERY relevant to an issue as complicated as this .
Stand by your facts and processes ( you have made publicly available ) and hash out the differences where they exists.The scale of social and economic change being requested by climate change is absolutely mind blowing .
So , to make these claims and not have been 100 \ % transparent is what is unsettling .
When any tiny bit of your research is " hidden " and there is this much money/power on the line , people are going to question your motives.Finally , I do n't think that people will start writing off hard science in general , but I do think there will be a greater appreciation ( or at least awareness ) for the scientific process in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although my degree is in physics I make no claims of being a scientist.
I have been more of a fence sitter in all this climate change stuff, however I am uneasy with the lack of openness by the climatology researchers.
When you are dealing with science (particularly the hard sciences) I think a few general rules should be followed.Any mathematical or computational algorithms should be open to ALL for inspection, no exception.
Unless you are a private company and engaging in product R&amp;D rather than science in general (in which case the eventual product is all the proof you need) there is no excuse for hiding your methods.Any data collected should be shared with all.
If you disposed of data for whatever reason, you should probably dump any results you acquired from that data (or at least only use the data for reference not as proof).
If in the future those results become needed again, collect more data and re-calculate the results.
Don't try to make global social/economic changes based on data your dog ate.Address, don't suppress questioning from others outside your clique.
There are obviously times to write off wild accusations, but input from experts in other fields could be VERY relevant to an issue as complicated as this.
Stand by your facts and processes (you have made publicly available) and hash out the differences where they exists.The scale of social and economic change being requested by climate change is absolutely mind blowing.
So, to make these claims and not have been 100\% transparent is what is unsettling.
When any tiny bit of your research is "hidden" and there is this much money/power on the line, people are going to question your motives.Finally, I don't think that people will start writing off hard science in general, but I do think there will be a greater appreciation (or at least awareness) for the scientific process in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</id>
	<title>Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Climate Science is a STUDY, much like Social Studies, Political "Science", and most (but not all) fields of Psychology.  You cannot experiment on Climate on the timeframes or scales these "scientists" are suggesting.  You cannot produce a hypothesis, alter variables, and confirm or deny your ideas.<br> <br>

Climate Studies, as it should be called, consists entirely of observation and computer modelling - a form of mathematics which is also not a science, but an art or "language". <br> <br>

In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years.  Suddenly, 20 years later and Global Warming is all we can talk about?  I don't understand.  No, I do understand<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... both points of view have been apparent for nearly a hundred years.  Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda.  Sure it's possible, which is exactly why it's such a powerful weapon in the social manipulator's arsenal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just like 9/11 denier's evidence is just plausible enough to make people believe it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or how creationists can bend scientific discoveries just enough to gain a following.<br> <br>

Sure we might be warming, just as much as we might have been cooling in the 70s. But what does it matter?  We need renewable energy regardless of what the environment is doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate Science is a STUDY , much like Social Studies , Political " Science " , and most ( but not all ) fields of Psychology .
You can not experiment on Climate on the timeframes or scales these " scientists " are suggesting .
You can not produce a hypothesis , alter variables , and confirm or deny your ideas .
Climate Studies , as it should be called , consists entirely of observation and computer modelling - a form of mathematics which is also not a science , but an art or " language " .
In 1975 , American Scientist , Nature , and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years .
Suddenly , 20 years later and Global Warming is all we can talk about ?
I do n't understand .
No , I do understand ... both points of view have been apparent for nearly a hundred years .
Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda .
Sure it 's possible , which is exactly why it 's such a powerful weapon in the social manipulator 's arsenal ... just like 9/11 denier 's evidence is just plausible enough to make people believe it ... or how creationists can bend scientific discoveries just enough to gain a following .
Sure we might be warming , just as much as we might have been cooling in the 70s .
But what does it matter ?
We need renewable energy regardless of what the environment is doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate Science is a STUDY, much like Social Studies, Political "Science", and most (but not all) fields of Psychology.
You cannot experiment on Climate on the timeframes or scales these "scientists" are suggesting.
You cannot produce a hypothesis, alter variables, and confirm or deny your ideas.
Climate Studies, as it should be called, consists entirely of observation and computer modelling - a form of mathematics which is also not a science, but an art or "language".
In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years.
Suddenly, 20 years later and Global Warming is all we can talk about?
I don't understand.
No, I do understand ... both points of view have been apparent for nearly a hundred years.
Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda.
Sure it's possible, which is exactly why it's such a powerful weapon in the social manipulator's arsenal ... just like 9/11 denier's evidence is just plausible enough to make people believe it ... or how creationists can bend scientific discoveries just enough to gain a following.
Sure we might be warming, just as much as we might have been cooling in the 70s.
But what does it matter?
We need renewable energy regardless of what the environment is doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388666</id>
	<title>Ummm. No.</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1260463680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics</p></div><p>I know I won't doubt them. Why? Math is so pure, and once you study it, you know its truths - and that the only falacies that exist in mathematics are human error.</p><p>And to steal from XKCD,</p><p>And Physics is just applied Mathematics. And Chemistry is just applied Physics. And Bio is just applied chemistry.</p><p>Sit someone down through a high school education and teach them the proper way to run experiments and the proper way to understand statistics, and you won't have any of that mess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and PhysicsI know I wo n't doubt them .
Why ? Math is so pure , and once you study it , you know its truths - and that the only falacies that exist in mathematics are human error.And to steal from XKCD,And Physics is just applied Mathematics .
And Chemistry is just applied Physics .
And Bio is just applied chemistry.Sit someone down through a high school education and teach them the proper way to run experiments and the proper way to understand statistics , and you wo n't have any of that mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and PhysicsI know I won't doubt them.
Why? Math is so pure, and once you study it, you know its truths - and that the only falacies that exist in mathematics are human error.And to steal from XKCD,And Physics is just applied Mathematics.
And Chemistry is just applied Physics.
And Bio is just applied chemistry.Sit someone down through a high school education and teach them the proper way to run experiments and the proper way to understand statistics, and you won't have any of that mess.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30412120</id>
	<title>Manipulation</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1260611820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks to me that slashdot has been infested with a bunch of English Lit grads that have the debate exercises figured out quite well. They're quite skillful but inherently dishonest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks to me that slashdot has been infested with a bunch of English Lit grads that have the debate exercises figured out quite well .
They 're quite skillful but inherently dishonest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks to me that slashdot has been infested with a bunch of English Lit grads that have the debate exercises figured out quite well.
They're quite skillful but inherently dishonest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390278</id>
	<title>Wasn't Venkman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, that wasn't Venkman -- it was Ray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , that was n't Venkman -- it was Ray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, that wasn't Venkman -- it was Ray.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399312</id>
	<title>Re:How to restore healthy debate</title>
	<author>angel'o'sphere</author>
	<datestamp>1260524460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>The best way to restore healthy debate on climate change science is to open source everything...the data, the source code for the computer models, and the methodology for how the data is collected: specific locations of data collection (is it a rural area, a parking lot in a city, on a school roof, in direct sunlight or in the shade), date and time of day (noon, midnight, 5pm), weather conditions at the time it is collected (sunny, raining, under a snow drift), age of the equipment (mercury thermometer installed in 1953 or digital sensor device). All of these factors would influence a simple temperature reading.<br></i></p><p>While you are right about the possible benefits of "open sourcing" the code the models and the data, I like to point out: a ore or less layman like you and I, we both would never find anything interesting/suspicious in this code or data <b>without a long year study in climate science!!</b></p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best way to restore healthy debate on climate change science is to open source everything...the data , the source code for the computer models , and the methodology for how the data is collected : specific locations of data collection ( is it a rural area , a parking lot in a city , on a school roof , in direct sunlight or in the shade ) , date and time of day ( noon , midnight , 5pm ) , weather conditions at the time it is collected ( sunny , raining , under a snow drift ) , age of the equipment ( mercury thermometer installed in 1953 or digital sensor device ) .
All of these factors would influence a simple temperature reading.While you are right about the possible benefits of " open sourcing " the code the models and the data , I like to point out : a ore or less layman like you and I , we both would never find anything interesting/suspicious in this code or data without a long year study in climate science !
! angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best way to restore healthy debate on climate change science is to open source everything...the data, the source code for the computer models, and the methodology for how the data is collected: specific locations of data collection (is it a rural area, a parking lot in a city, on a school roof, in direct sunlight or in the shade), date and time of day (noon, midnight, 5pm), weather conditions at the time it is collected (sunny, raining, under a snow drift), age of the equipment (mercury thermometer installed in 1953 or digital sensor device).
All of these factors would influence a simple temperature reading.While you are right about the possible benefits of "open sourcing" the code the models and the data, I like to point out: a ore or less layman like you and I, we both would never find anything interesting/suspicious in this code or data without a long year study in climate science!
!angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392198</id>
	<title>Re:Global-warming denier papers are usually garbag</title>
	<author>freedomseven</author>
	<datestamp>1260475020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that it is not Michael Mann et al's exclusive job to determine the quality of the papers being submitted. I imagine that there were some pretty respected "scientists" back in Galileo's day that were "sure" he was wrong and they were right. That is still not a justification to suppress his work.</p><p>At the end of the day, the publication of garbage papers helps bring the truth to light. If they want to truly discredit charlatans and prevent the publication of "garbage papers" they should require that the papers include the entire methodology or at least the entire data set used to support the conclusion being submitted.</p><p>The bottom line is that if your theory won't stand up to scrutiny, the problem is not with the critics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that it is not Michael Mann et al 's exclusive job to determine the quality of the papers being submitted .
I imagine that there were some pretty respected " scientists " back in Galileo 's day that were " sure " he was wrong and they were right .
That is still not a justification to suppress his work.At the end of the day , the publication of garbage papers helps bring the truth to light .
If they want to truly discredit charlatans and prevent the publication of " garbage papers " they should require that the papers include the entire methodology or at least the entire data set used to support the conclusion being submitted.The bottom line is that if your theory wo n't stand up to scrutiny , the problem is not with the critics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that it is not Michael Mann et al's exclusive job to determine the quality of the papers being submitted.
I imagine that there were some pretty respected "scientists" back in Galileo's day that were "sure" he was wrong and they were right.
That is still not a justification to suppress his work.At the end of the day, the publication of garbage papers helps bring the truth to light.
If they want to truly discredit charlatans and prevent the publication of "garbage papers" they should require that the papers include the entire methodology or at least the entire data set used to support the conclusion being submitted.The bottom line is that if your theory won't stand up to scrutiny, the problem is not with the critics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397430</id>
	<title>Great editorial on this very subject</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1260455280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>George Monbiot has an incredible editorial on this:<br> <br> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response" title="guardian.co.uk">Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away</a> [guardian.co.uk] <br> <br>Basically, if scientist want their ideas to be respected in the public, they have to learn the art of PR. We're in the information age now; there's no way around it and no more hiding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>George Monbiot has an incredible editorial on this : Pretending the climate email leak is n't a crisis wo n't make it go away [ guardian.co.uk ] Basically , if scientist want their ideas to be respected in the public , they have to learn the art of PR .
We 're in the information age now ; there 's no way around it and no more hiding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George Monbiot has an incredible editorial on this:  Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away [guardian.co.uk]  Basically, if scientist want their ideas to be respected in the public, they have to learn the art of PR.
We're in the information age now; there's no way around it and no more hiding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389090</id>
	<title>Just tell me, how do I know which one to trust?</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1260465180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is the crux of this problem.  There are thousands of "Climatologist" yet we cannot agree which one is right.</p><p>you used some of the same wording that many used to justify their connectedness.  Its too complex for the average Joe to understand, let alone those loons on the .</p><p>What this event did was expose the truth that yes, some of those involved do operate from an agenda.  Worse are those acting as if there is no issue at all which only furthers increases public distrust.</p><p>So again, who do we trust?  I certainly know a few names I won't trust anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is the crux of this problem .
There are thousands of " Climatologist " yet we can not agree which one is right.you used some of the same wording that many used to justify their connectedness .
Its too complex for the average Joe to understand , let alone those loons on the .What this event did was expose the truth that yes , some of those involved do operate from an agenda .
Worse are those acting as if there is no issue at all which only furthers increases public distrust.So again , who do we trust ?
I certainly know a few names I wo n't trust anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is the crux of this problem.
There are thousands of "Climatologist" yet we cannot agree which one is right.you used some of the same wording that many used to justify their connectedness.
Its too complex for the average Joe to understand, let alone those loons on the .What this event did was expose the truth that yes, some of those involved do operate from an agenda.
Worse are those acting as if there is no issue at all which only furthers increases public distrust.So again, who do we trust?
I certainly know a few names I won't trust anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390722</id>
	<title>wake up, people, global warming isn't the issue</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1260470100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to hand it to the oil, gas, and military industries: they are doing a great PR job.  After 9/11, energy independence and energy conservation should be a no brainer to even the most die-hard conservative, even if they aren't concerned about dwindling oil resources, pollution, efficiency, and climate change.</p><p>Instead, these industries have managed to shift the debate in such a way that the entire question has become the link between CO2 emissions and anthropogenic global warming.  These industries have firmly planted the idea in people's minds that if we can't prove anthropogenic global warming, we can just keep going as if nothing had happened.</p><p>Wake up, people.  Anthropogenic global warming, hockey stick curves, and all that is totally irrelevant.  The US needs to become energy independent and Europe needs to figure out how to meet its own energy needs, so that we can get out of the social and religious cesspool call the "Middle East".  We need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels because those fuels are far more valuable as raw materials for future generations and because there is only a limited supply of them.  The fact that there is a reasonable chance that continuing along the current path may also lead to global climate catastrophe might be considered by some to be cause for alarm, but it doesn't even matter compared to those other certainties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to hand it to the oil , gas , and military industries : they are doing a great PR job .
After 9/11 , energy independence and energy conservation should be a no brainer to even the most die-hard conservative , even if they are n't concerned about dwindling oil resources , pollution , efficiency , and climate change.Instead , these industries have managed to shift the debate in such a way that the entire question has become the link between CO2 emissions and anthropogenic global warming .
These industries have firmly planted the idea in people 's minds that if we ca n't prove anthropogenic global warming , we can just keep going as if nothing had happened.Wake up , people .
Anthropogenic global warming , hockey stick curves , and all that is totally irrelevant .
The US needs to become energy independent and Europe needs to figure out how to meet its own energy needs , so that we can get out of the social and religious cesspool call the " Middle East " .
We need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels because those fuels are far more valuable as raw materials for future generations and because there is only a limited supply of them .
The fact that there is a reasonable chance that continuing along the current path may also lead to global climate catastrophe might be considered by some to be cause for alarm , but it does n't even matter compared to those other certainties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to hand it to the oil, gas, and military industries: they are doing a great PR job.
After 9/11, energy independence and energy conservation should be a no brainer to even the most die-hard conservative, even if they aren't concerned about dwindling oil resources, pollution, efficiency, and climate change.Instead, these industries have managed to shift the debate in such a way that the entire question has become the link between CO2 emissions and anthropogenic global warming.
These industries have firmly planted the idea in people's minds that if we can't prove anthropogenic global warming, we can just keep going as if nothing had happened.Wake up, people.
Anthropogenic global warming, hockey stick curves, and all that is totally irrelevant.
The US needs to become energy independent and Europe needs to figure out how to meet its own energy needs, so that we can get out of the social and religious cesspool call the "Middle East".
We need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels because those fuels are far more valuable as raw materials for future generations and because there is only a limited supply of them.
The fact that there is a reasonable chance that continuing along the current path may also lead to global climate catastrophe might be considered by some to be cause for alarm, but it doesn't even matter compared to those other certainties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395432</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260444240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the examples you cite are instances where the outcome is partially in doubt and you are expecting people to yield to your superior intellect as a substitute to your superior argument regarding the facts.</p><p>Thats the fundemental issue.</p><p>Are "scientists" experts?</p><p>Are they people who should do our thinking for us or are they obligated to make their case publicly subject to falsification?</p><p>For example, Evolution what is the rate of genetic mutations as a function of time from a million years ago to now with error bars?<br>If you actually know this information its easy to publish in a way normal people can understand.<br>But in publishing it normal people can also understand in 6 months when you revise your numbers that you really don't know in detail what you are talking about.</p><p>As Richard Feinman once said if you can't teach it to a Freshman physics class you don't understand it.</p><p>Climatology, Psychology, sociology and all the other complex system studies are often less correct than normal ignorant people following the biases of a culture formed over 1000s of years.<br>Many wives tales turn out to be true in unobvious ways after decades of science believing they are 100\% wrong.</p><p>Don't get me wrong I am with the scientists in general.</p><p>At least with the ones who can publish their data or even summary data rather than publishing their conclusions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the examples you cite are instances where the outcome is partially in doubt and you are expecting people to yield to your superior intellect as a substitute to your superior argument regarding the facts.Thats the fundemental issue.Are " scientists " experts ? Are they people who should do our thinking for us or are they obligated to make their case publicly subject to falsification ? For example , Evolution what is the rate of genetic mutations as a function of time from a million years ago to now with error bars ? If you actually know this information its easy to publish in a way normal people can understand.But in publishing it normal people can also understand in 6 months when you revise your numbers that you really do n't know in detail what you are talking about.As Richard Feinman once said if you ca n't teach it to a Freshman physics class you do n't understand it.Climatology , Psychology , sociology and all the other complex system studies are often less correct than normal ignorant people following the biases of a culture formed over 1000s of years.Many wives tales turn out to be true in unobvious ways after decades of science believing they are 100 \ % wrong.Do n't get me wrong I am with the scientists in general.At least with the ones who can publish their data or even summary data rather than publishing their conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the examples you cite are instances where the outcome is partially in doubt and you are expecting people to yield to your superior intellect as a substitute to your superior argument regarding the facts.Thats the fundemental issue.Are "scientists" experts?Are they people who should do our thinking for us or are they obligated to make their case publicly subject to falsification?For example, Evolution what is the rate of genetic mutations as a function of time from a million years ago to now with error bars?If you actually know this information its easy to publish in a way normal people can understand.But in publishing it normal people can also understand in 6 months when you revise your numbers that you really don't know in detail what you are talking about.As Richard Feinman once said if you can't teach it to a Freshman physics class you don't understand it.Climatology, Psychology, sociology and all the other complex system studies are often less correct than normal ignorant people following the biases of a culture formed over 1000s of years.Many wives tales turn out to be true in unobvious ways after decades of science believing they are 100\% wrong.Don't get me wrong I am with the scientists in general.At least with the ones who can publish their data or even summary data rather than publishing their conclusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390994</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>frogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1260470880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The climate we observe is the result of physics.  Physics combines observation, speculation and experimentation.  All of the necessary ingredients are being used right now to study climate.  It's a big, difficult problem but it is not merely observation.  The new ice age thing has repeatedly been shown to be of no significance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate we observe is the result of physics .
Physics combines observation , speculation and experimentation .
All of the necessary ingredients are being used right now to study climate .
It 's a big , difficult problem but it is not merely observation .
The new ice age thing has repeatedly been shown to be of no significance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate we observe is the result of physics.
Physics combines observation, speculation and experimentation.
All of the necessary ingredients are being used right now to study climate.
It's a big, difficult problem but it is not merely observation.
The new ice age thing has repeatedly been shown to be of no significance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389396</id>
	<title>Exactly</title>
	<author>Kythe</author>
	<datestamp>1260466140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some people have been putting political opinion ahead of a belief and trust in science for a very long time now.  It's been getting worse, but I don't see this particular stolen emails incident as particularly catalytic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people have been putting political opinion ahead of a belief and trust in science for a very long time now .
It 's been getting worse , but I do n't see this particular stolen emails incident as particularly catalytic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people have been putting political opinion ahead of a belief and trust in science for a very long time now.
It's been getting worse, but I don't see this particular stolen emails incident as particularly catalytic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390838</id>
	<title>He is RIGHT, this is very SERIOUS</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1260470460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Mathematics is NOT a science, it is applied logic, and related strongly to philosphy, eg the so called Axiom of Choice, "Given a non empty set, it is possible to pick a representitive member" is known to be (a) nesessary axiom for a large part of accepted Modern Mathematics, but is known to be independant, and there is another, less useful, Mathematics where it is false.<br><br>2. The basis of Scientific Method is well known, and used to be taught in schools, so I know that I basically understood it before 10 years old: (a) it isn't true cos you want it to be, (b) you need to observe, to the best of your ability, WHAT IS, (c) theories are only useful if (1) they predict the observed results, (2) their predictions do not include results that are observed but the theory predicts differently, (3) calculation is possible, (4) the theory is as simple as possible (see Einstein) and elegant. Put succintly: Hypothesis, Predict, Confirm, Use.<br><br>[There are good books, References in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_mathematics), and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_method)} and it is really very simple common sense stuff.<br><br>Consequences:<br><br>1. You can't keep your data, or methods to yourself, unless you want to be laughed at.<br><br>2. The purpose of publication is so OTHERS can reproduce your work, and 'peer-review' isnt a blessing, it is to make sure that your paper is honest, clear, and permits reproduction, and contains enough theory and data to confirm/deny.<br><br>3. peer-review has nothing to do with confirmation or support or correctness.<br><br>4. Support comes fom independant peers who reproduce your results within experimental error or devise new tests which your theory passes.<br><br>Application:<br><br>1. Fudging your results is NOT acceptable. (see Climategate IDL code, fudging the  tree ring, thermometer data).<br><br>2. peer-review rigging is dishonest, but widely used in the academic word to secure promotion. See Publication and Citation in academic advancement<br><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; this means that the habit of 'peer-review rigging' was well established before Climategate. See e-mails<br><br>3. There is NO empirical evidence, that has been independantly verified. Prof "Phil" Jones saying "I wont release my data to my oponents" simply says he is a politician, NOT a Scientist, and there is a difference.<br><br>4. There has been a temprature decline for 11 straight years. CRUs data does not allow for the Medieval Warm period, well supported by historical and agricultural evidence even though not everone had a thermometer or recorded temperature;<br><br>5. At the slightes dissent the IPCC and Gore are on CNN telling the world that the data was stolen, and dosn't matter anyway, BS.<br><br>6. Phil Jones has 'stepped-aside' as director CRU and both CRU,UEA are investigation<br><br>7. The UK Met Office will, soon, have to release the extrordinarly bad observed data to satisfy FOI requests for raw data, said to be deleted (from all round the world?), at which point the whole gig is up.<br><br>NO ONE, except Greens and the hopelessly compromised can Believe in this any more, all the follow through is POLS and MEDIA eg CNN in Europe, who are the new deniers.<br><br>Finally, I would point out that these Climate Chimps, and their models, mostly with the UK MET, used to get all weather forcasts wrong, famously failed to predict the 1987 Hurricane in SE England "Rescue workers faced an unprecedented number of call-outs as winds hit 94 mph (151 km/h) in the capital and over 110 mph (177 km/h) in the Channel Islands." which cause a Margret Thatcher investigation, and indirectly, the formation of the UEA CRU to house the 'ejected'.<br><br>As I have already said, (moderated TROLL over a day or so) this SCAM is out/over and US/EU tax payers will refuse to pay. This Climate Ponzi sceme dosnt have a snowball's chance in hell of traction , and once someone in the US starts subpoena Dr. Mann's work and NASA' nonsense there will be NO VOTES.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Mathematics is NOT a science , it is applied logic , and related strongly to philosphy , eg the so called Axiom of Choice , " Given a non empty set , it is possible to pick a representitive member " is known to be ( a ) nesessary axiom for a large part of accepted Modern Mathematics , but is known to be independant , and there is another , less useful , Mathematics where it is false.2 .
The basis of Scientific Method is well known , and used to be taught in schools , so I know that I basically understood it before 10 years old : ( a ) it is n't true cos you want it to be , ( b ) you need to observe , to the best of your ability , WHAT IS , ( c ) theories are only useful if ( 1 ) they predict the observed results , ( 2 ) their predictions do not include results that are observed but the theory predicts differently , ( 3 ) calculation is possible , ( 4 ) the theory is as simple as possible ( see Einstein ) and elegant .
Put succintly : Hypothesis , Predict , Confirm , Use .
[ There are good books , References in ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History \ _of \ _mathematics ) , and ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific \ _method ) } and it is really very simple common sense stuff.Consequences : 1 .
You ca n't keep your data , or methods to yourself , unless you want to be laughed at.2 .
The purpose of publication is so OTHERS can reproduce your work , and 'peer-review ' isnt a blessing , it is to make sure that your paper is honest , clear , and permits reproduction , and contains enough theory and data to confirm/deny.3 .
peer-review has nothing to do with confirmation or support or correctness.4 .
Support comes fom independant peers who reproduce your results within experimental error or devise new tests which your theory passes.Application : 1 .
Fudging your results is NOT acceptable .
( see Climategate IDL code , fudging the tree ring , thermometer data ) .2. peer-review rigging is dishonest , but widely used in the academic word to secure promotion .
See Publication and Citation in academic advancement       this means that the habit of 'peer-review rigging ' was well established before Climategate .
See e-mails3 .
There is NO empirical evidence , that has been independantly verified .
Prof " Phil " Jones saying " I wont release my data to my oponents " simply says he is a politician , NOT a Scientist , and there is a difference.4 .
There has been a temprature decline for 11 straight years .
CRUs data does not allow for the Medieval Warm period , well supported by historical and agricultural evidence even though not everone had a thermometer or recorded temperature ; 5 .
At the slightes dissent the IPCC and Gore are on CNN telling the world that the data was stolen , and dos n't matter anyway , BS.6 .
Phil Jones has 'stepped-aside ' as director CRU and both CRU,UEA are investigation7 .
The UK Met Office will , soon , have to release the extrordinarly bad observed data to satisfy FOI requests for raw data , said to be deleted ( from all round the world ?
) , at which point the whole gig is up.NO ONE , except Greens and the hopelessly compromised can Believe in this any more , all the follow through is POLS and MEDIA eg CNN in Europe , who are the new deniers.Finally , I would point out that these Climate Chimps , and their models , mostly with the UK MET , used to get all weather forcasts wrong , famously failed to predict the 1987 Hurricane in SE England " Rescue workers faced an unprecedented number of call-outs as winds hit 94 mph ( 151 km/h ) in the capital and over 110 mph ( 177 km/h ) in the Channel Islands .
" which cause a Margret Thatcher investigation , and indirectly , the formation of the UEA CRU to house the 'ejected'.As I have already said , ( moderated TROLL over a day or so ) this SCAM is out/over and US/EU tax payers will refuse to pay .
This Climate Ponzi sceme dosnt have a snowball 's chance in hell of traction , and once someone in the US starts subpoena Dr. Mann 's work and NASA ' nonsense there will be NO VOTES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Mathematics is NOT a science, it is applied logic, and related strongly to philosphy, eg the so called Axiom of Choice, "Given a non empty set, it is possible to pick a representitive member" is known to be (a) nesessary axiom for a large part of accepted Modern Mathematics, but is known to be independant, and there is another, less useful, Mathematics where it is false.2.
The basis of Scientific Method is well known, and used to be taught in schools, so I know that I basically understood it before 10 years old: (a) it isn't true cos you want it to be, (b) you need to observe, to the best of your ability, WHAT IS, (c) theories are only useful if (1) they predict the observed results, (2) their predictions do not include results that are observed but the theory predicts differently, (3) calculation is possible, (4) the theory is as simple as possible (see Einstein) and elegant.
Put succintly: Hypothesis, Predict, Confirm, Use.
[There are good books, References in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_mathematics), and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_method)} and it is really very simple common sense stuff.Consequences:1.
You can't keep your data, or methods to yourself, unless you want to be laughed at.2.
The purpose of publication is so OTHERS can reproduce your work, and 'peer-review' isnt a blessing, it is to make sure that your paper is honest, clear, and permits reproduction, and contains enough theory and data to confirm/deny.3.
peer-review has nothing to do with confirmation or support or correctness.4.
Support comes fom independant peers who reproduce your results within experimental error or devise new tests which your theory passes.Application:1.
Fudging your results is NOT acceptable.
(see Climategate IDL code, fudging the  tree ring, thermometer data).2. peer-review rigging is dishonest, but widely used in the academic word to secure promotion.
See Publication and Citation in academic advancement
      this means that the habit of 'peer-review rigging' was well established before Climategate.
See e-mails3.
There is NO empirical evidence, that has been independantly verified.
Prof "Phil" Jones saying "I wont release my data to my oponents" simply says he is a politician, NOT a Scientist, and there is a difference.4.
There has been a temprature decline for 11 straight years.
CRUs data does not allow for the Medieval Warm period, well supported by historical and agricultural evidence even though not everone had a thermometer or recorded temperature;5.
At the slightes dissent the IPCC and Gore are on CNN telling the world that the data was stolen, and dosn't matter anyway, BS.6.
Phil Jones has 'stepped-aside' as director CRU and both CRU,UEA are investigation7.
The UK Met Office will, soon, have to release the extrordinarly bad observed data to satisfy FOI requests for raw data, said to be deleted (from all round the world?
), at which point the whole gig is up.NO ONE, except Greens and the hopelessly compromised can Believe in this any more, all the follow through is POLS and MEDIA eg CNN in Europe, who are the new deniers.Finally, I would point out that these Climate Chimps, and their models, mostly with the UK MET, used to get all weather forcasts wrong, famously failed to predict the 1987 Hurricane in SE England "Rescue workers faced an unprecedented number of call-outs as winds hit 94 mph (151 km/h) in the capital and over 110 mph (177 km/h) in the Channel Islands.
" which cause a Margret Thatcher investigation, and indirectly, the formation of the UEA CRU to house the 'ejected'.As I have already said, (moderated TROLL over a day or so) this SCAM is out/over and US/EU tax payers will refuse to pay.
This Climate Ponzi sceme dosnt have a snowball's chance in hell of traction , and once someone in the US starts subpoena Dr. Mann's work and NASA' nonsense there will be NO VOTES.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397242</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260453600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's true, or used to be true, until the CRU emails became public and made the impression that it was all politics.</p><p>You're missing the point of the story as well as setting yourself up for some deceit from some in the scientific community. The point was, people do not look at science that way any more because they have had a glimpse into people attempting to silence differing views, collaborating to keep information specific to a experiment or theory obfuscated or out of the hands of anyone who might disagree with your results and so on.</p><p>You can say that is a higher standard but I think you would only be lieing to yourself. Science was hijacked by politics with AGW and if you;re too naive to see that, then you will get burnt because your trusting untrustworthy people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true , or used to be true , until the CRU emails became public and made the impression that it was all politics.You 're missing the point of the story as well as setting yourself up for some deceit from some in the scientific community .
The point was , people do not look at science that way any more because they have had a glimpse into people attempting to silence differing views , collaborating to keep information specific to a experiment or theory obfuscated or out of the hands of anyone who might disagree with your results and so on.You can say that is a higher standard but I think you would only be lieing to yourself .
Science was hijacked by politics with AGW and if you ; re too naive to see that , then you will get burnt because your trusting untrustworthy people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true, or used to be true, until the CRU emails became public and made the impression that it was all politics.You're missing the point of the story as well as setting yourself up for some deceit from some in the scientific community.
The point was, people do not look at science that way any more because they have had a glimpse into people attempting to silence differing views, collaborating to keep information specific to a experiment or theory obfuscated or out of the hands of anyone who might disagree with your results and so on.You can say that is a higher standard but I think you would only be lieing to yourself.
Science was hijacked by politics with AGW and if you;re too naive to see that, then you will get burnt because your trusting untrustworthy people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392538</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticism requires more than just questioning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260476340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it's ineptitude or lack of effort on the part of the scientist...</p><p>"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."  (attributed to Einstein)</p><p>""A genius is someone who takes a complex thing and makes it look simple. An academic does the opposite.""<br>&mdash; Robert Fanney</p><p>Be forthright with your data, explain to others (as many as will hear you speak) how you've come to those conclusions... Entertain many if not all arguments.</p><p>As an IT geek, if my user/employer doubts me, then it is a problem of communication, likewise for society and scientists.</p><p>Feynman is an excellent example of someone who took some very counter-intuitive concepts and communicated them clearly, concisely, and a common language. Skulking about, restricting access to your data only engenders mistrust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it 's ineptitude or lack of effort on the part of the scientist... " Any intelligent fool can make things bigger , more complex , and more violent .
It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction .
" ( attributed to Einstein ) " " A genius is someone who takes a complex thing and makes it look simple .
An academic does the opposite .
" "    Robert FanneyBe forthright with your data , explain to others ( as many as will hear you speak ) how you 've come to those conclusions... Entertain many if not all arguments.As an IT geek , if my user/employer doubts me , then it is a problem of communication , likewise for society and scientists.Feynman is an excellent example of someone who took some very counter-intuitive concepts and communicated them clearly , concisely , and a common language .
Skulking about , restricting access to your data only engenders mistrust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it's ineptitude or lack of effort on the part of the scientist..."Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.
It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
"  (attributed to Einstein)""A genius is someone who takes a complex thing and makes it look simple.
An academic does the opposite.
""— Robert FanneyBe forthright with your data, explain to others (as many as will hear you speak) how you've come to those conclusions... Entertain many if not all arguments.As an IT geek, if my user/employer doubts me, then it is a problem of communication, likewise for society and scientists.Feynman is an excellent example of someone who took some very counter-intuitive concepts and communicated them clearly, concisely, and a common language.
Skulking about, restricting access to your data only engenders mistrust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399552</id>
	<title>Interesting discussion so far..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260528060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much no chance that this post will be seen by anybody but here goes.</p><p>About half the posters seem to be blaming the "lay person" for their lack of knowledge and understanding and the other half pointing out some of the real problems that this incident has exposed and how science/scientists need to improve. Seems to me, the first half is people who are more redditors than old-school slashdotters. Reddit seems to be very much made up of typical college nerds full of themselves and protecting their imagined "science" castle from outsiders. Most science discussions on that site seem to end up with people claiming their own opinions have higher validity due to their occupation/work and asking the doubters to do 4-8 years of physics etc and only then to get back to the discussion. To me, slashdotters always seem to have had a more worldly/techy/skeptical outlook which would welcome questions and ask for data first.</p><p>So, it seems like more redditors have now found slashdot, leading to a general decline in quality of comments here. Pretty depressing seeing this happen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much no chance that this post will be seen by anybody but here goes.About half the posters seem to be blaming the " lay person " for their lack of knowledge and understanding and the other half pointing out some of the real problems that this incident has exposed and how science/scientists need to improve .
Seems to me , the first half is people who are more redditors than old-school slashdotters .
Reddit seems to be very much made up of typical college nerds full of themselves and protecting their imagined " science " castle from outsiders .
Most science discussions on that site seem to end up with people claiming their own opinions have higher validity due to their occupation/work and asking the doubters to do 4-8 years of physics etc and only then to get back to the discussion .
To me , slashdotters always seem to have had a more worldly/techy/skeptical outlook which would welcome questions and ask for data first.So , it seems like more redditors have now found slashdot , leading to a general decline in quality of comments here .
Pretty depressing seeing this happen : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much no chance that this post will be seen by anybody but here goes.About half the posters seem to be blaming the "lay person" for their lack of knowledge and understanding and the other half pointing out some of the real problems that this incident has exposed and how science/scientists need to improve.
Seems to me, the first half is people who are more redditors than old-school slashdotters.
Reddit seems to be very much made up of typical college nerds full of themselves and protecting their imagined "science" castle from outsiders.
Most science discussions on that site seem to end up with people claiming their own opinions have higher validity due to their occupation/work and asking the doubters to do 4-8 years of physics etc and only then to get back to the discussion.
To me, slashdotters always seem to have had a more worldly/techy/skeptical outlook which would welcome questions and ask for data first.So, it seems like more redditors have now found slashdot, leading to a general decline in quality of comments here.
Pretty depressing seeing this happen :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391506</id>
	<title>Re:Hundreds of billions???</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1260472620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+5 Informative my ass.</p><p>Care to provide some citations for those numbers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 5 Informative my ass.Care to provide some citations for those numbers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+5 Informative my ass.Care to provide some citations for those numbers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389800</id>
	<title>So unnecessary</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1260467220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People concerned about the policy proposals currently being put forward have focused way too much energy on questioning the scientific findings of current and recent warming. It's so unnecessary because scientists understand, and will readily admit, that there is much greater uncertainty when the models are run forward to predict future decades.</p><p>The models can be tuned and validated against historical data, then different forcings backed out to assign relative significance. This is where you get statements like (paraphrasing) "70\% of recent warming has been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with 90\% confidence." Some estimate of confidence is possible because of the validation against historical empirical data and climate reconstructions. Independent lines of inquiry can reinforce each others' findings. This is solid science, and where the "climategate" PR stunt falls down. The e-mails provide good fodder for insinuation, but no answer to the quantitative agreement seen in independent lines of study.</p><p>But when we run the models forward, there is not yet any empirical confirmation. Distinct models, using distinct data sets, can be seen to agree to some degree--but how much of that reflects reality, and how much reflects common assumptions? Every forward-looking run must assume some set of future values for human activity and natural processes, including ones that are parameterized (like cloud formation) that might advance beyond currently validated bounds. The uncertainty grows when the models are asked to bring their predictions down to local conditions--the distinction between predicting global average climate, and predicting long-term local weather. Will Kansas get hotter or colder, wetter or drier? There is quite a bit of uncertainty in such predictions--again, as working scientists clearly understand.</p><p>Layering on the biological response to these uncertain predictions creates even more uncertain predictions. One recent study at Woods Hole seemed to indicate that some animals might respond to ocean acidification by growing thicker shells. I'm not taking that one study as gospel, but it is worth considering that we do not fully understand biological systems and how they will respond to changing climate conditions.</p><p>Finally we get to the societal and economic layer, which sits, at least partially, atop uncertain biological predictions. Global warming may causes shifts in where certain crops can be grown--these changes will exact a cost on human society. Will they also confer a benefit? It's not scientific heresy to think that changes to climate can produce benefits as well as costs--although perhaps not to the same subset of the population. We may have to invest substantially in new areas and ways of farming, in new transportation routes. It's not inconceivable that the end result could be greater efficiencies and healthier produce. And of course there is also substantial error (to say the least) in multi-decade economic models.</p><p>The greatest threat is probably sea level rise. Wealthy nations might make the decision to invest in mitigation, rather than prevention. It is possible to raise or move cities, and to build barriers to keep out the sea. Such decisions are policy,  but must be informed by the best scientific understanding we have--but that understanding must include understanding of uncertainty.</p><p>But instead what we see is a concentrated dose of PR and ignorance, attempting to raise doubts about scientifc conclusions about climate change that are well-supported (like whether human emissions can change the climate). You see people trying to simultaneously point out problematic sitings of temperature stations, and demonize working scientists for adjusting temperature data to minimize the error due to such siting. You see people repeatedly gesturing toward the sun, when numerous direct measurements indicate flat or declining insolation over the recent decades. They come off looking stupid, and smart people dismiss them.</p><p>It's a shame because lost in the battle ove</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People concerned about the policy proposals currently being put forward have focused way too much energy on questioning the scientific findings of current and recent warming .
It 's so unnecessary because scientists understand , and will readily admit , that there is much greater uncertainty when the models are run forward to predict future decades.The models can be tuned and validated against historical data , then different forcings backed out to assign relative significance .
This is where you get statements like ( paraphrasing ) " 70 \ % of recent warming has been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions , with 90 \ % confidence .
" Some estimate of confidence is possible because of the validation against historical empirical data and climate reconstructions .
Independent lines of inquiry can reinforce each others ' findings .
This is solid science , and where the " climategate " PR stunt falls down .
The e-mails provide good fodder for insinuation , but no answer to the quantitative agreement seen in independent lines of study.But when we run the models forward , there is not yet any empirical confirmation .
Distinct models , using distinct data sets , can be seen to agree to some degree--but how much of that reflects reality , and how much reflects common assumptions ?
Every forward-looking run must assume some set of future values for human activity and natural processes , including ones that are parameterized ( like cloud formation ) that might advance beyond currently validated bounds .
The uncertainty grows when the models are asked to bring their predictions down to local conditions--the distinction between predicting global average climate , and predicting long-term local weather .
Will Kansas get hotter or colder , wetter or drier ?
There is quite a bit of uncertainty in such predictions--again , as working scientists clearly understand.Layering on the biological response to these uncertain predictions creates even more uncertain predictions .
One recent study at Woods Hole seemed to indicate that some animals might respond to ocean acidification by growing thicker shells .
I 'm not taking that one study as gospel , but it is worth considering that we do not fully understand biological systems and how they will respond to changing climate conditions.Finally we get to the societal and economic layer , which sits , at least partially , atop uncertain biological predictions .
Global warming may causes shifts in where certain crops can be grown--these changes will exact a cost on human society .
Will they also confer a benefit ?
It 's not scientific heresy to think that changes to climate can produce benefits as well as costs--although perhaps not to the same subset of the population .
We may have to invest substantially in new areas and ways of farming , in new transportation routes .
It 's not inconceivable that the end result could be greater efficiencies and healthier produce .
And of course there is also substantial error ( to say the least ) in multi-decade economic models.The greatest threat is probably sea level rise .
Wealthy nations might make the decision to invest in mitigation , rather than prevention .
It is possible to raise or move cities , and to build barriers to keep out the sea .
Such decisions are policy , but must be informed by the best scientific understanding we have--but that understanding must include understanding of uncertainty.But instead what we see is a concentrated dose of PR and ignorance , attempting to raise doubts about scientifc conclusions about climate change that are well-supported ( like whether human emissions can change the climate ) .
You see people trying to simultaneously point out problematic sitings of temperature stations , and demonize working scientists for adjusting temperature data to minimize the error due to such siting .
You see people repeatedly gesturing toward the sun , when numerous direct measurements indicate flat or declining insolation over the recent decades .
They come off looking stupid , and smart people dismiss them.It 's a shame because lost in the battle ove</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People concerned about the policy proposals currently being put forward have focused way too much energy on questioning the scientific findings of current and recent warming.
It's so unnecessary because scientists understand, and will readily admit, that there is much greater uncertainty when the models are run forward to predict future decades.The models can be tuned and validated against historical data, then different forcings backed out to assign relative significance.
This is where you get statements like (paraphrasing) "70\% of recent warming has been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with 90\% confidence.
" Some estimate of confidence is possible because of the validation against historical empirical data and climate reconstructions.
Independent lines of inquiry can reinforce each others' findings.
This is solid science, and where the "climategate" PR stunt falls down.
The e-mails provide good fodder for insinuation, but no answer to the quantitative agreement seen in independent lines of study.But when we run the models forward, there is not yet any empirical confirmation.
Distinct models, using distinct data sets, can be seen to agree to some degree--but how much of that reflects reality, and how much reflects common assumptions?
Every forward-looking run must assume some set of future values for human activity and natural processes, including ones that are parameterized (like cloud formation) that might advance beyond currently validated bounds.
The uncertainty grows when the models are asked to bring their predictions down to local conditions--the distinction between predicting global average climate, and predicting long-term local weather.
Will Kansas get hotter or colder, wetter or drier?
There is quite a bit of uncertainty in such predictions--again, as working scientists clearly understand.Layering on the biological response to these uncertain predictions creates even more uncertain predictions.
One recent study at Woods Hole seemed to indicate that some animals might respond to ocean acidification by growing thicker shells.
I'm not taking that one study as gospel, but it is worth considering that we do not fully understand biological systems and how they will respond to changing climate conditions.Finally we get to the societal and economic layer, which sits, at least partially, atop uncertain biological predictions.
Global warming may causes shifts in where certain crops can be grown--these changes will exact a cost on human society.
Will they also confer a benefit?
It's not scientific heresy to think that changes to climate can produce benefits as well as costs--although perhaps not to the same subset of the population.
We may have to invest substantially in new areas and ways of farming, in new transportation routes.
It's not inconceivable that the end result could be greater efficiencies and healthier produce.
And of course there is also substantial error (to say the least) in multi-decade economic models.The greatest threat is probably sea level rise.
Wealthy nations might make the decision to invest in mitigation, rather than prevention.
It is possible to raise or move cities, and to build barriers to keep out the sea.
Such decisions are policy,  but must be informed by the best scientific understanding we have--but that understanding must include understanding of uncertainty.But instead what we see is a concentrated dose of PR and ignorance, attempting to raise doubts about scientifc conclusions about climate change that are well-supported (like whether human emissions can change the climate).
You see people trying to simultaneously point out problematic sitings of temperature stations, and demonize working scientists for adjusting temperature data to minimize the error due to such siting.
You see people repeatedly gesturing toward the sun, when numerous direct measurements indicate flat or declining insolation over the recent decades.
They come off looking stupid, and smart people dismiss them.It's a shame because lost in the battle ove</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394288</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260440220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scientists are wasting their breath on climate change.</p><p>China is the number one problem and pulling away as number one rapidly.  China's response yesterday to protests by Pacific Islands that will lose their homes to rising sea levels very early in the piece was:</p><p>"it's time for them to do some sole searching"</p><p>With this kind of bloodyminded ignorance, why bother preaching.  The world is addicted to China's markets and we are now cowering servile economic slaves.  Stop wasting money on climate change research because nothing will be done about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scientists are wasting their breath on climate change.China is the number one problem and pulling away as number one rapidly .
China 's response yesterday to protests by Pacific Islands that will lose their homes to rising sea levels very early in the piece was : " it 's time for them to do some sole searching " With this kind of bloodyminded ignorance , why bother preaching .
The world is addicted to China 's markets and we are now cowering servile economic slaves .
Stop wasting money on climate change research because nothing will be done about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scientists are wasting their breath on climate change.China is the number one problem and pulling away as number one rapidly.
China's response yesterday to protests by Pacific Islands that will lose their homes to rising sea levels very early in the piece was:"it's time for them to do some sole searching"With this kind of bloodyminded ignorance, why bother preaching.
The world is addicted to China's markets and we are now cowering servile economic slaves.
Stop wasting money on climate change research because nothing will be done about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389770</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're wrong on this. The field is similar to the study of paleontology or even to the original development of the theory of evolution in that the known data and relationships between data are extremely sparse compared to the totality of information contained within the natural world. One can form a model of climate, postulate that if the model were false, there ought to be data with specific characteristics and then go out and take the measurements needed to attempt to falsify the theory. Note that the use of the word "model" doesn't discount the pursuit as scientific inquiry. All of science is about model building. Theories are models. The familiar equations relating quantities in the physical world are the expression of a model.</p><p>Since science is the application of a *method* toward the refinement of a known model of the world and the method may be used with climate science, the study qualifies as a scientific pursuit whenever the method is genuinely applied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're wrong on this .
The field is similar to the study of paleontology or even to the original development of the theory of evolution in that the known data and relationships between data are extremely sparse compared to the totality of information contained within the natural world .
One can form a model of climate , postulate that if the model were false , there ought to be data with specific characteristics and then go out and take the measurements needed to attempt to falsify the theory .
Note that the use of the word " model " does n't discount the pursuit as scientific inquiry .
All of science is about model building .
Theories are models .
The familiar equations relating quantities in the physical world are the expression of a model.Since science is the application of a * method * toward the refinement of a known model of the world and the method may be used with climate science , the study qualifies as a scientific pursuit whenever the method is genuinely applied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're wrong on this.
The field is similar to the study of paleontology or even to the original development of the theory of evolution in that the known data and relationships between data are extremely sparse compared to the totality of information contained within the natural world.
One can form a model of climate, postulate that if the model were false, there ought to be data with specific characteristics and then go out and take the measurements needed to attempt to falsify the theory.
Note that the use of the word "model" doesn't discount the pursuit as scientific inquiry.
All of science is about model building.
Theories are models.
The familiar equations relating quantities in the physical world are the expression of a model.Since science is the application of a *method* toward the refinement of a known model of the world and the method may be used with climate science, the study qualifies as a scientific pursuit whenever the method is genuinely applied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392212</id>
	<title>Re:One citation explains it all.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260475080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."<br>- Bertrand Russel</p><p>As evidence of the validity of Russel's insight, consider the people who are cocksure enough to assume it is they who are the doubters. They will even quarrel amongst each other about which of them is the intelligent, when in reality they are all idiots.</p></div><p>You sound aweful sure of yourself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt .
" - Bertrand RusselAs evidence of the validity of Russel 's insight , consider the people who are cocksure enough to assume it is they who are the doubters .
They will even quarrel amongst each other about which of them is the intelligent , when in reality they are all idiots.You sound aweful sure of yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
"- Bertrand RusselAs evidence of the validity of Russel's insight, consider the people who are cocksure enough to assume it is they who are the doubters.
They will even quarrel amongst each other about which of them is the intelligent, when in reality they are all idiots.You sound aweful sure of yourself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1260464640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be nice if it was that simple.</p><p>But, at least one scientist who was going to study the validity of the ice core methodology was told that it would be immoral to undercut this important foundation for global warming and he was fired so his institute could continue to get funding.</p><p>Science is often badly distorted for decades at a time.  Long term, you can't stop the truth.  But short term, money wins out.</p><p>The journal, Science? (Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action.  Does that sound like the scientific method to you?</p><p>Nature just came out and said that the emails show nothing wrong and the ends justify the means.  Does that sound like the scientific method to you?</p><p>Global warming is probably real- anthrocentric global warming is a little more in doubt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice if it was that simple.But , at least one scientist who was going to study the validity of the ice core methodology was told that it would be immoral to undercut this important foundation for global warming and he was fired so his institute could continue to get funding.Science is often badly distorted for decades at a time .
Long term , you ca n't stop the truth .
But short term , money wins out.The journal , Science ?
( Nature ? -- it 's one of them ) declared several years ago , after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed , that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action .
Does that sound like the scientific method to you ? Nature just came out and said that the emails show nothing wrong and the ends justify the means .
Does that sound like the scientific method to you ? Global warming is probably real- anthrocentric global warming is a little more in doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice if it was that simple.But, at least one scientist who was going to study the validity of the ice core methodology was told that it would be immoral to undercut this important foundation for global warming and he was fired so his institute could continue to get funding.Science is often badly distorted for decades at a time.
Long term, you can't stop the truth.
But short term, money wins out.The journal, Science?
(Nature?-- it's one of them) declared several years ago, after global warming was only a few years old and before many of the initial predictions failed, that the global warming debate was over and it was time for political action.
Does that sound like the scientific method to you?Nature just came out and said that the emails show nothing wrong and the ends justify the means.
Does that sound like the scientific method to you?Global warming is probably real- anthrocentric global warming is a little more in doubt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390938</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1260470760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists, a true "global warming experiment" can't be run.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The purpose of science is to create and confirm/falsify that model; it can't <em>use</em> that model as a basis for experiments.  Nobody is ever going to confirm or falsify a global warming hypothesis using this approach, because if their simulation doesn't get the result they want, they'll just say the model wasn't realistic enough.
</p><p>
With weather science, we're at a point somewhere in between Copernicus and Kepler.  We have a basic idea that appears consistent with the observations, so we're <em>likely</em> (but maybe not) on the right track, but we have lots of nagging details that keep us from having an accurate enough model to really propose a theory.  I think it might end up being so complex that we <em>never</em> (even a thousand years from now) quite nail it down with enough precision that we can say, "The temperature will be n.i degrees at this time next month."
</p><p>
What we do have, though, are <em>parts</em> of the model.  We can do an experiment in a flask and see how the gasses in the flask can influence its ability to absorb/reflect/etc energy.  If someone thinks this <em>isn't</em> going to a factor in the ultimate (possibly unattainable) model for weather, I'd love to hear why.
</p><p>
Was Copernicus a scientist?  I can't give a satisfying answer to that one, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say he was doing good work.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists , a true " global warming experiment " ca n't be run .
The purpose of science is to create and confirm/falsify that model ; it ca n't use that model as a basis for experiments .
Nobody is ever going to confirm or falsify a global warming hypothesis using this approach , because if their simulation does n't get the result they want , they 'll just say the model was n't realistic enough .
With weather science , we 're at a point somewhere in between Copernicus and Kepler .
We have a basic idea that appears consistent with the observations , so we 're likely ( but maybe not ) on the right track , but we have lots of nagging details that keep us from having an accurate enough model to really propose a theory .
I think it might end up being so complex that we never ( even a thousand years from now ) quite nail it down with enough precision that we can say , " The temperature will be n.i degrees at this time next month .
" What we do have , though , are parts of the model .
We can do an experiment in a flask and see how the gasses in the flask can influence its ability to absorb/reflect/etc energy .
If someone thinks this is n't going to a factor in the ultimate ( possibly unattainable ) model for weather , I 'd love to hear why .
Was Copernicus a scientist ?
I ca n't give a satisfying answer to that one , but I 'm going to go out on a limb and say he was doing good work .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists, a true "global warming experiment" can't be run.
The purpose of science is to create and confirm/falsify that model; it can't use that model as a basis for experiments.
Nobody is ever going to confirm or falsify a global warming hypothesis using this approach, because if their simulation doesn't get the result they want, they'll just say the model wasn't realistic enough.
With weather science, we're at a point somewhere in between Copernicus and Kepler.
We have a basic idea that appears consistent with the observations, so we're likely (but maybe not) on the right track, but we have lots of nagging details that keep us from having an accurate enough model to really propose a theory.
I think it might end up being so complex that we never (even a thousand years from now) quite nail it down with enough precision that we can say, "The temperature will be n.i degrees at this time next month.
"

What we do have, though, are parts of the model.
We can do an experiment in a flask and see how the gasses in the flask can influence its ability to absorb/reflect/etc energy.
If someone thinks this isn't going to a factor in the ultimate (possibly unattainable) model for weather, I'd love to hear why.
Was Copernicus a scientist?
I can't give a satisfying answer to that one, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say he was doing good work.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260469260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One picture tells it all:<br>(graph of the difference in degrees between raw and "final" data sets)<br><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_urb-raw\_pg.gif" title="noaa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_urb-raw\_pg.gif</a> [noaa.gov]</p><p>People aren't doubting SCIENCE.<br>People are understanding that SCIENTISTS are as likely as anyone to be venal, petty, biased, partisan, and above all the previous 8 year administration showed us: political.</p><p>When someone shows a graph of temperature data, that's interesting science.<br>When I (thanks to the internet) can pull up the raw paleoclimatological data from NOAA, and ask "hey, Mr. Scientist, why is it that your data doesn't match what I see?" and I get a lot of bullshit, handwaving, and a cavalcade of smoke and mirrors - I become somewhat skeptical.</p><p><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/" title="wattsupwiththat.com" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and then don't you DARE call my questioning of your methods "doubts about science" - that's just you building a strawman to try to paint me as some mullet-wearing, Creationism-believing rube.</p><p>I understand, it's much easier to just call your critics "stupid" than to acknowledge that the dogma you've been parroting is falling apart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One picture tells it all : ( graph of the difference in degrees between raw and " final " data sets ) http : //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn \ _anom25 \ _diffs \ _urb-raw \ _pg.gif [ noaa.gov ] People are n't doubting SCIENCE.People are understanding that SCIENTISTS are as likely as anyone to be venal , petty , biased , partisan , and above all the previous 8 year administration showed us : political.When someone shows a graph of temperature data , that 's interesting science.When I ( thanks to the internet ) can pull up the raw paleoclimatological data from NOAA , and ask " hey , Mr. Scientist , why is it that your data does n't match what I see ?
" and I get a lot of bullshit , handwaving , and a cavalcade of smoke and mirrors - I become somewhat skeptical.http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ [ wattsupwiththat.com ] ... and then do n't you DARE call my questioning of your methods " doubts about science " - that 's just you building a strawman to try to paint me as some mullet-wearing , Creationism-believing rube.I understand , it 's much easier to just call your critics " stupid " than to acknowledge that the dogma you 've been parroting is falling apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One picture tells it all:(graph of the difference in degrees between raw and "final" data sets)http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_urb-raw\_pg.gif [noaa.gov]People aren't doubting SCIENCE.People are understanding that SCIENTISTS are as likely as anyone to be venal, petty, biased, partisan, and above all the previous 8 year administration showed us: political.When someone shows a graph of temperature data, that's interesting science.When I (thanks to the internet) can pull up the raw paleoclimatological data from NOAA, and ask "hey, Mr. Scientist, why is it that your data doesn't match what I see?
" and I get a lot of bullshit, handwaving, and a cavalcade of smoke and mirrors - I become somewhat skeptical.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ [wattsupwiththat.com] ... and then don't you DARE call my questioning of your methods "doubts about science" - that's just you building a strawman to try to paint me as some mullet-wearing, Creationism-believing rube.I understand, it's much easier to just call your critics "stupid" than to acknowledge that the dogma you've been parroting is falling apart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</id>
	<title>Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260463920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics</p></div><p>The answer is no. The good thing about science is that it is open source. For mathematics, you can go through all of the proofs from your text books. For physics you would need a bit of gear to reproduce some of the experiments, but again, that is just a question of money and interest.</p><p>The basic point is that the scientific method don't expect you to accept anything without proof. If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and PhysicsThe answer is no .
The good thing about science is that it is open source .
For mathematics , you can go through all of the proofs from your text books .
For physics you would need a bit of gear to reproduce some of the experiments , but again , that is just a question of money and interest.The basic point is that the scientific method do n't expect you to accept anything without proof .
If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment , people will pay attention to you , regardless of politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and PhysicsThe answer is no.
The good thing about science is that it is open source.
For mathematics, you can go through all of the proofs from your text books.
For physics you would need a bit of gear to reproduce some of the experiments, but again, that is just a question of money and interest.The basic point is that the scientific method don't expect you to accept anything without proof.
If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390764</id>
	<title>Re:Science costs money, ergo...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260470280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To do any useful science that hasn't already been done requires money. Money carries an agenda. Scientists who work for sponsors, including foundations, oil companies or even governments AND who disagree with the predispositions of the above are soon out of money, out of work, out of science.</p></div><p>On it's face, I'll agree with that.  But the thing that boggles me about "Climategate" is the perception that you won't get funded if you don't buy into the current consensus on climate change.  The fact is, there are many groups like the American Enterprise Institute with plenty of funding for such projects.  Lose a sponsor, gain another.  It's not like AEI is hurting for funding; Exxon/Mobil (which still hasn't paid for Prince William Sound) funds them to the tune of a quarter million a year. (http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=download&amp;d=4586)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To do any useful science that has n't already been done requires money .
Money carries an agenda .
Scientists who work for sponsors , including foundations , oil companies or even governments AND who disagree with the predispositions of the above are soon out of money , out of work , out of science.On it 's face , I 'll agree with that .
But the thing that boggles me about " Climategate " is the perception that you wo n't get funded if you do n't buy into the current consensus on climate change .
The fact is , there are many groups like the American Enterprise Institute with plenty of funding for such projects .
Lose a sponsor , gain another .
It 's not like AEI is hurting for funding ; Exxon/Mobil ( which still has n't paid for Prince William Sound ) funds them to the tune of a quarter million a year .
( http : //research.greenpeaceusa.org/ ? a = download&amp;d = 4586 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To do any useful science that hasn't already been done requires money.
Money carries an agenda.
Scientists who work for sponsors, including foundations, oil companies or even governments AND who disagree with the predispositions of the above are soon out of money, out of work, out of science.On it's face, I'll agree with that.
But the thing that boggles me about "Climategate" is the perception that you won't get funded if you don't buy into the current consensus on climate change.
The fact is, there are many groups like the American Enterprise Institute with plenty of funding for such projects.
Lose a sponsor, gain another.
It's not like AEI is hurting for funding; Exxon/Mobil (which still hasn't paid for Prince William Sound) funds them to the tune of a quarter million a year.
(http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=download&amp;d=4586)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390180</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1260468420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration.  Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short, wholesome, science-free life.</p></div><p>Humanity is not rational. We sometimes forget that the majority of the planet still believes in a big-sky-daddy god and couldn't perform a single scientific experiment accurately even given all the materials and instructions. You're just asking too much from Joe Sixpack</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration .
Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short , wholesome , science-free life.Humanity is not rational .
We sometimes forget that the majority of the planet still believes in a big-sky-daddy god and could n't perform a single scientific experiment accurately even given all the materials and instructions .
You 're just asking too much from Joe Sixpack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration.
Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short, wholesome, science-free life.Humanity is not rational.
We sometimes forget that the majority of the planet still believes in a big-sky-daddy god and couldn't perform a single scientific experiment accurately even given all the materials and instructions.
You're just asking too much from Joe Sixpack
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390312</id>
	<title>Re:Doubt is justified</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A measure of doubt in science is justified because much of science has devolved into religion (theories elevated to dogma). As these things come out in the open, people will be utterly amazed at just how much science is bunk. I can say this with confidence because I know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models. The Big Bang cosmology, for example.</p></div><p>Do elaborate, please.  Because it looks like you either just set up a big straw man or assumed a lot of "facts" not in evidence.</p><p>I'm hoping you'll elaborate your points on which theories that have been elevated to dogma, and evidence you have found that disprove said theories</p><p>Just how much science is bunk, anyway?  Please feel free to specify percentages of science or give examples.  How do you define the threshold of "most" science?  What exactly is in the set of ideas you're labeling "science"?</p><p>Since you "know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models", please list them or provide links.</p><p>Because this looks like an ordinary sh*t -and-run to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A measure of doubt in science is justified because much of science has devolved into religion ( theories elevated to dogma ) .
As these things come out in the open , people will be utterly amazed at just how much science is bunk .
I can say this with confidence because I know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models .
The Big Bang cosmology , for example.Do elaborate , please .
Because it looks like you either just set up a big straw man or assumed a lot of " facts " not in evidence.I 'm hoping you 'll elaborate your points on which theories that have been elevated to dogma , and evidence you have found that disprove said theoriesJust how much science is bunk , anyway ?
Please feel free to specify percentages of science or give examples .
How do you define the threshold of " most " science ?
What exactly is in the set of ideas you 're labeling " science " ? Since you " know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models " , please list them or provide links.Because this looks like an ordinary sh * t -and-run to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A measure of doubt in science is justified because much of science has devolved into religion (theories elevated to dogma).
As these things come out in the open, people will be utterly amazed at just how much science is bunk.
I can say this with confidence because I know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models.
The Big Bang cosmology, for example.Do elaborate, please.
Because it looks like you either just set up a big straw man or assumed a lot of "facts" not in evidence.I'm hoping you'll elaborate your points on which theories that have been elevated to dogma, and evidence you have found that disprove said theoriesJust how much science is bunk, anyway?
Please feel free to specify percentages of science or give examples.
How do you define the threshold of "most" science?
What exactly is in the set of ideas you're labeling "science"?Since you "know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models", please list them or provide links.Because this looks like an ordinary sh*t -and-run to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397064</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticism requires more than just questioning</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1260452220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If they don't understand the basics of, say, scientific theory, they aren't intellectually involved in the first place."</p><p>Isn't there a difference between "understand" and "agree with" or "subscribe to the same school of interpretation"? Some scientists would like to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with their particular model just doesn't understand that, but I submit that it's possible to both understand and disagree.</p><p>I'm no climate scientist. But I think I understand the very minimal "basics" of climate modelling from an information theory perspective, which is to say, I know that it's trying to simulate a huge chaotic nonlinear system over millions of years based on incomplete information and changing theories, which seems like something I wouldn't bet a whole lot of lunch money on being exactly right. On the other hand, the widespread ongoing extinction of species , deforestation and increasing population and industrialisation of Earth and Peak Oil is something I can see happening right in front of my eyes within my lifetime, so I'm a lot more concerned about those things than I am carbon dioxide.</p><p>Some of the 'climate change' prescriptions, like trying to move to wind power and permaculture also fit the general pollution and ecology problem - but things like carbon sequestration just make me roll my eyes. I worry that CO2 is becoming a big red herring from the real issue, which is sustainable production and wealth sharing.</p><p>Yes, I said 'share the wealth'. I'm a hippie socialist. I consider today's global urban poverty to be pretty much a crime against humanity, and I'm willing to pay my part via taxes to fix it.</p><p>But I'm also deeply disturbed by how fragile and delicate our climate models are, and I wouldn't bet too much on them being 100\% on the money. Let's prepare for a whole set of potential future outcomes and make our society and ecology more robust all round, not just bet the farm on CO2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If they do n't understand the basics of , say , scientific theory , they are n't intellectually involved in the first place .
" Is n't there a difference between " understand " and " agree with " or " subscribe to the same school of interpretation " ?
Some scientists would like to believe that anyone who does n't agree with their particular model just does n't understand that , but I submit that it 's possible to both understand and disagree.I 'm no climate scientist .
But I think I understand the very minimal " basics " of climate modelling from an information theory perspective , which is to say , I know that it 's trying to simulate a huge chaotic nonlinear system over millions of years based on incomplete information and changing theories , which seems like something I would n't bet a whole lot of lunch money on being exactly right .
On the other hand , the widespread ongoing extinction of species , deforestation and increasing population and industrialisation of Earth and Peak Oil is something I can see happening right in front of my eyes within my lifetime , so I 'm a lot more concerned about those things than I am carbon dioxide.Some of the 'climate change ' prescriptions , like trying to move to wind power and permaculture also fit the general pollution and ecology problem - but things like carbon sequestration just make me roll my eyes .
I worry that CO2 is becoming a big red herring from the real issue , which is sustainable production and wealth sharing.Yes , I said 'share the wealth' .
I 'm a hippie socialist .
I consider today 's global urban poverty to be pretty much a crime against humanity , and I 'm willing to pay my part via taxes to fix it.But I 'm also deeply disturbed by how fragile and delicate our climate models are , and I would n't bet too much on them being 100 \ % on the money .
Let 's prepare for a whole set of potential future outcomes and make our society and ecology more robust all round , not just bet the farm on CO2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If they don't understand the basics of, say, scientific theory, they aren't intellectually involved in the first place.
"Isn't there a difference between "understand" and "agree with" or "subscribe to the same school of interpretation"?
Some scientists would like to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with their particular model just doesn't understand that, but I submit that it's possible to both understand and disagree.I'm no climate scientist.
But I think I understand the very minimal "basics" of climate modelling from an information theory perspective, which is to say, I know that it's trying to simulate a huge chaotic nonlinear system over millions of years based on incomplete information and changing theories, which seems like something I wouldn't bet a whole lot of lunch money on being exactly right.
On the other hand, the widespread ongoing extinction of species , deforestation and increasing population and industrialisation of Earth and Peak Oil is something I can see happening right in front of my eyes within my lifetime, so I'm a lot more concerned about those things than I am carbon dioxide.Some of the 'climate change' prescriptions, like trying to move to wind power and permaculture also fit the general pollution and ecology problem - but things like carbon sequestration just make me roll my eyes.
I worry that CO2 is becoming a big red herring from the real issue, which is sustainable production and wealth sharing.Yes, I said 'share the wealth'.
I'm a hippie socialist.
I consider today's global urban poverty to be pretty much a crime against humanity, and I'm willing to pay my part via taxes to fix it.But I'm also deeply disturbed by how fragile and delicate our climate models are, and I wouldn't bet too much on them being 100\% on the money.
Let's prepare for a whole set of potential future outcomes and make our society and ecology more robust all round, not just bet the farm on CO2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393514</id>
	<title>Re:Science costs money, ergo...</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1260436980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is a very good description of one of the major problems of any scientific endeavour that might have a direct impact on human life within a time limit that average persons can see as being relevant to them.<br> <br>Aside from convincing you of the absence of bias we might also expect governments and quasi-governmental organizations, like public schools, why they continue to hold up Al Gore's film as representing the truth of the matter when it has claims that are clearly not justifiable. How many hundred feet of water would New York be covered by?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a very good description of one of the major problems of any scientific endeavour that might have a direct impact on human life within a time limit that average persons can see as being relevant to them .
Aside from convincing you of the absence of bias we might also expect governments and quasi-governmental organizations , like public schools , why they continue to hold up Al Gore 's film as representing the truth of the matter when it has claims that are clearly not justifiable .
How many hundred feet of water would New York be covered by ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a very good description of one of the major problems of any scientific endeavour that might have a direct impact on human life within a time limit that average persons can see as being relevant to them.
Aside from convincing you of the absence of bias we might also expect governments and quasi-governmental organizations, like public schools, why they continue to hold up Al Gore's film as representing the truth of the matter when it has claims that are clearly not justifiable.
How many hundred feet of water would New York be covered by?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398458</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the real point here is that data can be manipulated to influence people in certain ways - by design.<br>Data that is not publicly available - as all research results should be - so that they can be examined for authenticity and possible fraud should be questioned closely.<br>Imagine some one comes up with data to support their claim that X is bigger than Y. He defines X and shows how he measures X without bias. He defines Y and<br>shows how he measures Y without bias. He has a value or mean value for X and he can then show the values for Y or mean of Y.<br>He now has to define what he means by bigger. At many of these stages there is room for errors. There are reasons why experiments need to be repeated by someone<br>other than the original scientist.<br>What has happened with climate is that egos or politics (the fight for monetary support to continue research) comes into play. Once this happens people say that they<br>could get someone demoted/unregistered/fired/discharged or that they can conveniently loose data. They can cook the data and only release so called "qualified" data.<br>What should happen is that the RAW data and the equipment used to collect it should be available for scrutiny. Then any procedures used to "Quality Assure (QA)" the<br>data should be described and relavent adjustments made and the new set of data should be defined as QA'd data rather than RAW data. After that, any calculations and<br>co-relations should be described and the resulting conclusions (made subjectively by the scientists involved) should be made available.<br>If someone makes a claim about the data by doing something with the data and showing a hockey-stick graph that proves climate temperatures have risen then they<br>should be able to with-stand any other claim made by referring to the same data. Someone who uses addition of variances (where the variance is always positive) should<br>technically show that this is the correct procedure for analyzing this type of data. The hockey-stick graph can be shown to always exist in any set of data that is fairly long<br>and based on addition of variances. What else do you get when you keep adding positive numbers ??? You always get a graph that climbs and gets steeper.</p><p>Assuming you read a lot about climate then perhaps you have already encountered the issue of cause and effect. Positive and Negative Correlations show that the two<br>variables (X and Y) in question have some underlying connection.  X could be related by a linear relationship to variable A. Y could be related by a inverse linear relationship<br>to variable A as well. They both depend upon A,  hence they themselves are related to one another. Other relationships are possible. This is not cause and effect.</p><p>Egos and politics are a problem sometimes. Lets get beyond this. We deserve to have all the data available that is possible. OK. so the temperatures at the current poles<br>are more variable that the more modest variations in the temperate areas or the equators. The Poles also have a time issue with long days and long nights that span more<br>than 24 hours. Some suburban areas are hot spots and some are cold spots due to the distribution of climate affecting factors (trees, buildings, manufacturing facilities etc)<br>and the temperature readings from these spots need to be looked at closely. You can not interpolate temperature readings across geographic areas when there are significant<br>factors that vary. If you choose to measure the height above sea level and you ignore a measurement taken on a mountain between the two points of interpolation then<br>you can expect someone to question your methods. If you also choose to hide your mountain data from everyone so that you can make points ??? then that is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the real point here is that data can be manipulated to influence people in certain ways - by design.Data that is not publicly available - as all research results should be - so that they can be examined for authenticity and possible fraud should be questioned closely.Imagine some one comes up with data to support their claim that X is bigger than Y. He defines X and shows how he measures X without bias .
He defines Y andshows how he measures Y without bias .
He has a value or mean value for X and he can then show the values for Y or mean of Y.He now has to define what he means by bigger .
At many of these stages there is room for errors .
There are reasons why experiments need to be repeated by someoneother than the original scientist.What has happened with climate is that egos or politics ( the fight for monetary support to continue research ) comes into play .
Once this happens people say that theycould get someone demoted/unregistered/fired/discharged or that they can conveniently loose data .
They can cook the data and only release so called " qualified " data.What should happen is that the RAW data and the equipment used to collect it should be available for scrutiny .
Then any procedures used to " Quality Assure ( QA ) " thedata should be described and relavent adjustments made and the new set of data should be defined as QA 'd data rather than RAW data .
After that , any calculations andco-relations should be described and the resulting conclusions ( made subjectively by the scientists involved ) should be made available.If someone makes a claim about the data by doing something with the data and showing a hockey-stick graph that proves climate temperatures have risen then theyshould be able to with-stand any other claim made by referring to the same data .
Someone who uses addition of variances ( where the variance is always positive ) shouldtechnically show that this is the correct procedure for analyzing this type of data .
The hockey-stick graph can be shown to always exist in any set of data that is fairly longand based on addition of variances .
What else do you get when you keep adding positive numbers ? ? ?
You always get a graph that climbs and gets steeper.Assuming you read a lot about climate then perhaps you have already encountered the issue of cause and effect .
Positive and Negative Correlations show that the twovariables ( X and Y ) in question have some underlying connection .
X could be related by a linear relationship to variable A. Y could be related by a inverse linear relationshipto variable A as well .
They both depend upon A , hence they themselves are related to one another .
Other relationships are possible .
This is not cause and effect.Egos and politics are a problem sometimes .
Lets get beyond this .
We deserve to have all the data available that is possible .
OK. so the temperatures at the current polesare more variable that the more modest variations in the temperate areas or the equators .
The Poles also have a time issue with long days and long nights that span morethan 24 hours .
Some suburban areas are hot spots and some are cold spots due to the distribution of climate affecting factors ( trees , buildings , manufacturing facilities etc ) and the temperature readings from these spots need to be looked at closely .
You can not interpolate temperature readings across geographic areas when there are significantfactors that vary .
If you choose to measure the height above sea level and you ignore a measurement taken on a mountain between the two points of interpolation thenyou can expect someone to question your methods .
If you also choose to hide your mountain data from everyone so that you can make points ? ? ?
then that is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the real point here is that data can be manipulated to influence people in certain ways - by design.Data that is not publicly available - as all research results should be - so that they can be examined for authenticity and possible fraud should be questioned closely.Imagine some one comes up with data to support their claim that X is bigger than Y. He defines X and shows how he measures X without bias.
He defines Y andshows how he measures Y without bias.
He has a value or mean value for X and he can then show the values for Y or mean of Y.He now has to define what he means by bigger.
At many of these stages there is room for errors.
There are reasons why experiments need to be repeated by someoneother than the original scientist.What has happened with climate is that egos or politics (the fight for monetary support to continue research) comes into play.
Once this happens people say that theycould get someone demoted/unregistered/fired/discharged or that they can conveniently loose data.
They can cook the data and only release so called "qualified" data.What should happen is that the RAW data and the equipment used to collect it should be available for scrutiny.
Then any procedures used to "Quality Assure (QA)" thedata should be described and relavent adjustments made and the new set of data should be defined as QA'd data rather than RAW data.
After that, any calculations andco-relations should be described and the resulting conclusions (made subjectively by the scientists involved) should be made available.If someone makes a claim about the data by doing something with the data and showing a hockey-stick graph that proves climate temperatures have risen then theyshould be able to with-stand any other claim made by referring to the same data.
Someone who uses addition of variances (where the variance is always positive) shouldtechnically show that this is the correct procedure for analyzing this type of data.
The hockey-stick graph can be shown to always exist in any set of data that is fairly longand based on addition of variances.
What else do you get when you keep adding positive numbers ???
You always get a graph that climbs and gets steeper.Assuming you read a lot about climate then perhaps you have already encountered the issue of cause and effect.
Positive and Negative Correlations show that the twovariables (X and Y) in question have some underlying connection.
X could be related by a linear relationship to variable A. Y could be related by a inverse linear relationshipto variable A as well.
They both depend upon A,  hence they themselves are related to one another.
Other relationships are possible.
This is not cause and effect.Egos and politics are a problem sometimes.
Lets get beyond this.
We deserve to have all the data available that is possible.
OK. so the temperatures at the current polesare more variable that the more modest variations in the temperate areas or the equators.
The Poles also have a time issue with long days and long nights that span morethan 24 hours.
Some suburban areas are hot spots and some are cold spots due to the distribution of climate affecting factors (trees, buildings, manufacturing facilities etc)and the temperature readings from these spots need to be looked at closely.
You can not interpolate temperature readings across geographic areas when there are significantfactors that vary.
If you choose to measure the height above sea level and you ignore a measurement taken on a mountain between the two points of interpolation thenyou can expect someone to question your methods.
If you also choose to hide your mountain data from everyone so that you can make points ???
then that is wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388948</id>
	<title>Theories proven through political influence</title>
	<author>realsilly</author>
	<datestamp>1260464700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Computer Scientist, I have experienced the ability to know something without being able to prove something it's called gut instinct.  Sadly, gut instinct is not scientific or political, it's conjecture.  If some of these scientist have a gut instinct then they should find a way to scientificly prove their theories.  It's their duty as a scientist to accept that their theory could be incorrect.</p><p>I know I certainly and outraged and disgusted with scientists who let politics sway or intimidate them to toss out data that doesn't fit the conclusion to fit the theory.  I'm horrified at the way those who disputed the norm have been treated, ignored and shunned.  It's aweful.  Sadly, those scientists who follow pure science will have to fight so much harder for credibility with the laymen, and this in my opinion is a sad time in history.</p><p>My next fear is how student in colleges will use this situation to manipulate the college system in the future, which will further degrade the comman person's trust in the scientific community.  Sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Computer Scientist , I have experienced the ability to know something without being able to prove something it 's called gut instinct .
Sadly , gut instinct is not scientific or political , it 's conjecture .
If some of these scientist have a gut instinct then they should find a way to scientificly prove their theories .
It 's their duty as a scientist to accept that their theory could be incorrect.I know I certainly and outraged and disgusted with scientists who let politics sway or intimidate them to toss out data that does n't fit the conclusion to fit the theory .
I 'm horrified at the way those who disputed the norm have been treated , ignored and shunned .
It 's aweful .
Sadly , those scientists who follow pure science will have to fight so much harder for credibility with the laymen , and this in my opinion is a sad time in history.My next fear is how student in colleges will use this situation to manipulate the college system in the future , which will further degrade the comman person 's trust in the scientific community .
Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Computer Scientist, I have experienced the ability to know something without being able to prove something it's called gut instinct.
Sadly, gut instinct is not scientific or political, it's conjecture.
If some of these scientist have a gut instinct then they should find a way to scientificly prove their theories.
It's their duty as a scientist to accept that their theory could be incorrect.I know I certainly and outraged and disgusted with scientists who let politics sway or intimidate them to toss out data that doesn't fit the conclusion to fit the theory.
I'm horrified at the way those who disputed the norm have been treated, ignored and shunned.
It's aweful.
Sadly, those scientists who follow pure science will have to fight so much harder for credibility with the laymen, and this in my opinion is a sad time in history.My next fear is how student in colleges will use this situation to manipulate the college system in the future, which will further degrade the comman person's trust in the scientific community.
Sigh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391412</id>
	<title>Re:Real problem is Conservatism.</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1260472260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet, the Left momentarily forgets about science when the issue at hand is race and intelligence or human biodiversity in general.
<p>
Also, liberals have problems with economics and linking actions to cosequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet , the Left momentarily forgets about science when the issue at hand is race and intelligence or human biodiversity in general .
Also , liberals have problems with economics and linking actions to cosequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet, the Left momentarily forgets about science when the issue at hand is race and intelligence or human biodiversity in general.
Also, liberals have problems with economics and linking actions to cosequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390400</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...precisely, and this is the good part of the outcome the poster suggested.  People will begin to realize that scientists are not "truth automatons" in lab coats.  They are real, flesh and blood people, with foibles, bills to pay, grants to acquire, prejudices to overcome, and cliques to join.</p><p>When some news outlet headlines "Scientists Say..." maybe people will more often ask themselves, "which scientists? where? in what publication?  under what review?  by whom? do they have a reputation? a known agenda?  known affiliations? under whose funding? why now?" and not accept the conclusions or even the collection until some/all of those questions are answered.  The days when large groups of people blithely accepted "scientists say" as some form of truth statement are hopefully drawing to a close.</p><p>And there is little doubt as to why Nature found no smoking guns in the CRU emails (and why didn't the poster say it was Nature?  hmmm).  They've been guzzling the warm kool aid for some time, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...precisely , and this is the good part of the outcome the poster suggested .
People will begin to realize that scientists are not " truth automatons " in lab coats .
They are real , flesh and blood people , with foibles , bills to pay , grants to acquire , prejudices to overcome , and cliques to join.When some news outlet headlines " Scientists Say... " maybe people will more often ask themselves , " which scientists ?
where ? in what publication ?
under what review ?
by whom ?
do they have a reputation ?
a known agenda ?
known affiliations ?
under whose funding ?
why now ?
" and not accept the conclusions or even the collection until some/all of those questions are answered .
The days when large groups of people blithely accepted " scientists say " as some form of truth statement are hopefully drawing to a close.And there is little doubt as to why Nature found no smoking guns in the CRU emails ( and why did n't the poster say it was Nature ?
hmmm ) . They 've been guzzling the warm kool aid for some time , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...precisely, and this is the good part of the outcome the poster suggested.
People will begin to realize that scientists are not "truth automatons" in lab coats.
They are real, flesh and blood people, with foibles, bills to pay, grants to acquire, prejudices to overcome, and cliques to join.When some news outlet headlines "Scientists Say..." maybe people will more often ask themselves, "which scientists?
where? in what publication?
under what review?
by whom?
do they have a reputation?
a known agenda?
known affiliations?
under whose funding?
why now?
" and not accept the conclusions or even the collection until some/all of those questions are answered.
The days when large groups of people blithely accepted "scientists say" as some form of truth statement are hopefully drawing to a close.And there is little doubt as to why Nature found no smoking guns in the CRU emails (and why didn't the poster say it was Nature?
hmmm).  They've been guzzling the warm kool aid for some time, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389594</id>
	<title>skepticism</title>
	<author>superdana</author>
	<datestamp>1260466680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure what that gender studies remark was all about, but Henninger may have more allies among gender studies scholars than he thinks. They are extremely skeptical of scientists because they often reinforce myths about gender with poor methodology and sloppy interpretations. There is, of course, a faction in gender studies that rejects reproductive biology as a basis for sex, which is just bizarre. But if Henninger is beginning to doubt the credibility of today's scientists based on a perception of bias, he's only reaching a conclusion that those "messy" gender studies scholars have already figured out.

(On an unrelated note, I would like to propose a corollary to Godwin's Law: as a discussion about science and politics grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Galileo and the Church approaches 1.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what that gender studies remark was all about , but Henninger may have more allies among gender studies scholars than he thinks .
They are extremely skeptical of scientists because they often reinforce myths about gender with poor methodology and sloppy interpretations .
There is , of course , a faction in gender studies that rejects reproductive biology as a basis for sex , which is just bizarre .
But if Henninger is beginning to doubt the credibility of today 's scientists based on a perception of bias , he 's only reaching a conclusion that those " messy " gender studies scholars have already figured out .
( On an unrelated note , I would like to propose a corollary to Godwin 's Law : as a discussion about science and politics grows longer , the probability of a comparison involving Galileo and the Church approaches 1 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what that gender studies remark was all about, but Henninger may have more allies among gender studies scholars than he thinks.
They are extremely skeptical of scientists because they often reinforce myths about gender with poor methodology and sloppy interpretations.
There is, of course, a faction in gender studies that rejects reproductive biology as a basis for sex, which is just bizarre.
But if Henninger is beginning to doubt the credibility of today's scientists based on a perception of bias, he's only reaching a conclusion that those "messy" gender studies scholars have already figured out.
(On an unrelated note, I would like to propose a corollary to Godwin's Law: as a discussion about science and politics grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Galileo and the Church approaches 1.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389692</id>
	<title>Real problem is Conservatism.</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1260466980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientists are liberal.  (Only about 6\% are Republicans, and over 20\% state they are Democrats).
<p>
Then they realized that science is itself at odds with conservatism.  Science is about discovering new things and proposing new ideas, whihc lead to new products and new social movements. Conservatism is about maintaining what works (even if they don't work well), while liberalism is about trying to fix things (even if they already work fine).
</p><p>
All that is fine.   Just as liberalism has science, conservaitsm has religion (all about the old ideas - the newest of the big religions, Islam, is more than a milenium old).    No big deal.
</p><p>But then the GOP decided to go old school.  They knew that attacking liberalism wasn't enough, they decided to attack the core problem - science - instead of the proposed new ideas..  So they went all out.  First attack the proposed solutions. Then attack the claimed problems.   Then attack the people doing it.  Claim they are 'ivory tower intellectuals', not geniuses that are smarter and better educated.   Claim they are engaged in evil 'cloning', without specigying what the evils are.  Attack the Genetically modified food as unhealthy instead of saving lives with "golden rice".
</p><p>As long as unethical people are in control of the conservative movement, science will have a bad name because they will try their best to give it one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists are liberal .
( Only about 6 \ % are Republicans , and over 20 \ % state they are Democrats ) .
Then they realized that science is itself at odds with conservatism .
Science is about discovering new things and proposing new ideas , whihc lead to new products and new social movements .
Conservatism is about maintaining what works ( even if they do n't work well ) , while liberalism is about trying to fix things ( even if they already work fine ) .
All that is fine .
Just as liberalism has science , conservaitsm has religion ( all about the old ideas - the newest of the big religions , Islam , is more than a milenium old ) .
No big deal .
But then the GOP decided to go old school .
They knew that attacking liberalism was n't enough , they decided to attack the core problem - science - instead of the proposed new ideas.. So they went all out .
First attack the proposed solutions .
Then attack the claimed problems .
Then attack the people doing it .
Claim they are 'ivory tower intellectuals ' , not geniuses that are smarter and better educated .
Claim they are engaged in evil 'cloning ' , without specigying what the evils are .
Attack the Genetically modified food as unhealthy instead of saving lives with " golden rice " .
As long as unethical people are in control of the conservative movement , science will have a bad name because they will try their best to give it one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists are liberal.
(Only about 6\% are Republicans, and over 20\% state they are Democrats).
Then they realized that science is itself at odds with conservatism.
Science is about discovering new things and proposing new ideas, whihc lead to new products and new social movements.
Conservatism is about maintaining what works (even if they don't work well), while liberalism is about trying to fix things (even if they already work fine).
All that is fine.
Just as liberalism has science, conservaitsm has religion (all about the old ideas - the newest of the big religions, Islam, is more than a milenium old).
No big deal.
But then the GOP decided to go old school.
They knew that attacking liberalism wasn't enough, they decided to attack the core problem - science - instead of the proposed new ideas..  So they went all out.
First attack the proposed solutions.
Then attack the claimed problems.
Then attack the people doing it.
Claim they are 'ivory tower intellectuals', not geniuses that are smarter and better educated.
Claim they are engaged in evil 'cloning', without specigying what the evils are.
Attack the Genetically modified food as unhealthy instead of saving lives with "golden rice".
As long as unethical people are in control of the conservative movement, science will have a bad name because they will try their best to give it one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389562</id>
	<title>Discredit the scientists</title>
	<author>CodeInspired</author>
	<datestamp>1260466620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's what the V's wanted in the 1984 series.  Maybe climate change is really an evil plot by alien lizards to steal our food and natural resources. Prettty soon, scientists will come up missing all around the globe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's what the V 's wanted in the 1984 series .
Maybe climate change is really an evil plot by alien lizards to steal our food and natural resources .
Prettty soon , scientists will come up missing all around the globe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's what the V's wanted in the 1984 series.
Maybe climate change is really an evil plot by alien lizards to steal our food and natural resources.
Prettty soon, scientists will come up missing all around the globe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389026</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>interploy</author>
	<datestamp>1260464940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all the various scissors, clippers and shaving blades a barber has - especially since he'll be using them on your face - I would hope you would go to one you could trust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the various scissors , clippers and shaving blades a barber has - especially since he 'll be using them on your face - I would hope you would go to one you could trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the various scissors, clippers and shaving blades a barber has - especially since he'll be using them on your face - I would hope you would go to one you could trust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30415736</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1260645660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem isn't public mistrust of science, it's crusading scientists.</p><p>Scientists, like, military commanders and supreme court judges, need to be apolitical.  If you want to be an advocate for a cause, you need to not be involved in the science associated with the cause or your motivations and credibility will be called into question.</p><p>Even if your motivations are consciously honest or true, its still possible that strong belief in your cause may influence your science.</p></div><p>But if you discount <i>all</i> politicizing scientists arguing against AGW, you have zero scientific support left for the skeptics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't public mistrust of science , it 's crusading scientists.Scientists , like , military commanders and supreme court judges , need to be apolitical .
If you want to be an advocate for a cause , you need to not be involved in the science associated with the cause or your motivations and credibility will be called into question.Even if your motivations are consciously honest or true , its still possible that strong belief in your cause may influence your science.But if you discount all politicizing scientists arguing against AGW , you have zero scientific support left for the skeptics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't public mistrust of science, it's crusading scientists.Scientists, like, military commanders and supreme court judges, need to be apolitical.
If you want to be an advocate for a cause, you need to not be involved in the science associated with the cause or your motivations and credibility will be called into question.Even if your motivations are consciously honest or true, its still possible that strong belief in your cause may influence your science.But if you discount all politicizing scientists arguing against AGW, you have zero scientific support left for the skeptics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389508</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>Colonel Sponsz</author>
	<datestamp>1260466440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years. Suddenly, 20 years later and Global Warming is all we can talk about? I don't understand. No, I do understand<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... both points of view have been apparent for nearly a hundred years. Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda. Sure it's possible, which is exactly why it's such a powerful weapon in the social manipulator's arsenal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just like 9/11 denier's evidence is just plausible enough to make people believe it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or how creationists can bend scientific discoveries just enough to gain a following.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh not that myth again. The New York Times (i.e. ordinary journalists, whose job is to publish what <i>sells</i>)? Maybe. Nature? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU\_AtHkB4Ms" title="youtube.com">Hell no.</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>(And while you're at it, please watch his video on the hacked e-mails as well: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg</a> [youtube.com] . It's very enlightening.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1975 , American Scientist , Nature , and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years .
Suddenly , 20 years later and Global Warming is all we can talk about ?
I do n't understand .
No , I do understand ... both points of view have been apparent for nearly a hundred years .
Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda .
Sure it 's possible , which is exactly why it 's such a powerful weapon in the social manipulator 's arsenal ... just like 9/11 denier 's evidence is just plausible enough to make people believe it ... or how creationists can bend scientific discoveries just enough to gain a following.Oh not that myth again .
The New York Times ( i.e .
ordinary journalists , whose job is to publish what sells ) ?
Maybe. Nature ?
Hell no .
[ youtube.com ] ( And while you 're at it , please watch his video on the hacked e-mails as well : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 7nnVQ2fROOg [ youtube.com ] .
It 's very enlightening .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years.
Suddenly, 20 years later and Global Warming is all we can talk about?
I don't understand.
No, I do understand ... both points of view have been apparent for nearly a hundred years.
Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda.
Sure it's possible, which is exactly why it's such a powerful weapon in the social manipulator's arsenal ... just like 9/11 denier's evidence is just plausible enough to make people believe it ... or how creationists can bend scientific discoveries just enough to gain a following.Oh not that myth again.
The New York Times (i.e.
ordinary journalists, whose job is to publish what sells)?
Maybe. Nature?
Hell no.
[youtube.com](And while you're at it, please watch his video on the hacked e-mails as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg [youtube.com] .
It's very enlightening.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390904</id>
	<title>gimme a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260470700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why is it such a big deal to acknowledge that science is like every other academic discipline in many respects.  people argue - some concepts endure, others fall out of favor quickly.  science has no special claim to an "accurate representation of reality" - can physics account for gender dynamics in a particular country?  why does no one abstain from the pissing contest between the humanities and the sciences?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why is it such a big deal to acknowledge that science is like every other academic discipline in many respects .
people argue - some concepts endure , others fall out of favor quickly .
science has no special claim to an " accurate representation of reality " - can physics account for gender dynamics in a particular country ?
why does no one abstain from the pissing contest between the humanities and the sciences ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is it such a big deal to acknowledge that science is like every other academic discipline in many respects.
people argue - some concepts endure, others fall out of favor quickly.
science has no special claim to an "accurate representation of reality" - can physics account for gender dynamics in a particular country?
why does no one abstain from the pissing contest between the humanities and the sciences?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389600</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You insensitive clod...my name is Joe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You insensitive clod...my name is Joe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You insensitive clod...my name is Joe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389454</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to disagree. Science should be "open source", however it was not possible for other researchers, let alone the "average" person, to collect the data that these researchers at the CRU claimed to have had.<br>This is the heart of the matter. If we find that researchers are not only hoarding their data, but altering the raw data, then why should we trust them anymore than we do, say lawyers?<br>The complexities of the climate are not as simple as going through textbooks and determining the proofs.<br>After working at a University for years, I am not surprised by Climategate. Researchers are often self-centered and willing to go to great lengths to ensure the research dollars flow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to disagree .
Science should be " open source " , however it was not possible for other researchers , let alone the " average " person , to collect the data that these researchers at the CRU claimed to have had.This is the heart of the matter .
If we find that researchers are not only hoarding their data , but altering the raw data , then why should we trust them anymore than we do , say lawyers ? The complexities of the climate are not as simple as going through textbooks and determining the proofs.After working at a University for years , I am not surprised by Climategate .
Researchers are often self-centered and willing to go to great lengths to ensure the research dollars flow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to disagree.
Science should be "open source", however it was not possible for other researchers, let alone the "average" person, to collect the data that these researchers at the CRU claimed to have had.This is the heart of the matter.
If we find that researchers are not only hoarding their data, but altering the raw data, then why should we trust them anymore than we do, say lawyers?The complexities of the climate are not as simple as going through textbooks and determining the proofs.After working at a University for years, I am not surprised by Climategate.
Researchers are often self-centered and willing to go to great lengths to ensure the research dollars flow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391704</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260473340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>cf: <a href="http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html" title="wisc.edu" rel="nofollow">Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Ass
</a> [wisc.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>cf : Electron Band Structure In Germanium , My Ass [ wisc.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cf: Electron Band Structure In Germanium, My Ass
 [wisc.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389650</id>
	<title>Religion Killed Galileo this is different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Galileo was not funded by the people who persecuted and censored him. He did science for the discovery. They persecuted him because his science damaged their religious belief, that a grey haired old man and his son lived above the clouds and we were their only responsibility. Thus we must be the center of the universe.</p><p>The is difference. Today's scientists are funded by groups or governments and feel they must satisfy "Dad" in order to keep suckling at the ripe green ($) breasts of Uncle Sam (or other funders).</p><p>No one does science for discovery anymore, they do it for money. -<br>Proof - commercials on the discovery channel, and the price of medicine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Galileo was not funded by the people who persecuted and censored him .
He did science for the discovery .
They persecuted him because his science damaged their religious belief , that a grey haired old man and his son lived above the clouds and we were their only responsibility .
Thus we must be the center of the universe.The is difference .
Today 's scientists are funded by groups or governments and feel they must satisfy " Dad " in order to keep suckling at the ripe green ( $ ) breasts of Uncle Sam ( or other funders ) .No one does science for discovery anymore , they do it for money .
-Proof - commercials on the discovery channel , and the price of medicine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Galileo was not funded by the people who persecuted and censored him.
He did science for the discovery.
They persecuted him because his science damaged their religious belief, that a grey haired old man and his son lived above the clouds and we were their only responsibility.
Thus we must be the center of the universe.The is difference.
Today's scientists are funded by groups or governments and feel they must satisfy "Dad" in order to keep suckling at the ripe green ($) breasts of Uncle Sam (or other funders).No one does science for discovery anymore, they do it for money.
-Proof - commercials on the discovery channel, and the price of medicine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389520</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1260466500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree except way to much about Climate change is spouted by none scientist and a lot of it is just wrong.<br>I have seen people state that we could cause the earth to burn up like Venus... No climatologist believes that.<br>Or the those extremely active Hurricane seasons and Katrina was caused by Global warming.... No they where not.<br>Guess what we have been in a down turn in Hurricanes so does that mean Global Warming stopped. No it means that was not true.<br>Global warming has become a boogie man like vaccines and cellphones and is getting blamed for every bad weather day on the planet.<br>Heck I have heard people blame blizzards on Global Warming!<br>Heck I do think global warming is a valid theory and I am all for cutting carbon emissions but the FUD I see about it makes me crazy.<br>And those that say you have to scare people to get them to act are not teaching science. They are playing politics with science and making science less trusted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree except way to much about Climate change is spouted by none scientist and a lot of it is just wrong.I have seen people state that we could cause the earth to burn up like Venus... No climatologist believes that.Or the those extremely active Hurricane seasons and Katrina was caused by Global warming.... No they where not.Guess what we have been in a down turn in Hurricanes so does that mean Global Warming stopped .
No it means that was not true.Global warming has become a boogie man like vaccines and cellphones and is getting blamed for every bad weather day on the planet.Heck I have heard people blame blizzards on Global Warming ! Heck I do think global warming is a valid theory and I am all for cutting carbon emissions but the FUD I see about it makes me crazy.And those that say you have to scare people to get them to act are not teaching science .
They are playing politics with science and making science less trusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree except way to much about Climate change is spouted by none scientist and a lot of it is just wrong.I have seen people state that we could cause the earth to burn up like Venus... No climatologist believes that.Or the those extremely active Hurricane seasons and Katrina was caused by Global warming.... No they where not.Guess what we have been in a down turn in Hurricanes so does that mean Global Warming stopped.
No it means that was not true.Global warming has become a boogie man like vaccines and cellphones and is getting blamed for every bad weather day on the planet.Heck I have heard people blame blizzards on Global Warming!Heck I do think global warming is a valid theory and I am all for cutting carbon emissions but the FUD I see about it makes me crazy.And those that say you have to scare people to get them to act are not teaching science.
They are playing politics with science and making science less trusted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397802</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1260458340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches, or their new TV is even thinner.</p></div><p>They didn't believe it when they were riding in canoes for the past 10,000 years, or walking around in multi-floor buildings for the past 5,000 years. Why would they believe it now? <br> <br>For the most part, people can go about their lives with very little, or even fuzzy ambiguous understandings of the science. I can hook up a computer network, but I certainly don't believe any of the science -- I've seen the equations of electromagnetism and information theory, and I don't understand them one whit! I certainly can't believe something I don't understand, now can I?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches , or their new TV is even thinner.They did n't believe it when they were riding in canoes for the past 10,000 years , or walking around in multi-floor buildings for the past 5,000 years .
Why would they believe it now ?
For the most part , people can go about their lives with very little , or even fuzzy ambiguous understandings of the science .
I can hook up a computer network , but I certainly do n't believe any of the science -- I 've seen the equations of electromagnetism and information theory , and I do n't understand them one whit !
I certainly ca n't believe something I do n't understand , now can I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches, or their new TV is even thinner.They didn't believe it when they were riding in canoes for the past 10,000 years, or walking around in multi-floor buildings for the past 5,000 years.
Why would they believe it now?
For the most part, people can go about their lives with very little, or even fuzzy ambiguous understandings of the science.
I can hook up a computer network, but I certainly don't believe any of the science -- I've seen the equations of electromagnetism and information theory, and I don't understand them one whit!
I certainly can't believe something I don't understand, now can I?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389324</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I'm not seeing people doubt one scientist in favor of another (or heaven forbid, in favor of their own research). I see people doubting scientists but latching onto the unscientific opinion of the loudest radio host, the biggest corporation, or the godliest god.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm not seeing people doubt one scientist in favor of another ( or heaven forbid , in favor of their own research ) .
I see people doubting scientists but latching onto the unscientific opinion of the loudest radio host , the biggest corporation , or the godliest god .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm not seeing people doubt one scientist in favor of another (or heaven forbid, in favor of their own research).
I see people doubting scientists but latching onto the unscientific opinion of the loudest radio host, the biggest corporation, or the godliest god.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393506</id>
	<title>Re:Skeptical of science?</title>
	<author>BgJonson79</author>
	<datestamp>1260436920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if televangelists and pedo priests aren't Christian (you need to follow Christ to be a Christian), how can they be in the same boat as climatologists who are scamming folks?  After all, isn't a climatologist a climatologist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if televangelists and pedo priests are n't Christian ( you need to follow Christ to be a Christian ) , how can they be in the same boat as climatologists who are scamming folks ?
After all , is n't a climatologist a climatologist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if televangelists and pedo priests aren't Christian (you need to follow Christ to be a Christian), how can they be in the same boat as climatologists who are scamming folks?
After all, isn't a climatologist a climatologist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392726</id>
	<title>Re:These "scientists" weren't</title>
	<author>antibryce</author>
	<datestamp>1260477180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and yet they were discussing deleting this data just this summer, rather than hand it over to a FOI request.  curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and yet they were discussing deleting this data just this summer , rather than hand it over to a FOI request .
curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and yet they were discussing deleting this data just this summer, rather than hand it over to a FOI request.
curious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248</id>
	<title>Peer Review and Grant Awards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The WSJ article understates the problem.   The Climategate emails reveal that the partisan scientists have undermined the peer review process itself.   It can only be made right be re-peer-reviewing all climate papers re-submitted in the past 20 years.  Some rejected should not have been and some accepted should not have been.</p><p>One can't help be reminded that while peer-review is the right hand, grant-review is the left.   If the peer review is undermined then so isn't the awards of money.</p><p>Climate debate aside, we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists.  Any suggestions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The WSJ article understates the problem .
The Climategate emails reveal that the partisan scientists have undermined the peer review process itself .
It can only be made right be re-peer-reviewing all climate papers re-submitted in the past 20 years .
Some rejected should not have been and some accepted should not have been.One ca n't help be reminded that while peer-review is the right hand , grant-review is the left .
If the peer review is undermined then so is n't the awards of money.Climate debate aside , we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists .
Any suggestions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The WSJ article understates the problem.
The Climategate emails reveal that the partisan scientists have undermined the peer review process itself.
It can only be made right be re-peer-reviewing all climate papers re-submitted in the past 20 years.
Some rejected should not have been and some accepted should not have been.One can't help be reminded that while peer-review is the right hand, grant-review is the left.
If the peer review is undermined then so isn't the awards of money.Climate debate aside, we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists.
Any suggestions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396498</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1260448680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous Joes elect the corporate sock puppets they are offered to vote for.</p><p>The particular party is just an illusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous Joes elect the corporate sock puppets they are offered to vote for.The particular party is just an illusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous Joes elect the corporate sock puppets they are offered to vote for.The particular party is just an illusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389142</id>
	<title>The scientific risk model</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1260465300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues."</p></div><p>Scientific Community: There is a difficult-to-calculate chance that the Earth is undergoing warming caused by the actions of humans and that this will do irreparable damage to the planet.

</p><p>The mathematical reaction is to (a) assess the "cost" of the potential damage (i.e. the risk) and (b) the likelihood of the occurrence actually happening.  This is basic stuff.  Wikipedia does <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk\_management#Assessment" title="wikipedia.org">a better job explaining it</a> [wikipedia.org] than I could.  But suffice it to say, when the risk is "the planet" there is a very good reason to follow what TFA is calling "a precautionary approach" even when the likelihood of science being correct is quite low.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EPA admitted " varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues .
" Scientific Community : There is a difficult-to-calculate chance that the Earth is undergoing warming caused by the actions of humans and that this will do irreparable damage to the planet .
The mathematical reaction is to ( a ) assess the " cost " of the potential damage ( i.e .
the risk ) and ( b ) the likelihood of the occurrence actually happening .
This is basic stuff .
Wikipedia does a better job explaining it [ wikipedia.org ] than I could .
But suffice it to say , when the risk is " the planet " there is a very good reason to follow what TFA is calling " a precautionary approach " even when the likelihood of science being correct is quite low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues.
"Scientific Community: There is a difficult-to-calculate chance that the Earth is undergoing warming caused by the actions of humans and that this will do irreparable damage to the planet.
The mathematical reaction is to (a) assess the "cost" of the potential damage (i.e.
the risk) and (b) the likelihood of the occurrence actually happening.
This is basic stuff.
Wikipedia does a better job explaining it [wikipedia.org] than I could.
But suffice it to say, when the risk is "the planet" there is a very good reason to follow what TFA is calling "a precautionary approach" even when the likelihood of science being correct is quite low.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389684</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1260466920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why IBM, Microsoft, etc., have such small R&amp;D departments, of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why IBM , Microsoft , etc. , have such small R&amp;D departments , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why IBM, Microsoft, etc., have such small R&amp;D departments, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395598</id>
	<title>Re:Peer Review and Grant Awards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260444900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been thinking along the same lines recently and had a few ideas.  They aren't perfect, of course, but it's a start.</p><p>let me start of off by saying, though, that I think the peer review process has been corrupted, but not necessarily by the writers of the CRU emails.  IN this case, and in the evolution-vs-intelligent design case, the journal editors are essentially being griefed, and they know they're being griefed.  There are a small number of scientific griefers out there determined, to either corrupt the peer review process, bypass the peer review process by creating their own journals, or eschewing the process and going directly to the media, courts, or legislative bodies.</p><p>They know that they are gaming the system, relying on good-will of editors, and if they don't get their way, they can raise enough political hay to get the public to tune out on the whole thing and dismiss the entire process as corrupt.  This is a tried and true tactic, because the ultimate goal is to increase cynicism and doubt, but because without certainty there can be no action, and most all, entrenched forces fear action.</p><p>If you don't see it as much in this case, consider the intelligent design movement.  They have outright stated in memos that the goal is to create 'controversy and doubt'.  I can't imagine how frustrating it is as a journal editor to continually receive those garbage papers that ignore existing literature, make valid contributions, do not increase predictive abilities etc, etc.</p><p>But having said all that, I think you're right, the process can be better.  The way it works now (generally) is a paper is submitted to an editor (usually a hierarchy of editors).  An editor does a first pass, then assigns reviewers.  The review system is typically double-blind, so the reviewers don't know who wrote the paper and vice-versa.  That sounds good, but the editor has too much power in assigning reviewers.  You really need a quadruple blind, not a double blind.</p><p>What is needed is some sort review exchange, wherein, non of the parties know the identify of the other parties.  The system could verify the identies with some sort of cryptographic key system, but you would be limited to choosing reviewers based on some objective and non-identifying qualities.  Some of those might be fields of expertise, number of published works in field (but not titles), number of pieces reviewed, ratio of reviewing conflicts with other reviewers etc.  So ideally the system would do all the matching.  You submit your paper to the exchange, and it figures out the papers value through objective assignment and review.</p><p>So it's not completely reviewer agnostic...you would still have the idea of 'conventional wisdom' built in because reviewers would tend to agree on certain concepts and those concepts would be harder to overturn as the number of anonymous reviewers that held that concept increased.</p><p>But you would take a bit of the personal subjectivity out of it.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been thinking along the same lines recently and had a few ideas .
They are n't perfect , of course , but it 's a start.let me start of off by saying , though , that I think the peer review process has been corrupted , but not necessarily by the writers of the CRU emails .
IN this case , and in the evolution-vs-intelligent design case , the journal editors are essentially being griefed , and they know they 're being griefed .
There are a small number of scientific griefers out there determined , to either corrupt the peer review process , bypass the peer review process by creating their own journals , or eschewing the process and going directly to the media , courts , or legislative bodies.They know that they are gaming the system , relying on good-will of editors , and if they do n't get their way , they can raise enough political hay to get the public to tune out on the whole thing and dismiss the entire process as corrupt .
This is a tried and true tactic , because the ultimate goal is to increase cynicism and doubt , but because without certainty there can be no action , and most all , entrenched forces fear action.If you do n't see it as much in this case , consider the intelligent design movement .
They have outright stated in memos that the goal is to create 'controversy and doubt' .
I ca n't imagine how frustrating it is as a journal editor to continually receive those garbage papers that ignore existing literature , make valid contributions , do not increase predictive abilities etc , etc.But having said all that , I think you 're right , the process can be better .
The way it works now ( generally ) is a paper is submitted to an editor ( usually a hierarchy of editors ) .
An editor does a first pass , then assigns reviewers .
The review system is typically double-blind , so the reviewers do n't know who wrote the paper and vice-versa .
That sounds good , but the editor has too much power in assigning reviewers .
You really need a quadruple blind , not a double blind.What is needed is some sort review exchange , wherein , non of the parties know the identify of the other parties .
The system could verify the identies with some sort of cryptographic key system , but you would be limited to choosing reviewers based on some objective and non-identifying qualities .
Some of those might be fields of expertise , number of published works in field ( but not titles ) , number of pieces reviewed , ratio of reviewing conflicts with other reviewers etc .
So ideally the system would do all the matching .
You submit your paper to the exchange , and it figures out the papers value through objective assignment and review.So it 's not completely reviewer agnostic...you would still have the idea of 'conventional wisdom ' built in because reviewers would tend to agree on certain concepts and those concepts would be harder to overturn as the number of anonymous reviewers that held that concept increased.But you would take a bit of the personal subjectivity out of it .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been thinking along the same lines recently and had a few ideas.
They aren't perfect, of course, but it's a start.let me start of off by saying, though, that I think the peer review process has been corrupted, but not necessarily by the writers of the CRU emails.
IN this case, and in the evolution-vs-intelligent design case, the journal editors are essentially being griefed, and they know they're being griefed.
There are a small number of scientific griefers out there determined, to either corrupt the peer review process, bypass the peer review process by creating their own journals, or eschewing the process and going directly to the media, courts, or legislative bodies.They know that they are gaming the system, relying on good-will of editors, and if they don't get their way, they can raise enough political hay to get the public to tune out on the whole thing and dismiss the entire process as corrupt.
This is a tried and true tactic, because the ultimate goal is to increase cynicism and doubt, but because without certainty there can be no action, and most all, entrenched forces fear action.If you don't see it as much in this case, consider the intelligent design movement.
They have outright stated in memos that the goal is to create 'controversy and doubt'.
I can't imagine how frustrating it is as a journal editor to continually receive those garbage papers that ignore existing literature, make valid contributions, do not increase predictive abilities etc, etc.But having said all that, I think you're right, the process can be better.
The way it works now (generally) is a paper is submitted to an editor (usually a hierarchy of editors).
An editor does a first pass, then assigns reviewers.
The review system is typically double-blind, so the reviewers don't know who wrote the paper and vice-versa.
That sounds good, but the editor has too much power in assigning reviewers.
You really need a quadruple blind, not a double blind.What is needed is some sort review exchange, wherein, non of the parties know the identify of the other parties.
The system could verify the identies with some sort of cryptographic key system, but you would be limited to choosing reviewers based on some objective and non-identifying qualities.
Some of those might be fields of expertise, number of published works in field (but not titles), number of pieces reviewed, ratio of reviewing conflicts with other reviewers etc.
So ideally the system would do all the matching.
You submit your paper to the exchange, and it figures out the papers value through objective assignment and review.So it's not completely reviewer agnostic...you would still have the idea of 'conventional wisdom' built in because reviewers would tend to agree on certain concepts and those concepts would be harder to overturn as the number of anonymous reviewers that held that concept increased.But you would take a bit of the personal subjectivity out of it.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390980</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Cedric Tsui</author>
	<datestamp>1260470880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you seen this <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur\_benjamin\_s\_formula\_for\_changing\_math\_education.html" title="ted.com">TED talk?</a> [ted.com] I think you'll find you agree with the speaker's opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen this TED talk ?
[ ted.com ] I think you 'll find you agree with the speaker 's opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen this TED talk?
[ted.com] I think you'll find you agree with the speaker's opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391198</id>
	<title>Re:Science costs money, ergo...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260471600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not everywhere in the world the founding of science works as in the USA.</p><p>For example in Italy where I work, professors and researches most often have permanent positions, and by permanent I mean that even if they<br>completely stop working they CANNOT be fired.<br>A quota of funding is not assigned on projects, but distributed between professors without considering number of publications or any other merit criteria.</p><p>In practice supporting non orthodox views won't create you any problem. We have a vice-director of CNR (main national research institute) which<br>is a creationist. (Sigh)</p><p>Regards the useful science requiring money, that is not so true in a lot of fields: I work in the computer graphics fields and all I need is a decent computer... (and lot's of coffee of course).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everywhere in the world the founding of science works as in the USA.For example in Italy where I work , professors and researches most often have permanent positions , and by permanent I mean that even if theycompletely stop working they CAN NOT be fired.A quota of funding is not assigned on projects , but distributed between professors without considering number of publications or any other merit criteria.In practice supporting non orthodox views wo n't create you any problem .
We have a vice-director of CNR ( main national research institute ) whichis a creationist .
( Sigh ) Regards the useful science requiring money , that is not so true in a lot of fields : I work in the computer graphics fields and all I need is a decent computer... ( and lot 's of coffee of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everywhere in the world the founding of science works as in the USA.For example in Italy where I work, professors and researches most often have permanent positions, and by permanent I mean that even if theycompletely stop working they CANNOT be fired.A quota of funding is not assigned on projects, but distributed between professors without considering number of publications or any other merit criteria.In practice supporting non orthodox views won't create you any problem.
We have a vice-director of CNR (main national research institute) whichis a creationist.
(Sigh)Regards the useful science requiring money, that is not so true in a lot of fields: I work in the computer graphics fields and all I need is a decent computer... (and lot's of coffee of course).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390480</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1260469260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no global warming: The effect is well localized to the earth, the rest of the universe is not affected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no global warming : The effect is well localized to the earth , the rest of the universe is not affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no global warming: The effect is well localized to the earth, the rest of the universe is not affected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388996</id>
	<title>Storm in a teacup</title>
	<author>CoccoBill</author>
	<datestamp>1260464820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this sums it up fairly well: </p><p>

<a href="http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886" title="rifters.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886</a> [rifters.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this sums it up fairly well : http : //www.rifters.com/crawl/ ? p = 886 [ rifters.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this sums it up fairly well: 

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886 [rifters.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389722</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because the scientific method cannot strictly be applied to all aspects of climatology  does not mean that it is totally beyond the purview of science.  Physical laws do not change with time and hence it is reasonable, and scientific, to predict conditions of both the past and the future, as climatologists do, based upon an understanding of the present.  But whereas the climate of past ages may be forever inaccessible and ultimately purely speculative, the future will eventually come to pass allowing a meaningful test of current projections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because the scientific method can not strictly be applied to all aspects of climatology does not mean that it is totally beyond the purview of science .
Physical laws do not change with time and hence it is reasonable , and scientific , to predict conditions of both the past and the future , as climatologists do , based upon an understanding of the present .
But whereas the climate of past ages may be forever inaccessible and ultimately purely speculative , the future will eventually come to pass allowing a meaningful test of current projections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because the scientific method cannot strictly be applied to all aspects of climatology  does not mean that it is totally beyond the purview of science.
Physical laws do not change with time and hence it is reasonable, and scientific, to predict conditions of both the past and the future, as climatologists do, based upon an understanding of the present.
But whereas the climate of past ages may be forever inaccessible and ultimately purely speculative, the future will eventually come to pass allowing a meaningful test of current projections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389446</id>
	<title>Re:These "scientists" weren't</title>
	<author>rally2xs</author>
	<datestamp>1260466260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.</p><p>It has been fairly obvious by observing the presentation of these findings that the political agenda is driving the data. The whole thing is just too illogical to take seriously.</p><p>For example, the AGW bunch is hard over to control CO2, however much non-cooperation that comes from the direction of India and China, negating the results of pouring far more money than anyone can afford to attain results that will be insufficient to the goal.  Their own pronouncements (I remember something like a sub-1-degree improvement from the Kyoto treaty by the end of the century, where even the signers failed to achieve compliance) fueled credibility problems.</p><p>Adding to the credibility problems is the complete refusal to consider geoengineering approaches to the problem, some of which are quite inexpensive.  The idea of a tipping point was foisted on the public, while the public reads in various news places about shooting sulphur into the atmoshphere to negate warming (which is unnecesssary at the moment, since we seem to be freezing our tails off if we're anywhere in the midwest...)  The AGW proponents fail to consider or refute these approaches, which leaves the general public wondering what they're trying to pull.</p><p>The general public, a lot of them, believe that AGW is a fraud.  Failure of the AGW crowd to address / embrace / refute geoengineering alternatives, while they press ahead with a singular goal of attacking CO2, which seems more effective at bankrupting the USA in particular than it does at reducing CO2, is extremely suspect to most anyone that gives it some thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.It has been fairly obvious by observing the presentation of these findings that the political agenda is driving the data .
The whole thing is just too illogical to take seriously.For example , the AGW bunch is hard over to control CO2 , however much non-cooperation that comes from the direction of India and China , negating the results of pouring far more money than anyone can afford to attain results that will be insufficient to the goal .
Their own pronouncements ( I remember something like a sub-1-degree improvement from the Kyoto treaty by the end of the century , where even the signers failed to achieve compliance ) fueled credibility problems.Adding to the credibility problems is the complete refusal to consider geoengineering approaches to the problem , some of which are quite inexpensive .
The idea of a tipping point was foisted on the public , while the public reads in various news places about shooting sulphur into the atmoshphere to negate warming ( which is unnecesssary at the moment , since we seem to be freezing our tails off if we 're anywhere in the midwest... ) The AGW proponents fail to consider or refute these approaches , which leaves the general public wondering what they 're trying to pull.The general public , a lot of them , believe that AGW is a fraud .
Failure of the AGW crowd to address / embrace / refute geoengineering alternatives , while they press ahead with a singular goal of attacking CO2 , which seems more effective at bankrupting the USA in particular than it does at reducing CO2 , is extremely suspect to most anyone that gives it some thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.It has been fairly obvious by observing the presentation of these findings that the political agenda is driving the data.
The whole thing is just too illogical to take seriously.For example, the AGW bunch is hard over to control CO2, however much non-cooperation that comes from the direction of India and China, negating the results of pouring far more money than anyone can afford to attain results that will be insufficient to the goal.
Their own pronouncements (I remember something like a sub-1-degree improvement from the Kyoto treaty by the end of the century, where even the signers failed to achieve compliance) fueled credibility problems.Adding to the credibility problems is the complete refusal to consider geoengineering approaches to the problem, some of which are quite inexpensive.
The idea of a tipping point was foisted on the public, while the public reads in various news places about shooting sulphur into the atmoshphere to negate warming (which is unnecesssary at the moment, since we seem to be freezing our tails off if we're anywhere in the midwest...)  The AGW proponents fail to consider or refute these approaches, which leaves the general public wondering what they're trying to pull.The general public, a lot of them, believe that AGW is a fraud.
Failure of the AGW crowd to address / embrace / refute geoengineering alternatives, while they press ahead with a singular goal of attacking CO2, which seems more effective at bankrupting the USA in particular than it does at reducing CO2, is extremely suspect to most anyone that gives it some thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392216</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260475080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the democrats?  or the 'politicians?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the democrats ?
or the 'politicians ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the democrats?
or the 'politicians?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390238</id>
	<title>List out the most famous scientists</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1260468600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Watson and Crick, Feynman, Heisenberg, etc.</p><p>Did they become famous by the degree with which they adhered to the leading theories of their day? Not exactly.</p><p>Scientists achieve professional success by achieving important results--showing the shortcomings of the current theory, and (importantly) proving that their approach is more correct.</p><p>The idea that all scientists march in lock step in order to maintain funding is a myth. For one thing, it begs the question because the "current theory" must have diverged from prior theory at some point in time. If all scientists march in lock step, how was that possible?</p><p>For another thing it disregards the lessons of scientific history--he who proves everyone else wrong, wins. Of course each scientist has their own failings, biases, and preconceived notions. But the point is that he (or she) has to prove it, objectively, to other scientists. Merely pointing out that a scientist is capable of failure is not counterproof to their scientific findings. Einstein was ultimately wrong about quantum mechanics because he wished to believe in a deterministic universe. That does not take away from the many areas in which he was proved correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Galileo , Newton , Einstein , Watson and Crick , Feynman , Heisenberg , etc.Did they become famous by the degree with which they adhered to the leading theories of their day ?
Not exactly.Scientists achieve professional success by achieving important results--showing the shortcomings of the current theory , and ( importantly ) proving that their approach is more correct.The idea that all scientists march in lock step in order to maintain funding is a myth .
For one thing , it begs the question because the " current theory " must have diverged from prior theory at some point in time .
If all scientists march in lock step , how was that possible ? For another thing it disregards the lessons of scientific history--he who proves everyone else wrong , wins .
Of course each scientist has their own failings , biases , and preconceived notions .
But the point is that he ( or she ) has to prove it , objectively , to other scientists .
Merely pointing out that a scientist is capable of failure is not counterproof to their scientific findings .
Einstein was ultimately wrong about quantum mechanics because he wished to believe in a deterministic universe .
That does not take away from the many areas in which he was proved correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Watson and Crick, Feynman, Heisenberg, etc.Did they become famous by the degree with which they adhered to the leading theories of their day?
Not exactly.Scientists achieve professional success by achieving important results--showing the shortcomings of the current theory, and (importantly) proving that their approach is more correct.The idea that all scientists march in lock step in order to maintain funding is a myth.
For one thing, it begs the question because the "current theory" must have diverged from prior theory at some point in time.
If all scientists march in lock step, how was that possible?For another thing it disregards the lessons of scientific history--he who proves everyone else wrong, wins.
Of course each scientist has their own failings, biases, and preconceived notions.
But the point is that he (or she) has to prove it, objectively, to other scientists.
Merely pointing out that a scientist is capable of failure is not counterproof to their scientific findings.
Einstein was ultimately wrong about quantum mechanics because he wished to believe in a deterministic universe.
That does not take away from the many areas in which he was proved correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388896</id>
	<title>Nobody deserves a free pass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more science is viewed with skepticism the better the science will be in my opinion.</p><p>*Science* doesn't care how much political capitol you have, doesn't care what your personal beliefs are, and doesn't care if a new discovery shakes you to your core.  It also doesn't care what the general public believes and it doesn't care if it's not popular.</p><p>Ultimately the truth will prevail - even it means turning over 100's of years of *scientific* research.  At some point the clue hammer strikes and at that point there is not turning back.</p><p>The dangers of mixing money, power, and politics with science is that message is perverted, skewed, slanted, and sometimes a flat-out lie.  The lies do nothing to further science - only to further funding for research in what may or may not be "the right road".</p><p>Remember what they said in "Men in Black"  - "1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the centre of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know... tomorrow."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more science is viewed with skepticism the better the science will be in my opinion .
* Science * does n't care how much political capitol you have , does n't care what your personal beliefs are , and does n't care if a new discovery shakes you to your core .
It also does n't care what the general public believes and it does n't care if it 's not popular.Ultimately the truth will prevail - even it means turning over 100 's of years of * scientific * research .
At some point the clue hammer strikes and at that point there is not turning back.The dangers of mixing money , power , and politics with science is that message is perverted , skewed , slanted , and sometimes a flat-out lie .
The lies do nothing to further science - only to further funding for research in what may or may not be " the right road " .Remember what they said in " Men in Black " - " 1500 years ago , everybody knew that the Earth was the centre of the universe .
500 years ago , everybody knew that the Earth was flat .
And 15 minutes ago , you knew that humans were alone on this planet .
Imagine what you 'll know.. .
tomorrow. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more science is viewed with skepticism the better the science will be in my opinion.
*Science* doesn't care how much political capitol you have, doesn't care what your personal beliefs are, and doesn't care if a new discovery shakes you to your core.
It also doesn't care what the general public believes and it doesn't care if it's not popular.Ultimately the truth will prevail - even it means turning over 100's of years of *scientific* research.
At some point the clue hammer strikes and at that point there is not turning back.The dangers of mixing money, power, and politics with science is that message is perverted, skewed, slanted, and sometimes a flat-out lie.
The lies do nothing to further science - only to further funding for research in what may or may not be "the right road".Remember what they said in "Men in Black"  - "1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the centre of the universe.
500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat.
And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet.
Imagine what you'll know...
tomorrow."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392182</id>
	<title>Re:Science will do just fine...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260475020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time something happened on this scale was back in times of Galileo when the Church fought attempts to dethrone the Earth as center of the universe. Of course, reality won. Roman Catholic church only exonerated Galileo in 1990s FFS!! Yes, the Earth is round and the sun does not orbit the Earth!!</p><p>Now we have a similar thing with human induced climate change. Science says 95+\% caused by humans and it will accelerate costing economy trillions per year within decades. But this time it is the retarded men that is at odds with science, not the elite (except maybe Saudi and Exxon elite). Science has already won, it is only whether the stupid public heeds the warning or pays the cost. Considering our lack of control regarding spending (ie. passing the burden down the road), breeding, garbage, deforestation and mass extinctions over last 100 years, I sadly have to say that the warnings will be ignored.</p><p>With stupid shit going on like "Carbon Offsets" and similar quick-rich schemes, emissions will not go down, only increase. Mercury pollution of oceans and other water bodies will increase as more coal is burnt. Gasoline will only be phased out once there is no "cheap" oil in the ground, but that will take a while. This planet will sooner turn to Venus than people stop driving their cars.</p><p>Too bad we only have 1 planet as we are polluting if living on 20.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time something happened on this scale was back in times of Galileo when the Church fought attempts to dethrone the Earth as center of the universe .
Of course , reality won .
Roman Catholic church only exonerated Galileo in 1990s FFS ! !
Yes , the Earth is round and the sun does not orbit the Earth !
! Now we have a similar thing with human induced climate change .
Science says 95 + \ % caused by humans and it will accelerate costing economy trillions per year within decades .
But this time it is the retarded men that is at odds with science , not the elite ( except maybe Saudi and Exxon elite ) .
Science has already won , it is only whether the stupid public heeds the warning or pays the cost .
Considering our lack of control regarding spending ( ie .
passing the burden down the road ) , breeding , garbage , deforestation and mass extinctions over last 100 years , I sadly have to say that the warnings will be ignored.With stupid shit going on like " Carbon Offsets " and similar quick-rich schemes , emissions will not go down , only increase .
Mercury pollution of oceans and other water bodies will increase as more coal is burnt .
Gasoline will only be phased out once there is no " cheap " oil in the ground , but that will take a while .
This planet will sooner turn to Venus than people stop driving their cars.Too bad we only have 1 planet as we are polluting if living on 20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time something happened on this scale was back in times of Galileo when the Church fought attempts to dethrone the Earth as center of the universe.
Of course, reality won.
Roman Catholic church only exonerated Galileo in 1990s FFS!!
Yes, the Earth is round and the sun does not orbit the Earth!
!Now we have a similar thing with human induced climate change.
Science says 95+\% caused by humans and it will accelerate costing economy trillions per year within decades.
But this time it is the retarded men that is at odds with science, not the elite (except maybe Saudi and Exxon elite).
Science has already won, it is only whether the stupid public heeds the warning or pays the cost.
Considering our lack of control regarding spending (ie.
passing the burden down the road), breeding, garbage, deforestation and mass extinctions over last 100 years, I sadly have to say that the warnings will be ignored.With stupid shit going on like "Carbon Offsets" and similar quick-rich schemes, emissions will not go down, only increase.
Mercury pollution of oceans and other water bodies will increase as more coal is burnt.
Gasoline will only be phased out once there is no "cheap" oil in the ground, but that will take a while.
This planet will sooner turn to Venus than people stop driving their cars.Too bad we only have 1 planet as we are polluting if living on 20.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390892</id>
	<title>Governmental Evil</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260470580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        The Bush administration pushed scientists into being quiet or not reporting scientific conclusions. That does represent a real loss in credibility to the scientific community as many scientists complied with the Bush party line.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The other part of the problem is that people are tricked into disbelief in science when they are manipulated by phonies who try to generate a position for themselves by claiming that science is challenging traditional beliefs that are outside of scientific research. For example Darwinism does not imply that atheism is a correct belief system. But many back woods preachers rant that Darwinism and atheism are one and the same thing. Somehow it escapes these peoples' grasp that God could use evolution in creating the world as we know it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bush administration pushed scientists into being quiet or not reporting scientific conclusions .
That does represent a real loss in credibility to the scientific community as many scientists complied with the Bush party line .
                The other part of the problem is that people are tricked into disbelief in science when they are manipulated by phonies who try to generate a position for themselves by claiming that science is challenging traditional beliefs that are outside of scientific research .
For example Darwinism does not imply that atheism is a correct belief system .
But many back woods preachers rant that Darwinism and atheism are one and the same thing .
Somehow it escapes these peoples ' grasp that God could use evolution in creating the world as we know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        The Bush administration pushed scientists into being quiet or not reporting scientific conclusions.
That does represent a real loss in credibility to the scientific community as many scientists complied with the Bush party line.
                The other part of the problem is that people are tricked into disbelief in science when they are manipulated by phonies who try to generate a position for themselves by claiming that science is challenging traditional beliefs that are outside of scientific research.
For example Darwinism does not imply that atheism is a correct belief system.
But many back woods preachers rant that Darwinism and atheism are one and the same thing.
Somehow it escapes these peoples' grasp that God could use evolution in creating the world as we know it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388988</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>MontyApollo</author>
	<datestamp>1260464820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about "automatically doubting," but people will, in certain specific subjects, assume they are smarter than the scientists, even though sometimes the full extent of their science education is the minimum high school requirement. Evolution is a prime example of this. Climate science has moved strongly that direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about " automatically doubting , " but people will , in certain specific subjects , assume they are smarter than the scientists , even though sometimes the full extent of their science education is the minimum high school requirement .
Evolution is a prime example of this .
Climate science has moved strongly that direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about "automatically doubting," but people will, in certain specific subjects, assume they are smarter than the scientists, even though sometimes the full extent of their science education is the minimum high school requirement.
Evolution is a prime example of this.
Climate science has moved strongly that direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391084</id>
	<title>fanatical transparency is the answer</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1260471240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no paywalls on journals: put it all on an open peer reviewed internet site. allow anyone to comment (who is a serious scientist)</p><p>all internal communications, specifically related to the subject matter, placed on an open log</p><p>nothing is lost by doing this, nothing can be feared to be revealed. there's nothing to hide</p><p>the issue with hard science versus the soft sciences, or, in this case, versus political partisan hack jobs, is that hard science can withstand rigorous analysis. because such rigorous second guessing is the very essence of what science is: its nothing more than the accumulation of the most likely explanations for what we see in our natural world... until anomalous data comes along that requires a new explanation, which is what makes challenging and exciting</p><p>fanatical transparency is not a problem at all for what science is supposed to be. therefore, hard science is in a position to be the most trusted set of institutions in all of modern society, were it to actually submit itself to this regime</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no paywalls on journals : put it all on an open peer reviewed internet site .
allow anyone to comment ( who is a serious scientist ) all internal communications , specifically related to the subject matter , placed on an open lognothing is lost by doing this , nothing can be feared to be revealed .
there 's nothing to hidethe issue with hard science versus the soft sciences , or , in this case , versus political partisan hack jobs , is that hard science can withstand rigorous analysis .
because such rigorous second guessing is the very essence of what science is : its nothing more than the accumulation of the most likely explanations for what we see in our natural world... until anomalous data comes along that requires a new explanation , which is what makes challenging and excitingfanatical transparency is not a problem at all for what science is supposed to be .
therefore , hard science is in a position to be the most trusted set of institutions in all of modern society , were it to actually submit itself to this regime</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no paywalls on journals: put it all on an open peer reviewed internet site.
allow anyone to comment (who is a serious scientist)all internal communications, specifically related to the subject matter, placed on an open lognothing is lost by doing this, nothing can be feared to be revealed.
there's nothing to hidethe issue with hard science versus the soft sciences, or, in this case, versus political partisan hack jobs, is that hard science can withstand rigorous analysis.
because such rigorous second guessing is the very essence of what science is: its nothing more than the accumulation of the most likely explanations for what we see in our natural world... until anomalous data comes along that requires a new explanation, which is what makes challenging and excitingfanatical transparency is not a problem at all for what science is supposed to be.
therefore, hard science is in a position to be the most trusted set of institutions in all of modern society, were it to actually submit itself to this regime</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389714</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Cloudycity</author>
	<datestamp>1260466980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Science shouldn't be "accorded automatic stature and respect" any more than politics should. There's no reason to trust a scientist any more than you'd trust your barber.</p><p>The problem isn't that people aren't automatically believing science, it's almost the exact opposite: people are <b>automatically doubting science</b>. And that's quite another thing entirely.</p></div><p>Like this comment comparing automatic stature and respect of science to politics.  I heard a comment this morning on the news that the belief in global warming pretty much follows your political party.  Democrats yes, Republicans no.  Heck with science and being skeptical enough to do some research, I'll just believe what my party's self appointed experts say.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science should n't be " accorded automatic stature and respect " any more than politics should .
There 's no reason to trust a scientist any more than you 'd trust your barber.The problem is n't that people are n't automatically believing science , it 's almost the exact opposite : people are automatically doubting science .
And that 's quite another thing entirely.Like this comment comparing automatic stature and respect of science to politics .
I heard a comment this morning on the news that the belief in global warming pretty much follows your political party .
Democrats yes , Republicans no .
Heck with science and being skeptical enough to do some research , I 'll just believe what my party 's self appointed experts say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science shouldn't be "accorded automatic stature and respect" any more than politics should.
There's no reason to trust a scientist any more than you'd trust your barber.The problem isn't that people aren't automatically believing science, it's almost the exact opposite: people are automatically doubting science.
And that's quite another thing entirely.Like this comment comparing automatic stature and respect of science to politics.
I heard a comment this morning on the news that the belief in global warming pretty much follows your political party.
Democrats yes, Republicans no.
Heck with science and being skeptical enough to do some research, I'll just believe what my party's self appointed experts say.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388920</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>QuantumPion</author>
	<datestamp>1260464640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting <em>hundreds of billions of dollars from governments</em> over the last couple of decades could have <em>somehow</em> politicized Science?</p><p>-Peter</p></div><p>Dwight D. Eisenhower - 1961.</p><p>"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science ? -PeterDwight D. Eisenhower - 1961 .
" The prospect of domination of the nation 's scholars by Federal employment , project allocations , and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded .
Yet , in holding scientific research and discovery in respect , as we should , we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?-PeterDwight D. Eisenhower - 1961.
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390114</id>
	<title>big picture is mediagate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are all wrong.  The "average Joe" doesn't know enough about science or the scientific method to have an informed opinion on the matter one way or another.  That does leave room for an uninformed opinion however.</p><p>These emails are damning to the scientists involved.  They clearly show a disregard for scientific method.  The AGW proponents declare them a tempest in a teapot.  AGW deniers, say "See, I told you all along".  In both cases, the opinion stems more from political bias than an understanding of the science.</p><p>The average Joe does not see the big picture because they don't understand that science does not "prove" anything, but can only generate a stack of empirical evidence in favor of a theory.  And, all it takes is a single experiment to knock all or part of that stack over.</p><p>In my opinion, the larger picture is not a condemnation of all scientists, but of the media.  As of yesterday, searching for the word "climategate" on CNN's website produces no hits.  Even typing in "East Anglia" only throws up a bunch of links - most of which talk have nothing to do with this scandal.</p><p>If you get all your news from CNN, or the "big 3", you might not even be aware of this story, since they won't report it (although I bet you know the current tally of how many mistresses Tiger Woods had).</p><p>Fox might be biased, but at least their viewers are aware of the story.</p><p>To me, the "big picture" story should be called "mediagate".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are all wrong .
The " average Joe " does n't know enough about science or the scientific method to have an informed opinion on the matter one way or another .
That does leave room for an uninformed opinion however.These emails are damning to the scientists involved .
They clearly show a disregard for scientific method .
The AGW proponents declare them a tempest in a teapot .
AGW deniers , say " See , I told you all along " .
In both cases , the opinion stems more from political bias than an understanding of the science.The average Joe does not see the big picture because they do n't understand that science does not " prove " anything , but can only generate a stack of empirical evidence in favor of a theory .
And , all it takes is a single experiment to knock all or part of that stack over.In my opinion , the larger picture is not a condemnation of all scientists , but of the media .
As of yesterday , searching for the word " climategate " on CNN 's website produces no hits .
Even typing in " East Anglia " only throws up a bunch of links - most of which talk have nothing to do with this scandal.If you get all your news from CNN , or the " big 3 " , you might not even be aware of this story , since they wo n't report it ( although I bet you know the current tally of how many mistresses Tiger Woods had ) .Fox might be biased , but at least their viewers are aware of the story.To me , the " big picture " story should be called " mediagate " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are all wrong.
The "average Joe" doesn't know enough about science or the scientific method to have an informed opinion on the matter one way or another.
That does leave room for an uninformed opinion however.These emails are damning to the scientists involved.
They clearly show a disregard for scientific method.
The AGW proponents declare them a tempest in a teapot.
AGW deniers, say "See, I told you all along".
In both cases, the opinion stems more from political bias than an understanding of the science.The average Joe does not see the big picture because they don't understand that science does not "prove" anything, but can only generate a stack of empirical evidence in favor of a theory.
And, all it takes is a single experiment to knock all or part of that stack over.In my opinion, the larger picture is not a condemnation of all scientists, but of the media.
As of yesterday, searching for the word "climategate" on CNN's website produces no hits.
Even typing in "East Anglia" only throws up a bunch of links - most of which talk have nothing to do with this scandal.If you get all your news from CNN, or the "big 3", you might not even be aware of this story, since they won't report it (although I bet you know the current tally of how many mistresses Tiger Woods had).Fox might be biased, but at least their viewers are aware of the story.To me, the "big picture" story should be called "mediagate".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390502</id>
	<title>Daniel Henninger is WRONG</title>
	<author>Mr.Fork</author>
	<datestamp>1260469320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Daniel Henninger is wrong.  How he's drawing this conclusion is a little far-fetched.  No one is going to stop believing in science as this has no implication to regular scientists who believe in causation science versus the correlation science of climatologists.  I cannot say the same for climatologists however.  Their methodologies, data, and science, at least how they're going about it, is not following proper research methodologies.<br> <br>As an amateur scientist of the sky (Astronomer), science at its core is transparent, open, and full of debate and honest and thoughtful challenges with peers.  Climatology is anything but open, no debate with its peers, and hateful accusations of mistrust and full of secrets. If I have a theory about a pulsar and why it varies a particular way, I'll throw it out there to my peers to break apart and destroy my theory - that's how we're suppose to do it.  You announce a study result (about a possible causation) and HOPE someone proves you wrong.  We then get more 'Ah Ha!' moments when someone else studies the theory and then using their own experiences and knowledge, may be able to modify my theory about that same pulsar because perhaps they were doing similar research and then collaborate to come up with a new theory that we all then try to destroy and disprove. That is how science works!<br> <br>Climatologists may be right, but their science methodologies are not 'best practice' leaving a lot of us to wonder how they're coming up with their results - which they keep to themselves.<br> <br>How unscientific indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Daniel Henninger is wrong .
How he 's drawing this conclusion is a little far-fetched .
No one is going to stop believing in science as this has no implication to regular scientists who believe in causation science versus the correlation science of climatologists .
I can not say the same for climatologists however .
Their methodologies , data , and science , at least how they 're going about it , is not following proper research methodologies .
As an amateur scientist of the sky ( Astronomer ) , science at its core is transparent , open , and full of debate and honest and thoughtful challenges with peers .
Climatology is anything but open , no debate with its peers , and hateful accusations of mistrust and full of secrets .
If I have a theory about a pulsar and why it varies a particular way , I 'll throw it out there to my peers to break apart and destroy my theory - that 's how we 're suppose to do it .
You announce a study result ( about a possible causation ) and HOPE someone proves you wrong .
We then get more 'Ah Ha !
' moments when someone else studies the theory and then using their own experiences and knowledge , may be able to modify my theory about that same pulsar because perhaps they were doing similar research and then collaborate to come up with a new theory that we all then try to destroy and disprove .
That is how science works !
Climatologists may be right , but their science methodologies are not 'best practice ' leaving a lot of us to wonder how they 're coming up with their results - which they keep to themselves .
How unscientific indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daniel Henninger is wrong.
How he's drawing this conclusion is a little far-fetched.
No one is going to stop believing in science as this has no implication to regular scientists who believe in causation science versus the correlation science of climatologists.
I cannot say the same for climatologists however.
Their methodologies, data, and science, at least how they're going about it, is not following proper research methodologies.
As an amateur scientist of the sky (Astronomer), science at its core is transparent, open, and full of debate and honest and thoughtful challenges with peers.
Climatology is anything but open, no debate with its peers, and hateful accusations of mistrust and full of secrets.
If I have a theory about a pulsar and why it varies a particular way, I'll throw it out there to my peers to break apart and destroy my theory - that's how we're suppose to do it.
You announce a study result (about a possible causation) and HOPE someone proves you wrong.
We then get more 'Ah Ha!
' moments when someone else studies the theory and then using their own experiences and knowledge, may be able to modify my theory about that same pulsar because perhaps they were doing similar research and then collaborate to come up with a new theory that we all then try to destroy and disprove.
That is how science works!
Climatologists may be right, but their science methodologies are not 'best practice' leaving a lot of us to wonder how they're coming up with their results - which they keep to themselves.
How unscientific indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396430</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming Problems...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260448320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's not really ana ccurate history of global warming history.<br>Original call "the Carbon Dioxide problem".</p><p>The fact that you ahve no idea how ice core sampling works and why it's accurate show that you are really clueless about this subject.</p><p>In fact, YOU and people like you are why so many people are confused about science.  Your given 'equal time' even though you should get exactly 'No time'.</p><p>"moderated by ocean temperatures which vary depending on both solar electromagnetic and magnetic input."</p><p>"constant solar input"<br>no. Solar input is a factor in global trends, but simple comparing solar trend to global temperature clearly show there are other factors.</p><p>"increasing co2 concentration," False, and you don't seem to grasp basic thermodynamics.</p><p>", planetary temperatures increasing" which they are.</p><p>"There is already more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to block all of the ir radiation that carbon dioxide is capable of blocking..."</p><p>that is complete nonsense.</p><p>Fucking idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's not really ana ccurate history of global warming history.Original call " the Carbon Dioxide problem " .The fact that you ahve no idea how ice core sampling works and why it 's accurate show that you are really clueless about this subject.In fact , YOU and people like you are why so many people are confused about science .
Your given 'equal time ' even though you should get exactly 'No time' .
" moderated by ocean temperatures which vary depending on both solar electromagnetic and magnetic input .
" " constant solar input " no .
Solar input is a factor in global trends , but simple comparing solar trend to global temperature clearly show there are other factors .
" increasing co2 concentration , " False , and you do n't seem to grasp basic thermodynamics .
" , planetary temperatures increasing " which they are .
" There is already more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to block all of the ir radiation that carbon dioxide is capable of blocking... " that is complete nonsense.Fucking idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's not really ana ccurate history of global warming history.Original call "the Carbon Dioxide problem".The fact that you ahve no idea how ice core sampling works and why it's accurate show that you are really clueless about this subject.In fact, YOU and people like you are why so many people are confused about science.
Your given 'equal time' even though you should get exactly 'No time'.
"moderated by ocean temperatures which vary depending on both solar electromagnetic and magnetic input.
""constant solar input"no.
Solar input is a factor in global trends, but simple comparing solar trend to global temperature clearly show there are other factors.
"increasing co2 concentration," False, and you don't seem to grasp basic thermodynamics.
", planetary temperatures increasing" which they are.
"There is already more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to block all of the ir radiation that carbon dioxide is capable of blocking..."that is complete nonsense.Fucking idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389034</id>
	<title>Rupert Murdoch Strikes Again</title>
	<author>Strangely Familiar</author>
	<datestamp>1260465000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What hit scientists is Rupert Murdoch's media machine, spewing out more anti-science garbage. Again, he has created the "news" by making such a big deal about this on Fox, then he has the WSJ comment about how important this "news" is. What hit scientists is willful ignorance, taken at face value by a public who forgets that the owner of these "news" organizations started out in the US running a supermarket tabloid, the "Star". He learned a lot about the public running that rag. It shows in his influence on the WSJ.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What hit scientists is Rupert Murdoch 's media machine , spewing out more anti-science garbage .
Again , he has created the " news " by making such a big deal about this on Fox , then he has the WSJ comment about how important this " news " is .
What hit scientists is willful ignorance , taken at face value by a public who forgets that the owner of these " news " organizations started out in the US running a supermarket tabloid , the " Star " .
He learned a lot about the public running that rag .
It shows in his influence on the WSJ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What hit scientists is Rupert Murdoch's media machine, spewing out more anti-science garbage.
Again, he has created the "news" by making such a big deal about this on Fox, then he has the WSJ comment about how important this "news" is.
What hit scientists is willful ignorance, taken at face value by a public who forgets that the owner of these "news" organizations started out in the US running a supermarket tabloid, the "Star".
He learned a lot about the public running that rag.
It shows in his influence on the WSJ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392702</id>
	<title>It *WAS* bad science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260477060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They brought this upon themselves, and by extension ALL the rest of us who consider ourselves "naturalists" in the literal sense of that word.  They were in fact performing BAD science.  Science is about the process, the Method, and a big part of that is the acknowledgement that <b>nothing</b> is truly a Law written into stone.  Dogmatism and religiosity have NO place in science, and yet that is exactly what this ClimateGate displays for the whole world to see: dogmatism in the scientific process.  It demonstrates exactly what happens when stupid human beings <b>form emotional attachments to ideas</b> and then either (a) can't let go of them when they're disproven or (b) react badly when those ideas are challenged.</p><p>Both (a) and (b) are utterly destructive to the scientific process.</p><p>Has everyone forgotten that there were stubborn "believers" who clung to the validity of Piltdown Man even after the hoax was revealed?  That lesson should have been driven home in every science class in the world in the many decades since.  It hasn't.  There are still too many believers in science, who form unproductive emotional attachments to theories and then proceed to ruin the process for everyone, scientist and layperson alike.</p><p>Religiosity, faith, and dogmatism have no place in science.  If we don't <b>have a very public referendum</b> about ClimateGate and openly discuss the fact that those involved DID screw up, and how and why they screwed-up, we'll be missing yet another opportunity to teach this lesson again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They brought this upon themselves , and by extension ALL the rest of us who consider ourselves " naturalists " in the literal sense of that word .
They were in fact performing BAD science .
Science is about the process , the Method , and a big part of that is the acknowledgement that nothing is truly a Law written into stone .
Dogmatism and religiosity have NO place in science , and yet that is exactly what this ClimateGate displays for the whole world to see : dogmatism in the scientific process .
It demonstrates exactly what happens when stupid human beings form emotional attachments to ideas and then either ( a ) ca n't let go of them when they 're disproven or ( b ) react badly when those ideas are challenged.Both ( a ) and ( b ) are utterly destructive to the scientific process.Has everyone forgotten that there were stubborn " believers " who clung to the validity of Piltdown Man even after the hoax was revealed ?
That lesson should have been driven home in every science class in the world in the many decades since .
It has n't .
There are still too many believers in science , who form unproductive emotional attachments to theories and then proceed to ruin the process for everyone , scientist and layperson alike.Religiosity , faith , and dogmatism have no place in science .
If we do n't have a very public referendum about ClimateGate and openly discuss the fact that those involved DID screw up , and how and why they screwed-up , we 'll be missing yet another opportunity to teach this lesson again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They brought this upon themselves, and by extension ALL the rest of us who consider ourselves "naturalists" in the literal sense of that word.
They were in fact performing BAD science.
Science is about the process, the Method, and a big part of that is the acknowledgement that nothing is truly a Law written into stone.
Dogmatism and religiosity have NO place in science, and yet that is exactly what this ClimateGate displays for the whole world to see: dogmatism in the scientific process.
It demonstrates exactly what happens when stupid human beings form emotional attachments to ideas and then either (a) can't let go of them when they're disproven or (b) react badly when those ideas are challenged.Both (a) and (b) are utterly destructive to the scientific process.Has everyone forgotten that there were stubborn "believers" who clung to the validity of Piltdown Man even after the hoax was revealed?
That lesson should have been driven home in every science class in the world in the many decades since.
It hasn't.
There are still too many believers in science, who form unproductive emotional attachments to theories and then proceed to ruin the process for everyone, scientist and layperson alike.Religiosity, faith, and dogmatism have no place in science.
If we don't have a very public referendum about ClimateGate and openly discuss the fact that those involved DID screw up, and how and why they screwed-up, we'll be missing yet another opportunity to teach this lesson again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391938</id>
	<title>Re:Private conversations are meant to be private.</title>
	<author>cknudsen</author>
	<datestamp>1260474180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't believe you can assume a right to privacy when using your employer-funded email system while working on a government subsidized research program.  To assume privacy under such circumstances is foolish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe you can assume a right to privacy when using your employer-funded email system while working on a government subsidized research program .
To assume privacy under such circumstances is foolish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe you can assume a right to privacy when using your employer-funded email system while working on a government subsidized research program.
To assume privacy under such circumstances is foolish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390666</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Bongo</author>
	<datestamp>1260469920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People realise there is a difference between science as a method, and science as an institution of people with cultures and subcultures.</p><p>Both exist, and ultimately the science-culture is grounded in the science-method, but science-culture has plenty of opportunity to screw things up out of sheer unintended cultural blind spots, and for a long time, before reality starts shouting loud enough.</p><p>I can tell you how, after spending a few years living in an Apartheid country, how everybody around you, including all the qualified smart people, can have the same massive cultural blind spots (that racism is wrong). And yet, they still did, for decades.</p><p>Incidentally, I agree that we need a new moral obligation to look after the environment, but I disagree that we need science to tell us that. It is not a science question, in essence. The science could perhaps warn us about some problems, but the moral realisation to wake up to a new sort of environmental care is essentially a cultural transformation. It doesn't need science.</p><p>Besides, it puts scientists under enormous cultural pressure to produce "evidence" of catastrophe. That should not be required. You don't  shove your kids in front of cars and to teach them that they should look before crossing. You just teach them the principle of care. You teach them the principle of safety. You teach them to look after themselves and their neighbours.</p><p>By all means teach people about care and compassion towards Nature and each other. Don't make it a "science" issue, because one thing is pretty sure--when people with low morality are pressured, they respond from a low moral place. All this stirring about "global catastrophe" is likely to trigger some very bad stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People realise there is a difference between science as a method , and science as an institution of people with cultures and subcultures.Both exist , and ultimately the science-culture is grounded in the science-method , but science-culture has plenty of opportunity to screw things up out of sheer unintended cultural blind spots , and for a long time , before reality starts shouting loud enough.I can tell you how , after spending a few years living in an Apartheid country , how everybody around you , including all the qualified smart people , can have the same massive cultural blind spots ( that racism is wrong ) .
And yet , they still did , for decades.Incidentally , I agree that we need a new moral obligation to look after the environment , but I disagree that we need science to tell us that .
It is not a science question , in essence .
The science could perhaps warn us about some problems , but the moral realisation to wake up to a new sort of environmental care is essentially a cultural transformation .
It does n't need science.Besides , it puts scientists under enormous cultural pressure to produce " evidence " of catastrophe .
That should not be required .
You do n't shove your kids in front of cars and to teach them that they should look before crossing .
You just teach them the principle of care .
You teach them the principle of safety .
You teach them to look after themselves and their neighbours.By all means teach people about care and compassion towards Nature and each other .
Do n't make it a " science " issue , because one thing is pretty sure--when people with low morality are pressured , they respond from a low moral place .
All this stirring about " global catastrophe " is likely to trigger some very bad stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People realise there is a difference between science as a method, and science as an institution of people with cultures and subcultures.Both exist, and ultimately the science-culture is grounded in the science-method, but science-culture has plenty of opportunity to screw things up out of sheer unintended cultural blind spots, and for a long time, before reality starts shouting loud enough.I can tell you how, after spending a few years living in an Apartheid country, how everybody around you, including all the qualified smart people, can have the same massive cultural blind spots (that racism is wrong).
And yet, they still did, for decades.Incidentally, I agree that we need a new moral obligation to look after the environment, but I disagree that we need science to tell us that.
It is not a science question, in essence.
The science could perhaps warn us about some problems, but the moral realisation to wake up to a new sort of environmental care is essentially a cultural transformation.
It doesn't need science.Besides, it puts scientists under enormous cultural pressure to produce "evidence" of catastrophe.
That should not be required.
You don't  shove your kids in front of cars and to teach them that they should look before crossing.
You just teach them the principle of care.
You teach them the principle of safety.
You teach them to look after themselves and their neighbours.By all means teach people about care and compassion towards Nature and each other.
Don't make it a "science" issue, because one thing is pretty sure--when people with low morality are pressured, they respond from a low moral place.
All this stirring about "global catastrophe" is likely to trigger some very bad stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390536</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1260469440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Science always says first to its student: "Doubt me."</p></div><p>
That's how it should be. But how often do we here from scientists who should know better, "we used to think... but now we know..." That is the issue I believe people are having with science. Research is getting reported so quickly, that ideas have not had time to solidify and be confirmed before being reported to the masses. I'm not saying it should be withheld. But there's clearly a perceived need by the media to "spice up" reporting on science and that includes claiming we know the truth and simplifying complex and/or uncertain results from studies.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science always says first to its student : " Doubt me .
" That 's how it should be .
But how often do we here from scientists who should know better , " we used to think... but now we know... " That is the issue I believe people are having with science .
Research is getting reported so quickly , that ideas have not had time to solidify and be confirmed before being reported to the masses .
I 'm not saying it should be withheld .
But there 's clearly a perceived need by the media to " spice up " reporting on science and that includes claiming we know the truth and simplifying complex and/or uncertain results from studies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science always says first to its student: "Doubt me.
"
That's how it should be.
But how often do we here from scientists who should know better, "we used to think... but now we know..." That is the issue I believe people are having with science.
Research is getting reported so quickly, that ideas have not had time to solidify and be confirmed before being reported to the masses.
I'm not saying it should be withheld.
But there's clearly a perceived need by the media to "spice up" reporting on science and that includes claiming we know the truth and simplifying complex and/or uncertain results from studies.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397542</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260456300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you that Science is becoming a religion (taken on faith) rather than properly investigated.</p><p>&gt; *I* don't know why thimerisol is used as a standard preservative in multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccine</p><p>We need to find a way to de-jargonify scientific fields so that people with a reasonable level of literacy can figure this out.</p><p>I often read papers 5-10 times before groking them, only to realize it was trivial, but poorly explained... and I have a PhD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you that Science is becoming a religion ( taken on faith ) rather than properly investigated. &gt; * I * do n't know why thimerisol is used as a standard preservative in multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccineWe need to find a way to de-jargonify scientific fields so that people with a reasonable level of literacy can figure this out.I often read papers 5-10 times before groking them , only to realize it was trivial , but poorly explained... and I have a PhD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you that Science is becoming a religion (taken on faith) rather than properly investigated.&gt; *I* don't know why thimerisol is used as a standard preservative in multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccineWe need to find a way to de-jargonify scientific fields so that people with a reasonable level of literacy can figure this out.I often read papers 5-10 times before groking them, only to realize it was trivial, but poorly explained... and I have a PhD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389810</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you said, you do not understand how big a deal this is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you said , you do not understand how big a deal this is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you said, you do not understand how big a deal this is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389136</id>
	<title>The problem is journalists, not scientists</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1260465300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The amazing thing is that journalists, few of whom have any technical or scientific qualifications, really do work the way they think scientists work. Based on very shallow knowledge, they make wild conjectures from little bits of information, and will prefer an exciting lie over a boring truth. My belief is that in reporting on science, they are assuming that scientists are just like them, so a climatologist is someone who takes a polar bear out to lunch and then writes a story about global warming.<p>The East Anglia case should sound warning bells for what Murdoch and co have done to journalism - because it is not only science they lie about and misrepresent but politics, law, and religion. In their effort to get exciting stories, journalists are devaluing almost everything.</p><p>The trend is not new. I can't remember the author, but this is a well known verse:</p><p>
You cannot hope to bribe or twist<br>Thank God, the British Journalist<br>But seeing what the chap will do<br>Unbribed, there's not much reason to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amazing thing is that journalists , few of whom have any technical or scientific qualifications , really do work the way they think scientists work .
Based on very shallow knowledge , they make wild conjectures from little bits of information , and will prefer an exciting lie over a boring truth .
My belief is that in reporting on science , they are assuming that scientists are just like them , so a climatologist is someone who takes a polar bear out to lunch and then writes a story about global warming.The East Anglia case should sound warning bells for what Murdoch and co have done to journalism - because it is not only science they lie about and misrepresent but politics , law , and religion .
In their effort to get exciting stories , journalists are devaluing almost everything.The trend is not new .
I ca n't remember the author , but this is a well known verse : You can not hope to bribe or twistThank God , the British JournalistBut seeing what the chap will doUnbribed , there 's not much reason to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amazing thing is that journalists, few of whom have any technical or scientific qualifications, really do work the way they think scientists work.
Based on very shallow knowledge, they make wild conjectures from little bits of information, and will prefer an exciting lie over a boring truth.
My belief is that in reporting on science, they are assuming that scientists are just like them, so a climatologist is someone who takes a polar bear out to lunch and then writes a story about global warming.The East Anglia case should sound warning bells for what Murdoch and co have done to journalism - because it is not only science they lie about and misrepresent but politics, law, and religion.
In their effort to get exciting stories, journalists are devaluing almost everything.The trend is not new.
I can't remember the author, but this is a well known verse:
You cannot hope to bribe or twistThank God, the British JournalistBut seeing what the chap will doUnbribed, there's not much reason to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391222</id>
	<title>Mostly dead-on</title>
	<author>mr crypto</author>
	<datestamp>1260471660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice article highlighting the fragility of reputation.  The author goes on to screw it up by saying:</p><p>"The Obama administration's new head of policy at EPA, Lisa Heinzerling, is an advocate of turning precaution into standard policy."</p><p>Government should absolutely prepare for events that \_might\_ happen (that's what the DoD is all about).  Ex-VP Cheney pushed "The One Percent Doctrine," for threats to the US, but somehow only wanted it to apply to military threats.  More at: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html</a> [nytimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice article highlighting the fragility of reputation .
The author goes on to screw it up by saying : " The Obama administration 's new head of policy at EPA , Lisa Heinzerling , is an advocate of turning precaution into standard policy .
" Government should absolutely prepare for events that \ _might \ _ happen ( that 's what the DoD is all about ) .
Ex-VP Cheney pushed " The One Percent Doctrine , " for threats to the US , but somehow only wanted it to apply to military threats .
More at : http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice article highlighting the fragility of reputation.
The author goes on to screw it up by saying:"The Obama administration's new head of policy at EPA, Lisa Heinzerling, is an advocate of turning precaution into standard policy.
"Government should absolutely prepare for events that \_might\_ happen (that's what the DoD is all about).
Ex-VP Cheney pushed "The One Percent Doctrine," for threats to the US, but somehow only wanted it to apply to military threats.
More at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392094</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>rocket97</author>
	<datestamp>1260474720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not trying to troll here, but I have a feeling I will be labeled as one.  But I have an observation.

I find it funny how quickly people here are to discredit studies funded by a "Pro-Microsoft" group stating how great  is, but are equally quick without questioning it to adopt a study as the holy grail about Global Warming/Climate Change that is funded by an "Environmentalist" group.  Studies are going to be skewed in the direction of the funding sources favor.  I guess it is just personal bias.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not trying to troll here , but I have a feeling I will be labeled as one .
But I have an observation .
I find it funny how quickly people here are to discredit studies funded by a " Pro-Microsoft " group stating how great is , but are equally quick without questioning it to adopt a study as the holy grail about Global Warming/Climate Change that is funded by an " Environmentalist " group .
Studies are going to be skewed in the direction of the funding sources favor .
I guess it is just personal bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not trying to troll here, but I have a feeling I will be labeled as one.
But I have an observation.
I find it funny how quickly people here are to discredit studies funded by a "Pro-Microsoft" group stating how great  is, but are equally quick without questioning it to adopt a study as the holy grail about Global Warming/Climate Change that is funded by an "Environmentalist" group.
Studies are going to be skewed in the direction of the funding sources favor.
I guess it is just personal bias.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397800</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm. No.</title>
	<author>Watson Ladd</author>
	<datestamp>1260458280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not been true for at least 70 years. Read Lakatos to see that math is an experimental science where the theories are always tautological!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not been true for at least 70 years .
Read Lakatos to see that math is an experimental science where the theories are always tautological !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not been true for at least 70 years.
Read Lakatos to see that math is an experimental science where the theories are always tautological!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390724</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>cknudsen</author>
	<datestamp>1260470160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you not seen some of the source code found in the dump?  Take a look at Eric Raymond's analysis of some of this:
<p>
<a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447" title="ibiblio.org" rel="nofollow">http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447</a> [ibiblio.org]
</p><p>
I particularly like the source code comment that states "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"
</p><p>
You cannot dismiss this as just email bickering.  You can see the SOURCE CODE where they artificially change the data to suit their agenda!  Why are people not more ticked off about this???  This is an offense to both science in general and programming,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you not seen some of the source code found in the dump ?
Take a look at Eric Raymond 's analysis of some of this : http : //esr.ibiblio.org/ ? p = 1447 [ ibiblio.org ] I particularly like the source code comment that states " Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline ! !
" You can not dismiss this as just email bickering .
You can see the SOURCE CODE where they artificially change the data to suit their agenda !
Why are people not more ticked off about this ? ? ?
This is an offense to both science in general and programming,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you not seen some of the source code found in the dump?
Take a look at Eric Raymond's analysis of some of this:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447 [ibiblio.org]

I particularly like the source code comment that states "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
"

You cannot dismiss this as just email bickering.
You can see the SOURCE CODE where they artificially change the data to suit their agenda!
Why are people not more ticked off about this???
This is an offense to both science in general and programming,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390428</id>
	<title>Re:Hundreds of billions???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260469080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, even if your numbers are right (and I make no claim about them, pro or con), research funding is still *NOT* the *SAME* as subsidies to power industries (aka, they paid less in taxes than someone imagines they should have).</p><p>Are you so stupid that you don't know the difference, or are you so dishonest that you would put two totally unrelated numbers into a context that invites bogus comparison?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , even if your numbers are right ( and I make no claim about them , pro or con ) , research funding is still * NOT * the * SAME * as subsidies to power industries ( aka , they paid less in taxes than someone imagines they should have ) .Are you so stupid that you do n't know the difference , or are you so dishonest that you would put two totally unrelated numbers into a context that invites bogus comparison ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, even if your numbers are right (and I make no claim about them, pro or con), research funding is still *NOT* the *SAME* as subsidies to power industries (aka, they paid less in taxes than someone imagines they should have).Are you so stupid that you don't know the difference, or are you so dishonest that you would put two totally unrelated numbers into a context that invites bogus comparison?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389910</id>
	<title>Re:Science costs money, ergo...</title>
	<author>The Living Fractal</author>
	<datestamp>1260467520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no reason to convince you otherwise.  Usually the agenda carried by money is self-perpetuating:  Money tries to make more of itself.</p><p>Sure, some scientists and their practices may be tainted by political bias, but that's hardly cause for real alarm.  This will be the case as long as politics exists.  Care to fathom a guess when the scheduled day for the cancellation of politics is?  Yeah...</p><p>But getting back to the sponsors' suppositions...  Many only suppose that they want to ethically and morally make more money, either by inventing a new product or improving their existing products, so their only real supposition is that they want to see results.  As long as the science being performed is on the ethical 'fairway' and not the 'rough', which I would propose involves a large bit of the spectrum of scientific inquiry, then political agendas and bias are very simply not a going concern with respect to them impacting the science.</p><p>What I'm saying is:  There are always going to be avenues of scientific inquiry which base themselves in something somehow <i>fundamental</i> to or <i>aligned</i> within the continuum of humanity.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no reason to convince you otherwise .
Usually the agenda carried by money is self-perpetuating : Money tries to make more of itself.Sure , some scientists and their practices may be tainted by political bias , but that 's hardly cause for real alarm .
This will be the case as long as politics exists .
Care to fathom a guess when the scheduled day for the cancellation of politics is ?
Yeah...But getting back to the sponsors ' suppositions... Many only suppose that they want to ethically and morally make more money , either by inventing a new product or improving their existing products , so their only real supposition is that they want to see results .
As long as the science being performed is on the ethical 'fairway ' and not the 'rough ' , which I would propose involves a large bit of the spectrum of scientific inquiry , then political agendas and bias are very simply not a going concern with respect to them impacting the science.What I 'm saying is : There are always going to be avenues of scientific inquiry which base themselves in something somehow fundamental to or aligned within the continuum of humanity .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no reason to convince you otherwise.
Usually the agenda carried by money is self-perpetuating:  Money tries to make more of itself.Sure, some scientists and their practices may be tainted by political bias, but that's hardly cause for real alarm.
This will be the case as long as politics exists.
Care to fathom a guess when the scheduled day for the cancellation of politics is?
Yeah...But getting back to the sponsors' suppositions...  Many only suppose that they want to ethically and morally make more money, either by inventing a new product or improving their existing products, so their only real supposition is that they want to see results.
As long as the science being performed is on the ethical 'fairway' and not the 'rough', which I would propose involves a large bit of the spectrum of scientific inquiry, then political agendas and bias are very simply not a going concern with respect to them impacting the science.What I'm saying is:  There are always going to be avenues of scientific inquiry which base themselves in something somehow fundamental to or aligned within the continuum of humanity.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396226</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a DENIER. Paid for by an Oil Company to cast doubt on pure science.</p><p>We won't listen to you. LaLaLaLa....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a DENIER .
Paid for by an Oil Company to cast doubt on pure science.We wo n't listen to you .
LaLaLaLa... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a DENIER.
Paid for by an Oil Company to cast doubt on pure science.We won't listen to you.
LaLaLaLa....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392532</id>
	<title>Hard Science--No Doubts, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260476280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the question is will science suffer, this garbage falls into the pile of "stuff" where the average person says: "Hey, look it's politically motivated..." and tunes out.  Especially in the U.S.  It seems almost anyone in a political office will grab at almost anything to scare people into supporting them.  Consequently, IMO, anything coming out of a politically supported enviroment in the US, has slightly less credibility than the cartoon lineup for that day's TV viewing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the question is will science suffer , this garbage falls into the pile of " stuff " where the average person says : " Hey , look it 's politically motivated... " and tunes out .
Especially in the U.S. It seems almost anyone in a political office will grab at almost anything to scare people into supporting them .
Consequently , IMO , anything coming out of a politically supported enviroment in the US , has slightly less credibility than the cartoon lineup for that day 's TV viewing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the question is will science suffer, this garbage falls into the pile of "stuff" where the average person says: "Hey, look it's politically motivated..." and tunes out.
Especially in the U.S.  It seems almost anyone in a political office will grab at almost anything to scare people into supporting them.
Consequently, IMO, anything coming out of a politically supported enviroment in the US, has slightly less credibility than the cartoon lineup for that day's TV viewing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389000</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>nodrogluap</author>
	<datestamp>1260464880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couple of decades?  Science has always been funded by government (academic) and industry.  If anything, it's more industry driven now than at any point in the past.  I would fear the state of the world if all science was to become controlled by companies...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Couple of decades ?
Science has always been funded by government ( academic ) and industry .
If anything , it 's more industry driven now than at any point in the past .
I would fear the state of the world if all science was to become controlled by companies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couple of decades?
Science has always been funded by government (academic) and industry.
If anything, it's more industry driven now than at any point in the past.
I would fear the state of the world if all science was to become controlled by companies...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389818</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1260467280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration.</p></div><p>It's pretty simple, and pretty evident even from the posts: because frequently, scientists have been presented as precisely being above petty squabbles. Now that the emails present evidence that scientists are just as petty as everyone else, it means that their opinions on any subject is the same as that of Joe Schmoe in the bar.</p><p>It means that science currently has a PR problem. Merely arguing that the science is sound and must be heeded is not enough anymore.... scientists will have to engage in damage control and two-way communication. If it sounds like I'm talking about a call-center problem with a pissed-off customer, it's because I am: the public is the customer of publicly funded science, and the customer is pissed off. Merely saying "everything's ok" is just going to end with the customer walking away, which is precisely what is happening right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration.It 's pretty simple , and pretty evident even from the posts : because frequently , scientists have been presented as precisely being above petty squabbles .
Now that the emails present evidence that scientists are just as petty as everyone else , it means that their opinions on any subject is the same as that of Joe Schmoe in the bar.It means that science currently has a PR problem .
Merely arguing that the science is sound and must be heeded is not enough anymore.... scientists will have to engage in damage control and two-way communication .
If it sounds like I 'm talking about a call-center problem with a pissed-off customer , it 's because I am : the public is the customer of publicly funded science , and the customer is pissed off .
Merely saying " everything 's ok " is just going to end with the customer walking away , which is precisely what is happening right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration.It's pretty simple, and pretty evident even from the posts: because frequently, scientists have been presented as precisely being above petty squabbles.
Now that the emails present evidence that scientists are just as petty as everyone else, it means that their opinions on any subject is the same as that of Joe Schmoe in the bar.It means that science currently has a PR problem.
Merely arguing that the science is sound and must be heeded is not enough anymore.... scientists will have to engage in damage control and two-way communication.
If it sounds like I'm talking about a call-center problem with a pissed-off customer, it's because I am: the public is the customer of publicly funded science, and the customer is pissed off.
Merely saying "everything's ok" is just going to end with the customer walking away, which is precisely what is happening right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392582</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1260476580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You (or someone else whose example you are following) is searching through the CSU data, to find cherry-picked results that contradict accepted climate research.</p><p>I am not accusing you of wearing a mullet.  But what you are doing is very close to Creationist fanaticism.  It is dishonest, politically motivated, and untrue.</p><p>The raw/final graph could be anything -- it is poorly labeled -- but I suspect it is the difference between the raw and final tree ring temperature observations.  Of course there is a difference between the raw and final data, because the tree rings are *wrong* after 1960 and needed to be corrected.  This has been explained.</p><p>The Darwin Zero results were biased upwards because they were homogenized (read: Averaged) with temperatures in the rest of the continent.  Any time you average points together, some of them are going to go up (and others will go down).  The Darwin Zero station temperatures were consistently lower than the other Australian measurements.  They were *wrong* and needed to be adjusted or thrown out, and the scientists chose to adjust them.</p><p>There is nothing sinister here, and if critics were honest they'd mention the hundreds of data points that *support* the hypothesis of climate change rather than digging out the one badly-labeled graph and the one fallacious data point that disputes it.</p><p>It's like explaining to people that unicorns don't exist, while they keep shaking narwhal bones at us and shrieking 'Burn the witch!'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ( or someone else whose example you are following ) is searching through the CSU data , to find cherry-picked results that contradict accepted climate research.I am not accusing you of wearing a mullet .
But what you are doing is very close to Creationist fanaticism .
It is dishonest , politically motivated , and untrue.The raw/final graph could be anything -- it is poorly labeled -- but I suspect it is the difference between the raw and final tree ring temperature observations .
Of course there is a difference between the raw and final data , because the tree rings are * wrong * after 1960 and needed to be corrected .
This has been explained.The Darwin Zero results were biased upwards because they were homogenized ( read : Averaged ) with temperatures in the rest of the continent .
Any time you average points together , some of them are going to go up ( and others will go down ) .
The Darwin Zero station temperatures were consistently lower than the other Australian measurements .
They were * wrong * and needed to be adjusted or thrown out , and the scientists chose to adjust them.There is nothing sinister here , and if critics were honest they 'd mention the hundreds of data points that * support * the hypothesis of climate change rather than digging out the one badly-labeled graph and the one fallacious data point that disputes it.It 's like explaining to people that unicorns do n't exist , while they keep shaking narwhal bones at us and shrieking 'Burn the witch !
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You (or someone else whose example you are following) is searching through the CSU data, to find cherry-picked results that contradict accepted climate research.I am not accusing you of wearing a mullet.
But what you are doing is very close to Creationist fanaticism.
It is dishonest, politically motivated, and untrue.The raw/final graph could be anything -- it is poorly labeled -- but I suspect it is the difference between the raw and final tree ring temperature observations.
Of course there is a difference between the raw and final data, because the tree rings are *wrong* after 1960 and needed to be corrected.
This has been explained.The Darwin Zero results were biased upwards because they were homogenized (read: Averaged) with temperatures in the rest of the continent.
Any time you average points together, some of them are going to go up (and others will go down).
The Darwin Zero station temperatures were consistently lower than the other Australian measurements.
They were *wrong* and needed to be adjusted or thrown out, and the scientists chose to adjust them.There is nothing sinister here, and if critics were honest they'd mention the hundreds of data points that *support* the hypothesis of climate change rather than digging out the one badly-labeled graph and the one fallacious data point that disputes it.It's like explaining to people that unicorns don't exist, while they keep shaking narwhal bones at us and shrieking 'Burn the witch!
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396074</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260446700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lay person is to be thought of as useless whenever they question authority apparently. Unless of course you are Al Gore, then you can say the center of the earth is millions of degrees and it is fine as long as you are agreeing with the agenda of those is authority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lay person is to be thought of as useless whenever they question authority apparently .
Unless of course you are Al Gore , then you can say the center of the earth is millions of degrees and it is fine as long as you are agreeing with the agenda of those is authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lay person is to be thought of as useless whenever they question authority apparently.
Unless of course you are Al Gore, then you can say the center of the earth is millions of degrees and it is fine as long as you are agreeing with the agenda of those is authority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394642</id>
	<title>This is the height of ignorance</title>
	<author>FibreOptix</author>
	<datestamp>1260441540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This piece, and many of the opinions here just show the astounding levels of ignorance there are out there.

The "climategate" email fiasco has resulted in 1 email (from nearly 20 years ago) being brought to light where scientists were engaged in frank discussion of problems they'd had with their data. Did they follow the scientific method and the standards of rigor properly? No, it doesn't seem so. Despite this, the science has marched on and the cause and impacts of human caused climate change have been independently studied and verified by groups of scientists the world over. The result, mostly propagated by the right, has been to throw out climate science entirely and this piece and many posters now want to throw out science all together?

Part of the beauty of science is that it can studied, researched, and developed independently, yielding consistent results. Many groups of American and Russian physicists had found that after the fall of communism they'd reached the same results, for example. Theorists will work to propose new models and understanding about details of nature that wasn't known or well understood before, and then experimentalists will go out and try to confirm the theory, both verifying it and keeping it in check. When either group has reached a result, they'll publish in a peer-reviewed journal where the work can be independently verified and then built on by anybody who has the knowledge, motivation, and insight to do so.

At it's very core, science is an attempt by us to describe the universe and everything in it from a rational perspective. The rationalist holds true that the criterion of truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive. It comes as no surprise but in fact a heartbreaking dissapointment to me that in the current climate of irrationality in the United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, you have this sort of stance taken against the intellectual and deductive search for truth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This piece , and many of the opinions here just show the astounding levels of ignorance there are out there .
The " climategate " email fiasco has resulted in 1 email ( from nearly 20 years ago ) being brought to light where scientists were engaged in frank discussion of problems they 'd had with their data .
Did they follow the scientific method and the standards of rigor properly ?
No , it does n't seem so .
Despite this , the science has marched on and the cause and impacts of human caused climate change have been independently studied and verified by groups of scientists the world over .
The result , mostly propagated by the right , has been to throw out climate science entirely and this piece and many posters now want to throw out science all together ?
Part of the beauty of science is that it can studied , researched , and developed independently , yielding consistent results .
Many groups of American and Russian physicists had found that after the fall of communism they 'd reached the same results , for example .
Theorists will work to propose new models and understanding about details of nature that was n't known or well understood before , and then experimentalists will go out and try to confirm the theory , both verifying it and keeping it in check .
When either group has reached a result , they 'll publish in a peer-reviewed journal where the work can be independently verified and then built on by anybody who has the knowledge , motivation , and insight to do so .
At it 's very core , science is an attempt by us to describe the universe and everything in it from a rational perspective .
The rationalist holds true that the criterion of truth is not sensory , but intellectual and deductive .
It comes as no surprise but in fact a heartbreaking dissapointment to me that in the current climate of irrationality in the United States , and to a lesser extent Canada , you have this sort of stance taken against the intellectual and deductive search for truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This piece, and many of the opinions here just show the astounding levels of ignorance there are out there.
The "climategate" email fiasco has resulted in 1 email (from nearly 20 years ago) being brought to light where scientists were engaged in frank discussion of problems they'd had with their data.
Did they follow the scientific method and the standards of rigor properly?
No, it doesn't seem so.
Despite this, the science has marched on and the cause and impacts of human caused climate change have been independently studied and verified by groups of scientists the world over.
The result, mostly propagated by the right, has been to throw out climate science entirely and this piece and many posters now want to throw out science all together?
Part of the beauty of science is that it can studied, researched, and developed independently, yielding consistent results.
Many groups of American and Russian physicists had found that after the fall of communism they'd reached the same results, for example.
Theorists will work to propose new models and understanding about details of nature that wasn't known or well understood before, and then experimentalists will go out and try to confirm the theory, both verifying it and keeping it in check.
When either group has reached a result, they'll publish in a peer-reviewed journal where the work can be independently verified and then built on by anybody who has the knowledge, motivation, and insight to do so.
At it's very core, science is an attempt by us to describe the universe and everything in it from a rational perspective.
The rationalist holds true that the criterion of truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive.
It comes as no surprise but in fact a heartbreaking dissapointment to me that in the current climate of irrationality in the United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, you have this sort of stance taken against the intellectual and deductive search for truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389050</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the Bible says pi is 3, that's good enough for me. Who are you to question the word of God? Besides, the Good Book don't say nothin about global warning or nukular fishing or zip code layer. We wuz created 6000 years ago and computing was created by Microsoft. Thou shalt have no computer before Windows. Gates 3:16.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Bible says pi is 3 , that 's good enough for me .
Who are you to question the word of God ?
Besides , the Good Book do n't say nothin about global warning or nukular fishing or zip code layer .
We wuz created 6000 years ago and computing was created by Microsoft .
Thou shalt have no computer before Windows .
Gates 3 : 16 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Bible says pi is 3, that's good enough for me.
Who are you to question the word of God?
Besides, the Good Book don't say nothin about global warning or nukular fishing or zip code layer.
We wuz created 6000 years ago and computing was created by Microsoft.
Thou shalt have no computer before Windows.
Gates 3:16.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684</id>
	<title>What</title>
	<author>Tobor the Eighth Man</author>
	<datestamp>1260463740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science shouldn't be "accorded automatic stature and respect" any more than politics should. There's no reason to trust a scientist any more than you'd trust your barber.</p><p>The problem isn't that people aren't automatically believing science, it's almost the exact opposite: people are <b>automatically doubting science</b>. And that's quite another thing entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science should n't be " accorded automatic stature and respect " any more than politics should .
There 's no reason to trust a scientist any more than you 'd trust your barber.The problem is n't that people are n't automatically believing science , it 's almost the exact opposite : people are automatically doubting science .
And that 's quite another thing entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science shouldn't be "accorded automatic stature and respect" any more than politics should.
There's no reason to trust a scientist any more than you'd trust your barber.The problem isn't that people aren't automatically believing science, it's almost the exact opposite: people are automatically doubting science.
And that's quite another thing entirely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, you can go through the proofs and run some experiments - if you're a mathematician or a scientist. For the average Joe, these activities are as foreign as eating boiled locusts for dinner. Average Joe will doubt (and already does doubt) because he lacks the training to understand how math and science work. And average Joes outnumber and outvote mathematicians and scientists by a large margin, and end up electing the scientific ignoramuses who dominate one of the US national political parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , you can go through the proofs and run some experiments - if you 're a mathematician or a scientist .
For the average Joe , these activities are as foreign as eating boiled locusts for dinner .
Average Joe will doubt ( and already does doubt ) because he lacks the training to understand how math and science work .
And average Joes outnumber and outvote mathematicians and scientists by a large margin , and end up electing the scientific ignoramuses who dominate one of the US national political parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, you can go through the proofs and run some experiments - if you're a mathematician or a scientist.
For the average Joe, these activities are as foreign as eating boiled locusts for dinner.
Average Joe will doubt (and already does doubt) because he lacks the training to understand how math and science work.
And average Joes outnumber and outvote mathematicians and scientists by a large margin, and end up electing the scientific ignoramuses who dominate one of the US national political parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389678</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's <i>not</i> science. That's engineering. The difference being that the standard for engineering is whether a thing <i>works</i>, not whether the theories behind it are <i>true</i>. When your space machines (almost) always end up in the right place and you can account for their movement and time shifts (within tolerances important to current human endeavors) then it is proof that your theories are useful, not proof that they are true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not science .
That 's engineering .
The difference being that the standard for engineering is whether a thing works , not whether the theories behind it are true .
When your space machines ( almost ) always end up in the right place and you can account for their movement and time shifts ( within tolerances important to current human endeavors ) then it is proof that your theories are useful , not proof that they are true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not science.
That's engineering.
The difference being that the standard for engineering is whether a thing works, not whether the theories behind it are true.
When your space machines (almost) always end up in the right place and you can account for their movement and time shifts (within tolerances important to current human endeavors) then it is proof that your theories are useful, not proof that they are true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389906</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>locofungus</author>
	<datestamp>1260467520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But we don't have "healthy skepticism". We have unquestioning belief of opinion that people want to believe in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary.</p><p>Even here on Slashdot, that I thought would be mainly visited by science trained people, we get countless posts along the lines of "I don't believe in global warming" or "I don't believe CO2 can cause global warming".</p><p>There was some confusion over the role of CO2 in our atmosphere. Around the turn of the 20th Century Arrhenius realized that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere would cause temperatures to rise. A few years later Angstrom did some unfortunate experiments that were misleading but compelling and the vast majority of scientists decided that Arrhenius was wrong. Around the 20s or 30s we had the understanding to realize that Arrhenius must have been right which would have caused people to redo and reevaluate Angstrom's experiments and find the flaw. Unfortuately, that didn't happen and it wasn't until the 1940s and high altitude bombers that there was experimental evidence to directly contradict Angstrom. Since then the role of CO2 in our atmosphere is settled and adding CO2 will cause temperatures to rise. All that is left is to determine what the sensitivity is. And yet, 60+ years later we still see the same tired old arguments "CO2 absorption bands are saturated" and "CO2 is a trace gas so cannot affect climate."</p><p>Repeating these soundbites and others isn't healthy scepticism, it's spouting nonsense from a base of ignorance.</p><p>There are valid arguments that "business as usual" is the best way forwards. I happen to disagree - IMO the costs of mitigation will be miniscule in comparison to the costs of adapting regardless of the precise value of climate sensitivity - but denying the facts of science isn't valid or even intelligent, let alone healthy scepticism.</p><p>Tim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But we do n't have " healthy skepticism " .
We have unquestioning belief of opinion that people want to believe in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary.Even here on Slashdot , that I thought would be mainly visited by science trained people , we get countless posts along the lines of " I do n't believe in global warming " or " I do n't believe CO2 can cause global warming " .There was some confusion over the role of CO2 in our atmosphere .
Around the turn of the 20th Century Arrhenius realized that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere would cause temperatures to rise .
A few years later Angstrom did some unfortunate experiments that were misleading but compelling and the vast majority of scientists decided that Arrhenius was wrong .
Around the 20s or 30s we had the understanding to realize that Arrhenius must have been right which would have caused people to redo and reevaluate Angstrom 's experiments and find the flaw .
Unfortuately , that did n't happen and it was n't until the 1940s and high altitude bombers that there was experimental evidence to directly contradict Angstrom .
Since then the role of CO2 in our atmosphere is settled and adding CO2 will cause temperatures to rise .
All that is left is to determine what the sensitivity is .
And yet , 60 + years later we still see the same tired old arguments " CO2 absorption bands are saturated " and " CO2 is a trace gas so can not affect climate .
" Repeating these soundbites and others is n't healthy scepticism , it 's spouting nonsense from a base of ignorance.There are valid arguments that " business as usual " is the best way forwards .
I happen to disagree - IMO the costs of mitigation will be miniscule in comparison to the costs of adapting regardless of the precise value of climate sensitivity - but denying the facts of science is n't valid or even intelligent , let alone healthy scepticism.Tim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But we don't have "healthy skepticism".
We have unquestioning belief of opinion that people want to believe in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary.Even here on Slashdot, that I thought would be mainly visited by science trained people, we get countless posts along the lines of "I don't believe in global warming" or "I don't believe CO2 can cause global warming".There was some confusion over the role of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Around the turn of the 20th Century Arrhenius realized that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere would cause temperatures to rise.
A few years later Angstrom did some unfortunate experiments that were misleading but compelling and the vast majority of scientists decided that Arrhenius was wrong.
Around the 20s or 30s we had the understanding to realize that Arrhenius must have been right which would have caused people to redo and reevaluate Angstrom's experiments and find the flaw.
Unfortuately, that didn't happen and it wasn't until the 1940s and high altitude bombers that there was experimental evidence to directly contradict Angstrom.
Since then the role of CO2 in our atmosphere is settled and adding CO2 will cause temperatures to rise.
All that is left is to determine what the sensitivity is.
And yet, 60+ years later we still see the same tired old arguments "CO2 absorption bands are saturated" and "CO2 is a trace gas so cannot affect climate.
"Repeating these soundbites and others isn't healthy scepticism, it's spouting nonsense from a base of ignorance.There are valid arguments that "business as usual" is the best way forwards.
I happen to disagree - IMO the costs of mitigation will be miniscule in comparison to the costs of adapting regardless of the precise value of climate sensitivity - but denying the facts of science isn't valid or even intelligent, let alone healthy scepticism.Tim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390048</id>
	<title>Time to segment society</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1260467940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>into the "brights", who have been educated (and taken their education to heart) enough,<br>or are just intelligent enough, to understand on a first-principles basis why you should<br>in general believe the (long term unfalsified) results of science, and why you should<br>occasionally disbelieve particular isolated results that may have human interests behind<br>them,</p><p>and those who are easily swayed (on a question that requires science to explain it)<br>by a persuasive and publicised "just so" story.</p><p>What percentage of people do you think come down on either side of that divide?</p><p>Debate amongst yourselves. I'm off to do some science<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>into the " brights " , who have been educated ( and taken their education to heart ) enough,or are just intelligent enough , to understand on a first-principles basis why you shouldin general believe the ( long term unfalsified ) results of science , and why you shouldoccasionally disbelieve particular isolated results that may have human interests behindthem,and those who are easily swayed ( on a question that requires science to explain it ) by a persuasive and publicised " just so " story.What percentage of people do you think come down on either side of that divide ? Debate amongst yourselves .
I 'm off to do some science ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>into the "brights", who have been educated (and taken their education to heart) enough,or are just intelligent enough, to understand on a first-principles basis why you shouldin general believe the (long term unfalsified) results of science, and why you shouldoccasionally disbelieve particular isolated results that may have human interests behindthem,and those who are easily swayed (on a question that requires science to explain it)by a persuasive and publicised "just so" story.What percentage of people do you think come down on either side of that divide?Debate amongst yourselves.
I'm off to do some science ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393336</id>
	<title>IT WAS OVER BEFORE IT STARTED...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260436320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is it about the intellectual elitists here and there that they cannot for the life of me use the logic and reason they claim is what seperates modern humanity from the ancient barbarian???</p><p>-the earth, by scientific ESTIMATES is 4.5 billion years old<br>-the earth, by scientific ESTIMATES has been through 6 ice ages<br>-the earth, by scientific ESTIMATES has been much warmer in its history than during the short period of human existence we are now the product of meaning a natural CYCLE of warming and cooling is a state of NORMALCY that has occurred for the billions of years pre modern humanity<br>-the earth, by scientific ESTIMATES has a climate that was/is subject to other natural forces both terrestrial and astronomical that can be verified to be occurring on other neighboring bodies in the solar system, indicating a solar influence shared by all bodies in this solar system<br>-the earth, by the scientific ESTIMATES has warmed recently but since they deleted that data they have abandonded science for geopolitical posturing, the warming which MAY have occured pre 1998 of which has been on a cooling trend since could have been the foundation for REAL Climate Science but that was all literally, thrown away.</p><p>Notice a trend here????????</p><p>But in their quest for power, rooted in political ideology designed to punish the productive, reign in the free and create more income stream for their follies, they have reignited the Randian discussion soon to go global. This happened before although Atlas had not shrugged yet....</p><p>Message to the elite- fuck off or revist 1792!!!!!!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it about the intellectual elitists here and there that they can not for the life of me use the logic and reason they claim is what seperates modern humanity from the ancient barbarian ? ?
? -the earth , by scientific ESTIMATES is 4.5 billion years old-the earth , by scientific ESTIMATES has been through 6 ice ages-the earth , by scientific ESTIMATES has been much warmer in its history than during the short period of human existence we are now the product of meaning a natural CYCLE of warming and cooling is a state of NORMALCY that has occurred for the billions of years pre modern humanity-the earth , by scientific ESTIMATES has a climate that was/is subject to other natural forces both terrestrial and astronomical that can be verified to be occurring on other neighboring bodies in the solar system , indicating a solar influence shared by all bodies in this solar system-the earth , by the scientific ESTIMATES has warmed recently but since they deleted that data they have abandonded science for geopolitical posturing , the warming which MAY have occured pre 1998 of which has been on a cooling trend since could have been the foundation for REAL Climate Science but that was all literally , thrown away.Notice a trend here ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? But in their quest for power , rooted in political ideology designed to punish the productive , reign in the free and create more income stream for their follies , they have reignited the Randian discussion soon to go global .
This happened before although Atlas had not shrugged yet....Message to the elite- fuck off or revist 1792 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it about the intellectual elitists here and there that they cannot for the life of me use the logic and reason they claim is what seperates modern humanity from the ancient barbarian??
?-the earth, by scientific ESTIMATES is 4.5 billion years old-the earth, by scientific ESTIMATES has been through 6 ice ages-the earth, by scientific ESTIMATES has been much warmer in its history than during the short period of human existence we are now the product of meaning a natural CYCLE of warming and cooling is a state of NORMALCY that has occurred for the billions of years pre modern humanity-the earth, by scientific ESTIMATES has a climate that was/is subject to other natural forces both terrestrial and astronomical that can be verified to be occurring on other neighboring bodies in the solar system, indicating a solar influence shared by all bodies in this solar system-the earth, by the scientific ESTIMATES has warmed recently but since they deleted that data they have abandonded science for geopolitical posturing, the warming which MAY have occured pre 1998 of which has been on a cooling trend since could have been the foundation for REAL Climate Science but that was all literally, thrown away.Notice a trend here???????
?But in their quest for power, rooted in political ideology designed to punish the productive, reign in the free and create more income stream for their follies, they have reignited the Randian discussion soon to go global.
This happened before although Atlas had not shrugged yet....Message to the elite- fuck off or revist 1792!!!!!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389084</id>
	<title>Science will do just fine...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wall Street Journal is part of Rupert Murdoch media empire. That's a first point to note.</p><p>Secondly, with a title like 'Climategate: Science Is Dying", one can surmise that the object of this article is not an objective reflection over the topic, but just to lay a bit more confusion at the opening of the Copenhagen summit.</p><p>And if there is any analogy with Watergate, it is that both stories are about spies breaking in places.</p><p>It is true that science is under attack, like it has been in the past when scientists discoveries unsettled vested interests. We are more awed by science for the way it won over organized ignorance, not less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wall Street Journal is part of Rupert Murdoch media empire .
That 's a first point to note.Secondly , with a title like 'Climategate : Science Is Dying " , one can surmise that the object of this article is not an objective reflection over the topic , but just to lay a bit more confusion at the opening of the Copenhagen summit.And if there is any analogy with Watergate , it is that both stories are about spies breaking in places.It is true that science is under attack , like it has been in the past when scientists discoveries unsettled vested interests .
We are more awed by science for the way it won over organized ignorance , not less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wall Street Journal is part of Rupert Murdoch media empire.
That's a first point to note.Secondly, with a title like 'Climategate: Science Is Dying", one can surmise that the object of this article is not an objective reflection over the topic, but just to lay a bit more confusion at the opening of the Copenhagen summit.And if there is any analogy with Watergate, it is that both stories are about spies breaking in places.It is true that science is under attack, like it has been in the past when scientists discoveries unsettled vested interests.
We are more awed by science for the way it won over organized ignorance, not less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390846</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260470520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Doubt is good. Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.</p></div><p>No no no, this is not skepticism, people are not just applying systematic doubt, these are very special cased beliefs.</p><p>You will notice that the people who think global warming is fake are the same people who insist vaccines cause autism and the same people who think evolution is "just a theory",</p><p>This is not skepticism, this is a culture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doubt is good .
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.No no no , this is not skepticism , people are not just applying systematic doubt , these are very special cased beliefs.You will notice that the people who think global warming is fake are the same people who insist vaccines cause autism and the same people who think evolution is " just a theory " ,This is not skepticism , this is a culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doubt is good.
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.No no no, this is not skepticism, people are not just applying systematic doubt, these are very special cased beliefs.You will notice that the people who think global warming is fake are the same people who insist vaccines cause autism and the same people who think evolution is "just a theory",This is not skepticism, this is a culture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395194</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticism requires more than just questioning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260443460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The nice thing about science HARD science REAL science is that it is totally able to provide PROOF, EVIDENCE and VERIFICATION by NEUTRAL parties.</p><p>There are several brances of science that are not able to achieve this level of Verification and have a self interest in mooching off the credibility of REAL science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nice thing about science HARD science REAL science is that it is totally able to provide PROOF , EVIDENCE and VERIFICATION by NEUTRAL parties.There are several brances of science that are not able to achieve this level of Verification and have a self interest in mooching off the credibility of REAL science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nice thing about science HARD science REAL science is that it is totally able to provide PROOF, EVIDENCE and VERIFICATION by NEUTRAL parties.There are several brances of science that are not able to achieve this level of Verification and have a self interest in mooching off the credibility of REAL science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391522</id>
	<title>You're not talking about applied skepticism</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1260472620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Doubt is good. Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.</i> <br>
<br>
Problem is that most skeptics will not put their money where their mouth is -- and actually participate in the scientific debate. Instead, we get a bunch of unsubstantiated and contradictory theories appearing on websites. Theories that have already been discredited, and circular references that often lead no where.<br>
<br>
I believe in AGW, because I have spent the time to assess the evidence, and I have some understanding of scientific philosophy. If someone wants to turn me into a skeptic, then they will have to make an evidence based argument. No such argument exists, and <i>I have looked long and hard</i>. I have also challenged numerous skeptics to produce one. However, once the argument has been discredited, they all start talking about conspiracies. Somehow, I'm unreasonable because I cannot see this obvious "truth". And then there is the projections -- like calling science a religion. Am I of the church of science because I refuse to accept a conspiracy theory at face value, but rather, will only accept evidence based arguments about the issues? <br>
<br>
Skeptics presumably talk about "healthy skepticism", because of the way it makes them feel. They are not talking about any intellectual application of healthy skepticism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doubt is good .
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement .
Problem is that most skeptics will not put their money where their mouth is -- and actually participate in the scientific debate .
Instead , we get a bunch of unsubstantiated and contradictory theories appearing on websites .
Theories that have already been discredited , and circular references that often lead no where .
I believe in AGW , because I have spent the time to assess the evidence , and I have some understanding of scientific philosophy .
If someone wants to turn me into a skeptic , then they will have to make an evidence based argument .
No such argument exists , and I have looked long and hard .
I have also challenged numerous skeptics to produce one .
However , once the argument has been discredited , they all start talking about conspiracies .
Somehow , I 'm unreasonable because I can not see this obvious " truth " .
And then there is the projections -- like calling science a religion .
Am I of the church of science because I refuse to accept a conspiracy theory at face value , but rather , will only accept evidence based arguments about the issues ?
Skeptics presumably talk about " healthy skepticism " , because of the way it makes them feel .
They are not talking about any intellectual application of healthy skepticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doubt is good.
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.
Problem is that most skeptics will not put their money where their mouth is -- and actually participate in the scientific debate.
Instead, we get a bunch of unsubstantiated and contradictory theories appearing on websites.
Theories that have already been discredited, and circular references that often lead no where.
I believe in AGW, because I have spent the time to assess the evidence, and I have some understanding of scientific philosophy.
If someone wants to turn me into a skeptic, then they will have to make an evidence based argument.
No such argument exists, and I have looked long and hard.
I have also challenged numerous skeptics to produce one.
However, once the argument has been discredited, they all start talking about conspiracies.
Somehow, I'm unreasonable because I cannot see this obvious "truth".
And then there is the projections -- like calling science a religion.
Am I of the church of science because I refuse to accept a conspiracy theory at face value, but rather, will only accept evidence based arguments about the issues?
Skeptics presumably talk about "healthy skepticism", because of the way it makes them feel.
They are not talking about any intellectual application of healthy skepticism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390510</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1260469380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The good thing about actual science is that if there is someone falsifying results there's always someone else out there who can and eventually will make his career by proving that. Everybody likes an iconoclast who pulls the rug out from under the establishment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good thing about actual science is that if there is someone falsifying results there 's always someone else out there who can and eventually will make his career by proving that .
Everybody likes an iconoclast who pulls the rug out from under the establishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good thing about actual science is that if there is someone falsifying results there's always someone else out there who can and eventually will make his career by proving that.
Everybody likes an iconoclast who pulls the rug out from under the establishment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392574</id>
	<title>Human caused global warming is bullshit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260476520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole human caused global warming hypothesis is a scam. Global warming has occurred on planet Earth before human beings even existed. Global warming<br>is occurring on other planets in our solar system - and guess what? Nobody's driving hummers on Mars. Any real scientists knows this.  That isn't to say we shouldn't<br>control pollution, but the Al Gore idiots of the planet need to shut up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole human caused global warming hypothesis is a scam .
Global warming has occurred on planet Earth before human beings even existed .
Global warmingis occurring on other planets in our solar system - and guess what ?
Nobody 's driving hummers on Mars .
Any real scientists knows this .
That is n't to say we shouldn'tcontrol pollution , but the Al Gore idiots of the planet need to shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole human caused global warming hypothesis is a scam.
Global warming has occurred on planet Earth before human beings even existed.
Global warmingis occurring on other planets in our solar system - and guess what?
Nobody's driving hummers on Mars.
Any real scientists knows this.
That isn't to say we shouldn'tcontrol pollution, but the Al Gore idiots of the planet need to shut up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398238</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Jeeeb</author>
	<datestamp>1260464220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now.</i> <br> <br>

I think you mean people have been mistrusting things that go against their established ideas forever. The bigger question is whether we're in an upwards or downwards trend of acceptance of the major ideas of science.<br> <br>

Personally I think for example if you were to compare the number of people who accept evolution (or whatever else) 100 years ago compared to now, then you'd find that an increasingly large proportion of the population accepts it. Which is probably why you see such back-lash from the religious types who feel under threat. They know they're on the loosing side and on the way out.<br> <br>

On a side note, the attitude of "lay person" vs "scientists" creates a false dichotomy. It's especially problematic because the word "lay-person" has all sorts of implications about the persons supposed intelligence. There are plenty of "lay-people" who probably know a lot more about, for example, astronomy than, for example, a microbiologist would. To put it differently, I'm guessing you're not an hubristic asshole looking down on those around you, but it sure as hell sounds like it when you use the term "lay person".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now .
I think you mean people have been mistrusting things that go against their established ideas forever .
The bigger question is whether we 're in an upwards or downwards trend of acceptance of the major ideas of science .
Personally I think for example if you were to compare the number of people who accept evolution ( or whatever else ) 100 years ago compared to now , then you 'd find that an increasingly large proportion of the population accepts it .
Which is probably why you see such back-lash from the religious types who feel under threat .
They know they 're on the loosing side and on the way out .
On a side note , the attitude of " lay person " vs " scientists " creates a false dichotomy .
It 's especially problematic because the word " lay-person " has all sorts of implications about the persons supposed intelligence .
There are plenty of " lay-people " who probably know a lot more about , for example , astronomy than , for example , a microbiologist would .
To put it differently , I 'm guessing you 're not an hubristic asshole looking down on those around you , but it sure as hell sounds like it when you use the term " lay person " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now.
I think you mean people have been mistrusting things that go against their established ideas forever.
The bigger question is whether we're in an upwards or downwards trend of acceptance of the major ideas of science.
Personally I think for example if you were to compare the number of people who accept evolution (or whatever else) 100 years ago compared to now, then you'd find that an increasingly large proportion of the population accepts it.
Which is probably why you see such back-lash from the religious types who feel under threat.
They know they're on the loosing side and on the way out.
On a side note, the attitude of "lay person" vs "scientists" creates a false dichotomy.
It's especially problematic because the word "lay-person" has all sorts of implications about the persons supposed intelligence.
There are plenty of "lay-people" who probably know a lot more about, for example, astronomy than, for example, a microbiologist would.
To put it differently, I'm guessing you're not an hubristic asshole looking down on those around you, but it sure as hell sounds like it when you use the term "lay person".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390920</id>
	<title>Re:Science costs money, ergo...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260470700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ray Stanz.  Hand in your card, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ray Stanz .
Hand in your card , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ray Stanz.
Hand in your card, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389618</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, sorry. Climate science produces hypotheses and tests theories just like any other science. You know how they do it? They look to their models to produce a prediction, then they wait and see if their prediction comes true. If their prediction doesn't come true, either their hypothesis or their model is wrong, and they change it. Just like astronomers. Just like physicists, just like every other scientist in every other scientific field.</p><p>Psychologists, Social Scientists, and Political Scientists all do the same thing.</p><p>Your claims about 1975 Nature, and New York Times are false. New York Times actually published an article in 1975 called "Global Temperatures Expected to Rise," the article in Nature said that an ice age was coming in 20,000 years, which is fiarly consistent with current predictions of about 16,000 years. Your claim of 100 years is dubious and is to be found nowhere in the scientific literature (perhaps you are thinking of the alarmist Time article on global cooling?)</p><p>But aside from that, data in the 1970's on the climate was sparse, and models were not very good. During that decade, about as many papers were published predicting cooling as were predicting warming. Now, models are better, data is better, and the data is far more conclusive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , sorry .
Climate science produces hypotheses and tests theories just like any other science .
You know how they do it ?
They look to their models to produce a prediction , then they wait and see if their prediction comes true .
If their prediction does n't come true , either their hypothesis or their model is wrong , and they change it .
Just like astronomers .
Just like physicists , just like every other scientist in every other scientific field.Psychologists , Social Scientists , and Political Scientists all do the same thing.Your claims about 1975 Nature , and New York Times are false .
New York Times actually published an article in 1975 called " Global Temperatures Expected to Rise , " the article in Nature said that an ice age was coming in 20,000 years , which is fiarly consistent with current predictions of about 16,000 years .
Your claim of 100 years is dubious and is to be found nowhere in the scientific literature ( perhaps you are thinking of the alarmist Time article on global cooling ?
) But aside from that , data in the 1970 's on the climate was sparse , and models were not very good .
During that decade , about as many papers were published predicting cooling as were predicting warming .
Now , models are better , data is better , and the data is far more conclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, sorry.
Climate science produces hypotheses and tests theories just like any other science.
You know how they do it?
They look to their models to produce a prediction, then they wait and see if their prediction comes true.
If their prediction doesn't come true, either their hypothesis or their model is wrong, and they change it.
Just like astronomers.
Just like physicists, just like every other scientist in every other scientific field.Psychologists, Social Scientists, and Political Scientists all do the same thing.Your claims about 1975 Nature, and New York Times are false.
New York Times actually published an article in 1975 called "Global Temperatures Expected to Rise," the article in Nature said that an ice age was coming in 20,000 years, which is fiarly consistent with current predictions of about 16,000 years.
Your claim of 100 years is dubious and is to be found nowhere in the scientific literature (perhaps you are thinking of the alarmist Time article on global cooling?
)But aside from that, data in the 1970's on the climate was sparse, and models were not very good.
During that decade, about as many papers were published predicting cooling as were predicting warming.
Now, models are better, data is better, and the data is far more conclusive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389230</id>
	<title>Doubt? Well in theory....</title>
	<author>hitnrunrambler</author>
	<datestamp>1260465600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it will hurt the layperson that much to gain a bit of doubt. This is a case where the worst case scenario IS the best case scenario.</p><p>What if we look as the net result not as a "weakening of scientific belief", but as an introduction of skepticism.<br>The problem isn't credibility but credulity; credibility builds based on performance, credulity assumes performance without examining further.</p><p>Hard science can and will weather doubts, because it is provable and above all practical. Theory science needs to be refined to the provable and practical; and it just might be forced to do so if the general public are no longer willing to "buy" based on the same sort of marketing that's been used for decades.</p><p>In an atmosphere of easy credulity everyone can simply pick a theory to support based on what they already believe, in this same atmosphere theories will flourish to match each preexisting belief. This is religious in nature and not scientific, and the net result is inaction; losing the factual and the achievable in a storm of multiple "what ifs".</p><p>Think about global warming, as a whole no one can honestly prove the tenets either for our against. So... SCRAP it, or stop trying to base decisions on the theory. Instead address the provable:<br>Does dumping X in water-sources cause Y damage?<br>Does B action cause smog?<br>Is C resource being used sustainably?<br>etc..</p><p>The earth/environment is a large adaptive system, If we address the provable negative effects our actions have then the system will be allowed to function as it always has.</p><p>Science develops from theory, but actions should be based on proven science; and the layperson should have a narrower understanding of what makes a "proven science".</p><p>p.s. Remember what the opposite of Layperson is anyway: "Clergy", and that is exactly the sort of relationship that most people have with science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it will hurt the layperson that much to gain a bit of doubt .
This is a case where the worst case scenario IS the best case scenario.What if we look as the net result not as a " weakening of scientific belief " , but as an introduction of skepticism.The problem is n't credibility but credulity ; credibility builds based on performance , credulity assumes performance without examining further.Hard science can and will weather doubts , because it is provable and above all practical .
Theory science needs to be refined to the provable and practical ; and it just might be forced to do so if the general public are no longer willing to " buy " based on the same sort of marketing that 's been used for decades.In an atmosphere of easy credulity everyone can simply pick a theory to support based on what they already believe , in this same atmosphere theories will flourish to match each preexisting belief .
This is religious in nature and not scientific , and the net result is inaction ; losing the factual and the achievable in a storm of multiple " what ifs " .Think about global warming , as a whole no one can honestly prove the tenets either for our against .
So... SCRAP it , or stop trying to base decisions on the theory .
Instead address the provable : Does dumping X in water-sources cause Y damage ? Does B action cause smog ? Is C resource being used sustainably ? etc..The earth/environment is a large adaptive system , If we address the provable negative effects our actions have then the system will be allowed to function as it always has.Science develops from theory , but actions should be based on proven science ; and the layperson should have a narrower understanding of what makes a " proven science " .p.s .
Remember what the opposite of Layperson is anyway : " Clergy " , and that is exactly the sort of relationship that most people have with science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it will hurt the layperson that much to gain a bit of doubt.
This is a case where the worst case scenario IS the best case scenario.What if we look as the net result not as a "weakening of scientific belief", but as an introduction of skepticism.The problem isn't credibility but credulity; credibility builds based on performance, credulity assumes performance without examining further.Hard science can and will weather doubts, because it is provable and above all practical.
Theory science needs to be refined to the provable and practical; and it just might be forced to do so if the general public are no longer willing to "buy" based on the same sort of marketing that's been used for decades.In an atmosphere of easy credulity everyone can simply pick a theory to support based on what they already believe, in this same atmosphere theories will flourish to match each preexisting belief.
This is religious in nature and not scientific, and the net result is inaction; losing the factual and the achievable in a storm of multiple "what ifs".Think about global warming, as a whole no one can honestly prove the tenets either for our against.
So... SCRAP it, or stop trying to base decisions on the theory.
Instead address the provable:Does dumping X in water-sources cause Y damage?Does B action cause smog?Is C resource being used sustainably?etc..The earth/environment is a large adaptive system, If we address the provable negative effects our actions have then the system will be allowed to function as it always has.Science develops from theory, but actions should be based on proven science; and the layperson should have a narrower understanding of what makes a "proven science".p.s.
Remember what the opposite of Layperson is anyway: "Clergy", and that is exactly the sort of relationship that most people have with science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391268</id>
	<title>Global Warming Problems...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260471780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "greenhouse gas theory" came into being when the Mauna Loa observations began to show the increase in the atmospheric co2 concentration and the climate was generally on a warming cycle.  Some minds quickly put those two things together to link cause (co2) with effect (warming) and claimed that co2 was blocking the radiation of heat into space.  Then the race was on to "prove" the theory...a race which continues to this day.  Core samples of arctic ice were taken to establish temperature records and tiny bubbles of air in the core samples were analyzed to confirm some sort of 'historical' record of carbon dioxide concentration. That alone should give one pause as the the permeability of ice to carbon dioxide would make the concentration of co2 in those ice-entrapped bubbles meaningless after a short amount of time, never mind a thousands-of-years time span.  Implicit in this investigation pathway is the assumption that modern atmospheric co2 concentrations are a function of fossil fuel combustion and photosynthesis, completely ignoring the effect of huge bodies of a liquid substance we call 'water' on the planet in which atmospheric carbon dioxide readily dissolves and then precipitates with calcium to form calcium carbonate, a substance present in large quantities around the globe.  Calcium carbonate in the ocean is itself in equilibrium with calcium oxide which comprises between 6 and 10 weight percent of the oceanic and continental crust of the earth, moderated by ocean temperatures which vary depending on both solar electromagnetic and magnetic input.  There is already more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to block all of the ir radiation that carbon dioxide is capable of blocking...so the entire global warming theory is a three-legged stool (constant solar input, co2 thermal barrier depends on increasing co2 concentration, planetary temperatures increasing) resting comfortably on two shaky legs.  That's why the IPCC is racing to push governments into prompt action...before the decline in global temperatures and solar output begins to shake the confidence of the followers of the global warming religion and cause a loss in their numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " greenhouse gas theory " came into being when the Mauna Loa observations began to show the increase in the atmospheric co2 concentration and the climate was generally on a warming cycle .
Some minds quickly put those two things together to link cause ( co2 ) with effect ( warming ) and claimed that co2 was blocking the radiation of heat into space .
Then the race was on to " prove " the theory...a race which continues to this day .
Core samples of arctic ice were taken to establish temperature records and tiny bubbles of air in the core samples were analyzed to confirm some sort of 'historical ' record of carbon dioxide concentration .
That alone should give one pause as the the permeability of ice to carbon dioxide would make the concentration of co2 in those ice-entrapped bubbles meaningless after a short amount of time , never mind a thousands-of-years time span .
Implicit in this investigation pathway is the assumption that modern atmospheric co2 concentrations are a function of fossil fuel combustion and photosynthesis , completely ignoring the effect of huge bodies of a liquid substance we call 'water ' on the planet in which atmospheric carbon dioxide readily dissolves and then precipitates with calcium to form calcium carbonate , a substance present in large quantities around the globe .
Calcium carbonate in the ocean is itself in equilibrium with calcium oxide which comprises between 6 and 10 weight percent of the oceanic and continental crust of the earth , moderated by ocean temperatures which vary depending on both solar electromagnetic and magnetic input .
There is already more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to block all of the ir radiation that carbon dioxide is capable of blocking...so the entire global warming theory is a three-legged stool ( constant solar input , co2 thermal barrier depends on increasing co2 concentration , planetary temperatures increasing ) resting comfortably on two shaky legs .
That 's why the IPCC is racing to push governments into prompt action...before the decline in global temperatures and solar output begins to shake the confidence of the followers of the global warming religion and cause a loss in their numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "greenhouse gas theory" came into being when the Mauna Loa observations began to show the increase in the atmospheric co2 concentration and the climate was generally on a warming cycle.
Some minds quickly put those two things together to link cause (co2) with effect (warming) and claimed that co2 was blocking the radiation of heat into space.
Then the race was on to "prove" the theory...a race which continues to this day.
Core samples of arctic ice were taken to establish temperature records and tiny bubbles of air in the core samples were analyzed to confirm some sort of 'historical' record of carbon dioxide concentration.
That alone should give one pause as the the permeability of ice to carbon dioxide would make the concentration of co2 in those ice-entrapped bubbles meaningless after a short amount of time, never mind a thousands-of-years time span.
Implicit in this investigation pathway is the assumption that modern atmospheric co2 concentrations are a function of fossil fuel combustion and photosynthesis, completely ignoring the effect of huge bodies of a liquid substance we call 'water' on the planet in which atmospheric carbon dioxide readily dissolves and then precipitates with calcium to form calcium carbonate, a substance present in large quantities around the globe.
Calcium carbonate in the ocean is itself in equilibrium with calcium oxide which comprises between 6 and 10 weight percent of the oceanic and continental crust of the earth, moderated by ocean temperatures which vary depending on both solar electromagnetic and magnetic input.
There is already more than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to block all of the ir radiation that carbon dioxide is capable of blocking...so the entire global warming theory is a three-legged stool (constant solar input, co2 thermal barrier depends on increasing co2 concentration, planetary temperatures increasing) resting comfortably on two shaky legs.
That's why the IPCC is racing to push governments into prompt action...before the decline in global temperatures and solar output begins to shake the confidence of the followers of the global warming religion and cause a loss in their numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388870</id>
	<title>One citation explains it all.</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1260464460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."<br>- Bertrand Russel</p><p>As evidence of the validity of Russel's insight, consider the people who are cocksure enough to assume it is they who are the doubters. They will even quarrel amongst each other about which of them is the intelligent, when in reality they are all idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt .
" - Bertrand RusselAs evidence of the validity of Russel 's insight , consider the people who are cocksure enough to assume it is they who are the doubters .
They will even quarrel amongst each other about which of them is the intelligent , when in reality they are all idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
"- Bertrand RusselAs evidence of the validity of Russel's insight, consider the people who are cocksure enough to assume it is they who are the doubters.
They will even quarrel amongst each other about which of them is the intelligent, when in reality they are all idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389002</id>
	<title>fallout of climategate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The real fallout of climategate may have nothing to do with the credibility of climate change"</p><p>Any idea of who did the leaking and what their motivation was ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The real fallout of climategate may have nothing to do with the credibility of climate change " Any idea of who did the leaking and what their motivation was ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The real fallout of climategate may have nothing to do with the credibility of climate change"Any idea of who did the leaking and what their motivation was ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390100</id>
	<title>Trillions of dollars and corruption</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1260468120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carbon credits and cap and trade and so on are a scheme to take trillions with a T dollars from one set of pockets and transfer it to other pockets, with a big fat wall street skim in the middle. The pro AGW folks like to say the "deniers" are in the pockets of big oil and big coal. Well, those folks can be said to be in the pockets of big wall street, the enrons and goldman sachs type boys.  There are also numerous overlapping political power considerations in this debate now.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Oh-no-Another-climate-scam-scandal-this-time-in-Denmark-78510842.html" title="washingtonexaminer.com" rel="nofollow">Of course there's corruption</a> [washingtonexaminer.com], and it already started where cap and trade is established. There's no way when discussing such *vast* mind boggling sums to even assume that there is not, that would be terribly naive and flies in the face of proven past human history. When you have that much money and power involved....</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The question is, how far does the rot go and who is involved? How much have predictive models been tweaked to give a biased in advance outcome? How many dissenting voices have been ignored or shouted down? Who really is getting funded by whom, who is pushing x agenda or y agenda for financial gain and political power accumulation, hidden behind their particular set of tame scientists or orgs?</p><p>These are legitimate questions, and there is no "denying" the data of this ginormous middleman trader's skimming market they are pushing hand in hand with this "climate science consensus", there is no airgap here, those two things are rigidly locked together.</p><p>Heck, here's another, the other big "emergency" science debate, where there is "consensus" allegedly and all sorts of huge sums needed to be spent and people scared, etc. <a href="http://news.google.com/news?q=Albert+Osterhaus" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Swine flu pandemic vaccinegate maybe?</a> [google.com]</p><p>If there's big money and big power involved, corruption happens. It just does, always has. Scientists, academicians, "esteemed" journals..doesn't matter, they are all human, so we should never completely blindly trust them, or any other big business or big government, to be non corrupt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carbon credits and cap and trade and so on are a scheme to take trillions with a T dollars from one set of pockets and transfer it to other pockets , with a big fat wall street skim in the middle .
The pro AGW folks like to say the " deniers " are in the pockets of big oil and big coal .
Well , those folks can be said to be in the pockets of big wall street , the enrons and goldman sachs type boys .
There are also numerous overlapping political power considerations in this debate now.Of course there 's corruption [ washingtonexaminer.com ] , and it already started where cap and trade is established .
There 's no way when discussing such * vast * mind boggling sums to even assume that there is not , that would be terribly naive and flies in the face of proven past human history .
When you have that much money and power involved... .     The question is , how far does the rot go and who is involved ?
How much have predictive models been tweaked to give a biased in advance outcome ?
How many dissenting voices have been ignored or shouted down ?
Who really is getting funded by whom , who is pushing x agenda or y agenda for financial gain and political power accumulation , hidden behind their particular set of tame scientists or orgs ? These are legitimate questions , and there is no " denying " the data of this ginormous middleman trader 's skimming market they are pushing hand in hand with this " climate science consensus " , there is no airgap here , those two things are rigidly locked together.Heck , here 's another , the other big " emergency " science debate , where there is " consensus " allegedly and all sorts of huge sums needed to be spent and people scared , etc .
Swine flu pandemic vaccinegate maybe ?
[ google.com ] If there 's big money and big power involved , corruption happens .
It just does , always has .
Scientists , academicians , " esteemed " journals..does n't matter , they are all human , so we should never completely blindly trust them , or any other big business or big government , to be non corrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carbon credits and cap and trade and so on are a scheme to take trillions with a T dollars from one set of pockets and transfer it to other pockets, with a big fat wall street skim in the middle.
The pro AGW folks like to say the "deniers" are in the pockets of big oil and big coal.
Well, those folks can be said to be in the pockets of big wall street, the enrons and goldman sachs type boys.
There are also numerous overlapping political power considerations in this debate now.Of course there's corruption [washingtonexaminer.com], and it already started where cap and trade is established.
There's no way when discussing such *vast* mind boggling sums to even assume that there is not, that would be terribly naive and flies in the face of proven past human history.
When you have that much money and power involved....
    The question is, how far does the rot go and who is involved?
How much have predictive models been tweaked to give a biased in advance outcome?
How many dissenting voices have been ignored or shouted down?
Who really is getting funded by whom, who is pushing x agenda or y agenda for financial gain and political power accumulation, hidden behind their particular set of tame scientists or orgs?These are legitimate questions, and there is no "denying" the data of this ginormous middleman trader's skimming market they are pushing hand in hand with this "climate science consensus", there is no airgap here, those two things are rigidly locked together.Heck, here's another, the other big "emergency" science debate, where there is "consensus" allegedly and all sorts of huge sums needed to be spent and people scared, etc.
Swine flu pandemic vaccinegate maybe?
[google.com]If there's big money and big power involved, corruption happens.
It just does, always has.
Scientists, academicians, "esteemed" journals..doesn't matter, they are all human, so we should never completely blindly trust them, or any other big business or big government, to be non corrupt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389488</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>adaviel</author>
	<datestamp>1260466440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doubt and skepticism are the basis of the scientific method. You don't trust some theory just because the proposer got tenure, you go out and do an experiment to prove it. Then everyone says your experimental data is flawed until two other guys have replicated the effect and got the same result. With climate change, enough other guys have reproduced the results in enough different fields that all the serious doubt was over years ago. Now they are arguing over whether uncertainty in cloud modelling means we get 2C rise in temperature or 3C.

BTW, some of the climate models are available for download for those that want to play</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doubt and skepticism are the basis of the scientific method .
You do n't trust some theory just because the proposer got tenure , you go out and do an experiment to prove it .
Then everyone says your experimental data is flawed until two other guys have replicated the effect and got the same result .
With climate change , enough other guys have reproduced the results in enough different fields that all the serious doubt was over years ago .
Now they are arguing over whether uncertainty in cloud modelling means we get 2C rise in temperature or 3C .
BTW , some of the climate models are available for download for those that want to play</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doubt and skepticism are the basis of the scientific method.
You don't trust some theory just because the proposer got tenure, you go out and do an experiment to prove it.
Then everyone says your experimental data is flawed until two other guys have replicated the effect and got the same result.
With climate change, enough other guys have reproduced the results in enough different fields that all the serious doubt was over years ago.
Now they are arguing over whether uncertainty in cloud modelling means we get 2C rise in temperature or 3C.
BTW, some of the climate models are available for download for those that want to play</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389908</id>
	<title>The articles premis is wrong</title>
	<author>plague911</author>
	<datestamp>1260467520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>" Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. "
That statement is completely wrong. If it was true there would not have been a problem in the first place. Science deniers have long been in a very very strong minority. This is why we have failed to get global warming, or stem cell research properly  funded. These idots have been standing in the way for decades this is why this world is on the brink of colapse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hard science , alongside medicine , was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons .
" That statement is completely wrong .
If it was true there would not have been a problem in the first place .
Science deniers have long been in a very very strong minority .
This is why we have failed to get global warming , or stem cell research properly funded .
These idots have been standing in the way for decades this is why this world is on the brink of colapse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons.
"
That statement is completely wrong.
If it was true there would not have been a problem in the first place.
Science deniers have long been in a very very strong minority.
This is why we have failed to get global warming, or stem cell research properly  funded.
These idots have been standing in the way for decades this is why this world is on the brink of colapse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389358</id>
	<title>There is stupid in the world.</title>
	<author>ourcraft</author>
	<datestamp>1260466020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The linked original article is evidence. I want people who doubt science to never visit a doctor, never ride a car, never fly, they can't watch television, go to the movies, use their phone, use their cell phone. or better banned from using them.

If you want to opine about creation, global warming, science or the use of religious texts to explain carbon dating then I want tests passed about how a cell phone works before you can use one. You have to explain Frequency Modulation before listening to stupid-increasing on-airheads, explain the inherited DNA of mitochondria before being allowed to visit a Doctor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked original article is evidence .
I want people who doubt science to never visit a doctor , never ride a car , never fly , they ca n't watch television , go to the movies , use their phone , use their cell phone .
or better banned from using them .
If you want to opine about creation , global warming , science or the use of religious texts to explain carbon dating then I want tests passed about how a cell phone works before you can use one .
You have to explain Frequency Modulation before listening to stupid-increasing on-airheads , explain the inherited DNA of mitochondria before being allowed to visit a Doctor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked original article is evidence.
I want people who doubt science to never visit a doctor, never ride a car, never fly, they can't watch television, go to the movies, use their phone, use their cell phone.
or better banned from using them.
If you want to opine about creation, global warming, science or the use of religious texts to explain carbon dating then I want tests passed about how a cell phone works before you can use one.
You have to explain Frequency Modulation before listening to stupid-increasing on-airheads, explain the inherited DNA of mitochondria before being allowed to visit a Doctor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389522</id>
	<title>It shouldn't, and here's why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't science!</p><p>The whole debate around global warming is politics. It actually has little to do with science. If it was pure science, then the CRU would be glad to share their data and let other people duplicate their results. But do we get this? NO, Instead we get:</p><p>&ldquo;I took a decision not to release our [meteorological] station data, mainly because of McIntyre,&rdquo;.- quote from Phil Jones in one of the leaked e-mails referring to Canadian Steve McIntyre. In another e-mail he actually says that he would delete the data if McIntyre requests it under FoI rather than hand it over. Does this sound like a scientist? (Steve McIntyre is the man who proved that the CRU code produces a hockey stick even when fed random data.)</p><p>In spite of the fact that other scientists using other data have come up with contradictory results, you routinely hear things like "the debate is over", "all scientists agree", etc, etc. Frankly, the debate hasn't even started yet!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't science ! The whole debate around global warming is politics .
It actually has little to do with science .
If it was pure science , then the CRU would be glad to share their data and let other people duplicate their results .
But do we get this ?
NO , Instead we get :    I took a decision not to release our [ meteorological ] station data , mainly because of McIntyre ,    .- quote from Phil Jones in one of the leaked e-mails referring to Canadian Steve McIntyre .
In another e-mail he actually says that he would delete the data if McIntyre requests it under FoI rather than hand it over .
Does this sound like a scientist ?
( Steve McIntyre is the man who proved that the CRU code produces a hockey stick even when fed random data .
) In spite of the fact that other scientists using other data have come up with contradictory results , you routinely hear things like " the debate is over " , " all scientists agree " , etc , etc .
Frankly , the debate has n't even started yet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't science!The whole debate around global warming is politics.
It actually has little to do with science.
If it was pure science, then the CRU would be glad to share their data and let other people duplicate their results.
But do we get this?
NO, Instead we get:“I took a decision not to release our [meteorological] station data, mainly because of McIntyre,”.- quote from Phil Jones in one of the leaked e-mails referring to Canadian Steve McIntyre.
In another e-mail he actually says that he would delete the data if McIntyre requests it under FoI rather than hand it over.
Does this sound like a scientist?
(Steve McIntyre is the man who proved that the CRU code produces a hockey stick even when fed random data.
)In spite of the fact that other scientists using other data have come up with contradictory results, you routinely hear things like "the debate is over", "all scientists agree", etc, etc.
Frankly, the debate hasn't even started yet!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393166</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260435720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is anthropogenic climate change a good thing for government?</p></div><p>It gives the government a(nother) reason to exercise increasing control over the populace "for the peoples own good".  Every bogeyman the government can find be it anthropogenic climate change or terrorists is another lever the liberals/conservatives user to take away a little more from the people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is anthropogenic climate change a good thing for government ? It gives the government a ( nother ) reason to exercise increasing control over the populace " for the peoples own good " .
Every bogeyman the government can find be it anthropogenic climate change or terrorists is another lever the liberals/conservatives user to take away a little more from the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is anthropogenic climate change a good thing for government?It gives the government a(nother) reason to exercise increasing control over the populace "for the peoples own good".
Every bogeyman the government can find be it anthropogenic climate change or terrorists is another lever the liberals/conservatives user to take away a little more from the people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397252</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260453720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would take a motivated, highly educated person with a lot of money to pay for scientific articles (<b>they aren't by-and-large free except when you have a university affiliation</b>), and lost of time to comb through stacks and stacks of papers in order to make an informed decision about one treatment.</p></div><p>We can fix the problem I've bolded there, at least.  Articles in my field (astrophysics) are moving towards a more open model - it's rare to find a recent paper that doesn't have a free copy up on a pre-print server like arxiv.org.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would take a motivated , highly educated person with a lot of money to pay for scientific articles ( they are n't by-and-large free except when you have a university affiliation ) , and lost of time to comb through stacks and stacks of papers in order to make an informed decision about one treatment.We can fix the problem I 've bolded there , at least .
Articles in my field ( astrophysics ) are moving towards a more open model - it 's rare to find a recent paper that does n't have a free copy up on a pre-print server like arxiv.org .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would take a motivated, highly educated person with a lot of money to pay for scientific articles (they aren't by-and-large free except when you have a university affiliation), and lost of time to comb through stacks and stacks of papers in order to make an informed decision about one treatment.We can fix the problem I've bolded there, at least.
Articles in my field (astrophysics) are moving towards a more open model - it's rare to find a recent paper that doesn't have a free copy up on a pre-print server like arxiv.org.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390134</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1260468300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, you're an idiot.  Nothing insightful here.
<br> <br>
The simple fact is Americans are stupid.  They would not believe you if you told them, "the paint is wet."  They would still have to touch it.  Americans do not trust science.  They never had.  So there is no fall from grace.  This latest drama simply confirms their world view not to trust science.
<br> <br>
You are part of that group.
<br> <br>
Thing is, there is no conspiracy about man-made climate change.  The data proves this.  The questions are how fast is it happening and is it reversible.  Unfortunately it does appear that it is happening at a faster pace than what was predicted.
<br> <br>
But be all means, please tell us how "evil" scientists are and how saintly the "do nothing" crowd is.
<br> <br>
It's not like being more energy efficient and finding  renewable energy sources isn't profitable or worthwhile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , you 're an idiot .
Nothing insightful here .
The simple fact is Americans are stupid .
They would not believe you if you told them , " the paint is wet .
" They would still have to touch it .
Americans do not trust science .
They never had .
So there is no fall from grace .
This latest drama simply confirms their world view not to trust science .
You are part of that group .
Thing is , there is no conspiracy about man-made climate change .
The data proves this .
The questions are how fast is it happening and is it reversible .
Unfortunately it does appear that it is happening at a faster pace than what was predicted .
But be all means , please tell us how " evil " scientists are and how saintly the " do nothing " crowd is .
It 's not like being more energy efficient and finding renewable energy sources is n't profitable or worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, you're an idiot.
Nothing insightful here.
The simple fact is Americans are stupid.
They would not believe you if you told them, "the paint is wet.
"  They would still have to touch it.
Americans do not trust science.
They never had.
So there is no fall from grace.
This latest drama simply confirms their world view not to trust science.
You are part of that group.
Thing is, there is no conspiracy about man-made climate change.
The data proves this.
The questions are how fast is it happening and is it reversible.
Unfortunately it does appear that it is happening at a faster pace than what was predicted.
But be all means, please tell us how "evil" scientists are and how saintly the "do nothing" crowd is.
It's not like being more energy efficient and finding  renewable energy sources isn't profitable or worthwhile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394646</id>
	<title>Re:Science costs money, ergo...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260441540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Climate science being funded by private enterprise or government? I assume it's government (ME!) funded - &amp; I want the truth, not fudging. The results should be transparent and unequivocal before a bunch of politicians can decide to tax the crap out of me... before they even bother wasting time/money discussing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Climate science being funded by private enterprise or government ?
I assume it 's government ( ME !
) funded - &amp; I want the truth , not fudging .
The results should be transparent and unequivocal before a bunch of politicians can decide to tax the crap out of me... before they even bother wasting time/money discussing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Climate science being funded by private enterprise or government?
I assume it's government (ME!
) funded - &amp; I want the truth, not fudging.
The results should be transparent and unequivocal before a bunch of politicians can decide to tax the crap out of me... before they even bother wasting time/money discussing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1260465960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics.</p> </div><p>Then you haven't been paying attention. The worst problems are evading a legitimate FOIA request, coercing journals to not publish the works of "skeptics", and excluding "skeptic" literature from the IPCC record. Those aren't "petty" scrabbles due to the stakes involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics .
Then you have n't been paying attention .
The worst problems are evading a legitimate FOIA request , coercing journals to not publish the works of " skeptics " , and excluding " skeptic " literature from the IPCC record .
Those are n't " petty " scrabbles due to the stakes involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
The worst problems are evading a legitimate FOIA request, coercing journals to not publish the works of "skeptics", and excluding "skeptic" literature from the IPCC record.
Those aren't "petty" scrabbles due to the stakes involved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389686</id>
	<title>Re:These "scientists" weren't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a fucking IDIOT. There is no agenda in climate research. The current understanding of how atmosphere works (carbon cycle, water cycle, nitrogen cycle, etc.) were ALL on paper well over a hundred years ago.</p><p>You are just a bigot though, with no brain to even read wikipedia so now go and go fuck yourself. Asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a fucking IDIOT .
There is no agenda in climate research .
The current understanding of how atmosphere works ( carbon cycle , water cycle , nitrogen cycle , etc .
) were ALL on paper well over a hundred years ago.You are just a bigot though , with no brain to even read wikipedia so now go and go fuck yourself .
Asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a fucking IDIOT.
There is no agenda in climate research.
The current understanding of how atmosphere works (carbon cycle, water cycle, nitrogen cycle, etc.
) were ALL on paper well over a hundred years ago.You are just a bigot though, with no brain to even read wikipedia so now go and go fuck yourself.
Asshole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397016</id>
	<title>you have an incorrect perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260451800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>only good will come of this. The great thing about science is... that it doesn't matter what you or I believe. It just is. And if the explanation accurately predicts what we saw, see or will see or if one can repeat tests to verify the claim... then all philosophical opinions are irrelivant.</p><p>Besides, what these scientists appeared to be doing (hiding their publicly funded data-&gt;process-&gt;results) has nothing to do with them being scientists. It has to do with them acting in an unethical manner. All scientific claims should be viewed with an air of skepticism... especially when money is at stake. So a little mis-trust is a good thing.</p><p>Also, if the end result is that more scientists will need to reveal more about their data/process before publishing results... that is also a good thing.</p><p>We just came through the era of lies. Hiding, manipulating, cherry picking truths in order to further a cause. Thank god some of these people are being outed. And if the result is a little distrust and forced transparency... Thank god too.</p><p>But really, if AGW is real and really as bad as they imply it will be. Why are they concerned about hoarding their data? If they were doing what it appears (withholding the data)... then they deserve every bit of punishment the public can unleash upon them. How dare someone hold the data hostage from a world of scientists who could help to refine their methods and more quickly validate/invalidate the claims of their results. If this is the case, these scientists are probably the most selfish self-centered workers in the world right now. Let their stoning begin. And higher some "open-sourcer's" to fill their shoes with a little humility. After all, isn't it THE WHOLE WORLD they are talking about over there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>only good will come of this .
The great thing about science is... that it does n't matter what you or I believe .
It just is .
And if the explanation accurately predicts what we saw , see or will see or if one can repeat tests to verify the claim... then all philosophical opinions are irrelivant.Besides , what these scientists appeared to be doing ( hiding their publicly funded data- &gt; process- &gt; results ) has nothing to do with them being scientists .
It has to do with them acting in an unethical manner .
All scientific claims should be viewed with an air of skepticism... especially when money is at stake .
So a little mis-trust is a good thing.Also , if the end result is that more scientists will need to reveal more about their data/process before publishing results... that is also a good thing.We just came through the era of lies .
Hiding , manipulating , cherry picking truths in order to further a cause .
Thank god some of these people are being outed .
And if the result is a little distrust and forced transparency... Thank god too.But really , if AGW is real and really as bad as they imply it will be .
Why are they concerned about hoarding their data ?
If they were doing what it appears ( withholding the data ) ... then they deserve every bit of punishment the public can unleash upon them .
How dare someone hold the data hostage from a world of scientists who could help to refine their methods and more quickly validate/invalidate the claims of their results .
If this is the case , these scientists are probably the most selfish self-centered workers in the world right now .
Let their stoning begin .
And higher some " open-sourcer 's " to fill their shoes with a little humility .
After all , is n't it THE WHOLE WORLD they are talking about over there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only good will come of this.
The great thing about science is... that it doesn't matter what you or I believe.
It just is.
And if the explanation accurately predicts what we saw, see or will see or if one can repeat tests to verify the claim... then all philosophical opinions are irrelivant.Besides, what these scientists appeared to be doing (hiding their publicly funded data-&gt;process-&gt;results) has nothing to do with them being scientists.
It has to do with them acting in an unethical manner.
All scientific claims should be viewed with an air of skepticism... especially when money is at stake.
So a little mis-trust is a good thing.Also, if the end result is that more scientists will need to reveal more about their data/process before publishing results... that is also a good thing.We just came through the era of lies.
Hiding, manipulating, cherry picking truths in order to further a cause.
Thank god some of these people are being outed.
And if the result is a little distrust and forced transparency... Thank god too.But really, if AGW is real and really as bad as they imply it will be.
Why are they concerned about hoarding their data?
If they were doing what it appears (withholding the data)... then they deserve every bit of punishment the public can unleash upon them.
How dare someone hold the data hostage from a world of scientists who could help to refine their methods and more quickly validate/invalidate the claims of their results.
If this is the case, these scientists are probably the most selfish self-centered workers in the world right now.
Let their stoning begin.
And higher some "open-sourcer's" to fill their shoes with a little humility.
After all, isn't it THE WHOLE WORLD they are talking about over there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391002</id>
	<title>Re:Peer Review and Grant Awards</title>
	<author>epiphani</author>
	<datestamp>1260470940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People seem to forget the context of that "undermining the peer review process" took place.</p><p>They certainly tried to impact the peer review process.  The paper in question resulted in half of the editorial board of the journal in question resigning over the peer review process that took place.</p><p><a href="http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes\_NL28.htm" title="sgr.org.uk">http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes\_NL28.htm</a> [sgr.org.uk]</p><p>The paper in question turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As for Mann and Jones' apparent effort to punish the journal Climate Research, the paper that ignited his indignation is a 2003 study that turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute. Eventually half the editorial board of the journal quit in protest. And even if CRU's climate data turns out to have some holes, the group is only one of four major agencies, including NASA, that contribute temperature data to major climate models &mdash; and CRU's data largely matches up with the others'.</p></div><p>Read more: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html#ixzz0ZJERceR1" title="time.com">http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html#ixzz0ZJERceR1</a> [time.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People seem to forget the context of that " undermining the peer review process " took place.They certainly tried to impact the peer review process .
The paper in question resulted in half of the editorial board of the journal in question resigning over the peer review process that took place.http : //www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes \ _NL28.htm [ sgr.org.uk ] The paper in question turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.As for Mann and Jones ' apparent effort to punish the journal Climate Research , the paper that ignited his indignation is a 2003 study that turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute .
Eventually half the editorial board of the journal quit in protest .
And even if CRU 's climate data turns out to have some holes , the group is only one of four major agencies , including NASA , that contribute temperature data to major climate models    and CRU 's data largely matches up with the others'.Read more : http : //www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html # ixzz0ZJERceR1 [ time.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People seem to forget the context of that "undermining the peer review process" took place.They certainly tried to impact the peer review process.
The paper in question resulted in half of the editorial board of the journal in question resigning over the peer review process that took place.http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes\_NL28.htm [sgr.org.uk]The paper in question turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.As for Mann and Jones' apparent effort to punish the journal Climate Research, the paper that ignited his indignation is a 2003 study that turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.
Eventually half the editorial board of the journal quit in protest.
And even if CRU's climate data turns out to have some holes, the group is only one of four major agencies, including NASA, that contribute temperature data to major climate models — and CRU's data largely matches up with the others'.Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html#ixzz0ZJERceR1 [time.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388998</id>
	<title>Nothing really new here on credibility cycles...</title>
	<author>Super Dave Osbourne</author>
	<datestamp>1260464880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cycles, like biology, society, greed and humanity constantly oscillate over time.  Right now we just see
a lot of little/big ripples since time compression is happening.  Eventually all living systems fail
since nothing can sustain living in its own waste.  Life itself has always been the answer.  Science
is just a group of lords, or witches claiming to be more than lazy self proclaimed discoverers of the obvious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cycles , like biology , society , greed and humanity constantly oscillate over time .
Right now we just see a lot of little/big ripples since time compression is happening .
Eventually all living systems fail since nothing can sustain living in its own waste .
Life itself has always been the answer .
Science is just a group of lords , or witches claiming to be more than lazy self proclaimed discoverers of the obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cycles, like biology, society, greed and humanity constantly oscillate over time.
Right now we just see
a lot of little/big ripples since time compression is happening.
Eventually all living systems fail
since nothing can sustain living in its own waste.
Life itself has always been the answer.
Science
is just a group of lords, or witches claiming to be more than lazy self proclaimed discoverers of the obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389724</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>snStarter</author>
	<datestamp>1260467040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's not Climate Science then Astrophysics isn't a science either or Cosmology.</p><p>The scientific process operates in all of these arenas. I think you are misinformed or perhaps work in an easy field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's not Climate Science then Astrophysics is n't a science either or Cosmology.The scientific process operates in all of these arenas .
I think you are misinformed or perhaps work in an easy field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's not Climate Science then Astrophysics isn't a science either or Cosmology.The scientific process operates in all of these arenas.
I think you are misinformed or perhaps work in an easy field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388600</id>
	<title>Otzi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260463380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Otzi the Iceman says that a little global warming is welcome after 5000 years.  It's almost as warm now, as when he was battling for his life.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/\%C3\%96tzi\_the\_Iceman" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/\%C3\%96tzi\_the\_Iceman</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Otzi the Iceman says that a little global warming is welcome after 5000 years .
It 's almost as warm now , as when he was battling for his life.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ \ % C3 \ % 96tzi \ _the \ _Iceman [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otzi the Iceman says that a little global warming is welcome after 5000 years.
It's almost as warm now, as when he was battling for his life.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/\%C3\%96tzi\_the\_Iceman [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397972</id>
	<title>Re:What does he mean, begin to doubt?</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1260459960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>WTC towers collapsed because of structural damage compounded by extreme temperatures?</p> </div><p>Okay. Why did building 7 collapse?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTC towers collapsed because of structural damage compounded by extreme temperatures ?
Okay. Why did building 7 collapse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTC towers collapsed because of structural damage compounded by extreme temperatures?
Okay. Why did building 7 collapse?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389946</id>
	<title>Re:How to restore healthy debate</title>
	<author>uncadonna</author>
	<datestamp>1260467640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Part of the problem is that <em>every</em> government has a hand in it, and that since people don't like to pay taxes, many of the governments involved fund the research by reselling the data to private forecast entities. If they open source it (which I fully agree that they should) that revenue stream dries up, a number of businesses are threatened, and your taxes go up. In any case, AIUI the Climate Research Unit was under contractual obligation to the various contributory agencies (in MANY countries) NOT to reveal the information, so all the FOI requests amounted to nothing more than harassment.
</p><p>
In the end, robust code is more expensive than quick hacks. The purloined code has quick hack flavor, no doubt, and in a few places shows somebody who is stuck in a Fortran mentality where a proper scripting language would have been far superior. Whether it was suitable for purpose for said code to be a quick hack is not something I see being discussed anywhere.
</p><p>
Let's stipulate for argument that it was not at an appropriate level of rigor for the task and consider what it means. What it doesn't mean is dishonesty.
</p><p>
I know lots of scientific programmers who find the idea of having to learn Perl or Python terrifying. Pity, but really these are untrained programmers though trained scientists. Anyway, acquiring trained programmers and training them in science or acquiring trained scientists and training them in programming costs a <em>lot</em> of money, and despite what you may have heard, money is very tight in climate science. That said, riskinbg doing things wrong because it's cheaper doesn't make a lot of sense.
In other words, I agree with the sentiments expressed here for the most part but readers should understand that most of them cannot be achieved on a shoestring.
</p><p>
The loss of credibility in science described in the leader is realistic and not without foundation. Science has problems which need to be addressed. An accusatory and adversarial stance, though, will simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. And the CO2 continues to pile up, with consequences that we can anticipate may be very serious.
</p><p>
Anyway I find it odd that the parent article refers to "our" government. Presumably parent author is British?
</p><p>
Michael Tobis,<br>
Ph.D. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences 1996 at U Wisconsin-Madison
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the problem is that every government has a hand in it , and that since people do n't like to pay taxes , many of the governments involved fund the research by reselling the data to private forecast entities .
If they open source it ( which I fully agree that they should ) that revenue stream dries up , a number of businesses are threatened , and your taxes go up .
In any case , AIUI the Climate Research Unit was under contractual obligation to the various contributory agencies ( in MANY countries ) NOT to reveal the information , so all the FOI requests amounted to nothing more than harassment .
In the end , robust code is more expensive than quick hacks .
The purloined code has quick hack flavor , no doubt , and in a few places shows somebody who is stuck in a Fortran mentality where a proper scripting language would have been far superior .
Whether it was suitable for purpose for said code to be a quick hack is not something I see being discussed anywhere .
Let 's stipulate for argument that it was not at an appropriate level of rigor for the task and consider what it means .
What it does n't mean is dishonesty .
I know lots of scientific programmers who find the idea of having to learn Perl or Python terrifying .
Pity , but really these are untrained programmers though trained scientists .
Anyway , acquiring trained programmers and training them in science or acquiring trained scientists and training them in programming costs a lot of money , and despite what you may have heard , money is very tight in climate science .
That said , riskinbg doing things wrong because it 's cheaper does n't make a lot of sense .
In other words , I agree with the sentiments expressed here for the most part but readers should understand that most of them can not be achieved on a shoestring .
The loss of credibility in science described in the leader is realistic and not without foundation .
Science has problems which need to be addressed .
An accusatory and adversarial stance , though , will simply throw the baby out with the bathwater .
And the CO2 continues to pile up , with consequences that we can anticipate may be very serious .
Anyway I find it odd that the parent article refers to " our " government .
Presumably parent author is British ?
Michael Tobis , Ph.D. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences 1996 at U Wisconsin-Madison</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Part of the problem is that every government has a hand in it, and that since people don't like to pay taxes, many of the governments involved fund the research by reselling the data to private forecast entities.
If they open source it (which I fully agree that they should) that revenue stream dries up, a number of businesses are threatened, and your taxes go up.
In any case, AIUI the Climate Research Unit was under contractual obligation to the various contributory agencies (in MANY countries) NOT to reveal the information, so all the FOI requests amounted to nothing more than harassment.
In the end, robust code is more expensive than quick hacks.
The purloined code has quick hack flavor, no doubt, and in a few places shows somebody who is stuck in a Fortran mentality where a proper scripting language would have been far superior.
Whether it was suitable for purpose for said code to be a quick hack is not something I see being discussed anywhere.
Let's stipulate for argument that it was not at an appropriate level of rigor for the task and consider what it means.
What it doesn't mean is dishonesty.
I know lots of scientific programmers who find the idea of having to learn Perl or Python terrifying.
Pity, but really these are untrained programmers though trained scientists.
Anyway, acquiring trained programmers and training them in science or acquiring trained scientists and training them in programming costs a lot of money, and despite what you may have heard, money is very tight in climate science.
That said, riskinbg doing things wrong because it's cheaper doesn't make a lot of sense.
In other words, I agree with the sentiments expressed here for the most part but readers should understand that most of them cannot be achieved on a shoestring.
The loss of credibility in science described in the leader is realistic and not without foundation.
Science has problems which need to be addressed.
An accusatory and adversarial stance, though, will simply throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And the CO2 continues to pile up, with consequences that we can anticipate may be very serious.
Anyway I find it odd that the parent article refers to "our" government.
Presumably parent author is British?
Michael Tobis,
Ph.D. Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences 1996 at U Wisconsin-Madison
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390088</id>
	<title>FUD works</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1260468120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more variables there are to a field, the easier it is to use Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to discredit it because with enough variables, the pool of problem variables increases. Evolution, economics, and psychology are like this, not just long-term climate analysis.</p><p>For a example, there may be 10,000 facts that support evolution and 100 that don't. Naysayers emphasize those 100 and the audience doesn't have the skills or patience to look into the other 9,900. Thus, they take the shortcut and listen to who they want to listen to. (Illustrative numbers only)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more variables there are to a field , the easier it is to use Fear , Uncertainty , and Doubt to discredit it because with enough variables , the pool of problem variables increases .
Evolution , economics , and psychology are like this , not just long-term climate analysis.For a example , there may be 10,000 facts that support evolution and 100 that do n't .
Naysayers emphasize those 100 and the audience does n't have the skills or patience to look into the other 9,900 .
Thus , they take the shortcut and listen to who they want to listen to .
( Illustrative numbers only )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more variables there are to a field, the easier it is to use Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to discredit it because with enough variables, the pool of problem variables increases.
Evolution, economics, and psychology are like this, not just long-term climate analysis.For a example, there may be 10,000 facts that support evolution and 100 that don't.
Naysayers emphasize those 100 and the audience doesn't have the skills or patience to look into the other 9,900.
Thus, they take the shortcut and listen to who they want to listen to.
(Illustrative numbers only)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389514</id>
	<title>"science?", Science. , and SCIENCE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is our soundbyte-driven media, public, and policy makers don't understand the different types of data presented in scientific papers and announcements.</p><p>There are directly observable data,  there are interpolations, and there are extrapolations. All 3 are "science". All 3 do not have the same reliability.</p><p>
&nbsp; Observable Data = SCIENCE!!<br>
&nbsp; Interpolations = Science.<br>
&nbsp; Unverifiable Extrapolations = "science?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is our soundbyte-driven media , public , and policy makers do n't understand the different types of data presented in scientific papers and announcements.There are directly observable data , there are interpolations , and there are extrapolations .
All 3 are " science " .
All 3 do not have the same reliability .
  Observable Data = SCIENCE ! !
  Interpolations = Science .
  Unverifiable Extrapolations = " science ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is our soundbyte-driven media, public, and policy makers don't understand the different types of data presented in scientific papers and announcements.There are directly observable data,  there are interpolations, and there are extrapolations.
All 3 are "science".
All 3 do not have the same reliability.
  Observable Data = SCIENCE!!
  Interpolations = Science.
  Unverifiable Extrapolations = "science?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394826</id>
	<title>Reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260442080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are three groups of people:</p><p>Those who understand global warming, understand what the East Anglia scientists were doing, realize it was stupid, but also understand that underlying climate science hasn't changed and won't change their opinions;<br>Those who have always denied global warming, haven't looked at what actually happened, and won't change their opinions; and<br>Those who pay no attention to any of it (the laymen), who won't change their opinions.</p><p>Thing is, the laymen aren't paying any attention, so it doesn't really matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three groups of people : Those who understand global warming , understand what the East Anglia scientists were doing , realize it was stupid , but also understand that underlying climate science has n't changed and wo n't change their opinions ; Those who have always denied global warming , have n't looked at what actually happened , and wo n't change their opinions ; andThose who pay no attention to any of it ( the laymen ) , who wo n't change their opinions.Thing is , the laymen are n't paying any attention , so it does n't really matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are three groups of people:Those who understand global warming, understand what the East Anglia scientists were doing, realize it was stupid, but also understand that underlying climate science hasn't changed and won't change their opinions;Those who have always denied global warming, haven't looked at what actually happened, and won't change their opinions; andThose who pay no attention to any of it (the laymen), who won't change their opinions.Thing is, the laymen aren't paying any attention, so it doesn't really matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395746</id>
	<title>Re:These "scientists" weren't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260445440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's their choice to throw out their raw data whenever they wish.</p><p>I just don't think that after they have done that they get to cite their work anymore.</p><p>Once, as a freshman, about 30 years ago, I asked if after I had my exe it was okay to delete the source code.  It only took me once to learn the lesson of why you don't delete your source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's their choice to throw out their raw data whenever they wish.I just do n't think that after they have done that they get to cite their work anymore.Once , as a freshman , about 30 years ago , I asked if after I had my exe it was okay to delete the source code .
It only took me once to learn the lesson of why you do n't delete your source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's their choice to throw out their raw data whenever they wish.I just don't think that after they have done that they get to cite their work anymore.Once, as a freshman, about 30 years ago, I asked if after I had my exe it was okay to delete the source code.
It only took me once to learn the lesson of why you don't delete your source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395406</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260444180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics</p></div><p>The answer is no. The good thing about science is that it is open source. For mathematics, you can go through all of the proofs from your text books. For physics you would need a bit of gear to reproduce some of the experiments, but again, that is just a question of money and interest.</p><p>The basic point is that the scientific method don't expect you to accept anything without proof. If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.</p></div><p>My very first Physics lesson started with the professor saying everything you are about to learn is correct until proven otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and PhysicsThe answer is no .
The good thing about science is that it is open source .
For mathematics , you can go through all of the proofs from your text books .
For physics you would need a bit of gear to reproduce some of the experiments , but again , that is just a question of money and interest.The basic point is that the scientific method do n't expect you to accept anything without proof .
If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment , people will pay attention to you , regardless of politics.My very first Physics lesson started with the professor saying everything you are about to learn is correct until proven otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and PhysicsThe answer is no.
The good thing about science is that it is open source.
For mathematics, you can go through all of the proofs from your text books.
For physics you would need a bit of gear to reproduce some of the experiments, but again, that is just a question of money and interest.The basic point is that the scientific method don't expect you to accept anything without proof.
If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.My very first Physics lesson started with the professor saying everything you are about to learn is correct until proven otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397102</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260452400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you spend all your free time in second life or some alternative reality or something? You couldn't have a bigger disconnect from the layperson if you did.</p><p>The layperson just doesn't care about science until it effects them negatively. It's like I don't care that my neighbor works at a restaurant or how he makes the food, I don't care that my other neighbor is a truck driver or what route he takes to deliver his load, and as for science, they just do no care until it effects them. You do not need to position yourself as high and mighty or something, or pretend your somehow better then others just to make yourself feel more comfortable or whatever. The layperson just doesn't care until if effects them just as you probably do not care about everything the garbage man has to do to get his job done.</p><p>The layperson hears science is doing something and thinks "does it effect me?", if not, then it's a that's nice. If so then it's how, "oh, I'm paying out my ass in taxes so they can study farts in AZ?" yes, it's a waste of money. If so by "WTF, they are attempting to stop me from doing something I like to do or they are going to jack the prices of everything up", then it's a prove it to me first. It's not at all different then questioning the used car salesman who says it was only driven by a little old lady from Pasadena who drove it to the church on Sundays. It's the same as when a traveling door salesman comes by claiming that his miracle potion will cure aids Diarrhea, cotton mouth, athletes foot, and keep the in laws from stopping by unannounced- our scam meeter kicks in and wants to know if it's true because it seems unbelievable.</p><p>Yes, It's nothing fuzzy or something they couldn't hack themselves, it's just something else they do not care about until it effects them. And when it effects them negatively, then they want more then just your word for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you spend all your free time in second life or some alternative reality or something ?
You could n't have a bigger disconnect from the layperson if you did.The layperson just does n't care about science until it effects them negatively .
It 's like I do n't care that my neighbor works at a restaurant or how he makes the food , I do n't care that my other neighbor is a truck driver or what route he takes to deliver his load , and as for science , they just do no care until it effects them .
You do not need to position yourself as high and mighty or something , or pretend your somehow better then others just to make yourself feel more comfortable or whatever .
The layperson just does n't care until if effects them just as you probably do not care about everything the garbage man has to do to get his job done.The layperson hears science is doing something and thinks " does it effect me ?
" , if not , then it 's a that 's nice .
If so then it 's how , " oh , I 'm paying out my ass in taxes so they can study farts in AZ ?
" yes , it 's a waste of money .
If so by " WTF , they are attempting to stop me from doing something I like to do or they are going to jack the prices of everything up " , then it 's a prove it to me first .
It 's not at all different then questioning the used car salesman who says it was only driven by a little old lady from Pasadena who drove it to the church on Sundays .
It 's the same as when a traveling door salesman comes by claiming that his miracle potion will cure aids Diarrhea , cotton mouth , athletes foot , and keep the in laws from stopping by unannounced- our scam meeter kicks in and wants to know if it 's true because it seems unbelievable.Yes , It 's nothing fuzzy or something they could n't hack themselves , it 's just something else they do not care about until it effects them .
And when it effects them negatively , then they want more then just your word for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you spend all your free time in second life or some alternative reality or something?
You couldn't have a bigger disconnect from the layperson if you did.The layperson just doesn't care about science until it effects them negatively.
It's like I don't care that my neighbor works at a restaurant or how he makes the food, I don't care that my other neighbor is a truck driver or what route he takes to deliver his load, and as for science, they just do no care until it effects them.
You do not need to position yourself as high and mighty or something, or pretend your somehow better then others just to make yourself feel more comfortable or whatever.
The layperson just doesn't care until if effects them just as you probably do not care about everything the garbage man has to do to get his job done.The layperson hears science is doing something and thinks "does it effect me?
", if not, then it's a that's nice.
If so then it's how, "oh, I'm paying out my ass in taxes so they can study farts in AZ?
" yes, it's a waste of money.
If so by "WTF, they are attempting to stop me from doing something I like to do or they are going to jack the prices of everything up", then it's a prove it to me first.
It's not at all different then questioning the used car salesman who says it was only driven by a little old lady from Pasadena who drove it to the church on Sundays.
It's the same as when a traveling door salesman comes by claiming that his miracle potion will cure aids Diarrhea, cotton mouth, athletes foot, and keep the in laws from stopping by unannounced- our scam meeter kicks in and wants to know if it's true because it seems unbelievable.Yes, It's nothing fuzzy or something they couldn't hack themselves, it's just something else they do not care about until it effects them.
And when it effects them negatively, then they want more then just your word for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395548</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260444660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that mathematics isn't a science, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that mathematics is n't a science , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that mathematics isn't a science, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390348</id>
	<title>Never trust a scientist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear dudes smarter then me I am a " lay person " and yes I now think of the scientific community in the same light as a lawyer or politicians. climategate the H1N1 people taking money from the drug co all show that when money and power are taken you will do anything to keep it and get more and more</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear dudes smarter then me I am a " lay person " and yes I now think of the scientific community in the same light as a lawyer or politicians .
climategate the H1N1 people taking money from the drug co all show that when money and power are taken you will do anything to keep it and get more and more</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear dudes smarter then me I am a " lay person " and yes I now think of the scientific community in the same light as a lawyer or politicians.
climategate the H1N1 people taking money from the drug co all show that when money and power are taken you will do anything to keep it and get more and more</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396906</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260451020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Joe Imam has studied the Koran for X years, why don't you regard him as an expert?  Some of the public disregard for science is because there have been cases of people with strong beliefs "studying" a topic for X years and coming to the suprising conclusion that all their pre-study ideas were right, that their "religion" is best,  that Macs rule, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Joe Imam has studied the Koran for X years , why do n't you regard him as an expert ?
Some of the public disregard for science is because there have been cases of people with strong beliefs " studying " a topic for X years and coming to the suprising conclusion that all their pre-study ideas were right , that their " religion " is best , that Macs rule , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Joe Imam has studied the Koran for X years, why don't you regard him as an expert?
Some of the public disregard for science is because there have been cases of people with strong beliefs "studying" a topic for X years and coming to the suprising conclusion that all their pre-study ideas were right, that their "religion" is best,  that Macs rule, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390046</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>A beautiful mind</author>
	<datestamp>1260467940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Climate Science is a STUDY, much like Social Studies, Political "Science", and most (but not all) fields of Psychology. You cannot experiment on Climate on the timeframes or scales these "scientists" are suggesting. You cannot produce a hypothesis, alter variables, and confirm or deny your ideas.

Climate Studies, as it should be called, consists entirely of observation and computer modelling - a form of mathematics which is also not a science, but an art or "language".</p></div></blockquote><p>
No. Climate science works on similar timescales as evolution and both biologists and climatologists would be shocked to hear that they can't formulate a hypothesis, make predictions and attempt to disprove them. That's exactly what they do. You seem to have a very na&#237;ve idea of what an experiment is - that stuff the chemists do in the labcoats right? Climate science produces testable predictions both for our current future and starting from past points to arrive at conclusions about our past. Climate scientists made predictions based on a theory about past climate, before knowing what the past climate looked like, then someone actually came up with a way of measuring the past climate. That's predictive value. Evolutionary biologists do the same, please read Richard Dawkins' latest book "The greatest show on earth" for a robust overview how evolution is based on testable ideas.</p><blockquote><div><p>In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years. Suddenly, 20 years later and Global Warming is all we can talk about? I don't understand. No, I do understand<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... both points of view have been apparent for nearly a hundred years. Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda. Sure it's possible, which is exactly why it's such a powerful weapon in the social manipulator's arsenal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just like 9/11 denier's evidence is just plausible enough to make people believe it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or how creationists can bend scientific discoveries just enough to gain a following.</p></div></blockquote><p>
At no time in the past 100 years did the scientific consensus suggest that there would be imminent global cooling. There were some (one?) article that suggested global cooling in the 70s and the mainstream press run with it. It is also pretty well known that climate is cyclic and "imminent" in climate science might mean 10 thousands years. There was also a valid view that aerosol pollution would cause "global dimming" and reduce temperatures slightly. We fixed that problem by banning a lot of those pollutants in the 70s thus \_averted\_ the problem. There wasn't any serious following for "global cooling" among scientists in the past 100 years. You are exaggerating extremely heavily. Comparing climate science to 9/11 theories or creationists is disingenius. It reminds me of that Monty Python sketch about "what did the Romans ever gave us...". You have to realize that a lot of things in your life depend on the scientists and the scientific consensus getting it right. There would be no internet, computing industry, aviation, etc. without scientific base research in a lot of these areas. Science, it works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate Science is a STUDY , much like Social Studies , Political " Science " , and most ( but not all ) fields of Psychology .
You can not experiment on Climate on the timeframes or scales these " scientists " are suggesting .
You can not produce a hypothesis , alter variables , and confirm or deny your ideas .
Climate Studies , as it should be called , consists entirely of observation and computer modelling - a form of mathematics which is also not a science , but an art or " language " .
No. Climate science works on similar timescales as evolution and both biologists and climatologists would be shocked to hear that they ca n't formulate a hypothesis , make predictions and attempt to disprove them .
That 's exactly what they do .
You seem to have a very na   ve idea of what an experiment is - that stuff the chemists do in the labcoats right ?
Climate science produces testable predictions both for our current future and starting from past points to arrive at conclusions about our past .
Climate scientists made predictions based on a theory about past climate , before knowing what the past climate looked like , then someone actually came up with a way of measuring the past climate .
That 's predictive value .
Evolutionary biologists do the same , please read Richard Dawkins ' latest book " The greatest show on earth " for a robust overview how evolution is based on testable ideas.In 1975 , American Scientist , Nature , and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years .
Suddenly , 20 years later and Global Warming is all we can talk about ?
I do n't understand .
No , I do understand ... both points of view have been apparent for nearly a hundred years .
Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda .
Sure it 's possible , which is exactly why it 's such a powerful weapon in the social manipulator 's arsenal ... just like 9/11 denier 's evidence is just plausible enough to make people believe it ... or how creationists can bend scientific discoveries just enough to gain a following .
At no time in the past 100 years did the scientific consensus suggest that there would be imminent global cooling .
There were some ( one ?
) article that suggested global cooling in the 70s and the mainstream press run with it .
It is also pretty well known that climate is cyclic and " imminent " in climate science might mean 10 thousands years .
There was also a valid view that aerosol pollution would cause " global dimming " and reduce temperatures slightly .
We fixed that problem by banning a lot of those pollutants in the 70s thus \ _averted \ _ the problem .
There was n't any serious following for " global cooling " among scientists in the past 100 years .
You are exaggerating extremely heavily .
Comparing climate science to 9/11 theories or creationists is disingenius .
It reminds me of that Monty Python sketch about " what did the Romans ever gave us... " .
You have to realize that a lot of things in your life depend on the scientists and the scientific consensus getting it right .
There would be no internet , computing industry , aviation , etc .
without scientific base research in a lot of these areas .
Science , it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate Science is a STUDY, much like Social Studies, Political "Science", and most (but not all) fields of Psychology.
You cannot experiment on Climate on the timeframes or scales these "scientists" are suggesting.
You cannot produce a hypothesis, alter variables, and confirm or deny your ideas.
Climate Studies, as it should be called, consists entirely of observation and computer modelling - a form of mathematics which is also not a science, but an art or "language".
No. Climate science works on similar timescales as evolution and both biologists and climatologists would be shocked to hear that they can't formulate a hypothesis, make predictions and attempt to disprove them.
That's exactly what they do.
You seem to have a very naíve idea of what an experiment is - that stuff the chemists do in the labcoats right?
Climate science produces testable predictions both for our current future and starting from past points to arrive at conclusions about our past.
Climate scientists made predictions based on a theory about past climate, before knowing what the past climate looked like, then someone actually came up with a way of measuring the past climate.
That's predictive value.
Evolutionary biologists do the same, please read Richard Dawkins' latest book "The greatest show on earth" for a robust overview how evolution is based on testable ideas.In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years.
Suddenly, 20 years later and Global Warming is all we can talk about?
I don't understand.
No, I do understand ... both points of view have been apparent for nearly a hundred years.
Politicians and marketers just grab hold of whichever evidence they want to promote their own agenda.
Sure it's possible, which is exactly why it's such a powerful weapon in the social manipulator's arsenal ... just like 9/11 denier's evidence is just plausible enough to make people believe it ... or how creationists can bend scientific discoveries just enough to gain a following.
At no time in the past 100 years did the scientific consensus suggest that there would be imminent global cooling.
There were some (one?
) article that suggested global cooling in the 70s and the mainstream press run with it.
It is also pretty well known that climate is cyclic and "imminent" in climate science might mean 10 thousands years.
There was also a valid view that aerosol pollution would cause "global dimming" and reduce temperatures slightly.
We fixed that problem by banning a lot of those pollutants in the 70s thus \_averted\_ the problem.
There wasn't any serious following for "global cooling" among scientists in the past 100 years.
You are exaggerating extremely heavily.
Comparing climate science to 9/11 theories or creationists is disingenius.
It reminds me of that Monty Python sketch about "what did the Romans ever gave us...".
You have to realize that a lot of things in your life depend on the scientists and the scientific consensus getting it right.
There would be no internet, computing industry, aviation, etc.
without scientific base research in a lot of these areas.
Science, it works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30428506</id>
	<title>News Corp(WSJ/Fox "News"/NYPost) Credibility GONE!</title>
	<author>ReedYoung</author>
	<datestamp>1260733200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Nature</i> says the stolen data show no wrongdoing, as reported on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. already, and even the scandal-whore Associated Press <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/12/climate-change-science-no\_n\_389783.html" title="huffingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">now admits that there's nothing to the hype</a> [huffingtonpost.com] tooted by Rupert Murdoch's British property, The Times, to which I will not link, but which ran idiotic headlines like "The great climate change science scandal" immediately after learning that some data had been stolen, and which immediately <b>concluded</b> the end of the theory of anthropogenic global warming <b>before anybody could have read even a significant fraction of the stolen material</b> to make any remotely intelligent assessment of its general nature, much less its significance to the <b>decades</b> of research it supposedly undermined.  Now, we know that the most "improper" behavior found was saying rude things about people they dislike.  Yeah, act shocked and offended at that.  Whatever.
<br> <br>
Rupert Murdoch's minions have zero credibility to anybody with a brain.  All of his properties, including the Wall Street Journal, are not to be trusted about anything, ever again.  It's all just bird cage liner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature says the stolen data show no wrongdoing , as reported on / .
already , and even the scandal-whore Associated Press now admits that there 's nothing to the hype [ huffingtonpost.com ] tooted by Rupert Murdoch 's British property , The Times , to which I will not link , but which ran idiotic headlines like " The great climate change science scandal " immediately after learning that some data had been stolen , and which immediately concluded the end of the theory of anthropogenic global warming before anybody could have read even a significant fraction of the stolen material to make any remotely intelligent assessment of its general nature , much less its significance to the decades of research it supposedly undermined .
Now , we know that the most " improper " behavior found was saying rude things about people they dislike .
Yeah , act shocked and offended at that .
Whatever . Rupert Murdoch 's minions have zero credibility to anybody with a brain .
All of his properties , including the Wall Street Journal , are not to be trusted about anything , ever again .
It 's all just bird cage liner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature says the stolen data show no wrongdoing, as reported on /.
already, and even the scandal-whore Associated Press now admits that there's nothing to the hype [huffingtonpost.com] tooted by Rupert Murdoch's British property, The Times, to which I will not link, but which ran idiotic headlines like "The great climate change science scandal" immediately after learning that some data had been stolen, and which immediately concluded the end of the theory of anthropogenic global warming before anybody could have read even a significant fraction of the stolen material to make any remotely intelligent assessment of its general nature, much less its significance to the decades of research it supposedly undermined.
Now, we know that the most "improper" behavior found was saying rude things about people they dislike.
Yeah, act shocked and offended at that.
Whatever.
 
Rupert Murdoch's minions have zero credibility to anybody with a brain.
All of his properties, including the Wall Street Journal, are not to be trusted about anything, ever again.
It's all just bird cage liner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392008</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>TorKlingberg</author>
	<datestamp>1260474360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If said work of "skeptics" was crap, then criticizing a journal for publishing crap is completely reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If said work of " skeptics " was crap , then criticizing a journal for publishing crap is completely reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If said work of "skeptics" was crap, then criticizing a journal for publishing crap is completely reasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389078</id>
	<title>Only if Politicians Can't Use It!</title>
	<author>wdhowellsr</author>
	<datestamp>1260465120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as the research and resulting published papers have no political value to politicians, the scientific community is very good at policing themselves.  One only has to look at Cold Fusion, Physics and pretty much anything having to do with Mathematics.<br> <br>

Case in point is Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.  Almost immediately after the presentation of his proof, it was found that it had a major error that doomed the proof.  But he immediately went back to work and finally presented a solid proof of the theorem.<br> <br>

Why didn't the UN and World Politicians push one side or the other?  Because they have no fr$@#ng idea what it means and it was of no political value.<br> <br>

"The ability to tell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it did not happen."  Sir Winston Churchill on the traits of a good politician.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the research and resulting published papers have no political value to politicians , the scientific community is very good at policing themselves .
One only has to look at Cold Fusion , Physics and pretty much anything having to do with Mathematics .
Case in point is Wiles ' proof of Fermat 's Last Theorem .
Almost immediately after the presentation of his proof , it was found that it had a major error that doomed the proof .
But he immediately went back to work and finally presented a solid proof of the theorem .
Why did n't the UN and World Politicians push one side or the other ?
Because they have no fr $ @ # ng idea what it means and it was of no political value .
" The ability to tell what is going to happen tomorrow , next week , next month and next year .
And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it did not happen .
" Sir Winston Churchill on the traits of a good politician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the research and resulting published papers have no political value to politicians, the scientific community is very good at policing themselves.
One only has to look at Cold Fusion, Physics and pretty much anything having to do with Mathematics.
Case in point is Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
Almost immediately after the presentation of his proof, it was found that it had a major error that doomed the proof.
But he immediately went back to work and finally presented a solid proof of the theorem.
Why didn't the UN and World Politicians push one side or the other?
Because they have no fr$@#ng idea what it means and it was of no political value.
"The ability to tell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year.
And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it did not happen.
"  Sir Winston Churchill on the traits of a good politician.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391280</id>
	<title>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1260471780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals"</p><p>That's like asking the fox whether he's been keeping the henhouse secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals " That 's like asking the fox whether he 's been keeping the henhouse secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals"That's like asking the fox whether he's been keeping the henhouse secure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389530</id>
	<title>Scientists needs to remember they are not priests.</title>
	<author>kbonin</author>
	<datestamp>1260466500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The processes of science have changed in the last century, and not for the better.</p><p>Once upon a time, scientists wrote and freely published papers that contained sufficient information that anyone qualified in the relevant fields and with access to relevant equipment could test the hypothesis, reproduce the experiment, and vet the results.  Science still had great trouble coming to terms with large changes, hence the saying &ndash; 'old scientists never change their mind, but they do die'.</p><p>Today the practice of science is driven largely by the highly politicized grant funding process, and most scientific papers are available only behind paywalls of increasing height.  The peer review process has in most cases devolved to 'looking over' someones work rather than testing and reproducing it, and it is rare for an experiment that truly threatens the status quo to be funded.</p><p>Science needs to respond to sincere questions by making their data and models available for open scrutiny, not by circling their wagons and proclaiming to be the sole keepers of truth which the layperson and denier dare not challenge.</p><p>I should trust science because I can test their hypothesis myself, NOT because they tell me I must trust them.  Otherwise what separates them from religion?</p><p>The public may have lost the skills to test most of the assertions of modern science, but the public can still recognize bombastic attitudes, and is properly skeptical when they recognize that data is being withheld.  The words "trust me" still raise alarm, whether coming from someone in a business suit or lab coat...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The processes of science have changed in the last century , and not for the better.Once upon a time , scientists wrote and freely published papers that contained sufficient information that anyone qualified in the relevant fields and with access to relevant equipment could test the hypothesis , reproduce the experiment , and vet the results .
Science still had great trouble coming to terms with large changes , hence the saying    'old scientists never change their mind , but they do die'.Today the practice of science is driven largely by the highly politicized grant funding process , and most scientific papers are available only behind paywalls of increasing height .
The peer review process has in most cases devolved to 'looking over ' someones work rather than testing and reproducing it , and it is rare for an experiment that truly threatens the status quo to be funded.Science needs to respond to sincere questions by making their data and models available for open scrutiny , not by circling their wagons and proclaiming to be the sole keepers of truth which the layperson and denier dare not challenge.I should trust science because I can test their hypothesis myself , NOT because they tell me I must trust them .
Otherwise what separates them from religion ? The public may have lost the skills to test most of the assertions of modern science , but the public can still recognize bombastic attitudes , and is properly skeptical when they recognize that data is being withheld .
The words " trust me " still raise alarm , whether coming from someone in a business suit or lab coat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The processes of science have changed in the last century, and not for the better.Once upon a time, scientists wrote and freely published papers that contained sufficient information that anyone qualified in the relevant fields and with access to relevant equipment could test the hypothesis, reproduce the experiment, and vet the results.
Science still had great trouble coming to terms with large changes, hence the saying – 'old scientists never change their mind, but they do die'.Today the practice of science is driven largely by the highly politicized grant funding process, and most scientific papers are available only behind paywalls of increasing height.
The peer review process has in most cases devolved to 'looking over' someones work rather than testing and reproducing it, and it is rare for an experiment that truly threatens the status quo to be funded.Science needs to respond to sincere questions by making their data and models available for open scrutiny, not by circling their wagons and proclaiming to be the sole keepers of truth which the layperson and denier dare not challenge.I should trust science because I can test their hypothesis myself, NOT because they tell me I must trust them.
Otherwise what separates them from religion?The public may have lost the skills to test most of the assertions of modern science, but the public can still recognize bombastic attitudes, and is properly skeptical when they recognize that data is being withheld.
The words "trust me" still raise alarm, whether coming from someone in a business suit or lab coat...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392142</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260474900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you need to qualify that assertion with "one of the US national".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you need to qualify that assertion with " one of the US national " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you need to qualify that assertion with "one of the US national".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389010</id>
	<title>scientists are more often incorrect that correct.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The process of science is: take a guess, show it right or wrong, and repeat.</p><p>In other words, if scientist are always correct, why don't we have a cure for cancer?  Are they holding back?</p><p>Regards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The process of science is : take a guess , show it right or wrong , and repeat.In other words , if scientist are always correct , why do n't we have a cure for cancer ?
Are they holding back ? Regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The process of science is: take a guess, show it right or wrong, and repeat.In other words, if scientist are always correct, why don't we have a cure for cancer?
Are they holding back?Regards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389422</id>
	<title>Most scientists seem blind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to the realities of the common world, which sees science through the eyes of mostly...Hollywood.</p><p>There, hard scientists are working on ways to poison the planet or exploit its creatures and soft scientists are fighting the good fight for vegetarianism, ecological concern and life-extension.</p><p>To those people, climate science's shouting-down honest dissenters and faking or hiding data is just what they expect to see -- scientists falling to their own level.</p><p>Which is pretty much what's been happening.</p><p>Hard science ignores that the quantum theory *disproves* the ancient Greek atomic theory while at the same time proving phenomenology, the competing theory, instead.</p><p>Now climate science has taken lessons from the Catholic Church in isolating and stifling dissenting views. THis did not AFAIK decrease the number of practicing Catholics; it just made them ignorant.</p><p>Science died some years ago but the corpse is only now beginning to stink.</p><p>Bring on the new Dark Ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to the realities of the common world , which sees science through the eyes of mostly...Hollywood.There , hard scientists are working on ways to poison the planet or exploit its creatures and soft scientists are fighting the good fight for vegetarianism , ecological concern and life-extension.To those people , climate science 's shouting-down honest dissenters and faking or hiding data is just what they expect to see -- scientists falling to their own level.Which is pretty much what 's been happening.Hard science ignores that the quantum theory * disproves * the ancient Greek atomic theory while at the same time proving phenomenology , the competing theory , instead.Now climate science has taken lessons from the Catholic Church in isolating and stifling dissenting views .
THis did not AFAIK decrease the number of practicing Catholics ; it just made them ignorant.Science died some years ago but the corpse is only now beginning to stink.Bring on the new Dark Ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to the realities of the common world, which sees science through the eyes of mostly...Hollywood.There, hard scientists are working on ways to poison the planet or exploit its creatures and soft scientists are fighting the good fight for vegetarianism, ecological concern and life-extension.To those people, climate science's shouting-down honest dissenters and faking or hiding data is just what they expect to see -- scientists falling to their own level.Which is pretty much what's been happening.Hard science ignores that the quantum theory *disproves* the ancient Greek atomic theory while at the same time proving phenomenology, the competing theory, instead.Now climate science has taken lessons from the Catholic Church in isolating and stifling dissenting views.
THis did not AFAIK decrease the number of practicing Catholics; it just made them ignorant.Science died some years ago but the corpse is only now beginning to stink.Bring on the new Dark Ages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389178</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1260465420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No I'm pretty sure what the parent was trying to say is that since you trust your barber with your life everytime you visit them you should trust a scientist with your life everytime you hear their results.</p><p>(Tee hee, jk)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No I 'm pretty sure what the parent was trying to say is that since you trust your barber with your life everytime you visit them you should trust a scientist with your life everytime you hear their results .
( Tee hee , jk )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No I'm pretty sure what the parent was trying to say is that since you trust your barber with your life everytime you visit them you should trust a scientist with your life everytime you hear their results.
(Tee hee, jk)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398698</id>
	<title>Unfortunately...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260471240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The science fields, including medicine, have been rife with fraud for quite some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The science fields , including medicine , have been rife with fraud for quite some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The science fields, including medicine, have been rife with fraud for quite some time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390008</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1260467820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll go beyond that (even as a Republican with some Libertarian sympathies) and say that anthropogenic global warming seems like a reasonably certain thing anyway. What's not certain is:
<ul> <li> the extent of its impact</li>
<li>policy recommendations for reducing or dealing with that impact</li>
<li>balancing these matters with the rest of the world economy</li>
<li> the integrity of the processes for generating information to drive those policy recommendations</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll go beyond that ( even as a Republican with some Libertarian sympathies ) and say that anthropogenic global warming seems like a reasonably certain thing anyway .
What 's not certain is : the extent of its impact policy recommendations for reducing or dealing with that impact balancing these matters with the rest of the world economy the integrity of the processes for generating information to drive those policy recommendations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll go beyond that (even as a Republican with some Libertarian sympathies) and say that anthropogenic global warming seems like a reasonably certain thing anyway.
What's not certain is:
  the extent of its impact
policy recommendations for reducing or dealing with that impact
balancing these matters with the rest of the world economy
 the integrity of the processes for generating information to drive those policy recommendations
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391694</id>
	<title>Damning? Not even slightly</title>
	<author>tgibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1260473280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Which to me, is pretty damning stuff</p></div></blockquote><p>Hardly. This looks to me like the kind of sensitivity analysis that any good laboratory does frequently.<br>"I think that the decline in this data might be an artifact"<br>"Well, how much do we need to worry about it? How big an impact is it having on conclusions?"<br>"OK, I'll take a guess at how much it is in error, apply a correction, and see how much it changes the output."</p><p>Such code is never meant for publication, but just to help scientists understand their data and as a guide for future research. It is typical that a big all-caps warning "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION" comment is included, so that nobody will get confused and accidentally include this "what-if" analysis in a publication. And indeed, nobody has been able to identify any actual publication in which there are undocumented "ARTIFICIAL CORRECTIONs"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which to me , is pretty damning stuffHardly .
This looks to me like the kind of sensitivity analysis that any good laboratory does frequently .
" I think that the decline in this data might be an artifact " " Well , how much do we need to worry about it ?
How big an impact is it having on conclusions ?
" " OK , I 'll take a guess at how much it is in error , apply a correction , and see how much it changes the output .
" Such code is never meant for publication , but just to help scientists understand their data and as a guide for future research .
It is typical that a big all-caps warning " APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION " comment is included , so that nobody will get confused and accidentally include this " what-if " analysis in a publication .
And indeed , nobody has been able to identify any actual publication in which there are undocumented " ARTIFICIAL CORRECTIONs "</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Which to me, is pretty damning stuffHardly.
This looks to me like the kind of sensitivity analysis that any good laboratory does frequently.
"I think that the decline in this data might be an artifact""Well, how much do we need to worry about it?
How big an impact is it having on conclusions?
""OK, I'll take a guess at how much it is in error, apply a correction, and see how much it changes the output.
"Such code is never meant for publication, but just to help scientists understand their data and as a guide for future research.
It is typical that a big all-caps warning "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION" comment is included, so that nobody will get confused and accidentally include this "what-if" analysis in a publication.
And indeed, nobody has been able to identify any actual publication in which there are undocumented "ARTIFICIAL CORRECTIONs"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734</id>
	<title>Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1260463980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For whatever reason, a lot of people act as if scientists don't have their own preconceived notions on how things should be, or are predisposed to a certain political agenda. The tag line is that scientists are only interested in the truth, as if scientists as a class are immune to any sort of corruption, and that consensus on an issue is the same thing as fact. Forget the fact that there's an incentive to support certain findings because that will lead to greater funding...</htmltext>
<tokenext>For whatever reason , a lot of people act as if scientists do n't have their own preconceived notions on how things should be , or are predisposed to a certain political agenda .
The tag line is that scientists are only interested in the truth , as if scientists as a class are immune to any sort of corruption , and that consensus on an issue is the same thing as fact .
Forget the fact that there 's an incentive to support certain findings because that will lead to greater funding.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For whatever reason, a lot of people act as if scientists don't have their own preconceived notions on how things should be, or are predisposed to a certain political agenda.
The tag line is that scientists are only interested in the truth, as if scientists as a class are immune to any sort of corruption, and that consensus on an issue is the same thing as fact.
Forget the fact that there's an incentive to support certain findings because that will lead to greater funding...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>5KVGhost</author>
	<datestamp>1260465300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The problem isn't that people aren't automatically believing science, it's almost the exact opposite: people are automatically doubting science.</i></p><p>People aren't doubting science, necessarily. They're just not as ready to accept everything a scientist claim is "science". Some scientists don't like this, preferring to think themselves above such elementary barriers of trust. That's too bad for them.</p><p>Doubt is good. Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't that people are n't automatically believing science , it 's almost the exact opposite : people are automatically doubting science.People are n't doubting science , necessarily .
They 're just not as ready to accept everything a scientist claim is " science " .
Some scientists do n't like this , preferring to think themselves above such elementary barriers of trust .
That 's too bad for them.Doubt is good .
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't that people aren't automatically believing science, it's almost the exact opposite: people are automatically doubting science.People aren't doubting science, necessarily.
They're just not as ready to accept everything a scientist claim is "science".
Some scientists don't like this, preferring to think themselves above such elementary barriers of trust.
That's too bad for them.Doubt is good.
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390856</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>CharlieG</author>
	<datestamp>1260470520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>which is part of the reason the "we deleted the raw data/we can't release the raw data due to confidentiality" stand over at East Anglica is so disturbing to ME.  No one can try to reproduce their work from the raw data, so how can their work be checked for bias, either intentionally, or unintentionally? (Not saying there is, or is NOT a bias, just that it can't be checked)</p><p>Traditionally, in science, you're supposed to treat any new science/finding skeptically until people have reproduced/confirmed the science</p><p>I've always wondered with say, climate science (or any other seriously model based science) if they are doing the "blindly take a subsample of the data, develop your model, and then check against the rest of your data" routine?  I know most good models do this.</p><p>There seems to be a distinct lack of things like "lab books" where everything is written down, and can't be fudged.  "I have A, that I got from person 1, here is what I did..." all the way through, so that we can reproduce it</p><p>Sigh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which is part of the reason the " we deleted the raw data/we ca n't release the raw data due to confidentiality " stand over at East Anglica is so disturbing to ME .
No one can try to reproduce their work from the raw data , so how can their work be checked for bias , either intentionally , or unintentionally ?
( Not saying there is , or is NOT a bias , just that it ca n't be checked ) Traditionally , in science , you 're supposed to treat any new science/finding skeptically until people have reproduced/confirmed the scienceI 've always wondered with say , climate science ( or any other seriously model based science ) if they are doing the " blindly take a subsample of the data , develop your model , and then check against the rest of your data " routine ?
I know most good models do this.There seems to be a distinct lack of things like " lab books " where everything is written down , and ca n't be fudged .
" I have A , that I got from person 1 , here is what I did... " all the way through , so that we can reproduce itSigh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which is part of the reason the "we deleted the raw data/we can't release the raw data due to confidentiality" stand over at East Anglica is so disturbing to ME.
No one can try to reproduce their work from the raw data, so how can their work be checked for bias, either intentionally, or unintentionally?
(Not saying there is, or is NOT a bias, just that it can't be checked)Traditionally, in science, you're supposed to treat any new science/finding skeptically until people have reproduced/confirmed the scienceI've always wondered with say, climate science (or any other seriously model based science) if they are doing the "blindly take a subsample of the data, develop your model, and then check against the rest of your data" routine?
I know most good models do this.There seems to be a distinct lack of things like "lab books" where everything is written down, and can't be fudged.
"I have A, that I got from person 1, here is what I did..." all the way through, so that we can reproduce itSigh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395900</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260446040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Likewise, medicine became solely about distributing expensive pharmaceuticals as widely as possible.</p></div><p>If your doctor has given you any reason to believe that this is true, you need to find another doctor. Please don't confuse the goals of doctors with the goals of pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies. Or even of hospitals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Likewise , medicine became solely about distributing expensive pharmaceuticals as widely as possible.If your doctor has given you any reason to believe that this is true , you need to find another doctor .
Please do n't confuse the goals of doctors with the goals of pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies .
Or even of hospitals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likewise, medicine became solely about distributing expensive pharmaceuticals as widely as possible.If your doctor has given you any reason to believe that this is true, you need to find another doctor.
Please don't confuse the goals of doctors with the goals of pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies.
Or even of hospitals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390214</id>
	<title>Only on /. can this be deemed insightfull.</title>
	<author>quax</author>
	<datestamp>1260468540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the standard argument for the climate change deniers.  "The scientists made it all up to get more funding!".  What a ludicrous conspiracy theory.  Did all the climate scientists get into a room about twenty years ago to come up with an elaborate plan to take over all leading peer reviewed journals?  Generate an enormous body of published and according to XxtraLarGe biased work just so that they can now reap the benefit of more funding?  What an incredible energy it must take to coordinate so many people to contribute to one gigantic fraud. And all of this to get some more grant money?  This is supposed to be incentive enough for such an elaborate hoax? It is not as if that grant money goes into the bank accounts of the scientists.  It has to be spend on further research or things like additional hardware for climate simulations.  There is a huge question mark there:<br><i> <b><br>Climate Change Hoax<br>?<br>Profit!<br></b></i> <br>Just doesn't compute.</p><p>This makes people who believe in the faking of the moon landing look outright sane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the standard argument for the climate change deniers .
" The scientists made it all up to get more funding ! " .
What a ludicrous conspiracy theory .
Did all the climate scientists get into a room about twenty years ago to come up with an elaborate plan to take over all leading peer reviewed journals ?
Generate an enormous body of published and according to XxtraLarGe biased work just so that they can now reap the benefit of more funding ?
What an incredible energy it must take to coordinate so many people to contribute to one gigantic fraud .
And all of this to get some more grant money ?
This is supposed to be incentive enough for such an elaborate hoax ?
It is not as if that grant money goes into the bank accounts of the scientists .
It has to be spend on further research or things like additional hardware for climate simulations .
There is a huge question mark there : Climate Change Hoax ? Profit !
Just does n't compute.This makes people who believe in the faking of the moon landing look outright sane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the standard argument for the climate change deniers.
"The scientists made it all up to get more funding!".
What a ludicrous conspiracy theory.
Did all the climate scientists get into a room about twenty years ago to come up with an elaborate plan to take over all leading peer reviewed journals?
Generate an enormous body of published and according to XxtraLarGe biased work just so that they can now reap the benefit of more funding?
What an incredible energy it must take to coordinate so many people to contribute to one gigantic fraud.
And all of this to get some more grant money?
This is supposed to be incentive enough for such an elaborate hoax?
It is not as if that grant money goes into the bank accounts of the scientists.
It has to be spend on further research or things like additional hardware for climate simulations.
There is a huge question mark there: Climate Change Hoax?Profit!
Just doesn't compute.This makes people who believe in the faking of the moon landing look outright sane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391946</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1260474180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches, </p></div><p>Capricorn 1. There is a significent percentage of the prople that believe the Earth is flat, and that the moon landings were faked on a soundstage.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>or their new TV is even thinner.</p></div><p>TV's are like computers. They run on magic, the data flows through tubes, and you can catch a computers virus.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Thing is, do they even realise that is science?</p></div><p>They believe that psychics are real, and those that are caught cheating were just covering for a bad day. Scientists are just geeks who use funny words. Psychics solve crimes and save people in trouble, and scientists read books while wearing coke-bottle glasses.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In their mind science is a term for the fuzzy stuff that they read about in the papers - like is a glass of wine good or bad for you? Are potatoes/fish/eggs/etc good or bad for you? And all the U-turns since. Science is the word they associate with anything that goes wrong or seems to be a stupid waste of money to research.</p></div><p>The media have no clue about how science is supposed to work. If a group of clueless busybodies get together to condemn all our favorite foods just to get in the spotlight, the media will happily follow them, since it fills air time and makes them seem more important when they report the horrors of our food supply.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The media has propagated this view of science, because journalists could never hack the subjects themselves, and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it.</p></div><p>The media doesn't understand technology, and they follow whoever gives them the most impressive show. They're interested in getting an audience and winning awards, they aren't interested in the truth which gets them neither.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches , Capricorn 1 .
There is a significent percentage of the prople that believe the Earth is flat , and that the moon landings were faked on a soundstage.or their new TV is even thinner.TV 's are like computers .
They run on magic , the data flows through tubes , and you can catch a computers virus.Thing is , do they even realise that is science ? They believe that psychics are real , and those that are caught cheating were just covering for a bad day .
Scientists are just geeks who use funny words .
Psychics solve crimes and save people in trouble , and scientists read books while wearing coke-bottle glasses.In their mind science is a term for the fuzzy stuff that they read about in the papers - like is a glass of wine good or bad for you ?
Are potatoes/fish/eggs/etc good or bad for you ?
And all the U-turns since .
Science is the word they associate with anything that goes wrong or seems to be a stupid waste of money to research.The media have no clue about how science is supposed to work .
If a group of clueless busybodies get together to condemn all our favorite foods just to get in the spotlight , the media will happily follow them , since it fills air time and makes them seem more important when they report the horrors of our food supply.The media has propagated this view of science , because journalists could never hack the subjects themselves , and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it.The media does n't understand technology , and they follow whoever gives them the most impressive show .
They 're interested in getting an audience and winning awards , they are n't interested in the truth which gets them neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches, Capricorn 1.
There is a significent percentage of the prople that believe the Earth is flat, and that the moon landings were faked on a soundstage.or their new TV is even thinner.TV's are like computers.
They run on magic, the data flows through tubes, and you can catch a computers virus.Thing is, do they even realise that is science?They believe that psychics are real, and those that are caught cheating were just covering for a bad day.
Scientists are just geeks who use funny words.
Psychics solve crimes and save people in trouble, and scientists read books while wearing coke-bottle glasses.In their mind science is a term for the fuzzy stuff that they read about in the papers - like is a glass of wine good or bad for you?
Are potatoes/fish/eggs/etc good or bad for you?
And all the U-turns since.
Science is the word they associate with anything that goes wrong or seems to be a stupid waste of money to research.The media have no clue about how science is supposed to work.
If a group of clueless busybodies get together to condemn all our favorite foods just to get in the spotlight, the media will happily follow them, since it fills air time and makes them seem more important when they report the horrors of our food supply.The media has propagated this view of science, because journalists could never hack the subjects themselves, and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it.The media doesn't understand technology, and they follow whoever gives them the most impressive show.
They're interested in getting an audience and winning awards, they aren't interested in the truth which gets them neither.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391190</id>
	<title>Mathematics?</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1260471540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see how. Even Physics proposes models and then tests them experimentally - you have to interpret the results to see whether they match the model's predictions, and you can compromise scientific integrity by redefining models or ignoring experimental data.</p><p>In Mathematics, you make the model, prove it, and you're done.</p><p>In the words of xkcd: "e^i*Pi + 1 = 0 - politicize that, bitches."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how .
Even Physics proposes models and then tests them experimentally - you have to interpret the results to see whether they match the model 's predictions , and you can compromise scientific integrity by redefining models or ignoring experimental data.In Mathematics , you make the model , prove it , and you 're done.In the words of xkcd : " e ^ i * Pi + 1 = 0 - politicize that , bitches .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how.
Even Physics proposes models and then tests them experimentally - you have to interpret the results to see whether they match the model's predictions, and you can compromise scientific integrity by redefining models or ignoring experimental data.In Mathematics, you make the model, prove it, and you're done.In the words of xkcd: "e^i*Pi + 1 = 0 - politicize that, bitches.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391336</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1260472020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it.</i> <br>
<br>
That seems a quite unfair. However, I do agree that a lack of good scientific journalism is a problem. <br>
<br>
But my main beef with journalists, is that they should be far more savvy about the politics that is going on around the AGW debate. Sometimes I get the impression that it's just a job, and they really do the minimum to get the details right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it .
That seems a quite unfair .
However , I do agree that a lack of good scientific journalism is a problem .
But my main beef with journalists , is that they should be far more savvy about the politics that is going on around the AGW debate .
Sometimes I get the impression that it 's just a job , and they really do the minimum to get the details right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it.
That seems a quite unfair.
However, I do agree that a lack of good scientific journalism is a problem.
But my main beef with journalists, is that they should be far more savvy about the politics that is going on around the AGW debate.
Sometimes I get the impression that it's just a job, and they really do the minimum to get the details right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392826</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260477660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One picture tells it all:<br>(graph of the difference in degrees between raw and "final" data sets)<br><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_urb-raw\_pg.gif" title="noaa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_urb-raw\_pg.gif</a> [noaa.gov] </p></div><p>Wait, you mean they have posted their secret fudge factor on a public webpage and it has just been found out?  Amazing!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One picture tells it all : ( graph of the difference in degrees between raw and " final " data sets ) http : //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn \ _anom25 \ _diffs \ _urb-raw \ _pg.gif [ noaa.gov ] Wait , you mean they have posted their secret fudge factor on a public webpage and it has just been found out ?
Amazing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One picture tells it all:(graph of the difference in degrees between raw and "final" data sets)http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_urb-raw\_pg.gif [noaa.gov] Wait, you mean they have posted their secret fudge factor on a public webpage and it has just been found out?
Amazing!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396228</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Problem is, people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves. </p></div><p>This is a serious problem.  On the one hand, a democratic society holds that each member can and should act independently, weighing the factors that they find personally important, to come to vital decisions.  On the other hand, most people are ignorant on nearly every subject, and lack the means, ability, incentive, or time to become expert on each subject as it comes along.  Making medical decisions is one of the most important examples of this.  When presented with a treatment for a condition, who among us can really make an informed decision?  Are we ever even given the proper tools to make decisions (such as percentages of success, side-effect, and failure for the treatment, practioner, or hospital?  Hardly.  Instead we have FUD like, "OMFG they're putting POISON in vaccines."  I work in neuroscience research at a big hospital, and *I* don't know why thimerisol is used as a standard preservative in multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccine.  I don't even know how much mercury would end up being in a standard dose of a vaccine, or if that is enough to cause neurological issues long-term.  If I'm in the same general field, and I don't have the proper tools to evaluate the risks, how possibly can the general public?</p><p>Right.  They can't.  Not possible; not even remotely possible.  It would take a motivated, highly educated person with a lot of money to pay for scientific articles (they aren't by-and-large free except when you have a university affiliation), and lost of time to comb through stacks and stacks of papers in order to make an informed decision about one treatment.  This is a barrier to knowledge that is not realistic.  Expecting the lay person to make good, informed decisions is a joke. Expecting that the lay person can understand the myriad of complexities about climate change when the very idea of a static climate is demonstrably bogus is nothing more than political propaganda.</p><p>So, people have been brainwashed into thinking they can become experts on any subject in a few short minutes (witness all of the "well, why dont' they just do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." comments on Slashdot where readers who are familiar with a subject for the time it takes to read a condensed summary presume to be able to second guess experts who have devoted their lives to a particular field).  They clearly cannot do this, and nothing is going to get any better in that regard as science and technology continue to make astonishing advances.  We, the scientists, must therefore be absolutely certain and vigilant about promulgating only truth, and fighting propaganda at every turn.</p><p>I am not a climate scientist.  I am not a geologist.  I have friends who are, and from my second-hand understanding of anthropogenic climate change, no one really understands what is going on.  Sure, there's some evidence for anthropogenic climate changes (like the ozone hole over Antarctica), but *I* lack the skills and knowledge to understand the issues.  So when I hear Al Gore saying things like, "we dump billions of tons of CO2 into our thin atmosphere like it was a sewer," it makes me angry that anyone is listening to that drivel at all.  He might be right, anthropogenic CO2 may be a really, really big problem, but delivering that message with distortions and distractions that make the Soviet propaganda machine appear tame in comparison, ultimately is doing far more harm than good.</p><p>Blind trust in authority is bad.  But so is what we have now where fear, uncertainty and doubt determines what the public thinks.</p></div><p>This is exactly why countries like China will likely eventually outpace modern democracies. Instead of moving their society in the direction that the mob of uninformed citizens wants, they hire the educated experts to form a panel to make recommendations, then implement what they think is best for their society as a whole, regardless of what the mob thinks and without worry of lawsuits.  The average citizen doesn't understand climate science and why politically unpopular policies need to be enacted to secure a prosperous future for their society, just like in the past decades the average person doesn't understand economic concepts like fiat currency, trade deficits, inflation, or debt servicing, or why supporting their daily 80 mile commute in their SUV is not sustainable.  Success in the future will mean implementing politically unpopular policies, without caring what Joe the plumber thinks.</p><p>The complexity involved in supporting modern globalized human civilization is not the same world that existed 200 years ago when most people lived in isolation.  Making smart decisions for the well being of the future of humanity will increasingly require complex decisions regarding matters the average person won't be educated enough to voice an intelligent decision about.  The average person shouldn't be involved in making these decisions.  A democracy will implode if the masses want policies that are not sound.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is , people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves .
This is a serious problem .
On the one hand , a democratic society holds that each member can and should act independently , weighing the factors that they find personally important , to come to vital decisions .
On the other hand , most people are ignorant on nearly every subject , and lack the means , ability , incentive , or time to become expert on each subject as it comes along .
Making medical decisions is one of the most important examples of this .
When presented with a treatment for a condition , who among us can really make an informed decision ?
Are we ever even given the proper tools to make decisions ( such as percentages of success , side-effect , and failure for the treatment , practioner , or hospital ?
Hardly. Instead we have FUD like , " OMFG they 're putting POISON in vaccines .
" I work in neuroscience research at a big hospital , and * I * do n't know why thimerisol is used as a standard preservative in multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccine .
I do n't even know how much mercury would end up being in a standard dose of a vaccine , or if that is enough to cause neurological issues long-term .
If I 'm in the same general field , and I do n't have the proper tools to evaluate the risks , how possibly can the general public ? Right .
They ca n't .
Not possible ; not even remotely possible .
It would take a motivated , highly educated person with a lot of money to pay for scientific articles ( they are n't by-and-large free except when you have a university affiliation ) , and lost of time to comb through stacks and stacks of papers in order to make an informed decision about one treatment .
This is a barrier to knowledge that is not realistic .
Expecting the lay person to make good , informed decisions is a joke .
Expecting that the lay person can understand the myriad of complexities about climate change when the very idea of a static climate is demonstrably bogus is nothing more than political propaganda.So , people have been brainwashed into thinking they can become experts on any subject in a few short minutes ( witness all of the " well , why dont ' they just do ... " comments on Slashdot where readers who are familiar with a subject for the time it takes to read a condensed summary presume to be able to second guess experts who have devoted their lives to a particular field ) .
They clearly can not do this , and nothing is going to get any better in that regard as science and technology continue to make astonishing advances .
We , the scientists , must therefore be absolutely certain and vigilant about promulgating only truth , and fighting propaganda at every turn.I am not a climate scientist .
I am not a geologist .
I have friends who are , and from my second-hand understanding of anthropogenic climate change , no one really understands what is going on .
Sure , there 's some evidence for anthropogenic climate changes ( like the ozone hole over Antarctica ) , but * I * lack the skills and knowledge to understand the issues .
So when I hear Al Gore saying things like , " we dump billions of tons of CO2 into our thin atmosphere like it was a sewer , " it makes me angry that anyone is listening to that drivel at all .
He might be right , anthropogenic CO2 may be a really , really big problem , but delivering that message with distortions and distractions that make the Soviet propaganda machine appear tame in comparison , ultimately is doing far more harm than good.Blind trust in authority is bad .
But so is what we have now where fear , uncertainty and doubt determines what the public thinks.This is exactly why countries like China will likely eventually outpace modern democracies .
Instead of moving their society in the direction that the mob of uninformed citizens wants , they hire the educated experts to form a panel to make recommendations , then implement what they think is best for their society as a whole , regardless of what the mob thinks and without worry of lawsuits .
The average citizen does n't understand climate science and why politically unpopular policies need to be enacted to secure a prosperous future for their society , just like in the past decades the average person does n't understand economic concepts like fiat currency , trade deficits , inflation , or debt servicing , or why supporting their daily 80 mile commute in their SUV is not sustainable .
Success in the future will mean implementing politically unpopular policies , without caring what Joe the plumber thinks.The complexity involved in supporting modern globalized human civilization is not the same world that existed 200 years ago when most people lived in isolation .
Making smart decisions for the well being of the future of humanity will increasingly require complex decisions regarding matters the average person wo n't be educated enough to voice an intelligent decision about .
The average person should n't be involved in making these decisions .
A democracy will implode if the masses want policies that are not sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is, people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves.
This is a serious problem.
On the one hand, a democratic society holds that each member can and should act independently, weighing the factors that they find personally important, to come to vital decisions.
On the other hand, most people are ignorant on nearly every subject, and lack the means, ability, incentive, or time to become expert on each subject as it comes along.
Making medical decisions is one of the most important examples of this.
When presented with a treatment for a condition, who among us can really make an informed decision?
Are we ever even given the proper tools to make decisions (such as percentages of success, side-effect, and failure for the treatment, practioner, or hospital?
Hardly.  Instead we have FUD like, "OMFG they're putting POISON in vaccines.
"  I work in neuroscience research at a big hospital, and *I* don't know why thimerisol is used as a standard preservative in multi-dose vials of H1N1 vaccine.
I don't even know how much mercury would end up being in a standard dose of a vaccine, or if that is enough to cause neurological issues long-term.
If I'm in the same general field, and I don't have the proper tools to evaluate the risks, how possibly can the general public?Right.
They can't.
Not possible; not even remotely possible.
It would take a motivated, highly educated person with a lot of money to pay for scientific articles (they aren't by-and-large free except when you have a university affiliation), and lost of time to comb through stacks and stacks of papers in order to make an informed decision about one treatment.
This is a barrier to knowledge that is not realistic.
Expecting the lay person to make good, informed decisions is a joke.
Expecting that the lay person can understand the myriad of complexities about climate change when the very idea of a static climate is demonstrably bogus is nothing more than political propaganda.So, people have been brainwashed into thinking they can become experts on any subject in a few short minutes (witness all of the "well, why dont' they just do ..." comments on Slashdot where readers who are familiar with a subject for the time it takes to read a condensed summary presume to be able to second guess experts who have devoted their lives to a particular field).
They clearly cannot do this, and nothing is going to get any better in that regard as science and technology continue to make astonishing advances.
We, the scientists, must therefore be absolutely certain and vigilant about promulgating only truth, and fighting propaganda at every turn.I am not a climate scientist.
I am not a geologist.
I have friends who are, and from my second-hand understanding of anthropogenic climate change, no one really understands what is going on.
Sure, there's some evidence for anthropogenic climate changes (like the ozone hole over Antarctica), but *I* lack the skills and knowledge to understand the issues.
So when I hear Al Gore saying things like, "we dump billions of tons of CO2 into our thin atmosphere like it was a sewer," it makes me angry that anyone is listening to that drivel at all.
He might be right, anthropogenic CO2 may be a really, really big problem, but delivering that message with distortions and distractions that make the Soviet propaganda machine appear tame in comparison, ultimately is doing far more harm than good.Blind trust in authority is bad.
But so is what we have now where fear, uncertainty and doubt determines what the public thinks.This is exactly why countries like China will likely eventually outpace modern democracies.
Instead of moving their society in the direction that the mob of uninformed citizens wants, they hire the educated experts to form a panel to make recommendations, then implement what they think is best for their society as a whole, regardless of what the mob thinks and without worry of lawsuits.
The average citizen doesn't understand climate science and why politically unpopular policies need to be enacted to secure a prosperous future for their society, just like in the past decades the average person doesn't understand economic concepts like fiat currency, trade deficits, inflation, or debt servicing, or why supporting their daily 80 mile commute in their SUV is not sustainable.
Success in the future will mean implementing politically unpopular policies, without caring what Joe the plumber thinks.The complexity involved in supporting modern globalized human civilization is not the same world that existed 200 years ago when most people lived in isolation.
Making smart decisions for the well being of the future of humanity will increasingly require complex decisions regarding matters the average person won't be educated enough to voice an intelligent decision about.
The average person shouldn't be involved in making these decisions.
A democracy will implode if the masses want policies that are not sound.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389912</id>
	<title>Re:Just tell me, how do I know which one to trust?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are thousands of "Climatologist" yet we cannot agree which one is right.</p></div><p>Yeah, but most of them are saying the same thing. The earth is warming. The most you can get out of your statement is that some of them disagree on how quickly and how much of it's human caused. Even there you're skating on thin ice w/ your statement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are thousands of " Climatologist " yet we can not agree which one is right.Yeah , but most of them are saying the same thing .
The earth is warming .
The most you can get out of your statement is that some of them disagree on how quickly and how much of it 's human caused .
Even there you 're skating on thin ice w/ your statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are thousands of "Climatologist" yet we cannot agree which one is right.Yeah, but most of them are saying the same thing.
The earth is warming.
The most you can get out of your statement is that some of them disagree on how quickly and how much of it's human caused.
Even there you're skating on thin ice w/ your statement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389052</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politics have always been about money, power, and exploitation. Since Roman times and earlier, it's been known that politicians are not ever to be trusted.</p><p>Before the early 1980s, however, science used to be about legitimate research in search of the truth, whatever that truth may be. Medicine used to be about helping the individual seeking medical help. Scientists and doctors weren't as interested in making huge sums of money as they were with just furthering their knowledge of their field, or just plain helping people. Their goals made it natural for people to trust them.</p><p>Around 1980, things started to change. I suspect it's due to the rise of global corporatism, which really took hold after Reagan took office. America's advantage in the world started to erode, with third-world countries taking manufacturing jobs and thus reducing prosperity for many Americans. Greed skyrocketed, and in America, science became all about providing the results the funding sources (usually corporations) wanted to hear. Likewise, medicine became solely about distributing expensive pharmaceuticals as widely as possible.</p><p>So the participants within the science and medicine have shown that they're now about money, rather than knowledge and helping others. They now have the same goals as politicians, and that's why people are beginning to automatically distrust them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politics have always been about money , power , and exploitation .
Since Roman times and earlier , it 's been known that politicians are not ever to be trusted.Before the early 1980s , however , science used to be about legitimate research in search of the truth , whatever that truth may be .
Medicine used to be about helping the individual seeking medical help .
Scientists and doctors were n't as interested in making huge sums of money as they were with just furthering their knowledge of their field , or just plain helping people .
Their goals made it natural for people to trust them.Around 1980 , things started to change .
I suspect it 's due to the rise of global corporatism , which really took hold after Reagan took office .
America 's advantage in the world started to erode , with third-world countries taking manufacturing jobs and thus reducing prosperity for many Americans .
Greed skyrocketed , and in America , science became all about providing the results the funding sources ( usually corporations ) wanted to hear .
Likewise , medicine became solely about distributing expensive pharmaceuticals as widely as possible.So the participants within the science and medicine have shown that they 're now about money , rather than knowledge and helping others .
They now have the same goals as politicians , and that 's why people are beginning to automatically distrust them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politics have always been about money, power, and exploitation.
Since Roman times and earlier, it's been known that politicians are not ever to be trusted.Before the early 1980s, however, science used to be about legitimate research in search of the truth, whatever that truth may be.
Medicine used to be about helping the individual seeking medical help.
Scientists and doctors weren't as interested in making huge sums of money as they were with just furthering their knowledge of their field, or just plain helping people.
Their goals made it natural for people to trust them.Around 1980, things started to change.
I suspect it's due to the rise of global corporatism, which really took hold after Reagan took office.
America's advantage in the world started to erode, with third-world countries taking manufacturing jobs and thus reducing prosperity for many Americans.
Greed skyrocketed, and in America, science became all about providing the results the funding sources (usually corporations) wanted to hear.
Likewise, medicine became solely about distributing expensive pharmaceuticals as widely as possible.So the participants within the science and medicine have shown that they're now about money, rather than knowledge and helping others.
They now have the same goals as politicians, and that's why people are beginning to automatically distrust them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393200</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>thepotoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260435840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You will have to give me a reference for Science or Nature where they said the debate was over.  I can't seem to find it.  However, some researchers publishing a paper calling for political action to prevent a problem doesn't "sound like the scientific method" because its not strictly science.  They reviewed a bunch of other people's work and said "Things are happening, we should do something".  That's not proposing a hypothesis, it's looking at many, many supported hypotheses and saying that they probably have real-world implications.  (Without seeing the original paper, I'm guessing as to what they said.)</p><p>Now, if you read the Nature piece, which has been <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html" title="nature.com">linked</a> [nature.com] to several times on Slashdot before, you'd see that there is no violation in the scientific method there.  They said, simply, "there does not appear to be any falsified data in these leaked emails."  If you'd like to publish a paper to the contrary, you're more than welcome to replicate their methods (read the emails), draw your own conclusions, and submit it to Nature.  Of course, you'll have to cite the actual emails where the researchers talked about falsifying data.</p><p>If they said, "the ends justify the means", even between the lines, I can't find it.  In fact, they criticized the scientists for not releasing data in the last paragraph.</p><p>I agree with your last point 100\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You will have to give me a reference for Science or Nature where they said the debate was over .
I ca n't seem to find it .
However , some researchers publishing a paper calling for political action to prevent a problem does n't " sound like the scientific method " because its not strictly science .
They reviewed a bunch of other people 's work and said " Things are happening , we should do something " .
That 's not proposing a hypothesis , it 's looking at many , many supported hypotheses and saying that they probably have real-world implications .
( Without seeing the original paper , I 'm guessing as to what they said .
) Now , if you read the Nature piece , which has been linked [ nature.com ] to several times on Slashdot before , you 'd see that there is no violation in the scientific method there .
They said , simply , " there does not appear to be any falsified data in these leaked emails .
" If you 'd like to publish a paper to the contrary , you 're more than welcome to replicate their methods ( read the emails ) , draw your own conclusions , and submit it to Nature .
Of course , you 'll have to cite the actual emails where the researchers talked about falsifying data.If they said , " the ends justify the means " , even between the lines , I ca n't find it .
In fact , they criticized the scientists for not releasing data in the last paragraph.I agree with your last point 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You will have to give me a reference for Science or Nature where they said the debate was over.
I can't seem to find it.
However, some researchers publishing a paper calling for political action to prevent a problem doesn't "sound like the scientific method" because its not strictly science.
They reviewed a bunch of other people's work and said "Things are happening, we should do something".
That's not proposing a hypothesis, it's looking at many, many supported hypotheses and saying that they probably have real-world implications.
(Without seeing the original paper, I'm guessing as to what they said.
)Now, if you read the Nature piece, which has been linked [nature.com] to several times on Slashdot before, you'd see that there is no violation in the scientific method there.
They said, simply, "there does not appear to be any falsified data in these leaked emails.
"  If you'd like to publish a paper to the contrary, you're more than welcome to replicate their methods (read the emails), draw your own conclusions, and submit it to Nature.
Of course, you'll have to cite the actual emails where the researchers talked about falsifying data.If they said, "the ends justify the means", even between the lines, I can't find it.
In fact, they criticized the scientists for not releasing data in the last paragraph.I agree with your last point 100\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Every criticism of them has been answered,</i></p><p>Q: Can we see the data?<br>A: No, we lost it.</p><p>Q: Can we see the algorithms?<br>A: No, they're proprietary.</p><p>See, we've answered all your criticisms. Now go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every criticism of them has been answered,Q : Can we see the data ? A : No , we lost it.Q : Can we see the algorithms ? A : No , they 're proprietary.See , we 've answered all your criticisms .
Now go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every criticism of them has been answered,Q: Can we see the data?A: No, we lost it.Q: Can we see the algorithms?A: No, they're proprietary.See, we've answered all your criticisms.
Now go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390248</id>
	<title>Maybe, maybe not.</title>
	<author>stonecypher</author>
	<datestamp>1260468600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then why intelligent design?  Why the existing climate controversy?</p><p>I think the Wall Street Journal has a higher opinion of yesterday's average person than was warranted.  People haven't automatically listened to well educated people that study things for their entire lives for several decades now.</p><p>The ability to google compelling-sounding things has turned us into a nation of people who think they're experts at everything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard science , alongside medicine , was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons.Then why intelligent design ?
Why the existing climate controversy ? I think the Wall Street Journal has a higher opinion of yesterday 's average person than was warranted .
People have n't automatically listened to well educated people that study things for their entire lives for several decades now.The ability to google compelling-sounding things has turned us into a nation of people who think they 're experts at everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons.Then why intelligent design?
Why the existing climate controversy?I think the Wall Street Journal has a higher opinion of yesterday's average person than was warranted.
People haven't automatically listened to well educated people that study things for their entire lives for several decades now.The ability to google compelling-sounding things has turned us into a nation of people who think they're experts at everything.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391424</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>jabberwookie</author>
	<datestamp>1260472320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Doubt is good. Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.</p></div><p>As a matter of blind faith, I agree.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doubt is good .
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.As a matter of blind faith , I agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doubt is good.
Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.As a matter of blind faith, I agree.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389828</id>
	<title>bias warning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is part of NewsCorp...this means the integrity of the paper has dropped to about the level of the Cato Institute in recent years. How qualified are they to discuss scientific issues in any meaningful way? Especially OpEd? Is it really "News for Nerds"?</p><p>Does the actions of ONE small group of scientists in private emails (stolen from one server) invalidate the integrity of ALL climate researchers everywhere? Of course not. A few people arguing in private does not and should not invalidate the real consequences of global warming.</p><p>The average global temperature is increasing, and if it continues life will be profoundly affected. Whether it's due to greenhouse gases or some natural process is kind of irrelevant from the perspective of entire cities being underwater in 100 years. Even the MWP lasted 500 years or so.</p><p>The Hockey Stick Controversy was even discussed in Congress by groups of scientists around 2005 and scientific conclusions were invalidated and reversed.</p><p>WSJ, Murdoch, NewsCorp want to invalidate Global Warming. It's here, happening, and at least some policies must be put in place for long term infrastructure issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is part of NewsCorp...this means the integrity of the paper has dropped to about the level of the Cato Institute in recent years .
How qualified are they to discuss scientific issues in any meaningful way ?
Especially OpEd ?
Is it really " News for Nerds " ? Does the actions of ONE small group of scientists in private emails ( stolen from one server ) invalidate the integrity of ALL climate researchers everywhere ?
Of course not .
A few people arguing in private does not and should not invalidate the real consequences of global warming.The average global temperature is increasing , and if it continues life will be profoundly affected .
Whether it 's due to greenhouse gases or some natural process is kind of irrelevant from the perspective of entire cities being underwater in 100 years .
Even the MWP lasted 500 years or so.The Hockey Stick Controversy was even discussed in Congress by groups of scientists around 2005 and scientific conclusions were invalidated and reversed.WSJ , Murdoch , NewsCorp want to invalidate Global Warming .
It 's here , happening , and at least some policies must be put in place for long term infrastructure issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is part of NewsCorp...this means the integrity of the paper has dropped to about the level of the Cato Institute in recent years.
How qualified are they to discuss scientific issues in any meaningful way?
Especially OpEd?
Is it really "News for Nerds"?Does the actions of ONE small group of scientists in private emails (stolen from one server) invalidate the integrity of ALL climate researchers everywhere?
Of course not.
A few people arguing in private does not and should not invalidate the real consequences of global warming.The average global temperature is increasing, and if it continues life will be profoundly affected.
Whether it's due to greenhouse gases or some natural process is kind of irrelevant from the perspective of entire cities being underwater in 100 years.
Even the MWP lasted 500 years or so.The Hockey Stick Controversy was even discussed in Congress by groups of scientists around 2005 and scientific conclusions were invalidated and reversed.WSJ, Murdoch, NewsCorp want to invalidate Global Warming.
It's here, happening, and at least some policies must be put in place for long term infrastructure issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389382</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1260466080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting <em>hundreds of billions of dollars from governments</em> over the last couple of decades could have <em>somehow</em> politicized Science?</p><p>-Peter</p></div><p>Bullshit. This canard is wearing rather thin, don't you think? Academic research is somehow just as corrupt by the public funding it receives as so called "independent research firms" are by the funding they receive from private interests like the energy industry or big pharma? <br> <br>
Please...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science ? -PeterBullshit .
This canard is wearing rather thin , do n't you think ?
Academic research is somehow just as corrupt by the public funding it receives as so called " independent research firms " are by the funding they receive from private interests like the energy industry or big pharma ?
Please.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?-PeterBullshit.
This canard is wearing rather thin, don't you think?
Academic research is somehow just as corrupt by the public funding it receives as so called "independent research firms" are by the funding they receive from private interests like the energy industry or big pharma?
Please...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390554</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260469500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>as if [...] consensus on an issue is the same thing as fact</i></p><p>If a consensus of scientists who have studied the world agree that something is a fact, you'll need to come up with more than just "email wargarbl" to legitimately claim that it is NOT a fact.  Darwin spent DECADES doing research and tweaking his arguments before releasing the Origin of Species.   Climate scientists have been working on this stuff for decades as well, and have built a mountain of evidence supporting the theory.</p><p>If "skeptics" want to be taken seriously, then they are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than hiring russian hackers to find fishy sounding email excerpts.  I honestly find it astonishing that today on slashdot, where 9/11 "truthers" are rightly shouted down mercilessly, global warming "skeptics" are regularly moderated up to "insightful" despite the fact that they are proposing a vast conspiracy that is far larger and more complex in scope than anything previously claimed in history, and they are doing it on evidence that is far weaker than what the 9/11 "truthers" have.  Rational thought is apparently dead on slashdot and that is a real shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as if [ ... ] consensus on an issue is the same thing as factIf a consensus of scientists who have studied the world agree that something is a fact , you 'll need to come up with more than just " email wargarbl " to legitimately claim that it is NOT a fact .
Darwin spent DECADES doing research and tweaking his arguments before releasing the Origin of Species .
Climate scientists have been working on this stuff for decades as well , and have built a mountain of evidence supporting the theory.If " skeptics " want to be taken seriously , then they are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than hiring russian hackers to find fishy sounding email excerpts .
I honestly find it astonishing that today on slashdot , where 9/11 " truthers " are rightly shouted down mercilessly , global warming " skeptics " are regularly moderated up to " insightful " despite the fact that they are proposing a vast conspiracy that is far larger and more complex in scope than anything previously claimed in history , and they are doing it on evidence that is far weaker than what the 9/11 " truthers " have .
Rational thought is apparently dead on slashdot and that is a real shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as if [...] consensus on an issue is the same thing as factIf a consensus of scientists who have studied the world agree that something is a fact, you'll need to come up with more than just "email wargarbl" to legitimately claim that it is NOT a fact.
Darwin spent DECADES doing research and tweaking his arguments before releasing the Origin of Species.
Climate scientists have been working on this stuff for decades as well, and have built a mountain of evidence supporting the theory.If "skeptics" want to be taken seriously, then they are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than hiring russian hackers to find fishy sounding email excerpts.
I honestly find it astonishing that today on slashdot, where 9/11 "truthers" are rightly shouted down mercilessly, global warming "skeptics" are regularly moderated up to "insightful" despite the fact that they are proposing a vast conspiracy that is far larger and more complex in scope than anything previously claimed in history, and they are doing it on evidence that is far weaker than what the 9/11 "truthers" have.
Rational thought is apparently dead on slashdot and that is a real shame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389038</id>
	<title>That much different?</title>
	<author>ndogg</author>
	<datestamp>1260465000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When there are people that espouse creationism, and that vaccines cause autism, it's obvious a lot of lay people didn't respect science before.  How different can it be now?</p><p>Somewhere in hell,  Jenny McCarthy, and William Dembski are going at it like rabbits.  Their offspring will be the ultimate creature of evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When there are people that espouse creationism , and that vaccines cause autism , it 's obvious a lot of lay people did n't respect science before .
How different can it be now ? Somewhere in hell , Jenny McCarthy , and William Dembski are going at it like rabbits .
Their offspring will be the ultimate creature of evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When there are people that espouse creationism, and that vaccines cause autism, it's obvious a lot of lay people didn't respect science before.
How different can it be now?Somewhere in hell,  Jenny McCarthy, and William Dembski are going at it like rabbits.
Their offspring will be the ultimate creature of evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394092</id>
	<title>Math a science?</title>
	<author>kyliaar</author>
	<datestamp>1260439320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original poster is already too confused to be able to do much with science if he puts Mathematics into that category.</p><p>What we consider math is a group of widely divergent philosophies sharing certain basic symbols for their expression.  Of course, science is also in a similar state but it usualy has the additional characteristic of being applied to a physical universe in order to classify data.</p><p>Even though the application of math in science does allow for usable approximations of physical universe phenomenon, it has no direct relation to the physical universe itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original poster is already too confused to be able to do much with science if he puts Mathematics into that category.What we consider math is a group of widely divergent philosophies sharing certain basic symbols for their expression .
Of course , science is also in a similar state but it usualy has the additional characteristic of being applied to a physical universe in order to classify data.Even though the application of math in science does allow for usable approximations of physical universe phenomenon , it has no direct relation to the physical universe itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original poster is already too confused to be able to do much with science if he puts Mathematics into that category.What we consider math is a group of widely divergent philosophies sharing certain basic symbols for their expression.
Of course, science is also in a similar state but it usualy has the additional characteristic of being applied to a physical universe in order to classify data.Even though the application of math in science does allow for usable approximations of physical universe phenomenon, it has no direct relation to the physical universe itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390794</id>
	<title>Medicine</title>
	<author>Jessified</author>
	<datestamp>1260470340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as medicine goes, I'd say the scientific community has done a pretty good job of challenging their own credibility by exploiting use conflicts of interest with pharmaceuticals. Look no further than doctors signing their names at the bottom of industry ghost written research.</p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/18/doctors-ghost-writing-pharmaceutical-research" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/18/doctors-ghost-writing-pharmaceutical-research</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as medicine goes , I 'd say the scientific community has done a pretty good job of challenging their own credibility by exploiting use conflicts of interest with pharmaceuticals .
Look no further than doctors signing their names at the bottom of industry ghost written research.http : //www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/18/doctors-ghost-writing-pharmaceutical-research [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as medicine goes, I'd say the scientific community has done a pretty good job of challenging their own credibility by exploiting use conflicts of interest with pharmaceuticals.
Look no further than doctors signing their names at the bottom of industry ghost written research.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/18/doctors-ghost-writing-pharmaceutical-research [guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390768</id>
	<title>No one ever worked to undermine those elitists.</title>
	<author>KenDiPietro</author>
	<datestamp>1260470280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd think this attack was completely deserved, wouldn't you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think this attack was completely deserved , would n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think this attack was completely deserved, wouldn't you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389498</id>
	<title>It's simpler than that.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1260466440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole point of science, to the lay mind, is to improve the human condition.  Humans naturally seek to make their lives richer, and easier.  By understanding nature, science has been the ticket for that and most people give scientists the pass because they've made the breakthroughs that have given us giant houses, giant cars, giant computers, giant meals and more so.</p><p>But...</p><p>Now the science message is that giant houses, cars, computers, meals and so on are all bad.  Even if you ignore the environmental effects and supposed externalities the left bandies about, the fact is, all fossil fuels are running out.  Even inexhaustable coal grades are not what they were.  Look at German anthracite production figures.</p><p>Sol someone invents nuclear fusion and killer batteries, we're going to go through a period of real and increasing impoverishment as resources dwindle and government inhibitions on energy use and occasional resource wars increase.  I mean, yeah, some could say that our lives would be "better" because we'd have fresher air and more birds, but, when you pay double for your utilities, have a smaller, less capable vehicle, and less of them, and live in a smaller house, and have less food and less things because energy and other resources are increasingly expensive, then, its difficult to measure an improvement in life in qualitative turns.</p><p>When you start saying, well, you'll be living more morally, by being more in accord with the environment, that's more of a religious thing, and the people are smart enough to sense that.  So, sensing that this is becoming a religious time, and science can't deliver the consumer goods, they start buying ALL religious messages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of science , to the lay mind , is to improve the human condition .
Humans naturally seek to make their lives richer , and easier .
By understanding nature , science has been the ticket for that and most people give scientists the pass because they 've made the breakthroughs that have given us giant houses , giant cars , giant computers , giant meals and more so.But...Now the science message is that giant houses , cars , computers , meals and so on are all bad .
Even if you ignore the environmental effects and supposed externalities the left bandies about , the fact is , all fossil fuels are running out .
Even inexhaustable coal grades are not what they were .
Look at German anthracite production figures.Sol someone invents nuclear fusion and killer batteries , we 're going to go through a period of real and increasing impoverishment as resources dwindle and government inhibitions on energy use and occasional resource wars increase .
I mean , yeah , some could say that our lives would be " better " because we 'd have fresher air and more birds , but , when you pay double for your utilities , have a smaller , less capable vehicle , and less of them , and live in a smaller house , and have less food and less things because energy and other resources are increasingly expensive , then , its difficult to measure an improvement in life in qualitative turns.When you start saying , well , you 'll be living more morally , by being more in accord with the environment , that 's more of a religious thing , and the people are smart enough to sense that .
So , sensing that this is becoming a religious time , and science ca n't deliver the consumer goods , they start buying ALL religious messages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of science, to the lay mind, is to improve the human condition.
Humans naturally seek to make their lives richer, and easier.
By understanding nature, science has been the ticket for that and most people give scientists the pass because they've made the breakthroughs that have given us giant houses, giant cars, giant computers, giant meals and more so.But...Now the science message is that giant houses, cars, computers, meals and so on are all bad.
Even if you ignore the environmental effects and supposed externalities the left bandies about, the fact is, all fossil fuels are running out.
Even inexhaustable coal grades are not what they were.
Look at German anthracite production figures.Sol someone invents nuclear fusion and killer batteries, we're going to go through a period of real and increasing impoverishment as resources dwindle and government inhibitions on energy use and occasional resource wars increase.
I mean, yeah, some could say that our lives would be "better" because we'd have fresher air and more birds, but, when you pay double for your utilities, have a smaller, less capable vehicle, and less of them, and live in a smaller house, and have less food and less things because energy and other resources are increasingly expensive, then, its difficult to measure an improvement in life in qualitative turns.When you start saying, well, you'll be living more morally, by being more in accord with the environment, that's more of a religious thing, and the people are smart enough to sense that.
So, sensing that this is becoming a religious time, and science can't deliver the consumer goods, they start buying ALL religious messages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814</id>
	<title>These "scientists" weren't</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1260464340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The scientific method says you follow the data wherever it leads you, not start out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be then throw out data that doesn't fit your preconceived notions and try to squelch any opposing opinions. I see this more as an object lesson in how NOT to do science. They obviously had an agenda, and they threw out raw data, keeping only their "massaged" data. All of which makes their conclusions suspect, even if they are correct. If you want to do good science that makes a difference, DON'T do shit that way! By doing so, they have hurt the very agenda they were trying to advance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The scientific method says you follow the data wherever it leads you , not start out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be then throw out data that does n't fit your preconceived notions and try to squelch any opposing opinions .
I see this more as an object lesson in how NOT to do science .
They obviously had an agenda , and they threw out raw data , keeping only their " massaged " data .
All of which makes their conclusions suspect , even if they are correct .
If you want to do good science that makes a difference , DO N'T do shit that way !
By doing so , they have hurt the very agenda they were trying to advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scientific method says you follow the data wherever it leads you, not start out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be then throw out data that doesn't fit your preconceived notions and try to squelch any opposing opinions.
I see this more as an object lesson in how NOT to do science.
They obviously had an agenda, and they threw out raw data, keeping only their "massaged" data.
All of which makes their conclusions suspect, even if they are correct.
If you want to do good science that makes a difference, DON'T do shit that way!
By doing so, they have hurt the very agenda they were trying to advance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391182</id>
	<title>But Rush Limbaugh says Global Warming is a scam!?</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1260471540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Waht seems to be going on right now is that we are breaking into two distinct groups of people, those who want to do something about how we treat the planet, and those who do not. The among the one's who do want to do something about it, there are those who want to tax westernized nations until their economies match the pace of the rest of the "developing" (ie 3rd world economies) world. Unfortunately they are compelled by greed for the power to flip the off-switch on the general public, while they and their friends enjoy the utmost comfort, and opulence our modern society can provide. They hate hard science because it doesn't scare the public enough, so they fudge the numbers the scientists give them.
<br>
<br>
Then there are those who make their opulence and comfort from doing things the way we have been doing them since the beginning of the industrial revolution. They have no desire to change (except to make more money for the same or less), and see no reason they should be forced to.. They see no wrong in drilling every oil deposit, falling every tree, raping the bounty of the seas,  and building on anything flat enough to support a human structure. they think they can do this in perpetuity without ill effect, and hate hard science because it tells them that they can't.
<br>
<br>
Then there is the general public, left without the knowledge of science, they are taught to hate science because they don't understand it, and are being lied to by people whose interests conflict with the data given.
<br>
<br>
-Oz
<br>

Another way to look at it.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVC0FcSRxL8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVC0FcSRxL8</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Waht seems to be going on right now is that we are breaking into two distinct groups of people , those who want to do something about how we treat the planet , and those who do not .
The among the one 's who do want to do something about it , there are those who want to tax westernized nations until their economies match the pace of the rest of the " developing " ( ie 3rd world economies ) world .
Unfortunately they are compelled by greed for the power to flip the off-switch on the general public , while they and their friends enjoy the utmost comfort , and opulence our modern society can provide .
They hate hard science because it does n't scare the public enough , so they fudge the numbers the scientists give them .
Then there are those who make their opulence and comfort from doing things the way we have been doing them since the beginning of the industrial revolution .
They have no desire to change ( except to make more money for the same or less ) , and see no reason they should be forced to.. They see no wrong in drilling every oil deposit , falling every tree , raping the bounty of the seas , and building on anything flat enough to support a human structure .
they think they can do this in perpetuity without ill effect , and hate hard science because it tells them that they ca n't .
Then there is the general public , left without the knowledge of science , they are taught to hate science because they do n't understand it , and are being lied to by people whose interests conflict with the data given .
-Oz Another way to look at it .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = wVC0FcSRxL8 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Waht seems to be going on right now is that we are breaking into two distinct groups of people, those who want to do something about how we treat the planet, and those who do not.
The among the one's who do want to do something about it, there are those who want to tax westernized nations until their economies match the pace of the rest of the "developing" (ie 3rd world economies) world.
Unfortunately they are compelled by greed for the power to flip the off-switch on the general public, while they and their friends enjoy the utmost comfort, and opulence our modern society can provide.
They hate hard science because it doesn't scare the public enough, so they fudge the numbers the scientists give them.
Then there are those who make their opulence and comfort from doing things the way we have been doing them since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
They have no desire to change (except to make more money for the same or less), and see no reason they should be forced to.. They see no wrong in drilling every oil deposit, falling every tree, raping the bounty of the seas,  and building on anything flat enough to support a human structure.
they think they can do this in perpetuity without ill effect, and hate hard science because it tells them that they can't.
Then there is the general public, left without the knowledge of science, they are taught to hate science because they don't understand it, and are being lied to by people whose interests conflict with the data given.
-Oz


Another way to look at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVC0FcSRxL8 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389044</id>
	<title>Lack of transparency leads to doubt</title>
	<author>gorfie</author>
	<datestamp>1260465000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's the end of being able to promote scientific conclusions without allowing others to review/criticize the methods/data used to produce those conclusions.  This is not a bad thing as society should never blindly trust someone just because they have attained a certain status.  This is the way most good development teams work with peer reviews and such, why shouldn't the world work in the same way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's the end of being able to promote scientific conclusions without allowing others to review/criticize the methods/data used to produce those conclusions .
This is not a bad thing as society should never blindly trust someone just because they have attained a certain status .
This is the way most good development teams work with peer reviews and such , why should n't the world work in the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's the end of being able to promote scientific conclusions without allowing others to review/criticize the methods/data used to produce those conclusions.
This is not a bad thing as society should never blindly trust someone just because they have attained a certain status.
This is the way most good development teams work with peer reviews and such, why shouldn't the world work in the same way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393046</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>invisiblerhino</author>
	<datestamp>1260478500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Citation needed: what scientist, when and where? Which journal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation needed : what scientist , when and where ?
Which journal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation needed: what scientist, when and where?
Which journal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390830</id>
	<title>Climate Science is not Sciene though</title>
	<author>Mr 44</author>
	<datestamp>1260470460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One problem with Global Warming is that it does not fit the standard definition of science, which requires a testable hypothesis.  We only have one planet, and most climate science is done with computer models, not in reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem with Global Warming is that it does not fit the standard definition of science , which requires a testable hypothesis .
We only have one planet , and most climate science is done with computer models , not in reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem with Global Warming is that it does not fit the standard definition of science, which requires a testable hypothesis.
We only have one planet, and most climate science is done with computer models, not in reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389598</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>wes33</author>
	<datestamp>1260466680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times"</p><p>citations needed - the cooling idea was always marginal and<br>not widely held amongst scientists and disappeared quickly<br>quite unlike the current warming hypothesis</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In 1975 , American Scientist , Nature , and New York Times " citations needed - the cooling idea was always marginal andnot widely held amongst scientists and disappeared quicklyquite unlike the current warming hypothesis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times"citations needed - the cooling idea was always marginal andnot widely held amongst scientists and disappeared quicklyquite unlike the current warming hypothesis</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389696</id>
	<title>Global-warming denier papers are usually garbage</title>
	<author>Abies Bracteata</author>
	<datestamp>1260466980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The papers that Mann and Co wanted to "censor" really are complete garbage (I've personally read a couple of them).</p><p>But to understand *why* they are garbage, you need to have an undergraduate-level understanding of science and math (Earth science, some calculus, some statistics, etc.).   The papers in question had *no* business being published in a professional journal.  They wouldn't even make the grade as undergraduate term papers!</p><p>Here's a link to the first paper: <a href="http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf" title="int-res.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf</a> [int-res.com]</p><p>Anyone with an undergraduate-level "common-sense" understanding of Earth-science and statistics should be able to flag several major "show-stopper" problems with this paper's methodology.</p><p>Here's a link to the second paper: <a href="http://climatedebatedaily.com/southern\_oscillation.pdf" title="climatedebatedaily.com" rel="nofollow">http://climatedebatedaily.com/southern\_oscillation.pdf</a> [climatedebatedaily.com]</p><p>This paper contains a blunder that someone who understands calculus at the freshman level should know better than to make. Hint:  What does the time-derivative operation do to long-term trend information (i.e. the global-warming signal) in temperature data?  Another hint (and this one's giving away the store): The time-derivative operation acts as a high-pass filter.</p><p>And here's an excerpt from the paper that should have any upper-division EE major howling with laughter:<br><i><br>To remove the noise, the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations.<br></i></p><p>This is global-warming-denier science at its finest, folks: Using a derivative operation to remove noise!</p><p>The real scandal is that this paper actually made into the Journal of Geophysical Research!</p><p>Is it any wonder that Mann and Co. were pissed?</p><p>But how do you explain all this to your average Sarah Palin follower?  That's the scientists' conundrum here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The papers that Mann and Co wanted to " censor " really are complete garbage ( I 've personally read a couple of them ) .But to understand * why * they are garbage , you need to have an undergraduate-level understanding of science and math ( Earth science , some calculus , some statistics , etc. ) .
The papers in question had * no * business being published in a professional journal .
They would n't even make the grade as undergraduate term papers ! Here 's a link to the first paper : http : //www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf [ int-res.com ] Anyone with an undergraduate-level " common-sense " understanding of Earth-science and statistics should be able to flag several major " show-stopper " problems with this paper 's methodology.Here 's a link to the second paper : http : //climatedebatedaily.com/southern \ _oscillation.pdf [ climatedebatedaily.com ] This paper contains a blunder that someone who understands calculus at the freshman level should know better than to make .
Hint : What does the time-derivative operation do to long-term trend information ( i.e .
the global-warming signal ) in temperature data ?
Another hint ( and this one 's giving away the store ) : The time-derivative operation acts as a high-pass filter.And here 's an excerpt from the paper that should have any upper-division EE major howling with laughter : To remove the noise , the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations.This is global-warming-denier science at its finest , folks : Using a derivative operation to remove noise ! The real scandal is that this paper actually made into the Journal of Geophysical Research ! Is it any wonder that Mann and Co. were pissed ? But how do you explain all this to your average Sarah Palin follower ?
That 's the scientists ' conundrum here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The papers that Mann and Co wanted to "censor" really are complete garbage (I've personally read a couple of them).But to understand *why* they are garbage, you need to have an undergraduate-level understanding of science and math (Earth science, some calculus, some statistics, etc.).
The papers in question had *no* business being published in a professional journal.
They wouldn't even make the grade as undergraduate term papers!Here's a link to the first paper: http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf [int-res.com]Anyone with an undergraduate-level "common-sense" understanding of Earth-science and statistics should be able to flag several major "show-stopper" problems with this paper's methodology.Here's a link to the second paper: http://climatedebatedaily.com/southern\_oscillation.pdf [climatedebatedaily.com]This paper contains a blunder that someone who understands calculus at the freshman level should know better than to make.
Hint:  What does the time-derivative operation do to long-term trend information (i.e.
the global-warming signal) in temperature data?
Another hint (and this one's giving away the store): The time-derivative operation acts as a high-pass filter.And here's an excerpt from the paper that should have any upper-division EE major howling with laughter:To remove the noise, the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations.This is global-warming-denier science at its finest, folks: Using a derivative operation to remove noise!The real scandal is that this paper actually made into the Journal of Geophysical Research!Is it any wonder that Mann and Co. were pissed?But how do you explain all this to your average Sarah Palin follower?
That's the scientists' conundrum here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396186</id>
	<title>This isn't new</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260447120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This started when media outlets devided the 'fair and balanced' means everyones opinion is as good as facts, and that a crazy person should be given as much, or more, air time then rational thinking people.<br>For example - Look how much air time Jenny Mcarthy gets for anti vaccine even thought she has no evidence at all, routinly spouts non-sense, and clearly has no idea of chemistry.</p><p>Oprah constantly pushs bull crap and anti-science shit on her show. That's what has caused people to view science in the same vain as crazy crap.</p><p>Oprah is the most dangerous woman to ever live. What she does literally kills children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This started when media outlets devided the 'fair and balanced ' means everyones opinion is as good as facts , and that a crazy person should be given as much , or more , air time then rational thinking people.For example - Look how much air time Jenny Mcarthy gets for anti vaccine even thought she has no evidence at all , routinly spouts non-sense , and clearly has no idea of chemistry.Oprah constantly pushs bull crap and anti-science shit on her show .
That 's what has caused people to view science in the same vain as crazy crap.Oprah is the most dangerous woman to ever live .
What she does literally kills children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This started when media outlets devided the 'fair and balanced' means everyones opinion is as good as facts, and that a crazy person should be given as much, or more, air time then rational thinking people.For example - Look how much air time Jenny Mcarthy gets for anti vaccine even thought she has no evidence at all, routinly spouts non-sense, and clearly has no idea of chemistry.Oprah constantly pushs bull crap and anti-science shit on her show.
That's what has caused people to view science in the same vain as crazy crap.Oprah is the most dangerous woman to ever live.
What she does literally kills children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388636</id>
	<title>Yes, Here's Why</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260463620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The argument from incredulity is often applied to science by the layperson. You don't need an opponent or a debate to use a logical fallacy. The fact that the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case had to happen proves that people question science regardless of it's validity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument from incredulity is often applied to science by the layperson .
You do n't need an opponent or a debate to use a logical fallacy .
The fact that the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case had to happen proves that people question science regardless of it 's validity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument from incredulity is often applied to science by the layperson.
You don't need an opponent or a debate to use a logical fallacy.
The fact that the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case had to happen proves that people question science regardless of it's validity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30415436</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260643920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At some point, someone has to speak up. You seem to shirk that. I mean, if Al Gore was right (and I'm not sure he was either) in that he'd come to understand some fundamental and urgent scientific conclusion which could affect the lives of billions, ought he remain silent just because he's not a lifelong climatologist? Horsefeathers. He should ring the bell and yell from the tower.</p><p>I agree with you that the great many of us pop off half cocked with scant information and less understanding. However, I think your comments undervalue the benefits in having non-experts becoming vocal about important matters; it's a way to get the word out when the science experts themselves are busy/inept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At some point , someone has to speak up .
You seem to shirk that .
I mean , if Al Gore was right ( and I 'm not sure he was either ) in that he 'd come to understand some fundamental and urgent scientific conclusion which could affect the lives of billions , ought he remain silent just because he 's not a lifelong climatologist ?
Horsefeathers. He should ring the bell and yell from the tower.I agree with you that the great many of us pop off half cocked with scant information and less understanding .
However , I think your comments undervalue the benefits in having non-experts becoming vocal about important matters ; it 's a way to get the word out when the science experts themselves are busy/inept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some point, someone has to speak up.
You seem to shirk that.
I mean, if Al Gore was right (and I'm not sure he was either) in that he'd come to understand some fundamental and urgent scientific conclusion which could affect the lives of billions, ought he remain silent just because he's not a lifelong climatologist?
Horsefeathers. He should ring the bell and yell from the tower.I agree with you that the great many of us pop off half cocked with scant information and less understanding.
However, I think your comments undervalue the benefits in having non-experts becoming vocal about important matters; it's a way to get the word out when the science experts themselves are busy/inept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391202</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Bongo</author>
	<datestamp>1260471600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda, and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science.</p></div><p>Our species is doomed if we don't learn to recognise our shadow issues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda , and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science.Our species is doomed if we do n't learn to recognise our shadow issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda, and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science.Our species is doomed if we don't learn to recognise our shadow issues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389458</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>eeek77</author>
	<datestamp>1260466320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason why this has blown up into a huge deal is because the powers from on high are getting set to work out some sort of deal that will place on enormously burdensome tax on the major CO2 producing countries with lots of money (read - the USA). This tax (or whatever you want to call it) is based on this climate data and the interpretations of today's climatologists. And this tax would be imposed during a very difficult and widespread economic recession.<br><br>Any time you take away someone's hard-earned money, it becomes a big deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why this has blown up into a huge deal is because the powers from on high are getting set to work out some sort of deal that will place on enormously burdensome tax on the major CO2 producing countries with lots of money ( read - the USA ) .
This tax ( or whatever you want to call it ) is based on this climate data and the interpretations of today 's climatologists .
And this tax would be imposed during a very difficult and widespread economic recession.Any time you take away someone 's hard-earned money , it becomes a big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why this has blown up into a huge deal is because the powers from on high are getting set to work out some sort of deal that will place on enormously burdensome tax on the major CO2 producing countries with lots of money (read - the USA).
This tax (or whatever you want to call it) is based on this climate data and the interpretations of today's climatologists.
And this tax would be imposed during a very difficult and widespread economic recession.Any time you take away someone's hard-earned money, it becomes a big deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389328</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>qmaqdk</author>
	<datestamp>1260465900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting <em>hundreds of billions of dollars from governments</em> over the last couple of decades could have <em>somehow</em> politicized Science?</p><p>-Peter</p></div><p>For some reason people have a very romantic view of what it means to be a scientist. They seem to think that the scientists just pocket the money they get. All of it goes to research, i.e. salaries for post-docs, phd students, etc. (of the not Ferrari-driving nor private jet flying kind), equipment, and conference expenses. And it is expensive do to science.</p><p>But until you see scientists buying private jets, yachts and arrive at the university in Bugatti Veyrons, I suggest you calm down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science ? -PeterFor some reason people have a very romantic view of what it means to be a scientist .
They seem to think that the scientists just pocket the money they get .
All of it goes to research , i.e .
salaries for post-docs , phd students , etc .
( of the not Ferrari-driving nor private jet flying kind ) , equipment , and conference expenses .
And it is expensive do to science.But until you see scientists buying private jets , yachts and arrive at the university in Bugatti Veyrons , I suggest you calm down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?-PeterFor some reason people have a very romantic view of what it means to be a scientist.
They seem to think that the scientists just pocket the money they get.
All of it goes to research, i.e.
salaries for post-docs, phd students, etc.
(of the not Ferrari-driving nor private jet flying kind), equipment, and conference expenses.
And it is expensive do to science.But until you see scientists buying private jets, yachts and arrive at the university in Bugatti Veyrons, I suggest you calm down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393192</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260435780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and Physics</p></div><p>The answer is no. The good thing about science is that it is open source. [...]</p><p>The basic point is that the scientific method don't expect you to accept anything without proof. If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.</p></div><p>You've described what real science is like; the problem is that the "science" of AGW hasn't followed that pattern.  It hasn't been open.  The data and models and algorithms have not been open for inspection. There have not been clear predictions that differ significantly from what one would expect absent AGW, <b>and</b> that have been borne out by subsequent observations not available at the time of the prediction.  With AGW being claimed as the cause of every imaginable climate variation, falsifiability is nonexistent -- no matter what happens, it will be claimed to be a result of AGW.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and PhysicsThe answer is no .
The good thing about science is that it is open source .
[ ... ] The basic point is that the scientific method do n't expect you to accept anything without proof .
If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment , people will pay attention to you , regardless of politics.You 've described what real science is like ; the problem is that the " science " of AGW has n't followed that pattern .
It has n't been open .
The data and models and algorithms have not been open for inspection .
There have not been clear predictions that differ significantly from what one would expect absent AGW , and that have been borne out by subsequent observations not available at the time of the prediction .
With AGW being claimed as the cause of every imaginable climate variation , falsifiability is nonexistent -- no matter what happens , it will be claimed to be a result of AGW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will people even begin to doubt the most rigorous sciences like Mathematics and PhysicsThe answer is no.
The good thing about science is that it is open source.
[...]The basic point is that the scientific method don't expect you to accept anything without proof.
If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.You've described what real science is like; the problem is that the "science" of AGW hasn't followed that pattern.
It hasn't been open.
The data and models and algorithms have not been open for inspection.
There have not been clear predictions that differ significantly from what one would expect absent AGW, and that have been borne out by subsequent observations not available at the time of the prediction.
With AGW being claimed as the cause of every imaginable climate variation, falsifiability is nonexistent -- no matter what happens, it will be claimed to be a result of AGW.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396286</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Witness the disbelief in <b>findings regarding the lack of connection</b> between autism and vaccines, brain cancer and cellphones and climate change.</p></div><p>Witness the disbelief in the <b>lack of findings regarding the connection</b> between autism and vaccines, brain cancer and cellphones and climate change</p><p>The difference between no evidence and evidence against is actually not that important in most cases, but science is about being accurate and methodical, so lets get it right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Witness the disbelief in findings regarding the lack of connection between autism and vaccines , brain cancer and cellphones and climate change.Witness the disbelief in the lack of findings regarding the connection between autism and vaccines , brain cancer and cellphones and climate changeThe difference between no evidence and evidence against is actually not that important in most cases , but science is about being accurate and methodical , so lets get it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Witness the disbelief in findings regarding the lack of connection between autism and vaccines, brain cancer and cellphones and climate change.Witness the disbelief in the lack of findings regarding the connection between autism and vaccines, brain cancer and cellphones and climate changeThe difference between no evidence and evidence against is actually not that important in most cases, but science is about being accurate and methodical, so lets get it right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393038</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260478500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just don't tell Evangilists this. Home Schooled to believe Science can never "prove" anything only make strong implications. Sent to church camp where they are brainwashed to believe a child at 3 weeks old in the mother's womb looks just like a baby child because heck that's what the little doll they showed me looks like...</p><p>It's a brand new form of politics feeding religion and religion feeding politics. The next time you hear a senator scream that some idiot e-mail proves that there are no climate issues...asking what religion he is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do n't tell Evangilists this .
Home Schooled to believe Science can never " prove " anything only make strong implications .
Sent to church camp where they are brainwashed to believe a child at 3 weeks old in the mother 's womb looks just like a baby child because heck that 's what the little doll they showed me looks like...It 's a brand new form of politics feeding religion and religion feeding politics .
The next time you hear a senator scream that some idiot e-mail proves that there are no climate issues...asking what religion he is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just don't tell Evangilists this.
Home Schooled to believe Science can never "prove" anything only make strong implications.
Sent to church camp where they are brainwashed to believe a child at 3 weeks old in the mother's womb looks just like a baby child because heck that's what the little doll they showed me looks like...It's a brand new form of politics feeding religion and religion feeding politics.
The next time you hear a senator scream that some idiot e-mail proves that there are no climate issues...asking what religion he is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390450</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260469200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The worst problems are evading a legitimate FOIA request</i></p><p>You know why dont you?  Because the specific data in question was under contract at that time between the scientists and the company they got the data from.  The scientists were not allowed to give away the private data for free.  The deniers knew this, and were trying to get the data specifically to void their contract, and to disrupt the work of the scientists by destroying their access to data.  They had no other reason to need that information.  Furthermore, that data is now public.  Furthermore, it was not a FOIA request, thats an American law that doesn't apply to English citizens.  FURTHERMORE, the government agents working on that request agreed with the scientists that it was NOT a legitimate request, and had no problem with rejecting it.</p><p><i>coercing journals to not publish the works of "skeptics", and excluding "skeptic" literature from the IPCC record.</i></p><p>Say you were a scientist researching lung cancer, and there was another scientist who worked for the tobacco companies, who consistently published results that you found questionable denying any link.  In the peer review process, would you approve their work, even though you found it wrong?  After a consistent pattern of this, would you grumble in private emails to your friends?  And while it is troubling that any scientist would talk about suppressing alternate viewpoints, there has been NO evidence that they actually did suppress those views.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst problems are evading a legitimate FOIA requestYou know why dont you ?
Because the specific data in question was under contract at that time between the scientists and the company they got the data from .
The scientists were not allowed to give away the private data for free .
The deniers knew this , and were trying to get the data specifically to void their contract , and to disrupt the work of the scientists by destroying their access to data .
They had no other reason to need that information .
Furthermore , that data is now public .
Furthermore , it was not a FOIA request , thats an American law that does n't apply to English citizens .
FURTHERMORE , the government agents working on that request agreed with the scientists that it was NOT a legitimate request , and had no problem with rejecting it.coercing journals to not publish the works of " skeptics " , and excluding " skeptic " literature from the IPCC record.Say you were a scientist researching lung cancer , and there was another scientist who worked for the tobacco companies , who consistently published results that you found questionable denying any link .
In the peer review process , would you approve their work , even though you found it wrong ?
After a consistent pattern of this , would you grumble in private emails to your friends ?
And while it is troubling that any scientist would talk about suppressing alternate viewpoints , there has been NO evidence that they actually did suppress those views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst problems are evading a legitimate FOIA requestYou know why dont you?
Because the specific data in question was under contract at that time between the scientists and the company they got the data from.
The scientists were not allowed to give away the private data for free.
The deniers knew this, and were trying to get the data specifically to void their contract, and to disrupt the work of the scientists by destroying their access to data.
They had no other reason to need that information.
Furthermore, that data is now public.
Furthermore, it was not a FOIA request, thats an American law that doesn't apply to English citizens.
FURTHERMORE, the government agents working on that request agreed with the scientists that it was NOT a legitimate request, and had no problem with rejecting it.coercing journals to not publish the works of "skeptics", and excluding "skeptic" literature from the IPCC record.Say you were a scientist researching lung cancer, and there was another scientist who worked for the tobacco companies, who consistently published results that you found questionable denying any link.
In the peer review process, would you approve their work, even though you found it wrong?
After a consistent pattern of this, would you grumble in private emails to your friends?
And while it is troubling that any scientist would talk about suppressing alternate viewpoints, there has been NO evidence that they actually did suppress those views.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30401326</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1260544980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/193/4252/447" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">Global Cooling?</a> [sciencemag.org] <br>Paul E. Damon and Steven M. Kunen <br>Science 6 August 1976: Vol. 193. no. 4252, pp. 447 - 453<br> <br> <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/4266/685" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases</a> [sciencemag.org] <br>W. C. Wang, Y. L. Yung, A. A. Lacis, T. Mo, and J. E. Hansen <br>Science 12 November 1976: Vol. 194. no. 4266, pp. 685 - 690<br> <br> <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4201/460" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?</a> [sciencemag.org] <br>Wallace S. Broecker<br>Science 8 August 1975: Vol. 189. no. 4201, pp. 460 - 463
<br> <br>
Opps I think I picked the wrong selection of citations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Global Cooling ?
[ sciencemag.org ] Paul E. Damon and Steven M. Kunen Science 6 August 1976 : Vol .
193. no .
4252 , pp .
447 - 453 Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases [ sciencemag.org ] W. C. Wang , Y. L. Yung , A. A. Lacis , T. Mo , and J. E. Hansen Science 12 November 1976 : Vol .
194. no .
4266 , pp .
685 - 690 Climatic Change : Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming ?
[ sciencemag.org ] Wallace S. BroeckerScience 8 August 1975 : Vol .
189. no .
4201 , pp .
460 - 463 Opps I think I picked the wrong selection of citations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global Cooling?
[sciencemag.org] Paul E. Damon and Steven M. Kunen Science 6 August 1976: Vol.
193. no.
4252, pp.
447 - 453  Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases [sciencemag.org] W. C. Wang, Y. L. Yung, A. A. Lacis, T. Mo, and J. E. Hansen Science 12 November 1976: Vol.
194. no.
4266, pp.
685 - 690  Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
[sciencemag.org] Wallace S. BroeckerScience 8 August 1975: Vol.
189. no.
4201, pp.
460 - 463
 
Opps I think I picked the wrong selection of citations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392650</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here.. Move along</title>
	<author>jdb2</author>
	<datestamp>1260476820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this "climategate" bullshit is is really just the same-old-same-old <b> <i>quote mining</i> </b> from the "conservative"/neocon fundy anti-Science crowd and hyped up by their mouthpieces like Fox News.
<br> <br>
To see the real absurdity of it all, watch this :
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY</a> [youtube.com]
<br> <br>
jdb2</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this " climategate " bullshit is is really just the same-old-same-old quote mining from the " conservative " /neocon fundy anti-Science crowd and hyped up by their mouthpieces like Fox News .
To see the real absurdity of it all , watch this : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = P70SlEqX7oY [ youtube.com ] jdb2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this "climategate" bullshit is is really just the same-old-same-old  quote mining  from the "conservative"/neocon fundy anti-Science crowd and hyped up by their mouthpieces like Fox News.
To see the real absurdity of it all, watch this :
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY [youtube.com]
 
jdb2
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392458</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1260475980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Indeed. Personally, I would like to see a bit more skepticism when it comes to science. As in "Hey, show me some data and explain to me why what you say should work before I take your word for it." Or at least go out and do some of your own research before accepting something from some random scientist. Too often news organizations quote someone with some professorial or scientific title and pretend that the quote has value. Unless I know that person and have been able to assess their credibility in some way beforehand, they could have just as well quoted my barber. This presentation issue is a failing of news organizations though. Any person can still do their own filtering.</p></div><p>The whole problem with the Climategate emails is precisely that the public have been nothing but presented to in the UK about global warming. Every government approved websites say "the scientists agree". None of them try to explain (in any way) how the climate models work to show all of this, why it's not just the sun or volcanoes or anything else.</p><p>So, a lot of people have until now given the scientists some respect and trust that they are doing good. Along comes Climategate. Along comes revelations that the CRU are being less than fully accomodating with Freedom of Information Requests (I'm sorry but you could have just told people where to get it rather than saying "we don't have it"). Along comes the fact that they don't have the raw records that went in (so can't reproduce).</p><p>And what's the response from the government and the scientists? "Don't worry, the scientists all agree". You can keep repeating this, but a lot of people are now very skeptical about the behaviour of the CRU and repeating that they should trust the scientists and hoping that gets their trust back just isn't going to work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Personally , I would like to see a bit more skepticism when it comes to science .
As in " Hey , show me some data and explain to me why what you say should work before I take your word for it .
" Or at least go out and do some of your own research before accepting something from some random scientist .
Too often news organizations quote someone with some professorial or scientific title and pretend that the quote has value .
Unless I know that person and have been able to assess their credibility in some way beforehand , they could have just as well quoted my barber .
This presentation issue is a failing of news organizations though .
Any person can still do their own filtering.The whole problem with the Climategate emails is precisely that the public have been nothing but presented to in the UK about global warming .
Every government approved websites say " the scientists agree " .
None of them try to explain ( in any way ) how the climate models work to show all of this , why it 's not just the sun or volcanoes or anything else.So , a lot of people have until now given the scientists some respect and trust that they are doing good .
Along comes Climategate .
Along comes revelations that the CRU are being less than fully accomodating with Freedom of Information Requests ( I 'm sorry but you could have just told people where to get it rather than saying " we do n't have it " ) .
Along comes the fact that they do n't have the raw records that went in ( so ca n't reproduce ) .And what 's the response from the government and the scientists ?
" Do n't worry , the scientists all agree " .
You can keep repeating this , but a lot of people are now very skeptical about the behaviour of the CRU and repeating that they should trust the scientists and hoping that gets their trust back just is n't going to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Personally, I would like to see a bit more skepticism when it comes to science.
As in "Hey, show me some data and explain to me why what you say should work before I take your word for it.
" Or at least go out and do some of your own research before accepting something from some random scientist.
Too often news organizations quote someone with some professorial or scientific title and pretend that the quote has value.
Unless I know that person and have been able to assess their credibility in some way beforehand, they could have just as well quoted my barber.
This presentation issue is a failing of news organizations though.
Any person can still do their own filtering.The whole problem with the Climategate emails is precisely that the public have been nothing but presented to in the UK about global warming.
Every government approved websites say "the scientists agree".
None of them try to explain (in any way) how the climate models work to show all of this, why it's not just the sun or volcanoes or anything else.So, a lot of people have until now given the scientists some respect and trust that they are doing good.
Along comes Climategate.
Along comes revelations that the CRU are being less than fully accomodating with Freedom of Information Requests (I'm sorry but you could have just told people where to get it rather than saying "we don't have it").
Along comes the fact that they don't have the raw records that went in (so can't reproduce).And what's the response from the government and the scientists?
"Don't worry, the scientists all agree".
You can keep repeating this, but a lot of people are now very skeptical about the behaviour of the CRU and repeating that they should trust the scientists and hoping that gets their trust back just isn't going to work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389390</id>
	<title>...Because It's a Religion!</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1260466140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just "stolen e-mails"  (ooooh, felony!! Quick! Lock up the miscreants!!  There's never an Inquisitor around when you need one...); these huckleberries actually <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/" title="wattsupwiththat.com" rel="nofollow">cooked the code</a> [wattsupwiththat.com].  The Warmers are fanatics, more narrow-minded than Creationists, more dangerous and better connected politically than the Scientologists, but fundamentally no different.  It's the indulgence-granting, end-is-nighing, repent-or-burn Medieval Catholic Church all over again, except this time without the pleasant chanting and neat robes.  And just like that Dark Age sect, the top-placed five percent know that the fix is in while the bottom 95 percent are motivated by faith, fear, and social vengeance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just " stolen e-mails " ( ooooh , felony ! !
Quick ! Lock up the miscreants ! !
There 's never an Inquisitor around when you need one... ) ; these huckleberries actually cooked the code [ wattsupwiththat.com ] .
The Warmers are fanatics , more narrow-minded than Creationists , more dangerous and better connected politically than the Scientologists , but fundamentally no different .
It 's the indulgence-granting , end-is-nighing , repent-or-burn Medieval Catholic Church all over again , except this time without the pleasant chanting and neat robes .
And just like that Dark Age sect , the top-placed five percent know that the fix is in while the bottom 95 percent are motivated by faith , fear , and social vengeance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just "stolen e-mails"  (ooooh, felony!!
Quick! Lock up the miscreants!!
There's never an Inquisitor around when you need one...); these huckleberries actually cooked the code [wattsupwiththat.com].
The Warmers are fanatics, more narrow-minded than Creationists, more dangerous and better connected politically than the Scientologists, but fundamentally no different.
It's the indulgence-granting, end-is-nighing, repent-or-burn Medieval Catholic Church all over again, except this time without the pleasant chanting and neat robes.
And just like that Dark Age sect, the top-placed five percent know that the fix is in while the bottom 95 percent are motivated by faith, fear, and social vengeance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393100</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1260478680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't find your characterization of the events in question to be consistent with a viewpoint that values "science" and the scientific method. The actions and attitudes revealed in "climategate" are antithetical to science and the proper practice of science research. The amazing thing is that (following a thorough investigation of course) all those involved haven't been disciplined or terminated (if the local rules of tenure allow).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't find your characterization of the events in question to be consistent with a viewpoint that values " science " and the scientific method .
The actions and attitudes revealed in " climategate " are antithetical to science and the proper practice of science research .
The amazing thing is that ( following a thorough investigation of course ) all those involved have n't been disciplined or terminated ( if the local rules of tenure allow ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't find your characterization of the events in question to be consistent with a viewpoint that values "science" and the scientific method.
The actions and attitudes revealed in "climategate" are antithetical to science and the proper practice of science research.
The amazing thing is that (following a thorough investigation of course) all those involved haven't been disciplined or terminated (if the local rules of tenure allow).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393910</id>
	<title>Re:Peer Review and Grant Awards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Climate debate aside, we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists. Any suggestions?"</p><p>You could flip a coin.  That would be impartial.</p><p>Seriously -- the best qualified people to review papers and grants on a particular topic are, coincidentally, the other scientists involved with that field.  Even if you anonymized the authors and the reviewers, as is sometimes done (reviewers more often than authors), most people in the field know enough to recognize who it is anyway.  Editors and committees are supposed to act as referees, but that process can be subverted too.  But having seen all this from both sides, I honestly can't think of a better system than peer review.  And the thought of having the work or the grants primarily reviewed by people outside a relevant field is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... weird.  It makes as much sense as having automobile mechanics reviewing the standards for plumbing and electrical work, and vice-versa.  Some outside representation is usually always there (e.g., people without scientific background but plenty of experience in, say, accounting or project management), but it is a suitable minority.  The quality of the planned science and the quality of the applicant's past work is supposed to be the main determinant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Climate debate aside , we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists .
Any suggestions ?
" You could flip a coin .
That would be impartial.Seriously -- the best qualified people to review papers and grants on a particular topic are , coincidentally , the other scientists involved with that field .
Even if you anonymized the authors and the reviewers , as is sometimes done ( reviewers more often than authors ) , most people in the field know enough to recognize who it is anyway .
Editors and committees are supposed to act as referees , but that process can be subverted too .
But having seen all this from both sides , I honestly ca n't think of a better system than peer review .
And the thought of having the work or the grants primarily reviewed by people outside a relevant field is ... weird. It makes as much sense as having automobile mechanics reviewing the standards for plumbing and electrical work , and vice-versa .
Some outside representation is usually always there ( e.g. , people without scientific background but plenty of experience in , say , accounting or project management ) , but it is a suitable minority .
The quality of the planned science and the quality of the applicant 's past work is supposed to be the main determinant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Climate debate aside, we need to invent news ways to do review of papers and grants that is not totally dependent on self-policing of scientists.
Any suggestions?
"You could flip a coin.
That would be impartial.Seriously -- the best qualified people to review papers and grants on a particular topic are, coincidentally, the other scientists involved with that field.
Even if you anonymized the authors and the reviewers, as is sometimes done (reviewers more often than authors), most people in the field know enough to recognize who it is anyway.
Editors and committees are supposed to act as referees, but that process can be subverted too.
But having seen all this from both sides, I honestly can't think of a better system than peer review.
And the thought of having the work or the grants primarily reviewed by people outside a relevant field is ... weird.  It makes as much sense as having automobile mechanics reviewing the standards for plumbing and electrical work, and vice-versa.
Some outside representation is usually always there (e.g., people without scientific background but plenty of experience in, say, accounting or project management), but it is a suitable minority.
The quality of the planned science and the quality of the applicant's past work is supposed to be the main determinant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398214</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>DrInequality</author>
	<datestamp>1260463860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong - science is no longer open source.  Most science is based partly on software these days.  How much of that software is released openly?

None of the climate change papers that I've read have the associated software open sourced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong - science is no longer open source .
Most science is based partly on software these days .
How much of that software is released openly ?
None of the climate change papers that I 've read have the associated software open sourced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong - science is no longer open source.
Most science is based partly on software these days.
How much of that software is released openly?
None of the climate change papers that I've read have the associated software open sourced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392984</id>
	<title>maybe if people actually knew what sciece was...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260478260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's absurd that one can be considered "educated" in the western world without having a basic understanding of century old (or older) scientific principles (evolution, relativity, calculus...).  It is not "too hard" to learn these things.  If you have a college degree, you should be as familiar with basic science as you are with writing essays.</p><p>If the average lay person has as much understanding of modern science as they do something like modern economics (we all know China holds our debt, and why), then an attitude of skepticism toward scientists is actually desirable.  Without that basic understanding, how are we to communicate?!  How do you express something like climate change to a populace which doesn't know 19th century thermodynamics?  On what basis can they trust or criticize you?  I don't trust people saying things that sound like nonsense.  A sometimes "nonsense" people turn out to actually be lawyers, but not knowing their basic terminology I can't tell the difference between a charlatan and the real thing, so I can't really trust any of them.  I imagine that's how most people see scientists.</p><p>All we're left with is politics and sound bytes, which does not lead to a helpful discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's absurd that one can be considered " educated " in the western world without having a basic understanding of century old ( or older ) scientific principles ( evolution , relativity , calculus... ) .
It is not " too hard " to learn these things .
If you have a college degree , you should be as familiar with basic science as you are with writing essays.If the average lay person has as much understanding of modern science as they do something like modern economics ( we all know China holds our debt , and why ) , then an attitude of skepticism toward scientists is actually desirable .
Without that basic understanding , how are we to communicate ? !
How do you express something like climate change to a populace which does n't know 19th century thermodynamics ?
On what basis can they trust or criticize you ?
I do n't trust people saying things that sound like nonsense .
A sometimes " nonsense " people turn out to actually be lawyers , but not knowing their basic terminology I ca n't tell the difference between a charlatan and the real thing , so I ca n't really trust any of them .
I imagine that 's how most people see scientists.All we 're left with is politics and sound bytes , which does not lead to a helpful discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's absurd that one can be considered "educated" in the western world without having a basic understanding of century old (or older) scientific principles (evolution, relativity, calculus...).
It is not "too hard" to learn these things.
If you have a college degree, you should be as familiar with basic science as you are with writing essays.If the average lay person has as much understanding of modern science as they do something like modern economics (we all know China holds our debt, and why), then an attitude of skepticism toward scientists is actually desirable.
Without that basic understanding, how are we to communicate?!
How do you express something like climate change to a populace which doesn't know 19th century thermodynamics?
On what basis can they trust or criticize you?
I don't trust people saying things that sound like nonsense.
A sometimes "nonsense" people turn out to actually be lawyers, but not knowing their basic terminology I can't tell the difference between a charlatan and the real thing, so I can't really trust any of them.
I imagine that's how most people see scientists.All we're left with is politics and sound bytes, which does not lead to a helpful discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392880</id>
	<title>Guys, this is really nonsense.</title>
	<author>ldrager</author>
	<datestamp>1260477780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The objectivity of Science is based on the
process, not on the virtues of individual
scientists.  Certainly not on their
politeness in (supposedly) private communication.

There are, no doubt, some scientific skeptics
about various aspects of climate change.  This
controversy shows them getting published rather
than otherwise.

You don't actually hear that much about
these people in the media.  What you hear
over and over in the media are purveyors
of "antiknowledge".  This is a public relations
technique of misleading the public about
scientific or factual knowledge inconvenient
to the purveyor.  A prominent feature
are "talking points" that sound convincing to those
who haven't studied the field but are easily
seen to be wrong or misconceived by anyone who is
informed about the subject.  (Look at "scientific creationism").

The originators of this stuff are con artists.
Of course, many people who pass this stuff
on are victims of the swindle rather than
swindlers.

Scientists SHOULD be angry at swindlers,
and so should you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The objectivity of Science is based on the process , not on the virtues of individual scientists .
Certainly not on their politeness in ( supposedly ) private communication .
There are , no doubt , some scientific skeptics about various aspects of climate change .
This controversy shows them getting published rather than otherwise .
You do n't actually hear that much about these people in the media .
What you hear over and over in the media are purveyors of " antiknowledge " .
This is a public relations technique of misleading the public about scientific or factual knowledge inconvenient to the purveyor .
A prominent feature are " talking points " that sound convincing to those who have n't studied the field but are easily seen to be wrong or misconceived by anyone who is informed about the subject .
( Look at " scientific creationism " ) .
The originators of this stuff are con artists .
Of course , many people who pass this stuff on are victims of the swindle rather than swindlers .
Scientists SHOULD be angry at swindlers , and so should you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The objectivity of Science is based on the
process, not on the virtues of individual
scientists.
Certainly not on their
politeness in (supposedly) private communication.
There are, no doubt, some scientific skeptics
about various aspects of climate change.
This
controversy shows them getting published rather
than otherwise.
You don't actually hear that much about
these people in the media.
What you hear
over and over in the media are purveyors
of "antiknowledge".
This is a public relations
technique of misleading the public about
scientific or factual knowledge inconvenient
to the purveyor.
A prominent feature
are "talking points" that sound convincing to those
who haven't studied the field but are easily
seen to be wrong or misconceived by anyone who is
informed about the subject.
(Look at "scientific creationism").
The originators of this stuff are con artists.
Of course, many people who pass this stuff
on are victims of the swindle rather than
swindlers.
Scientists SHOULD be angry at swindlers,
and so should you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389376</id>
	<title>Probability IS just a theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But people who would argue that there is 100\% chance that the die reads 3 when it does and 0\% when it doesn't are NOT wrong.</p><p>Probability exists in the realm of imperfect knowledge, that is, they couldn't tell you that it was 100\% chance of being 3 until seeing it, thus to THEM the probability is 1/6. It is not necessarily true that things behave probabilistically, only that they do when we have imperfect knowledge (as we are restricted to with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal). It is possible that with perfect knowledge (which we cannot achieve) the universe would not behave probabilistically at all.</p><p>Remember all theories are wrong, but some are useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But people who would argue that there is 100 \ % chance that the die reads 3 when it does and 0 \ % when it does n't are NOT wrong.Probability exists in the realm of imperfect knowledge , that is , they could n't tell you that it was 100 \ % chance of being 3 until seeing it , thus to THEM the probability is 1/6 .
It is not necessarily true that things behave probabilistically , only that they do when we have imperfect knowledge ( as we are restricted to with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal ) .
It is possible that with perfect knowledge ( which we can not achieve ) the universe would not behave probabilistically at all.Remember all theories are wrong , but some are useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But people who would argue that there is 100\% chance that the die reads 3 when it does and 0\% when it doesn't are NOT wrong.Probability exists in the realm of imperfect knowledge, that is, they couldn't tell you that it was 100\% chance of being 3 until seeing it, thus to THEM the probability is 1/6.
It is not necessarily true that things behave probabilistically, only that they do when we have imperfect knowledge (as we are restricted to with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal).
It is possible that with perfect knowledge (which we cannot achieve) the universe would not behave probabilistically at all.Remember all theories are wrong, but some are useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396160</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The good thing about science is that it is open source.</p></div><p>Not entirely. One has to pay to read recent scientific papers and journals, even in digital format on the internet. Some are free but not all and especially not the newest stuff.<br>I guess I fail to dispute your point, science is open source, just not free open source.</p><p>This is important to me though and I think if science wants to maintain it's credibility it needs to provide its 'source' free to the public so we can all see what is being done. Claiming that Joe public isn't capable of coming to informed conclusions about scientific questions, as some in this forum have done, is condescending and only superficially true. Mainly because a private citizen would need to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per year to maintain subscriptions to the journals, or at least pay 10 to 20 dollars per paper. Release all scientific papers for free to the general public and science will flourish. Hide them behind a paywall and it will turn into a new hocus pocus religion in a couple of hundred years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The good thing about science is that it is open source.Not entirely .
One has to pay to read recent scientific papers and journals , even in digital format on the internet .
Some are free but not all and especially not the newest stuff.I guess I fail to dispute your point , science is open source , just not free open source.This is important to me though and I think if science wants to maintain it 's credibility it needs to provide its 'source ' free to the public so we can all see what is being done .
Claiming that Joe public is n't capable of coming to informed conclusions about scientific questions , as some in this forum have done , is condescending and only superficially true .
Mainly because a private citizen would need to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per year to maintain subscriptions to the journals , or at least pay 10 to 20 dollars per paper .
Release all scientific papers for free to the general public and science will flourish .
Hide them behind a paywall and it will turn into a new hocus pocus religion in a couple of hundred years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good thing about science is that it is open source.Not entirely.
One has to pay to read recent scientific papers and journals, even in digital format on the internet.
Some are free but not all and especially not the newest stuff.I guess I fail to dispute your point, science is open source, just not free open source.This is important to me though and I think if science wants to maintain it's credibility it needs to provide its 'source' free to the public so we can all see what is being done.
Claiming that Joe public isn't capable of coming to informed conclusions about scientific questions, as some in this forum have done, is condescending and only superficially true.
Mainly because a private citizen would need to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars per year to maintain subscriptions to the journals, or at least pay 10 to 20 dollars per paper.
Release all scientific papers for free to the general public and science will flourish.
Hide them behind a paywall and it will turn into a new hocus pocus religion in a couple of hundred years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396136</id>
	<title>Sounds like religion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260446880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> In doing so, it will make the lay person unsure of the credibility of all sciences without fully seeing proof of it</p> </div><p>I always thought believing something without seeing proof was religion, not science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In doing so , it will make the lay person unsure of the credibility of all sciences without fully seeing proof of it I always thought believing something without seeing proof was religion , not science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In doing so, it will make the lay person unsure of the credibility of all sciences without fully seeing proof of it I always thought believing something without seeing proof was religion, not science.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398248</id>
	<title>Derived derivatives.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1260464460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>To remove the noise, the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations.</em><br>This is global-warming-denier science at its finest, folks: Using a derivative operation to remove noise!</p></div><p>It would have helped if you'd read the <em>entire</em> paragraph.  They were clearly using the more general meaning of derivative that they were working with values derived using some function from the original data, rather than the original data itself.  That function was a time-difference of moving 12-month averages.  There is a derivative involved, but it's disingenuous to claim that the function they chose wouldn't reduce noise.</p><p>The question is, does the <b>band</b>-pass filter improve or hinder understanding of the data; are the conclusions reached overly influenced by artifacts from the algorithm, or are they merely clarified by it.  Sifting through data for meaning is hard.  You can't just pick one <em>word</em> out of context and say "oh well, that proves the whole thing is garbage."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To remove the noise , the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations.This is global-warming-denier science at its finest , folks : Using a derivative operation to remove noise ! It would have helped if you 'd read the entire paragraph .
They were clearly using the more general meaning of derivative that they were working with values derived using some function from the original data , rather than the original data itself .
That function was a time-difference of moving 12-month averages .
There is a derivative involved , but it 's disingenuous to claim that the function they chose would n't reduce noise.The question is , does the band-pass filter improve or hinder understanding of the data ; are the conclusions reached overly influenced by artifacts from the algorithm , or are they merely clarified by it .
Sifting through data for meaning is hard .
You ca n't just pick one word out of context and say " oh well , that proves the whole thing is garbage .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> To remove the noise, the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations.This is global-warming-denier science at its finest, folks: Using a derivative operation to remove noise!It would have helped if you'd read the entire paragraph.
They were clearly using the more general meaning of derivative that they were working with values derived using some function from the original data, rather than the original data itself.
That function was a time-difference of moving 12-month averages.
There is a derivative involved, but it's disingenuous to claim that the function they chose wouldn't reduce noise.The question is, does the band-pass filter improve or hinder understanding of the data; are the conclusions reached overly influenced by artifacts from the algorithm, or are they merely clarified by it.
Sifting through data for meaning is hard.
You can't just pick one word out of context and say "oh well, that proves the whole thing is garbage.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397000</id>
	<title>Science Credibility is a Consequence of Greed</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1260451680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole Greed thing is getting out of hand and it will be the end of us all.</p><p>The climate gate issue is incredibly damning.</p><p>There they all are in Copenhagen, just pretending like nothing happened.</p><p>Everyone first has to realize that these people working on "Climate Change" in Copenhagen do not care about people, plants, polar bears or anything else for that matter except control and the unlimited supply of money an entire world economy enslaved under a carbon credit ponzy scheme.</p><p>That is what they really want.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole Greed thing is getting out of hand and it will be the end of us all.The climate gate issue is incredibly damning.There they all are in Copenhagen , just pretending like nothing happened.Everyone first has to realize that these people working on " Climate Change " in Copenhagen do not care about people , plants , polar bears or anything else for that matter except control and the unlimited supply of money an entire world economy enslaved under a carbon credit ponzy scheme.That is what they really want.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole Greed thing is getting out of hand and it will be the end of us all.The climate gate issue is incredibly damning.There they all are in Copenhagen, just pretending like nothing happened.Everyone first has to realize that these people working on "Climate Change" in Copenhagen do not care about people, plants, polar bears or anything else for that matter except control and the unlimited supply of money an entire world economy enslaved under a carbon credit ponzy scheme.That is what they really want.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393054</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260478500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The climate research has been confirmed by other studies, and by myself.  While you may not believe me, I have to trust what I have seen first hand to be the truth.</p><p>Now, what will happen in the future if we do nothing can be debated, but the poorer people in certain environments will have problems surviving if conditions change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate research has been confirmed by other studies , and by myself .
While you may not believe me , I have to trust what I have seen first hand to be the truth.Now , what will happen in the future if we do nothing can be debated , but the poorer people in certain environments will have problems surviving if conditions change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate research has been confirmed by other studies, and by myself.
While you may not believe me, I have to trust what I have seen first hand to be the truth.Now, what will happen in the future if we do nothing can be debated, but the poorer people in certain environments will have problems surviving if conditions change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390376</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticism requires more than just questioning</title>
	<author>mikestro</author>
	<datestamp>1260468960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kind of like Al Gore?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of like Al Gore ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of like Al Gore?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396908</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260451080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Every criticism of them has been answered"  Umm no.  There are plenty of real scientists who don't agree with many of the CSU conclusions.  And if CSU believed they were above criticism they would not be altering the data or suppressing dissenting opinions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Every criticism of them has been answered " Umm no .
There are plenty of real scientists who do n't agree with many of the CSU conclusions .
And if CSU believed they were above criticism they would not be altering the data or suppressing dissenting opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Every criticism of them has been answered"  Umm no.
There are plenty of real scientists who don't agree with many of the CSU conclusions.
And if CSU believed they were above criticism they would not be altering the data or suppressing dissenting opinions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392772</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1260477420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're talking about public opinion. Sure, you can buy a super collider and perform the experiments yourself, but it is much cheaper to just turn on the tv, take the word of whoever tells the best jokes, and wonder why scientists can be all good at critical thinking and educated smartness like you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about public opinion .
Sure , you can buy a super collider and perform the experiments yourself , but it is much cheaper to just turn on the tv , take the word of whoever tells the best jokes , and wonder why scientists can be all good at critical thinking and educated smartness like you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about public opinion.
Sure, you can buy a super collider and perform the experiments yourself, but it is much cheaper to just turn on the tv, take the word of whoever tells the best jokes, and wonder why scientists can be all good at critical thinking and educated smartness like you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</id>
	<title>Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1260464280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in a field closely associated with climatology (satellite remote sensing), and I work with climatologists.  And I agree with the article on one point:  We really do not understand how big a deal this 'climategate' is.</p><p>The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics.  That's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda, and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science.  Yes, tempers flare in private emails.  Scientists are human.  If people are going to lose faith in science because scientists are human...then we as a race are doomed, in my opinion.</p><p>As for the results of the CSU climate research, they're not in any doubt.  Every criticism of them has been answered, and there are other studies that agree with the CSU results.  So attack the scientists for being human if you must, but the science is sound and must be heeded.</p><p>I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration.  Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short, wholesome, science-free life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in a field closely associated with climatology ( satellite remote sensing ) , and I work with climatologists .
And I agree with the article on one point : We really do not understand how big a deal this 'climategate ' is.The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics .
That 's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda , and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science .
Yes , tempers flare in private emails .
Scientists are human .
If people are going to lose faith in science because scientists are human...then we as a race are doomed , in my opinion.As for the results of the CSU climate research , they 're not in any doubt .
Every criticism of them has been answered , and there are other studies that agree with the CSU results .
So attack the scientists for being human if you must , but the science is sound and must be heeded.I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration .
Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short , wholesome , science-free life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in a field closely associated with climatology (satellite remote sensing), and I work with climatologists.
And I agree with the article on one point:  We really do not understand how big a deal this 'climategate' is.The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics.
That's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda, and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science.
Yes, tempers flare in private emails.
Scientists are human.
If people are going to lose faith in science because scientists are human...then we as a race are doomed, in my opinion.As for the results of the CSU climate research, they're not in any doubt.
Every criticism of them has been answered, and there are other studies that agree with the CSU results.
So attack the scientists for being human if you must, but the science is sound and must be heeded.I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration.
Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short, wholesome, science-free life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399932</id>
	<title>More Accurate (But Boring) Version</title>
	<author>silburnl</author>
	<datestamp>1260533700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Q: Can we see the data?<br>A: No, we deleted some of it after concluding that it wasn't good enough to use. You can go to the station logs and get it if you want. Knock yourself out.</p><p>Q: Can we see the algorithms?<br>A: Sure. They are in the methods section of the  dozens of papers published in the peer reviewed literature dealing with this area. We have links to these papers on our website.</p><p>Regards<br>Luke</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : Can we see the data ? A : No , we deleted some of it after concluding that it was n't good enough to use .
You can go to the station logs and get it if you want .
Knock yourself out.Q : Can we see the algorithms ? A : Sure .
They are in the methods section of the dozens of papers published in the peer reviewed literature dealing with this area .
We have links to these papers on our website.RegardsLuke</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q: Can we see the data?A: No, we deleted some of it after concluding that it wasn't good enough to use.
You can go to the station logs and get it if you want.
Knock yourself out.Q: Can we see the algorithms?A: Sure.
They are in the methods section of the  dozens of papers published in the peer reviewed literature dealing with this area.
We have links to these papers on our website.RegardsLuke</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389334</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1260465960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay I have to say that I both agree and disagree.<br>Yes Science should be shown be accorded more stature and respect than politics. Real science is based of data while the vast majority of politics is based on opinion.<br>The fact that light travels at a fixed rate in a vacuum is not an opinion.</p><p>The problem with climate change is that it has moved out of science and into the realm of religion.<br>Even on Slashdot people will claim that Global warming caused by mans activities is proven fact. It is not. It is still a theory. A theory with a lot of data to back it up and one I happen to believe is valid but still a theory.<br>IIt is always right to question a theory and it is always wrong to throw out data that is "messy" just because it could "confuse" people.<br>I have a Religion and it isn't Science. I have Science and it isn't a Religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay I have to say that I both agree and disagree.Yes Science should be shown be accorded more stature and respect than politics .
Real science is based of data while the vast majority of politics is based on opinion.The fact that light travels at a fixed rate in a vacuum is not an opinion.The problem with climate change is that it has moved out of science and into the realm of religion.Even on Slashdot people will claim that Global warming caused by mans activities is proven fact .
It is not .
It is still a theory .
A theory with a lot of data to back it up and one I happen to believe is valid but still a theory.IIt is always right to question a theory and it is always wrong to throw out data that is " messy " just because it could " confuse " people.I have a Religion and it is n't Science .
I have Science and it is n't a Religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay I have to say that I both agree and disagree.Yes Science should be shown be accorded more stature and respect than politics.
Real science is based of data while the vast majority of politics is based on opinion.The fact that light travels at a fixed rate in a vacuum is not an opinion.The problem with climate change is that it has moved out of science and into the realm of religion.Even on Slashdot people will claim that Global warming caused by mans activities is proven fact.
It is not.
It is still a theory.
A theory with a lot of data to back it up and one I happen to believe is valid but still a theory.IIt is always right to question a theory and it is always wrong to throw out data that is "messy" just because it could "confuse" people.I have a Religion and it isn't Science.
I have Science and it isn't a Religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389574</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once you've tagged an entire class of people as untrustworthy because of the basic fact of them being employed, you are incapable of engaging in any relevant discussion about the topic without redoing everything yourself.</p><p>Since I'm pretty sure you don't have an LHC in your backyard or your own temperature satellite in orbit, it means that you have two options when talking about science: shut up, or make crap up. And again, judging from the fact you're posting in this story, I'm pretty sure you are not prone to silence.</p><p>It's people like you that are ruining the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you 've tagged an entire class of people as untrustworthy because of the basic fact of them being employed , you are incapable of engaging in any relevant discussion about the topic without redoing everything yourself.Since I 'm pretty sure you do n't have an LHC in your backyard or your own temperature satellite in orbit , it means that you have two options when talking about science : shut up , or make crap up .
And again , judging from the fact you 're posting in this story , I 'm pretty sure you are not prone to silence.It 's people like you that are ruining the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you've tagged an entire class of people as untrustworthy because of the basic fact of them being employed, you are incapable of engaging in any relevant discussion about the topic without redoing everything yourself.Since I'm pretty sure you don't have an LHC in your backyard or your own temperature satellite in orbit, it means that you have two options when talking about science: shut up, or make crap up.
And again, judging from the fact you're posting in this story, I'm pretty sure you are not prone to silence.It's people like you that are ruining the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391020</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260471000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I scientist myself I can't understand how anybody calling themselves a scientist can refuse to provide raw data and methodology used to obtain any derived results.  Those that did that are totally discredited IMHO.  I mean c'mon - you just can't do that.  Playing w/peer review on the other hand, tell me something new...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I scientist myself I ca n't understand how anybody calling themselves a scientist can refuse to provide raw data and methodology used to obtain any derived results .
Those that did that are totally discredited IMHO .
I mean c'mon - you just ca n't do that .
Playing w/peer review on the other hand , tell me something new.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I scientist myself I can't understand how anybody calling themselves a scientist can refuse to provide raw data and methodology used to obtain any derived results.
Those that did that are totally discredited IMHO.
I mean c'mon - you just can't do that.
Playing w/peer review on the other hand, tell me something new...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399506</id>
	<title>So what is your point, exactly?</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1260527460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love science, I gobble news about it, I probably understand more of it than most.</p><p>That being said, what makes you assume that it is \_not\_ driven by a need for grants, thus subject to politics and a need for publication, thus subject to infighting and a need for clear-cut results, thus subject to cheating? Being close friends with several PhDs and university professors, I can't imagine what this assumption is being based on.</p><p>I love science, I gobble news about it, I probably understand more of it than most, but I know that scientists are human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love science , I gobble news about it , I probably understand more of it than most.That being said , what makes you assume that it is \ _not \ _ driven by a need for grants , thus subject to politics and a need for publication , thus subject to infighting and a need for clear-cut results , thus subject to cheating ?
Being close friends with several PhDs and university professors , I ca n't imagine what this assumption is being based on.I love science , I gobble news about it , I probably understand more of it than most , but I know that scientists are human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love science, I gobble news about it, I probably understand more of it than most.That being said, what makes you assume that it is \_not\_ driven by a need for grants, thus subject to politics and a need for publication, thus subject to infighting and a need for clear-cut results, thus subject to cheating?
Being close friends with several PhDs and university professors, I can't imagine what this assumption is being based on.I love science, I gobble news about it, I probably understand more of it than most, but I know that scientists are human.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389226</id>
	<title>This may be a good thing</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1260465600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people realize that there is a difference between a proven scientific fact, a nearly universally accepted scientific theory, a generally accepted scientific theory, a scientific theory which has the support of most scientists but is not yet generally accepted, a seriously considered plurality- or minority-accepted scientific theory, a crackpot/fringe theory that is not yet disproven, and a discredited/disproven theory, the world would be a better place.</p><p>People also need to know that some proven-wrong theories still have usefulness, like Newtons laws of physics.</p><p>Even the "flat earth" theory has some minor usefulness when designing maps for land areas less than a few dozen miles across.  Discounting the curvature of the earth makes life easier with a very minor loss of precision.  Even maps a few hundred miles across may have an acceptable loss of precision if drawn using flat-earth assumptions.</p><p>Of course, what people really need to understand is the difference between a scientific theory, which <i>in principle</i> can be tested, and a religious/philosophical/other-non-scientific theory which is not testable within this universe.  Sure, "we'll know we are right when we die and go to the afterlife" is a valid test of a theory, but it's not a test that can be conducted in this universe, not even in principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people realize that there is a difference between a proven scientific fact , a nearly universally accepted scientific theory , a generally accepted scientific theory , a scientific theory which has the support of most scientists but is not yet generally accepted , a seriously considered plurality- or minority-accepted scientific theory , a crackpot/fringe theory that is not yet disproven , and a discredited/disproven theory , the world would be a better place.People also need to know that some proven-wrong theories still have usefulness , like Newtons laws of physics.Even the " flat earth " theory has some minor usefulness when designing maps for land areas less than a few dozen miles across .
Discounting the curvature of the earth makes life easier with a very minor loss of precision .
Even maps a few hundred miles across may have an acceptable loss of precision if drawn using flat-earth assumptions.Of course , what people really need to understand is the difference between a scientific theory , which in principle can be tested , and a religious/philosophical/other-non-scientific theory which is not testable within this universe .
Sure , " we 'll know we are right when we die and go to the afterlife " is a valid test of a theory , but it 's not a test that can be conducted in this universe , not even in principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people realize that there is a difference between a proven scientific fact, a nearly universally accepted scientific theory, a generally accepted scientific theory, a scientific theory which has the support of most scientists but is not yet generally accepted, a seriously considered plurality- or minority-accepted scientific theory, a crackpot/fringe theory that is not yet disproven, and a discredited/disproven theory, the world would be a better place.People also need to know that some proven-wrong theories still have usefulness, like Newtons laws of physics.Even the "flat earth" theory has some minor usefulness when designing maps for land areas less than a few dozen miles across.
Discounting the curvature of the earth makes life easier with a very minor loss of precision.
Even maps a few hundred miles across may have an acceptable loss of precision if drawn using flat-earth assumptions.Of course, what people really need to understand is the difference between a scientific theory, which in principle can be tested, and a religious/philosophical/other-non-scientific theory which is not testable within this universe.
Sure, "we'll know we are right when we die and go to the afterlife" is a valid test of a theory, but it's not a test that can be conducted in this universe, not even in principle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393330</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260436320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics.  That's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda, and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science.  [...]</p></div><p>It goes both ways.  Often the supporters of a theory are dishonest people who are promoting a theory in order to advance a political agenda.  Everyone has some sort of axe to grind; so how do you deal with that? Full disclosure.  Complete openness.  Make all data and algorithms available.  And most importantly, insist on falsifiability. Test competing theories by working out their predictions and comparing these with newly collected data not available at the time the predictions were worked out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics .
That 's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda , and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science .
[ ... ] It goes both ways .
Often the supporters of a theory are dishonest people who are promoting a theory in order to advance a political agenda .
Everyone has some sort of axe to grind ; so how do you deal with that ?
Full disclosure .
Complete openness .
Make all data and algorithms available .
And most importantly , insist on falsifiability .
Test competing theories by working out their predictions and comparing these with newly collected data not available at the time the predictions were worked out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst bits in that email dump are petty squabbles between researchers and critics.
That's standard -- often critics are dishonest people who are attacking the science in order to advance a political agenda, and that is very frustrating to someone who wants to do honest science.
[...]It goes both ways.
Often the supporters of a theory are dishonest people who are promoting a theory in order to advance a political agenda.
Everyone has some sort of axe to grind; so how do you deal with that?
Full disclosure.
Complete openness.
Make all data and algorithms available.
And most importantly, insist on falsifiability.
Test competing theories by working out their predictions and comparing these with newly collected data not available at the time the predictions were worked out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30406528</id>
	<title>Climate Scientists?</title>
	<author>pkphilip</author>
	<datestamp>1260524100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climategate is also interesting from the standpoint that those who are the loudest advocates of AGW - Gavin Schmidt, Pachauri, Gore etc.. have no training in climatology.  Gavin Schmidt's PhD is in Mathematics, Pachauri is a railyway engineer (don't know how he became the head of the IPCC), about Gore - need I say anything?</p><p>At the same time, scientists with climate research expertise and PhDs in climatology are asked to shut up if their views don't match that of the AGW crowd. Example: Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>Also, IPCC has made huge blunders - for example, BBC has just published an article that the IPCC got the dates wrong for the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 300 years!! IPCC's non-existent peer review process didn't catch the error for 2 years.. and now the latest note that IPCC has been referencing papers which haven't even been peer reviewed!!</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south\_asia/8387737.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south\_asia/8387737.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>To all those who claim that there can't possibly be any sort of a conspiracy, consider that the Copenhagen summit came up with no agreements primarily because of yet another leaked document which indicated that the rich nations were secretly conspiring and writing up a draft on a policy document on carbon emission limits which went completely against the poorer nations and without following any due process.<br><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text/" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text/</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climategate is also interesting from the standpoint that those who are the loudest advocates of AGW - Gavin Schmidt , Pachauri , Gore etc.. have no training in climatology .
Gavin Schmidt 's PhD is in Mathematics , Pachauri is a railyway engineer ( do n't know how he became the head of the IPCC ) , about Gore - need I say anything ? At the same time , scientists with climate research expertise and PhDs in climatology are asked to shut up if their views do n't match that of the AGW crowd .
Example : Roy Spencer , John Christy , Richard Lindzen ..Also , IPCC has made huge blunders - for example , BBC has just published an article that the IPCC got the dates wrong for the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 300 years ! !
IPCC 's non-existent peer review process did n't catch the error for 2 years.. and now the latest note that IPCC has been referencing papers which have n't even been peer reviewed !
! http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south \ _asia/8387737.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] To all those who claim that there ca n't possibly be any sort of a conspiracy , consider that the Copenhagen summit came up with no agreements primarily because of yet another leaked document which indicated that the rich nations were secretly conspiring and writing up a draft on a policy document on carbon emission limits which went completely against the poorer nations and without following any due process.http : //www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text/ [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climategate is also interesting from the standpoint that those who are the loudest advocates of AGW - Gavin Schmidt, Pachauri, Gore etc.. have no training in climatology.
Gavin Schmidt's PhD is in Mathematics, Pachauri is a railyway engineer (don't know how he became the head of the IPCC), about Gore - need I say anything?At the same time, scientists with climate research expertise and PhDs in climatology are asked to shut up if their views don't match that of the AGW crowd.
Example: Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen ..Also, IPCC has made huge blunders - for example, BBC has just published an article that the IPCC got the dates wrong for the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 300 years!!
IPCC's non-existent peer review process didn't catch the error for 2 years.. and now the latest note that IPCC has been referencing papers which haven't even been peer reviewed!
!http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south\_asia/8387737.stm [bbc.co.uk]To all those who claim that there can't possibly be any sort of a conspiracy, consider that the Copenhagen summit came up with no agreements primarily because of yet another leaked document which indicated that the rich nations were secretly conspiring and writing up a draft on a policy document on carbon emission limits which went completely against the poorer nations and without following any due process.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text/ [guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392970</id>
	<title>If I may restate the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260478200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Some information I receive from large group of people may not be unbiased.  Without doing the work to verify it, I can't be sure I should trust it.  How will I know if I can trust it?"</p><p>And the obvious answer is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Do your homework.  Peer review and serious journalists exist to help you.  That does not mean they are going to be perfect.  The more effort you put into finding the truth, the more likely you will get a true answer.  No amount of work will get you 100\% certainty, and if you make no effort to find the truth you should expect to be wrong most of the time.  This should not be news to anyone who lives in the real world.  Having read too many opinion pieces in the WSJ, I suspect it is news to the author of this piece.</p><p>I wish people would stop whining that understanding complex issues is hard.  If you think knowing the truth about something is important, then put effort into finding it.  If not, admit that you are uninformed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Some information I receive from large group of people may not be unbiased .
Without doing the work to verify it , I ca n't be sure I should trust it .
How will I know if I can trust it ?
" And the obvious answer is ... Do your homework .
Peer review and serious journalists exist to help you .
That does not mean they are going to be perfect .
The more effort you put into finding the truth , the more likely you will get a true answer .
No amount of work will get you 100 \ % certainty , and if you make no effort to find the truth you should expect to be wrong most of the time .
This should not be news to anyone who lives in the real world .
Having read too many opinion pieces in the WSJ , I suspect it is news to the author of this piece.I wish people would stop whining that understanding complex issues is hard .
If you think knowing the truth about something is important , then put effort into finding it .
If not , admit that you are uninformed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Some information I receive from large group of people may not be unbiased.
Without doing the work to verify it, I can't be sure I should trust it.
How will I know if I can trust it?
"And the obvious answer is ... Do your homework.
Peer review and serious journalists exist to help you.
That does not mean they are going to be perfect.
The more effort you put into finding the truth, the more likely you will get a true answer.
No amount of work will get you 100\% certainty, and if you make no effort to find the truth you should expect to be wrong most of the time.
This should not be news to anyone who lives in the real world.
Having read too many opinion pieces in the WSJ, I suspect it is news to the author of this piece.I wish people would stop whining that understanding complex issues is hard.
If you think knowing the truth about something is important, then put effort into finding it.
If not, admit that you are uninformed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393472</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1260436860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evading <i>a</i> legitimate FOIA request? Do you, perhaps, mean the 50-ish FOIA requests that the CRU received over the course of two days, each one taking probably an hour or two of their legal counsel's time to process? That were, in fact, legitimately denied? Sure, one of the scientists said that he'd rather delete the data than give it to the people who spammed them with "legitimate" FOIA requests - but those FOIA requests were not granted (and funnily enough, none of the people submitting those FOIA requests followed up on them through legal channels), and the data was not deleted.</p><p>The rest of your claims are similarly uninformed. Who's not paying attention here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evading a legitimate FOIA request ?
Do you , perhaps , mean the 50-ish FOIA requests that the CRU received over the course of two days , each one taking probably an hour or two of their legal counsel 's time to process ?
That were , in fact , legitimately denied ?
Sure , one of the scientists said that he 'd rather delete the data than give it to the people who spammed them with " legitimate " FOIA requests - but those FOIA requests were not granted ( and funnily enough , none of the people submitting those FOIA requests followed up on them through legal channels ) , and the data was not deleted.The rest of your claims are similarly uninformed .
Who 's not paying attention here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evading a legitimate FOIA request?
Do you, perhaps, mean the 50-ish FOIA requests that the CRU received over the course of two days, each one taking probably an hour or two of their legal counsel's time to process?
That were, in fact, legitimately denied?
Sure, one of the scientists said that he'd rather delete the data than give it to the people who spammed them with "legitimate" FOIA requests - but those FOIA requests were not granted (and funnily enough, none of the people submitting those FOIA requests followed up on them through legal channels), and the data was not deleted.The rest of your claims are similarly uninformed.
Who's not paying attention here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398196</id>
	<title>Re:When politics/religion meddle with science</title>
	<author>ErkDemon</author>
	<datestamp>1260463680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It'd also be nice is certain scientists could get as clue about how the thought-processes of the general population really work, before they start trying to change public opinion.
<p>
IMO, significant numbers of people first started thinking that global warming was a con at about the same time that some scientists decided that a change in public policy was an overriding necessity, and started exaggerating the case for gw in publlic. They knew that scientifically the case was "strong," but when it came to talking to the public, they set aside the scientific method and started saying that it was a "fact".
</p><p>
And at that point, even people who weren't climatologists, and who were sympathetic to the idea of global warming started to get antsy and suspecting that they were being bullshitted at. Sure, the bullshit was in a good cause, but bullshit is bullshit, and if you catch someone trying to persuade you to do something by bullshitting you, you tend to dig in your heels and refuse. Because people don't like being conned.
</p><p>
Luckily, just when it seemed that the climatologists were going to lose the battle, the US government came to their aid by being caught trying to edit and repress data.
At that point, it stopped being seen as a scientific conspiracy to exaggerate data, and started being seen as a governmental conspiracy to repress data. The scientists turned back into the good guys (or at least, the least worst guys).
</p><p>
What climategate does it to flip the tide back again, by turning the latest news story into one about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//scientists'// attempts to suppress data.
</p><p>
This isn't the public's fault. They have people on both sides of the argument trying to con them, and they have no primary way of checking the data themselves. In that situation, the rule of thumb is that whoever seems to be trying to con you the worst is the person you shouldn't listen to.
</p><p>
The scientists should have known that in the current febrile atmosphere, the easiest way to lose the argument was to get caught doing something dishonest. It was absolutely imperative that nobody did anything underhand. And still<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they went ahead and did it anyway, and got caught.
</p><p>
So the reasonable public response is to think: if these people were fiddling data even in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//this// situation, when they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//must// have known it was a dumb idea, then how much else has been fiddled?
</p><p>
Remember, we're living in an age where the assurances of authority figures are increasingly seen as worthless and corrupt and self-serving. When Microsoft tell us that Vista is a great operating system, and the US governemnt tells us that the economy is fine, just before a crash. Where the US military intelligence plans an invasion of Iraq that's staggeringly inept, and tells us that it's going to be a pushover. In which the biggest Wall Street financier turns out to be a con artist, and financial experts turn out to have less understanding of the economy than the local real-estate agent.
</p><p>
It's an age in which we know that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//some// experts are lying to us to try to get us to do what they want. The one defence we have (as the general public) against being lied to is that when we catch someone cheating us, we make sure that they don't get what they want. We take the opposite position to the one that the cheater wants us to take. It's a strategy that hopefully makes experts realise that cheating is counterproductive, so tha they hopefully revert to telling us the truth.
<br>And THIS was the environment in which our climatology guys decided that it'd be a good wheeze to take a few liberties with the data. That was really stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd also be nice is certain scientists could get as clue about how the thought-processes of the general population really work , before they start trying to change public opinion .
IMO , significant numbers of people first started thinking that global warming was a con at about the same time that some scientists decided that a change in public policy was an overriding necessity , and started exaggerating the case for gw in publlic .
They knew that scientifically the case was " strong , " but when it came to talking to the public , they set aside the scientific method and started saying that it was a " fact " .
And at that point , even people who were n't climatologists , and who were sympathetic to the idea of global warming started to get antsy and suspecting that they were being bullshitted at .
Sure , the bullshit was in a good cause , but bullshit is bullshit , and if you catch someone trying to persuade you to do something by bullshitting you , you tend to dig in your heels and refuse .
Because people do n't like being conned .
Luckily , just when it seemed that the climatologists were going to lose the battle , the US government came to their aid by being caught trying to edit and repress data .
At that point , it stopped being seen as a scientific conspiracy to exaggerate data , and started being seen as a governmental conspiracy to repress data .
The scientists turned back into the good guys ( or at least , the least worst guys ) .
What climategate does it to flip the tide back again , by turning the latest news story into one about //scientists'// attempts to suppress data .
This is n't the public 's fault .
They have people on both sides of the argument trying to con them , and they have no primary way of checking the data themselves .
In that situation , the rule of thumb is that whoever seems to be trying to con you the worst is the person you should n't listen to .
The scientists should have known that in the current febrile atmosphere , the easiest way to lose the argument was to get caught doing something dishonest .
It was absolutely imperative that nobody did anything underhand .
And still ... they went ahead and did it anyway , and got caught .
So the reasonable public response is to think : if these people were fiddling data even in //this// situation , when they //must// have known it was a dumb idea , then how much else has been fiddled ?
Remember , we 're living in an age where the assurances of authority figures are increasingly seen as worthless and corrupt and self-serving .
When Microsoft tell us that Vista is a great operating system , and the US governemnt tells us that the economy is fine , just before a crash .
Where the US military intelligence plans an invasion of Iraq that 's staggeringly inept , and tells us that it 's going to be a pushover .
In which the biggest Wall Street financier turns out to be a con artist , and financial experts turn out to have less understanding of the economy than the local real-estate agent .
It 's an age in which we know that //some// experts are lying to us to try to get us to do what they want .
The one defence we have ( as the general public ) against being lied to is that when we catch someone cheating us , we make sure that they do n't get what they want .
We take the opposite position to the one that the cheater wants us to take .
It 's a strategy that hopefully makes experts realise that cheating is counterproductive , so tha they hopefully revert to telling us the truth .
And THIS was the environment in which our climatology guys decided that it 'd be a good wheeze to take a few liberties with the data .
That was really stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd also be nice is certain scientists could get as clue about how the thought-processes of the general population really work, before they start trying to change public opinion.
IMO, significant numbers of people first started thinking that global warming was a con at about the same time that some scientists decided that a change in public policy was an overriding necessity, and started exaggerating the case for gw in publlic.
They knew that scientifically the case was "strong," but when it came to talking to the public, they set aside the scientific method and started saying that it was a "fact".
And at that point, even people who weren't climatologists, and who were sympathetic to the idea of global warming started to get antsy and suspecting that they were being bullshitted at.
Sure, the bullshit was in a good cause, but bullshit is bullshit, and if you catch someone trying to persuade you to do something by bullshitting you, you tend to dig in your heels and refuse.
Because people don't like being conned.
Luckily, just when it seemed that the climatologists were going to lose the battle, the US government came to their aid by being caught trying to edit and repress data.
At that point, it stopped being seen as a scientific conspiracy to exaggerate data, and started being seen as a governmental conspiracy to repress data.
The scientists turned back into the good guys (or at least, the least worst guys).
What climategate does it to flip the tide back again, by turning the latest news story into one about //scientists'// attempts to suppress data.
This isn't the public's fault.
They have people on both sides of the argument trying to con them, and they have no primary way of checking the data themselves.
In that situation, the rule of thumb is that whoever seems to be trying to con you the worst is the person you shouldn't listen to.
The scientists should have known that in the current febrile atmosphere, the easiest way to lose the argument was to get caught doing something dishonest.
It was absolutely imperative that nobody did anything underhand.
And still ... they went ahead and did it anyway, and got caught.
So the reasonable public response is to think: if these people were fiddling data even in //this// situation, when they //must// have known it was a dumb idea, then how much else has been fiddled?
Remember, we're living in an age where the assurances of authority figures are increasingly seen as worthless and corrupt and self-serving.
When Microsoft tell us that Vista is a great operating system, and the US governemnt tells us that the economy is fine, just before a crash.
Where the US military intelligence plans an invasion of Iraq that's staggeringly inept, and tells us that it's going to be a pushover.
In which the biggest Wall Street financier turns out to be a con artist, and financial experts turn out to have less understanding of the economy than the local real-estate agent.
It's an age in which we know that //some// experts are lying to us to try to get us to do what they want.
The one defence we have (as the general public) against being lied to is that when we catch someone cheating us, we make sure that they don't get what they want.
We take the opposite position to the one that the cheater wants us to take.
It's a strategy that hopefully makes experts realise that cheating is counterproductive, so tha they hopefully revert to telling us the truth.
And THIS was the environment in which our climatology guys decided that it'd be a good wheeze to take a few liberties with the data.
That was really stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390506</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>Sir\_Sri</author>
	<datestamp>1260469380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>um... that's how all theoretical science works.</p><p>You build your model (nowdays on computer but not necessarily) compare to past data and see if it fits.  Hope for new data and see if it still fits.</p><p>An experimentalist tries to figure out how to collect new data, and to try and see if it fits with known theory or not.  In the case of relativity as discussed above really small things going really really fast or really big things don't jive with newtonian theory.  Of course Newton had no way of realizing that at the time.</p><p>The challenge with all climate science is that there are a lot of interconnected parts, CO2 being naturally occurring has a feedback loop with plant matter for example, and modelling that correctly is only one piece of a very large puzzle.  Rarely is it obviously a 1-1 mapping between A and B.  The coldest, longest winter on record in one place can occur in the hottest year on record in the world for example. They aren't mutually exclusive, and if anything 'global' warming is mostly a polar phenomena at the moment, well outside most peoples day to day lives.  And then herein lies the problem.  Do they have enough of the right data to correctly build the computer models?  You could err in either direction.  I would not, for example, have intuitively guessed that melting icecaps would release methane, which exacerbates the problem.  But then warmer temperatures increase the plant growth in some parts of the world (I'm in canada so we see a sliver of this), which in turn reduces CO2, and reduces warming... kinda, the trick is properly determining the change.</p><p>And yes, you can, and do experiment on the climate, regularly.  Rarely wisely, but you certainly can do it.</p><p>The distinction with 'studies' is that they tend to not have a reproducible or verifiable model, if they have a formalized model at all.  As time goes on they are creeping into more and more actual science, notably psychology, especially now that the tools are both available and relatively easy to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um... that 's how all theoretical science works.You build your model ( nowdays on computer but not necessarily ) compare to past data and see if it fits .
Hope for new data and see if it still fits.An experimentalist tries to figure out how to collect new data , and to try and see if it fits with known theory or not .
In the case of relativity as discussed above really small things going really really fast or really big things do n't jive with newtonian theory .
Of course Newton had no way of realizing that at the time.The challenge with all climate science is that there are a lot of interconnected parts , CO2 being naturally occurring has a feedback loop with plant matter for example , and modelling that correctly is only one piece of a very large puzzle .
Rarely is it obviously a 1-1 mapping between A and B. The coldest , longest winter on record in one place can occur in the hottest year on record in the world for example .
They are n't mutually exclusive , and if anything 'global ' warming is mostly a polar phenomena at the moment , well outside most peoples day to day lives .
And then herein lies the problem .
Do they have enough of the right data to correctly build the computer models ?
You could err in either direction .
I would not , for example , have intuitively guessed that melting icecaps would release methane , which exacerbates the problem .
But then warmer temperatures increase the plant growth in some parts of the world ( I 'm in canada so we see a sliver of this ) , which in turn reduces CO2 , and reduces warming... kinda , the trick is properly determining the change.And yes , you can , and do experiment on the climate , regularly .
Rarely wisely , but you certainly can do it.The distinction with 'studies ' is that they tend to not have a reproducible or verifiable model , if they have a formalized model at all .
As time goes on they are creeping into more and more actual science , notably psychology , especially now that the tools are both available and relatively easy to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um... that's how all theoretical science works.You build your model (nowdays on computer but not necessarily) compare to past data and see if it fits.
Hope for new data and see if it still fits.An experimentalist tries to figure out how to collect new data, and to try and see if it fits with known theory or not.
In the case of relativity as discussed above really small things going really really fast or really big things don't jive with newtonian theory.
Of course Newton had no way of realizing that at the time.The challenge with all climate science is that there are a lot of interconnected parts, CO2 being naturally occurring has a feedback loop with plant matter for example, and modelling that correctly is only one piece of a very large puzzle.
Rarely is it obviously a 1-1 mapping between A and B.  The coldest, longest winter on record in one place can occur in the hottest year on record in the world for example.
They aren't mutually exclusive, and if anything 'global' warming is mostly a polar phenomena at the moment, well outside most peoples day to day lives.
And then herein lies the problem.
Do they have enough of the right data to correctly build the computer models?
You could err in either direction.
I would not, for example, have intuitively guessed that melting icecaps would release methane, which exacerbates the problem.
But then warmer temperatures increase the plant growth in some parts of the world (I'm in canada so we see a sliver of this), which in turn reduces CO2, and reduces warming... kinda, the trick is properly determining the change.And yes, you can, and do experiment on the climate, regularly.
Rarely wisely, but you certainly can do it.The distinction with 'studies' is that they tend to not have a reproducible or verifiable model, if they have a formalized model at all.
As time goes on they are creeping into more and more actual science, notably psychology, especially now that the tools are both available and relatively easy to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390064</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing interesting? Look at the code</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1260468000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep.  Here's an independent analysis of the raw data.  It's a long read, but the conclusion of the (apparently non-political) author is: </p><p><div class="quote"><p> they are indisputable evidence that the &ldquo;homogenized&rdquo; data has been changed to fit someone&rsquo;s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.</p></div><p>and after slogging my way through the data, I agree.  When scientists are more worried about grants and political clout than facts, they are not to be trusted.</p><p>
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/" title="wattsupwiththat.com" rel="nofollow">wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
Here 's an independent analysis of the raw data .
It 's a long read , but the conclusion of the ( apparently non-political ) author is : they are indisputable evidence that the    homogenized    data has been changed to fit someone    s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.and after slogging my way through the data , I agree .
When scientists are more worried about grants and political clout than facts , they are not to be trusted .
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ [ wattsupwiththat.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
Here's an independent analysis of the raw data.
It's a long read, but the conclusion of the (apparently non-political) author is:  they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.and after slogging my way through the data, I agree.
When scientists are more worried about grants and political clout than facts, they are not to be trusted.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395264</id>
	<title>Re:Science costs money, ergo...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260443700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, considering that there are deep pockets willing to pay you just about anything if you want to come over to the 'skeptic' side, the current imbalance of scientists on each side of the issue tells me that money must not be the prime motivator.</p><p>Sure, money and support probably tinge the results a bit, but if money were the prime motivator, you'd see a bunch more grad students interning at the exxon climate research institute rather than living in antarctica for 3 months for 7 dollars and hour taking ice core samples.</p><p>It just amazes me that so many people make this argument about money corrupting the process and then not take the logical next step about asking where the majority of that money must be.  Of course government funds a lot of research, so there is a lot of government money involved, but still, that would mean scientific consensus would change with the administrations if money were a factor.  But we didn't see that.  What we have seen is a growing and strong consensus supporting anthropogenic change that remains constant across different administrations and in spite of a huge amount of money the affected industries are willing to spend to 'alter the discourse'</p><p>Maybe the claim is that the consensus doesn't change because it's too 'entrenched'.  But the same people making that claim will tell you that the consensus HAS switched from 70's style Global Cooling ( A BS claim, btw) to the new-fangled Global Warming.  Well, if science is that fickle, and that easily corruptible by money and favors, then you would expect the consensus to be whatever the petrochemical industry, or the current sitting president, has to say on the matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , considering that there are deep pockets willing to pay you just about anything if you want to come over to the 'skeptic ' side , the current imbalance of scientists on each side of the issue tells me that money must not be the prime motivator.Sure , money and support probably tinge the results a bit , but if money were the prime motivator , you 'd see a bunch more grad students interning at the exxon climate research institute rather than living in antarctica for 3 months for 7 dollars and hour taking ice core samples.It just amazes me that so many people make this argument about money corrupting the process and then not take the logical next step about asking where the majority of that money must be .
Of course government funds a lot of research , so there is a lot of government money involved , but still , that would mean scientific consensus would change with the administrations if money were a factor .
But we did n't see that .
What we have seen is a growing and strong consensus supporting anthropogenic change that remains constant across different administrations and in spite of a huge amount of money the affected industries are willing to spend to 'alter the discourse'Maybe the claim is that the consensus does n't change because it 's too 'entrenched' .
But the same people making that claim will tell you that the consensus HAS switched from 70 's style Global Cooling ( A BS claim , btw ) to the new-fangled Global Warming .
Well , if science is that fickle , and that easily corruptible by money and favors , then you would expect the consensus to be whatever the petrochemical industry , or the current sitting president , has to say on the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, considering that there are deep pockets willing to pay you just about anything if you want to come over to the 'skeptic' side, the current imbalance of scientists on each side of the issue tells me that money must not be the prime motivator.Sure, money and support probably tinge the results a bit, but if money were the prime motivator, you'd see a bunch more grad students interning at the exxon climate research institute rather than living in antarctica for 3 months for 7 dollars and hour taking ice core samples.It just amazes me that so many people make this argument about money corrupting the process and then not take the logical next step about asking where the majority of that money must be.
Of course government funds a lot of research, so there is a lot of government money involved, but still, that would mean scientific consensus would change with the administrations if money were a factor.
But we didn't see that.
What we have seen is a growing and strong consensus supporting anthropogenic change that remains constant across different administrations and in spite of a huge amount of money the affected industries are willing to spend to 'alter the discourse'Maybe the claim is that the consensus doesn't change because it's too 'entrenched'.
But the same people making that claim will tell you that the consensus HAS switched from 70's style Global Cooling ( A BS claim, btw) to the new-fangled Global Warming.
Well, if science is that fickle, and that easily corruptible by money and favors, then you would expect the consensus to be whatever the petrochemical industry, or the current sitting president, has to say on the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390258</id>
	<title>The submission itself demonstrates the problem</title>
	<author>mcg1969</author>
	<datestamp>1260468600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eldavojohn writes: "While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals..."</p><p>As evidence he provides a reference to: the statement by a single journal. Surely that is not "most journals", is it? Where is the evidence that <i>most journals</i> have even commented on the story, much less rendered a verdict as to its seriousness?</p><p>To be fair, the statement might well be true, in the sense that "most scientific journals" have not issued <i>any</i> statement on the matter. And even if they did so, in the short period of time that has transpired, it could only represent the views of the editors, not the body of researchers that contributes to it.</p><p>So what we have here seems to be the gross magnification of one statement to reflect a broad consensus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes : " While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals... " As evidence he provides a reference to : the statement by a single journal .
Surely that is not " most journals " , is it ?
Where is the evidence that most journals have even commented on the story , much less rendered a verdict as to its seriousness ? To be fair , the statement might well be true , in the sense that " most scientific journals " have not issued any statement on the matter .
And even if they did so , in the short period of time that has transpired , it could only represent the views of the editors , not the body of researchers that contributes to it.So what we have here seems to be the gross magnification of one statement to reflect a broad consensus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes: "While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals..."As evidence he provides a reference to: the statement by a single journal.
Surely that is not "most journals", is it?
Where is the evidence that most journals have even commented on the story, much less rendered a verdict as to its seriousness?To be fair, the statement might well be true, in the sense that "most scientific journals" have not issued any statement on the matter.
And even if they did so, in the short period of time that has transpired, it could only represent the views of the editors, not the body of researchers that contributes to it.So what we have here seems to be the gross magnification of one statement to reflect a broad consensus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391330</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>epiphani</author>
	<datestamp>1260471960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Reposting this where appropriate)</p><p>People seem to forget the context of that "undermining the peer review process" took place.</p><p>They certainly tried to impact the peer review process.  The paper in question resulted in half of the editorial board of the journal in question resigning over the peer review process that took place.</p><p><a href="http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes\_NL28.htm" title="sgr.org.uk">http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes\_NL28.htm</a> [sgr.org.uk]</p><p>The paper in question turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As for Mann and Jones' apparent effort to punish the journal Climate Research, the paper that ignited his indignation is a 2003 study that turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute. Eventually half the editorial board of the journal quit in protest. And even if CRU's climate data turns out to have some holes, the group is only one of four major agencies, including NASA, that contribute temperature data to major climate models &mdash; and CRU's data largely matches up with the others'.</p></div><p>Read more: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html#ixzz0ZJERceR1" title="time.com">http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html#ixzz0ZJERceR1</a> [time.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Reposting this where appropriate ) People seem to forget the context of that " undermining the peer review process " took place.They certainly tried to impact the peer review process .
The paper in question resulted in half of the editorial board of the journal in question resigning over the peer review process that took place.http : //www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes \ _NL28.htm [ sgr.org.uk ] The paper in question turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.As for Mann and Jones ' apparent effort to punish the journal Climate Research , the paper that ignited his indignation is a 2003 study that turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute .
Eventually half the editorial board of the journal quit in protest .
And even if CRU 's climate data turns out to have some holes , the group is only one of four major agencies , including NASA , that contribute temperature data to major climate models    and CRU 's data largely matches up with the others'.Read more : http : //www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html # ixzz0ZJERceR1 [ time.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Reposting this where appropriate)People seem to forget the context of that "undermining the peer review process" took place.They certainly tried to impact the peer review process.
The paper in question resulted in half of the editorial board of the journal in question resigning over the peer review process that took place.http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes\_NL28.htm [sgr.org.uk]The paper in question turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.As for Mann and Jones' apparent effort to punish the journal Climate Research, the paper that ignited his indignation is a 2003 study that turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.
Eventually half the editorial board of the journal quit in protest.
And even if CRU's climate data turns out to have some holes, the group is only one of four major agencies, including NASA, that contribute temperature data to major climate models — and CRU's data largely matches up with the others'.Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html#ixzz0ZJERceR1 [time.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393970</id>
	<title>Re:Skeptical of science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did Reiser do that was so terrible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did Reiser do that was so terrible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did Reiser do that was so terrible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390220</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are the critics inherently dishonest and advancing a political agenda. Can't the same be said about some people pushing man-made climate change? Look at all the exaggerated bullshit Al Gore, someone who has a lot to personally gain from all this, keeps claiming. And what about all the absurd claims being made?</p><p>Okay, I can accept that the climate is changing. But my first question is, when hasn't the climate been changing? Secondly, where are all the threats we're supposedly going to face from climate change? We've been hearing about all the dangers for decades now. Twenty years ago they were saying parts of Manhattan would be underwater. Okay, we can dismiss that as a single absurd prediction from an individual scientist. But we're constantly being fed these kinds of claims and not a one has yet proven true. The dangers are always just around the corner.</p><p>The fears of global cooling came before my time. But over the years we've gone from acid rain, to the hole in the ozone layer, to global warming to having that renamed climate change. These may all be legitimate threats, but the way they're pushed hard, then dropped in favor of something that is more universal and much harder to argue against.</p><p>More rain than usual? Climate change. Less rain than usual? Climate change. Heat wave? Climate change. Snow where none had been seen in decades? Climate change. I could point out that we haven't had a single day this summer break 90 degrees and the last time I experienced real heatwaves was back in high school. It would be promptly dismissed as a localized event.</p><p>In the face of this how can a person not be skeptical?</p><p>And looking at all the discussions going on in Copenhagen it looks to me like a bunch of nations are looking for free money. Developed nations are expected to pay billions to "fight" climate change. What exactly that entails is beyond me. I'd say that money would be better served producing more efficient and less polluting technologies in addition to making them inexpensive and practical.</p><p>Then we have developing nations who seem to be going for a money grab. Should wealthy nations helped impoverished ones? Absolutely, but don't do it under the pretense of fighting global warming. Then we've got other nations looking for free rides in order to ensure economic supremacy. Especially China, and frankly, they no longer qualify as a developing nation. But they're not stupid, they're going to milk this guilt trip the western world seems to be enduring as long as they possibly can. The best part is how oil nations have been saying if the rest of the world cuts down on consumption they should be financially compensated.</p><p>There may be legitimately good intentions buried under all this crap. People absolutely should cut down on waste. We need to use energy more efficiently. We need to pollute less. But we shouldn't do so at the expense of progress. And I believe progress will enable a lot of that progress. There may be cases where government action is needed to prod things along. But I don't subscribe to this desire to cram all these policies down our throats at the expense of our economic well-being.</p><p>It seems to me like politicians are keen on making favors to certain interest groups. There's this notion that continues to be perpetuated that the green industry is somehow comprised of scrappy upstarts struggling under the heel of big business. Much of the green industry is big business. When the government decides they want to screw a particularly a particular business they do so at the benefit of someone other business, and far too often it's the average person who gets screwed the worst.</p><p>So yes, I am skeptical even while I want the environment to be protected, at least in a rational way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are the critics inherently dishonest and advancing a political agenda .
Ca n't the same be said about some people pushing man-made climate change ?
Look at all the exaggerated bullshit Al Gore , someone who has a lot to personally gain from all this , keeps claiming .
And what about all the absurd claims being made ? Okay , I can accept that the climate is changing .
But my first question is , when has n't the climate been changing ?
Secondly , where are all the threats we 're supposedly going to face from climate change ?
We 've been hearing about all the dangers for decades now .
Twenty years ago they were saying parts of Manhattan would be underwater .
Okay , we can dismiss that as a single absurd prediction from an individual scientist .
But we 're constantly being fed these kinds of claims and not a one has yet proven true .
The dangers are always just around the corner.The fears of global cooling came before my time .
But over the years we 've gone from acid rain , to the hole in the ozone layer , to global warming to having that renamed climate change .
These may all be legitimate threats , but the way they 're pushed hard , then dropped in favor of something that is more universal and much harder to argue against.More rain than usual ?
Climate change .
Less rain than usual ?
Climate change .
Heat wave ?
Climate change .
Snow where none had been seen in decades ?
Climate change .
I could point out that we have n't had a single day this summer break 90 degrees and the last time I experienced real heatwaves was back in high school .
It would be promptly dismissed as a localized event.In the face of this how can a person not be skeptical ? And looking at all the discussions going on in Copenhagen it looks to me like a bunch of nations are looking for free money .
Developed nations are expected to pay billions to " fight " climate change .
What exactly that entails is beyond me .
I 'd say that money would be better served producing more efficient and less polluting technologies in addition to making them inexpensive and practical.Then we have developing nations who seem to be going for a money grab .
Should wealthy nations helped impoverished ones ?
Absolutely , but do n't do it under the pretense of fighting global warming .
Then we 've got other nations looking for free rides in order to ensure economic supremacy .
Especially China , and frankly , they no longer qualify as a developing nation .
But they 're not stupid , they 're going to milk this guilt trip the western world seems to be enduring as long as they possibly can .
The best part is how oil nations have been saying if the rest of the world cuts down on consumption they should be financially compensated.There may be legitimately good intentions buried under all this crap .
People absolutely should cut down on waste .
We need to use energy more efficiently .
We need to pollute less .
But we should n't do so at the expense of progress .
And I believe progress will enable a lot of that progress .
There may be cases where government action is needed to prod things along .
But I do n't subscribe to this desire to cram all these policies down our throats at the expense of our economic well-being.It seems to me like politicians are keen on making favors to certain interest groups .
There 's this notion that continues to be perpetuated that the green industry is somehow comprised of scrappy upstarts struggling under the heel of big business .
Much of the green industry is big business .
When the government decides they want to screw a particularly a particular business they do so at the benefit of someone other business , and far too often it 's the average person who gets screwed the worst.So yes , I am skeptical even while I want the environment to be protected , at least in a rational way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are the critics inherently dishonest and advancing a political agenda.
Can't the same be said about some people pushing man-made climate change?
Look at all the exaggerated bullshit Al Gore, someone who has a lot to personally gain from all this, keeps claiming.
And what about all the absurd claims being made?Okay, I can accept that the climate is changing.
But my first question is, when hasn't the climate been changing?
Secondly, where are all the threats we're supposedly going to face from climate change?
We've been hearing about all the dangers for decades now.
Twenty years ago they were saying parts of Manhattan would be underwater.
Okay, we can dismiss that as a single absurd prediction from an individual scientist.
But we're constantly being fed these kinds of claims and not a one has yet proven true.
The dangers are always just around the corner.The fears of global cooling came before my time.
But over the years we've gone from acid rain, to the hole in the ozone layer, to global warming to having that renamed climate change.
These may all be legitimate threats, but the way they're pushed hard, then dropped in favor of something that is more universal and much harder to argue against.More rain than usual?
Climate change.
Less rain than usual?
Climate change.
Heat wave?
Climate change.
Snow where none had been seen in decades?
Climate change.
I could point out that we haven't had a single day this summer break 90 degrees and the last time I experienced real heatwaves was back in high school.
It would be promptly dismissed as a localized event.In the face of this how can a person not be skeptical?And looking at all the discussions going on in Copenhagen it looks to me like a bunch of nations are looking for free money.
Developed nations are expected to pay billions to "fight" climate change.
What exactly that entails is beyond me.
I'd say that money would be better served producing more efficient and less polluting technologies in addition to making them inexpensive and practical.Then we have developing nations who seem to be going for a money grab.
Should wealthy nations helped impoverished ones?
Absolutely, but don't do it under the pretense of fighting global warming.
Then we've got other nations looking for free rides in order to ensure economic supremacy.
Especially China, and frankly, they no longer qualify as a developing nation.
But they're not stupid, they're going to milk this guilt trip the western world seems to be enduring as long as they possibly can.
The best part is how oil nations have been saying if the rest of the world cuts down on consumption they should be financially compensated.There may be legitimately good intentions buried under all this crap.
People absolutely should cut down on waste.
We need to use energy more efficiently.
We need to pollute less.
But we shouldn't do so at the expense of progress.
And I believe progress will enable a lot of that progress.
There may be cases where government action is needed to prod things along.
But I don't subscribe to this desire to cram all these policies down our throats at the expense of our economic well-being.It seems to me like politicians are keen on making favors to certain interest groups.
There's this notion that continues to be perpetuated that the green industry is somehow comprised of scrappy upstarts struggling under the heel of big business.
Much of the green industry is big business.
When the government decides they want to screw a particularly a particular business they do so at the benefit of someone other business, and far too often it's the average person who gets screwed the worst.So yes, I am skeptical even while I want the environment to be protected, at least in a rational way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</id>
	<title>Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>confusednoise</author>
	<datestamp>1260463980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now.  Witness the disbelief in findings regarding the lack of connection between autism and vaccines, brain cancer and cellphones and climate change.

<br> <br>

We're already well into the era when people doubt the motives and findings of scientists. You can see it here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. all the time - cue all the rants about how nobody gets funding unless they parrot the party line about global warming and how doctors who support vaccinations are just puppets of Big Pharma.
<br> <br>
Problem is, people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves. I'm not saying we need to have blind trust in authority, but sometimes you've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you can't pick up from reading a blog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now .
Witness the disbelief in findings regarding the lack of connection between autism and vaccines , brain cancer and cellphones and climate change .
We 're already well into the era when people doubt the motives and findings of scientists .
You can see it here on / .
all the time - cue all the rants about how nobody gets funding unless they parrot the party line about global warming and how doctors who support vaccinations are just puppets of Big Pharma .
Problem is , people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves .
I 'm not saying we need to have blind trust in authority , but sometimes you 've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you ca n't pick up from reading a blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now.
Witness the disbelief in findings regarding the lack of connection between autism and vaccines, brain cancer and cellphones and climate change.
We're already well into the era when people doubt the motives and findings of scientists.
You can see it here on /.
all the time - cue all the rants about how nobody gets funding unless they parrot the party line about global warming and how doctors who support vaccinations are just puppets of Big Pharma.
Problem is, people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves.
I'm not saying we need to have blind trust in authority, but sometimes you've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you can't pick up from reading a blog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389814</id>
	<title>Laypeople.</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1260467280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assuming that everyone who has an opinion about this will actually be informed, will take the time to look through those proofs, reproduce those experiments, etc.</p><p><a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html" title="nationalgeographic.com">Read this.</a> [nationalgeographic.com]</p><p>In particular, look at that graph. Are you frightened yet?</p><p>Evolution is one of the crowing triumphs of modern science. It has more evidence than any other theory I know of, from many branches of science -- the "tree of life" is repeated, exactly, in genetics, in the fossil record, in the geologic record, everywhere we care to look for it. It informs pretty much all of modern medicine and biology, and it is a humbling look at our origins and our true status with respect to other life on the planet. It is beautiful, important, and solidly supported by fact.</p><p>Even the Catholic Church has officially embraced evolution, and the big bang theory, as truth.</p><p>And a third of Americans reject evolution outright. These aren't people who just aren't sure -- they say it is definitely false.</p><p>Want to guess why?</p><p>Because they feel it threatens their religion. Because if evolution is true, the Earth (and certainly the Universe) cannot be six thousand years old, and they must accept that they are descended from apes -- or that, by any honest classification, humans <i>are</i> still a species of ape. Because they cannot accept the fact that at least some part of that religion is a fairy tale, or at least a metaphor.</p><p>The problem is, in order to reject evolution, they find they have to doubt just about every legitimate scientist who has an opinion on the subject, and keep themselves willfully ignorant. Furthermore, in order to believe the earth is six thousand years old, they pretty nearly have to stick their fingers in their ear and go "la la la la" in order to avoid pretty much every branch of science that has anything to say about the subject.</p><p>That is, if they are right, even the most basic grade-school cosmology must be wrong -- there are objects more than six thousand light years away from us. Geology must also be wrong -- not merely carbon-dating (which is already quite rigorous), but the kind of time scales modern geology suggests. And of course, modern medicine must be wrong -- our understanding of things like antibiotics relies on evolution to work.</p><p>And yet, they will feel qualified to address these issues, to challenge real scientists with such arguments as, "That's microevolution. Show me one 'kind' turning into another, and I'll believe it." When this fails to get them anywhere, they again close their eyes, ears, and minds, and ultimately turn to the very simplistic, reassuring, and ultimately <i>wrong</i> words of Ken Ham: "Who should you believe -- God or the scientists?"</p><p>The problem here is not just the validity of evolution. It is that in order to believe what the creationist wants to believe, they have to reject huge chunks of modern science. In order to continue to be relevant, they have consistently attempted to get their strange ideas taught in school -- not just as a philosophy, or a class in its own right, but as part of science.</p><p>And it's not just america -- <a href="http://ncse.com/news/2008/08/polling-creationism-canada-001375" title="ncse.com">22\% of Canadians</a> [ncse.com] are creationists. Something like a third of Americans are.</p><p>So, the short answer is, yes, laypeople absolutely will doubt whatever they feel they have a problem with. If they doubt evolution, cosmology, Einsteinian relativity, geology, archeology, paleontology, etc, just so they can believe a certain way, it's certainly not a stretch that they would doubt anything that conflicts with their actual (polluting, wasteful) lifestyle.</p><p>And unfortunately, even when 99.9\% of scientists agree on something, it doesn't help if they can't convince the public -- because laypeople are also voters.</p><p>We need another Carl Sagan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming that everyone who has an opinion about this will actually be informed , will take the time to look through those proofs , reproduce those experiments , etc.Read this .
[ nationalgeographic.com ] In particular , look at that graph .
Are you frightened yet ? Evolution is one of the crowing triumphs of modern science .
It has more evidence than any other theory I know of , from many branches of science -- the " tree of life " is repeated , exactly , in genetics , in the fossil record , in the geologic record , everywhere we care to look for it .
It informs pretty much all of modern medicine and biology , and it is a humbling look at our origins and our true status with respect to other life on the planet .
It is beautiful , important , and solidly supported by fact.Even the Catholic Church has officially embraced evolution , and the big bang theory , as truth.And a third of Americans reject evolution outright .
These are n't people who just are n't sure -- they say it is definitely false.Want to guess why ? Because they feel it threatens their religion .
Because if evolution is true , the Earth ( and certainly the Universe ) can not be six thousand years old , and they must accept that they are descended from apes -- or that , by any honest classification , humans are still a species of ape .
Because they can not accept the fact that at least some part of that religion is a fairy tale , or at least a metaphor.The problem is , in order to reject evolution , they find they have to doubt just about every legitimate scientist who has an opinion on the subject , and keep themselves willfully ignorant .
Furthermore , in order to believe the earth is six thousand years old , they pretty nearly have to stick their fingers in their ear and go " la la la la " in order to avoid pretty much every branch of science that has anything to say about the subject.That is , if they are right , even the most basic grade-school cosmology must be wrong -- there are objects more than six thousand light years away from us .
Geology must also be wrong -- not merely carbon-dating ( which is already quite rigorous ) , but the kind of time scales modern geology suggests .
And of course , modern medicine must be wrong -- our understanding of things like antibiotics relies on evolution to work.And yet , they will feel qualified to address these issues , to challenge real scientists with such arguments as , " That 's microevolution .
Show me one 'kind ' turning into another , and I 'll believe it .
" When this fails to get them anywhere , they again close their eyes , ears , and minds , and ultimately turn to the very simplistic , reassuring , and ultimately wrong words of Ken Ham : " Who should you believe -- God or the scientists ?
" The problem here is not just the validity of evolution .
It is that in order to believe what the creationist wants to believe , they have to reject huge chunks of modern science .
In order to continue to be relevant , they have consistently attempted to get their strange ideas taught in school -- not just as a philosophy , or a class in its own right , but as part of science.And it 's not just america -- 22 \ % of Canadians [ ncse.com ] are creationists .
Something like a third of Americans are.So , the short answer is , yes , laypeople absolutely will doubt whatever they feel they have a problem with .
If they doubt evolution , cosmology , Einsteinian relativity , geology , archeology , paleontology , etc , just so they can believe a certain way , it 's certainly not a stretch that they would doubt anything that conflicts with their actual ( polluting , wasteful ) lifestyle.And unfortunately , even when 99.9 \ % of scientists agree on something , it does n't help if they ca n't convince the public -- because laypeople are also voters.We need another Carl Sagan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming that everyone who has an opinion about this will actually be informed, will take the time to look through those proofs, reproduce those experiments, etc.Read this.
[nationalgeographic.com]In particular, look at that graph.
Are you frightened yet?Evolution is one of the crowing triumphs of modern science.
It has more evidence than any other theory I know of, from many branches of science -- the "tree of life" is repeated, exactly, in genetics, in the fossil record, in the geologic record, everywhere we care to look for it.
It informs pretty much all of modern medicine and biology, and it is a humbling look at our origins and our true status with respect to other life on the planet.
It is beautiful, important, and solidly supported by fact.Even the Catholic Church has officially embraced evolution, and the big bang theory, as truth.And a third of Americans reject evolution outright.
These aren't people who just aren't sure -- they say it is definitely false.Want to guess why?Because they feel it threatens their religion.
Because if evolution is true, the Earth (and certainly the Universe) cannot be six thousand years old, and they must accept that they are descended from apes -- or that, by any honest classification, humans are still a species of ape.
Because they cannot accept the fact that at least some part of that religion is a fairy tale, or at least a metaphor.The problem is, in order to reject evolution, they find they have to doubt just about every legitimate scientist who has an opinion on the subject, and keep themselves willfully ignorant.
Furthermore, in order to believe the earth is six thousand years old, they pretty nearly have to stick their fingers in their ear and go "la la la la" in order to avoid pretty much every branch of science that has anything to say about the subject.That is, if they are right, even the most basic grade-school cosmology must be wrong -- there are objects more than six thousand light years away from us.
Geology must also be wrong -- not merely carbon-dating (which is already quite rigorous), but the kind of time scales modern geology suggests.
And of course, modern medicine must be wrong -- our understanding of things like antibiotics relies on evolution to work.And yet, they will feel qualified to address these issues, to challenge real scientists with such arguments as, "That's microevolution.
Show me one 'kind' turning into another, and I'll believe it.
" When this fails to get them anywhere, they again close their eyes, ears, and minds, and ultimately turn to the very simplistic, reassuring, and ultimately wrong words of Ken Ham: "Who should you believe -- God or the scientists?
"The problem here is not just the validity of evolution.
It is that in order to believe what the creationist wants to believe, they have to reject huge chunks of modern science.
In order to continue to be relevant, they have consistently attempted to get their strange ideas taught in school -- not just as a philosophy, or a class in its own right, but as part of science.And it's not just america -- 22\% of Canadians [ncse.com] are creationists.
Something like a third of Americans are.So, the short answer is, yes, laypeople absolutely will doubt whatever they feel they have a problem with.
If they doubt evolution, cosmology, Einsteinian relativity, geology, archeology, paleontology, etc, just so they can believe a certain way, it's certainly not a stretch that they would doubt anything that conflicts with their actual (polluting, wasteful) lifestyle.And unfortunately, even when 99.9\% of scientists agree on something, it doesn't help if they can't convince the public -- because laypeople are also voters.We need another Carl Sagan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390022</id>
	<title>"Climategate" my butt ....</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1260467880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its happening here and now :</p><p><a href="http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/tech/2009/12/08/rivers.thailand.rising.sea.cnn" title="cnn.com">http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/tech/2009/12/08/rivers.thailand.rising.sea.cnn</a> [cnn.com]</p><p>i want to kick every fucking moron who doubts climate change in the face. in addition, i want to kick every fucking snake in fox news in the face two times over.</p><p>i wonder which tune those bastards who are muddying the waters about the climate change due to their personal gains or fears of minor tax increases would be singing, if the sinking church was their community's and sinking home was theirs, just like in the video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its happening here and now : http : //us.cnn.com/video/ ? /video/tech/2009/12/08/rivers.thailand.rising.sea.cnn [ cnn.com ] i want to kick every fucking moron who doubts climate change in the face .
in addition , i want to kick every fucking snake in fox news in the face two times over.i wonder which tune those bastards who are muddying the waters about the climate change due to their personal gains or fears of minor tax increases would be singing , if the sinking church was their community 's and sinking home was theirs , just like in the video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its happening here and now :http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/tech/2009/12/08/rivers.thailand.rising.sea.cnn [cnn.com]i want to kick every fucking moron who doubts climate change in the face.
in addition, i want to kick every fucking snake in fox news in the face two times over.i wonder which tune those bastards who are muddying the waters about the climate change due to their personal gains or fears of minor tax increases would be singing, if the sinking church was their community's and sinking home was theirs, just like in the video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392098</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1260474720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The answer is no. The good thing about science is that it is open source. For mathematics, you can go through all of the proofs from your text books. For physics you would need a bit of gear to reproduce some of the experiments, but again, that is just a question of money and interest.</p><p>The basic point is that the scientific method don't expect you to accept anything without proof. If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.</p></div><p>As talking barbie says, "math is hard".</p><p>Your average person doesn't understand algebra, let alone mathematical proofs. They want someone on TV to do it for them. That is why Global Warming and Creationists are so wildly believed without having any real proof. Whoever has the best dog-and-pony show for the reporters is the one getting air time.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is no .
The good thing about science is that it is open source .
For mathematics , you can go through all of the proofs from your text books .
For physics you would need a bit of gear to reproduce some of the experiments , but again , that is just a question of money and interest.The basic point is that the scientific method do n't expect you to accept anything without proof .
If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment , people will pay attention to you , regardless of politics.As talking barbie says , " math is hard " .Your average person does n't understand algebra , let alone mathematical proofs .
They want someone on TV to do it for them .
That is why Global Warming and Creationists are so wildly believed without having any real proof .
Whoever has the best dog-and-pony show for the reporters is the one getting air time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is no.
The good thing about science is that it is open source.
For mathematics, you can go through all of the proofs from your text books.
For physics you would need a bit of gear to reproduce some of the experiments, but again, that is just a question of money and interest.The basic point is that the scientific method don't expect you to accept anything without proof.
If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.As talking barbie says, "math is hard".Your average person doesn't understand algebra, let alone mathematical proofs.
They want someone on TV to do it for them.
That is why Global Warming and Creationists are so wildly believed without having any real proof.
Whoever has the best dog-and-pony show for the reporters is the one getting air time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390858</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>rally2xs</author>
	<datestamp>1260470520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration.</p><p>Lemme give you a hint:  Its because this stuff is the basis of what many people have believed for quite some time to be junk science concocted to promote a socialist agenda throughout the world, but especially in the USA, via bankrupting it.</p><p>Bankrupt the USA, you have several hundred million people that "need help" because their jobs have gone overseas, the ones available pay sub-poverty wages, and there's no alternative to asking the government for help.  Instant welfare state, with the new majority of poverty-stricken people having no choice but to go along with it.</p><p>Its already working - that's what this health care in the USA thing is about already. We WOULD NOT NEED such help for people if everyone was working in the good jobs that have gone overseas - manufacturing jobs in particular.  And no, the unions aren't responsible for that, the income tax is, aided by rules and regulations designed to more squarely impact US industry than foreign industry (The US makes the BIG cars people want, the foriegn companies can't even compete in those areas - IOW, there is no equivalent of a Lincoln Town Car on the foreign market - LTC has about 19 cu. ft. of trunk space - nothing on the world scene competes.  But BIG cars are harder to clean up, environmentally, so any attempt to do so screws US auto industries.)</p><p>Yeah, this is a big deal because the underpinnings of the AGW "crisis" is highly suspect by many, so when you have e-mails that state that the recent cooling is inexplicable to these climate scientists, yet there is no pause in the politics to say, "Wait a minute, we may not know as much as we thought we did", but instead things like Copenhagen charge on with the aim of making regulations that continue to gut American prosperty, then yeah, its a big deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration.Lem me give you a hint : Its because this stuff is the basis of what many people have believed for quite some time to be junk science concocted to promote a socialist agenda throughout the world , but especially in the USA , via bankrupting it.Bankrupt the USA , you have several hundred million people that " need help " because their jobs have gone overseas , the ones available pay sub-poverty wages , and there 's no alternative to asking the government for help .
Instant welfare state , with the new majority of poverty-stricken people having no choice but to go along with it.Its already working - that 's what this health care in the USA thing is about already .
We WOULD NOT NEED such help for people if everyone was working in the good jobs that have gone overseas - manufacturing jobs in particular .
And no , the unions are n't responsible for that , the income tax is , aided by rules and regulations designed to more squarely impact US industry than foreign industry ( The US makes the BIG cars people want , the foriegn companies ca n't even compete in those areas - IOW , there is no equivalent of a Lincoln Town Car on the foreign market - LTC has about 19 cu .
ft. of trunk space - nothing on the world scene competes .
But BIG cars are harder to clean up , environmentally , so any attempt to do so screws US auto industries .
) Yeah , this is a big deal because the underpinnings of the AGW " crisis " is highly suspect by many , so when you have e-mails that state that the recent cooling is inexplicable to these climate scientists , yet there is no pause in the politics to say , " Wait a minute , we may not know as much as we thought we did " , but instead things like Copenhagen charge on with the aim of making regulations that continue to gut American prosperty , then yeah , its a big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I really do not understand why this has blown up into such a conflagration.Lemme give you a hint:  Its because this stuff is the basis of what many people have believed for quite some time to be junk science concocted to promote a socialist agenda throughout the world, but especially in the USA, via bankrupting it.Bankrupt the USA, you have several hundred million people that "need help" because their jobs have gone overseas, the ones available pay sub-poverty wages, and there's no alternative to asking the government for help.
Instant welfare state, with the new majority of poverty-stricken people having no choice but to go along with it.Its already working - that's what this health care in the USA thing is about already.
We WOULD NOT NEED such help for people if everyone was working in the good jobs that have gone overseas - manufacturing jobs in particular.
And no, the unions aren't responsible for that, the income tax is, aided by rules and regulations designed to more squarely impact US industry than foreign industry (The US makes the BIG cars people want, the foriegn companies can't even compete in those areas - IOW, there is no equivalent of a Lincoln Town Car on the foreign market - LTC has about 19 cu.
ft. of trunk space - nothing on the world scene competes.
But BIG cars are harder to clean up, environmentally, so any attempt to do so screws US auto industries.
)Yeah, this is a big deal because the underpinnings of the AGW "crisis" is highly suspect by many, so when you have e-mails that state that the recent cooling is inexplicable to these climate scientists, yet there is no pause in the politics to say, "Wait a minute, we may not know as much as we thought we did", but instead things like Copenhagen charge on with the aim of making regulations that continue to gut American prosperty, then yeah, its a big deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393978</id>
	<title>Scientific Method</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1260438780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A simple book I read in university. It was pretty straight forward. Anyone who calls themselves a "Scientist" should ascribe to it. Those that don't should be called something else.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_method" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_method</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>QUOTE:</p><p>"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."</p><p>Crazy stuff eh?</p><p>LOL I can't find the exact book I read in university (it was a rather old one in the library), but I did find this one. Someone should seriously buy those jerks this for a Christmas gift:</p><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-Like-Scientist-Scientific/dp/0690045654/ref=sr\_1\_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1260478099&amp;sr=1-3" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-Like-Scientist-Scientific/dp/0690045654/ref=sr\_1\_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1260478099&amp;sr=1-3</a> [amazon.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A simple book I read in university .
It was pretty straight forward .
Anyone who calls themselves a " Scientist " should ascribe to it .
Those that do n't should be called something else.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific \ _method [ wikipedia.org ] QUOTE : " Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results .
Another basic expectation is to document , archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists , thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them .
This practice , called full disclosure , also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established .
" Crazy stuff eh ? LOL I ca n't find the exact book I read in university ( it was a rather old one in the library ) , but I did find this one .
Someone should seriously buy those jerks this for a Christmas gift : http : //www.amazon.com/How-Think-Like-Scientist-Scientific/dp/0690045654/ref = sr \ _1 \ _3 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1260478099&amp;sr = 1-3 [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A simple book I read in university.
It was pretty straight forward.
Anyone who calls themselves a "Scientist" should ascribe to it.
Those that don't should be called something else.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_method [wikipedia.org]QUOTE:"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results.
Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them.
This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
"Crazy stuff eh?LOL I can't find the exact book I read in university (it was a rather old one in the library), but I did find this one.
Someone should seriously buy those jerks this for a Christmas gift:http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-Like-Scientist-Scientific/dp/0690045654/ref=sr\_1\_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1260478099&amp;sr=1-3 [amazon.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966</id>
	<title>Science costs money, ergo...</title>
	<author>starglider29a</author>
	<datestamp>1260464760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>To do any useful science that hasn't already been done requires money. Money carries an agenda. Scientists who work for sponsors, including foundations, oil companies or even governments AND who disagree with the predispositions of the above are soon out of money, out of work, out of science.<p><div class="quote"><p>"You've never worked in the real world... they expect RESULTS!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman</p></div><p>Therefore, the "tolerance stackup", a polite word for 'fudging data' will lean in the direction of the benefactor.<br> <br>

If this statement is not the truth, it is certainly the perception. Convince the masses that the scientists are not supporting the suppositions of the sponsors and maybe they will trust the science again. Start by convincing me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To do any useful science that has n't already been done requires money .
Money carries an agenda .
Scientists who work for sponsors , including foundations , oil companies or even governments AND who disagree with the predispositions of the above are soon out of money , out of work , out of science .
" You 've never worked in the real world... they expect RESULTS !
" -- Dr. Peter VenkmanTherefore , the " tolerance stackup " , a polite word for 'fudging data ' will lean in the direction of the benefactor .
If this statement is not the truth , it is certainly the perception .
Convince the masses that the scientists are not supporting the suppositions of the sponsors and maybe they will trust the science again .
Start by convincing me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To do any useful science that hasn't already been done requires money.
Money carries an agenda.
Scientists who work for sponsors, including foundations, oil companies or even governments AND who disagree with the predispositions of the above are soon out of money, out of work, out of science.
"You've never worked in the real world... they expect RESULTS!
" -- Dr. Peter VenkmanTherefore, the "tolerance stackup", a polite word for 'fudging data' will lean in the direction of the benefactor.
If this statement is not the truth, it is certainly the perception.
Convince the masses that the scientists are not supporting the suppositions of the sponsors and maybe they will trust the science again.
Start by convincing me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390414</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing interesting? Look at the code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260469020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Which to me, is pretty damning stuff.</p><p>I presume this means that you don't validate your code by seeing what happens if you throw varying or just plain WRONG data at it?</p><p>How else do you make sure that your code doesn't just happen to work for the data you're immediately using, and will fail when different (but equally valid) data is thrown at it?  Or that it will fail in a predictable way when just plain invalid data is thrown at it?</p><p>You're either not a coder or not someone who has to test their own code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Which to me , is pretty damning stuff.I presume this means that you do n't validate your code by seeing what happens if you throw varying or just plain WRONG data at it ? How else do you make sure that your code does n't just happen to work for the data you 're immediately using , and will fail when different ( but equally valid ) data is thrown at it ?
Or that it will fail in a predictable way when just plain invalid data is thrown at it ? You 're either not a coder or not someone who has to test their own code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Which to me, is pretty damning stuff.I presume this means that you don't validate your code by seeing what happens if you throw varying or just plain WRONG data at it?How else do you make sure that your code doesn't just happen to work for the data you're immediately using, and will fail when different (but equally valid) data is thrown at it?
Or that it will fail in a predictable way when just plain invalid data is thrown at it?You're either not a coder or not someone who has to test their own code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391178</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1260471540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?</p><p>Answer this: <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_urb-raw\_pg.gif" title="noaa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_urb-raw\_pg.gif</a> [noaa.gov] </p><p>Answer this:</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;<br>
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]<br>
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$<br>
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor<br>
if n\_elements(yrloc) ne n\_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'<br>
---Some code removed here for brevity.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;<br>
; Now normalise w.r.t. 1881-1960<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;<br>
mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd<br>
---Some code removed here for brevity.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;<br>
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION</p><p>This is not a <em>trifling matter</em>.  There are serious consequences to accepting the AGW theory.</p><p>I eagerly await your answers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ? Answer this : http : //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn \ _anom25 \ _diffs \ _urb-raw \ _pg.gif [ noaa.gov ] Answer this : ; * * * * * * APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE * * * * * * * * * ; yrloc = [ 1400,findgen ( 19 ) * 5. + 1904 ] valadj = [ 0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6 , $ 2.6,2.6,2.6 ] * 0.75 ; fudge factor if n \ _elements ( yrloc ) ne n \ _elements ( valadj ) then message,'Oooops !
' ---Some code removed here for brevity .
; ; Now normalise w.r.t .
1881-1960 ; mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod = [ 1881,1960 ] ,refmean = refmean,refsd = refsd ---Some code removed here for brevity .
; ; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTIONThis is not a trifling matter .
There are serious consequences to accepting the AGW theory.I eagerly await your answers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?Answer this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_urb-raw\_pg.gif [noaa.gov] Answer this: ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE********* ;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n\_elements(yrloc) ne n\_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!
'
---Some code removed here for brevity.
;
; Now normalise w.r.t.
1881-1960 ;
mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
---Some code removed here for brevity.
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTIONThis is not a trifling matter.
There are serious consequences to accepting the AGW theory.I eagerly await your answers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391096</id>
	<title>I see Rupert Murdock...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260471240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is starting to get his money's worth out of his recent purchase of the Wall Street Journal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is starting to get his money 's worth out of his recent purchase of the Wall Street Journal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is starting to get his money's worth out of his recent purchase of the Wall Street Journal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389014</id>
	<title>Re:Funding</title>
	<author>gowen</author>
	<datestamp>1260464880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  You think the government suggested added a rider to funding that it should be used to predict global cataclysm?  Why is anthropogenic climate change a good thing for government?  Given the choice between a government funded scientist and an industry funded scientist, which one do you think is more likely to produce results that upset the fundee?  And, in that case, which scientist's findings are more likely to be spiked?</p><p>Good God man! the American Petroleum Institute have accepted the truth of anthropogenic global warming: the only informed dissenters are are right-wing media talking heads, political bloggers, a few member rogue Republicans and about half-a-dozen scientists (each of whom is now making a good living as a professional sceptic).  Polls merely reflect these dissenters high media profile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
You think the government suggested added a rider to funding that it should be used to predict global cataclysm ?
Why is anthropogenic climate change a good thing for government ?
Given the choice between a government funded scientist and an industry funded scientist , which one do you think is more likely to produce results that upset the fundee ?
And , in that case , which scientist 's findings are more likely to be spiked ? Good God man !
the American Petroleum Institute have accepted the truth of anthropogenic global warming : the only informed dissenters are are right-wing media talking heads , political bloggers , a few member rogue Republicans and about half-a-dozen scientists ( each of whom is now making a good living as a professional sceptic ) .
Polls merely reflect these dissenters high media profile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
You think the government suggested added a rider to funding that it should be used to predict global cataclysm?
Why is anthropogenic climate change a good thing for government?
Given the choice between a government funded scientist and an industry funded scientist, which one do you think is more likely to produce results that upset the fundee?
And, in that case, which scientist's findings are more likely to be spiked?Good God man!
the American Petroleum Institute have accepted the truth of anthropogenic global warming: the only informed dissenters are are right-wing media talking heads, political bloggers, a few member rogue Republicans and about half-a-dozen scientists (each of whom is now making a good living as a professional sceptic).
Polls merely reflect these dissenters high media profile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389088</id>
	<title>buzz, buzz, buzzwords</title>
	<author>jbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1260465180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing that really bugs me about all this is that I think we can all pretty much agree that humans have, do, and will affect the climate at least in some way. The problem is that politicians, media, researchers, and just about everyone else, for any of a number of reasons, have to come up with buzzwords to somehow differentiate themselves from the pack. In doing so, they sometimes choose the wrong words.</p><p>Take, for example, "global warming". It's kind hard for the lay person to accept "global warming" when we are having record cold spells. Sure, there may be scientific links between warming and regional cooling cycles, but to the lay person, it's about perception. Consider that back in the 70's, the buzz was "global cooling", yet we have experienced record regional heat waves.</p><p>This whole issue would probably not even be an issue if it had been simply called "global climate change" or "global climate change management".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that really bugs me about all this is that I think we can all pretty much agree that humans have , do , and will affect the climate at least in some way .
The problem is that politicians , media , researchers , and just about everyone else , for any of a number of reasons , have to come up with buzzwords to somehow differentiate themselves from the pack .
In doing so , they sometimes choose the wrong words.Take , for example , " global warming " .
It 's kind hard for the lay person to accept " global warming " when we are having record cold spells .
Sure , there may be scientific links between warming and regional cooling cycles , but to the lay person , it 's about perception .
Consider that back in the 70 's , the buzz was " global cooling " , yet we have experienced record regional heat waves.This whole issue would probably not even be an issue if it had been simply called " global climate change " or " global climate change management " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that really bugs me about all this is that I think we can all pretty much agree that humans have, do, and will affect the climate at least in some way.
The problem is that politicians, media, researchers, and just about everyone else, for any of a number of reasons, have to come up with buzzwords to somehow differentiate themselves from the pack.
In doing so, they sometimes choose the wrong words.Take, for example, "global warming".
It's kind hard for the lay person to accept "global warming" when we are having record cold spells.
Sure, there may be scientific links between warming and regional cooling cycles, but to the lay person, it's about perception.
Consider that back in the 70's, the buzz was "global cooling", yet we have experienced record regional heat waves.This whole issue would probably not even be an issue if it had been simply called "global climate change" or "global climate change management".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389750</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who gives up on science because of this was just looking for an excuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who gives up on science because of this was just looking for an excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who gives up on science because of this was just looking for an excuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396484</id>
	<title>sadly science != Technolgy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260448560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science != Technology.  It's an easy mistake to make.</p><p>Most techological improvements today don't have much to do with science.  A scientific experiment is used to prove or disprove a theory, a technological advancement may apply many scientific theories, but there isn't much science about it.</p><p>Quick example: theory, it's possible to get a man on the moon (or making the TV thinner, or having trains go over 40MPH).  Just by doing this it isn't science, there is nothing theoretically gained about this techological advancement, and if we failed at achieving some level of technology, it doesn't prove that anything was amiss in the theory (on the contrary, it usually proves that there's something not advanced enough about the technology).</p><p>On the flip side, sometimes techology doesn't even rely on science for advances.  Fixed-wing airplanes and other similar aerodynamic structures are a good example.  Technological advances occured for many years in airfoil design w/o much benefit from correct scientific theories about lift (for example the oft-reported equal-transit time bernoulli principle explanation about airfoils that pollutes so-called high-school and college science books).  In many ways the techological advances inspired some number of scientific-style experiments, but the theory generally took a back-seat to experiemental results (e.g., if it worked, go with it, no need to explain why or develop "control-groups").</p><p>To use your example of thin tvs, the technology behind them is very primitive.  For example, an LCD tv isn't much different than a multi-colored stained glass window in a church except that instead of the sun-shining behind it, it has a self contained light (florescent) bulb with lots of little electronically controlled shutters.  Using LCD for a light shutter was envisioned way back in the early 60's and eventually productized in the 70's with digital watches.  Of course getting the technology together so things are small took twenty more years.  It's not even clear that this is the best technology for thin TVs(digital-micro-mirror or many little light sources like oled), but it is currently the most cost effective for manufacturing.  At least the colored OLED techology needs some more high powered science behind it (e.g. band-gap analysis of semiconductors) than the current LCD technology.</p><p>Perhaps the confusion that most people have is that when you "debate" technology (e.g., is OLED better than LCD), it sounds like a scientific-style debate comparing competing theories.  Is the OLED "brighter" or the LCD "less power-hungry and last longer" or the CRT "better color".  We have a theory, we run an experiment and produce a winner and it's reproducable.  But in reality, this isn't a scientific-style debate.  It is a comparison in time of multiple technological tracks with lots of subjective input.</p><p>Contrast this to a scientific debate tomorrow between, Newtonian Physics, General Relativity and String Theory.  If you take the current snapshot in time (e.g., need to "buy" a theory before christmas), I would guess you would declare General Relativity the winner, go buy that and declare that any one that bought any competing theory as a fool because of the clear current advantages of the GR theory over ST and NP.  Of course that's not how to compare scientific theories, but that's the way we compare technology.</p><p>Science has to withstand the test of time and be predictive.  Technology is a whisp in time.  Many people in the current AGW debate are treating the data points, experiments, and theories like technology rather than science, yet applying the science label to it hoping to gain a positive association with science, but if you look underneath (as these recent emails illustrate), it's less about science than it is science in sheeps clothing.</p><p>Perhaps Feynman said it best in his classic speech "cargo-cult-science"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science ! = Technology .
It 's an easy mistake to make.Most techological improvements today do n't have much to do with science .
A scientific experiment is used to prove or disprove a theory , a technological advancement may apply many scientific theories , but there is n't much science about it.Quick example : theory , it 's possible to get a man on the moon ( or making the TV thinner , or having trains go over 40MPH ) .
Just by doing this it is n't science , there is nothing theoretically gained about this techological advancement , and if we failed at achieving some level of technology , it does n't prove that anything was amiss in the theory ( on the contrary , it usually proves that there 's something not advanced enough about the technology ) .On the flip side , sometimes techology does n't even rely on science for advances .
Fixed-wing airplanes and other similar aerodynamic structures are a good example .
Technological advances occured for many years in airfoil design w/o much benefit from correct scientific theories about lift ( for example the oft-reported equal-transit time bernoulli principle explanation about airfoils that pollutes so-called high-school and college science books ) .
In many ways the techological advances inspired some number of scientific-style experiments , but the theory generally took a back-seat to experiemental results ( e.g. , if it worked , go with it , no need to explain why or develop " control-groups " ) .To use your example of thin tvs , the technology behind them is very primitive .
For example , an LCD tv is n't much different than a multi-colored stained glass window in a church except that instead of the sun-shining behind it , it has a self contained light ( florescent ) bulb with lots of little electronically controlled shutters .
Using LCD for a light shutter was envisioned way back in the early 60 's and eventually productized in the 70 's with digital watches .
Of course getting the technology together so things are small took twenty more years .
It 's not even clear that this is the best technology for thin TVs ( digital-micro-mirror or many little light sources like oled ) , but it is currently the most cost effective for manufacturing .
At least the colored OLED techology needs some more high powered science behind it ( e.g .
band-gap analysis of semiconductors ) than the current LCD technology.Perhaps the confusion that most people have is that when you " debate " technology ( e.g. , is OLED better than LCD ) , it sounds like a scientific-style debate comparing competing theories .
Is the OLED " brighter " or the LCD " less power-hungry and last longer " or the CRT " better color " .
We have a theory , we run an experiment and produce a winner and it 's reproducable .
But in reality , this is n't a scientific-style debate .
It is a comparison in time of multiple technological tracks with lots of subjective input.Contrast this to a scientific debate tomorrow between , Newtonian Physics , General Relativity and String Theory .
If you take the current snapshot in time ( e.g. , need to " buy " a theory before christmas ) , I would guess you would declare General Relativity the winner , go buy that and declare that any one that bought any competing theory as a fool because of the clear current advantages of the GR theory over ST and NP .
Of course that 's not how to compare scientific theories , but that 's the way we compare technology.Science has to withstand the test of time and be predictive .
Technology is a whisp in time .
Many people in the current AGW debate are treating the data points , experiments , and theories like technology rather than science , yet applying the science label to it hoping to gain a positive association with science , but if you look underneath ( as these recent emails illustrate ) , it 's less about science than it is science in sheeps clothing.Perhaps Feynman said it best in his classic speech " cargo-cult-science "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science != Technology.
It's an easy mistake to make.Most techological improvements today don't have much to do with science.
A scientific experiment is used to prove or disprove a theory, a technological advancement may apply many scientific theories, but there isn't much science about it.Quick example: theory, it's possible to get a man on the moon (or making the TV thinner, or having trains go over 40MPH).
Just by doing this it isn't science, there is nothing theoretically gained about this techological advancement, and if we failed at achieving some level of technology, it doesn't prove that anything was amiss in the theory (on the contrary, it usually proves that there's something not advanced enough about the technology).On the flip side, sometimes techology doesn't even rely on science for advances.
Fixed-wing airplanes and other similar aerodynamic structures are a good example.
Technological advances occured for many years in airfoil design w/o much benefit from correct scientific theories about lift (for example the oft-reported equal-transit time bernoulli principle explanation about airfoils that pollutes so-called high-school and college science books).
In many ways the techological advances inspired some number of scientific-style experiments, but the theory generally took a back-seat to experiemental results (e.g., if it worked, go with it, no need to explain why or develop "control-groups").To use your example of thin tvs, the technology behind them is very primitive.
For example, an LCD tv isn't much different than a multi-colored stained glass window in a church except that instead of the sun-shining behind it, it has a self contained light (florescent) bulb with lots of little electronically controlled shutters.
Using LCD for a light shutter was envisioned way back in the early 60's and eventually productized in the 70's with digital watches.
Of course getting the technology together so things are small took twenty more years.
It's not even clear that this is the best technology for thin TVs(digital-micro-mirror or many little light sources like oled), but it is currently the most cost effective for manufacturing.
At least the colored OLED techology needs some more high powered science behind it (e.g.
band-gap analysis of semiconductors) than the current LCD technology.Perhaps the confusion that most people have is that when you "debate" technology (e.g., is OLED better than LCD), it sounds like a scientific-style debate comparing competing theories.
Is the OLED "brighter" or the LCD "less power-hungry and last longer" or the CRT "better color".
We have a theory, we run an experiment and produce a winner and it's reproducable.
But in reality, this isn't a scientific-style debate.
It is a comparison in time of multiple technological tracks with lots of subjective input.Contrast this to a scientific debate tomorrow between, Newtonian Physics, General Relativity and String Theory.
If you take the current snapshot in time (e.g., need to "buy" a theory before christmas), I would guess you would declare General Relativity the winner, go buy that and declare that any one that bought any competing theory as a fool because of the clear current advantages of the GR theory over ST and NP.
Of course that's not how to compare scientific theories, but that's the way we compare technology.Science has to withstand the test of time and be predictive.
Technology is a whisp in time.
Many people in the current AGW debate are treating the data points, experiments, and theories like technology rather than science, yet applying the science label to it hoping to gain a positive association with science, but if you look underneath (as these recent emails illustrate), it's less about science than it is science in sheeps clothing.Perhaps Feynman said it best in his classic speech "cargo-cult-science"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392240</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1260475140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If people reserved nearly as much skepticism for religion as they did for science, we would live in a much more sensible world.</p></div><p>What, you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster! For that, I'll kill you!</p><p>There's belief, then there's self preservation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people reserved nearly as much skepticism for religion as they did for science , we would live in a much more sensible world.What , you do n't believe in the flying spaghetti monster !
For that , I 'll kill you ! There 's belief , then there 's self preservation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people reserved nearly as much skepticism for religion as they did for science, we would live in a much more sensible world.What, you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster!
For that, I'll kill you!There's belief, then there's self preservation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392952</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1260478080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>but sometimes you've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you can't pick up from reading a blog.</i> </p><p>
Which has nothing at all to do with what had been going on in the current scandal. Deliberate falsification/misrepresentation, suppressing contradictory data and/or expert opinion, attempting to destroy the evidence of your wrongdoing etc. etc. etc. is  an entirely different matter. If you can't trust someone not to lie to you then it hardly matters that they have greater expertise than you in field X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but sometimes you 've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you ca n't pick up from reading a blog .
Which has nothing at all to do with what had been going on in the current scandal .
Deliberate falsification/misrepresentation , suppressing contradictory data and/or expert opinion , attempting to destroy the evidence of your wrongdoing etc .
etc. etc .
is an entirely different matter .
If you ca n't trust someone not to lie to you then it hardly matters that they have greater expertise than you in field X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> but sometimes you've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you can't pick up from reading a blog.
Which has nothing at all to do with what had been going on in the current scandal.
Deliberate falsification/misrepresentation, suppressing contradictory data and/or expert opinion, attempting to destroy the evidence of your wrongdoing etc.
etc. etc.
is  an entirely different matter.
If you can't trust someone not to lie to you then it hardly matters that they have greater expertise than you in field X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390208</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>phatslaab</author>
	<datestamp>1260468480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If people are going to lose <b>faith</b> in science because scientists are human...then we as a race are doomed, in my opinion.</p></div><p>That, my friend, was a hilarious quote. Faith, as well as trust, devotion, loyalty and the like are things normally given to deities, not humans. The man that thinks he should receive such must prove himself worthy to carry the weight that comes with it. The article basically asserts that no scientist is worthy of those things. I agree.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people are going to lose faith in science because scientists are human...then we as a race are doomed , in my opinion.That , my friend , was a hilarious quote .
Faith , as well as trust , devotion , loyalty and the like are things normally given to deities , not humans .
The man that thinks he should receive such must prove himself worthy to carry the weight that comes with it .
The article basically asserts that no scientist is worthy of those things .
I agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people are going to lose faith in science because scientists are human...then we as a race are doomed, in my opinion.That, my friend, was a hilarious quote.
Faith, as well as trust, devotion, loyalty and the like are things normally given to deities, not humans.
The man that thinks he should receive such must prove himself worthy to carry the weight that comes with it.
The article basically asserts that no scientist is worthy of those things.
I agree.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392526</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Ill\_Omen</author>
	<datestamp>1260476280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting.  Of all the "skeptics" I've read, you're one of the few I've seen that actually looks at the data and produces a convincing argument based on it.  I wish more people (on both sides) would forgo the name calling and just present rational arguments. Have you done more research into how those adjustments were created, or looked at other areas where the stations were more dense?</p><p>It would really be pretty cool if AGW, and GW in general turned out to not be happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
Of all the " skeptics " I 've read , you 're one of the few I 've seen that actually looks at the data and produces a convincing argument based on it .
I wish more people ( on both sides ) would forgo the name calling and just present rational arguments .
Have you done more research into how those adjustments were created , or looked at other areas where the stations were more dense ? It would really be pretty cool if AGW , and GW in general turned out to not be happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
Of all the "skeptics" I've read, you're one of the few I've seen that actually looks at the data and produces a convincing argument based on it.
I wish more people (on both sides) would forgo the name calling and just present rational arguments.
Have you done more research into how those adjustments were created, or looked at other areas where the stations were more dense?It would really be pretty cool if AGW, and GW in general turned out to not be happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392910</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260477900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"after global warming was only a few years old"</p><p>Svante Arrhenius must be turning in his grave.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm</p><p>Stop spreading FUD. okthxby</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" after global warming was only a few years old " Svante Arrhenius must be turning in his grave .
      http : //www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htmStop spreading FUD .
okthxby</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"after global warming was only a few years old"Svante Arrhenius must be turning in his grave.
      http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htmStop spreading FUD.
okthxby</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390832</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticism requires more than just questioning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260470460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10 years ago or such we had a scientific discussion on a simple matter of cutting boards. Should they be made of wood or another material. Newspapers and journals all were publishing articles that plastic was better than wood because it can be cleaned. Later on another study of real life situations found that wooden cutting boards were healthier because they prevented bacteria from multiplying.</p><p>I understand the ideas that are going into this subject matter. What I don't understand is the attitude that the climate data is kept secret and we should trust them. To date not once has anyone been able to plug in the existing data into a model that reproduces the result seen in real life. The understanding of the subject at hand is not as complete as all would like us to believe. If you think that makes the general population dumb, i think quite the opposite, the general population is realizing that no one understands the matter well, most are trying to get rich from bad science and f care about the results. Everyone knows that we need to do something about our polluting the planet but we don't care about making Al Gore rich. Trust no one. make the original data public so we can have a real discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 years ago or such we had a scientific discussion on a simple matter of cutting boards .
Should they be made of wood or another material .
Newspapers and journals all were publishing articles that plastic was better than wood because it can be cleaned .
Later on another study of real life situations found that wooden cutting boards were healthier because they prevented bacteria from multiplying.I understand the ideas that are going into this subject matter .
What I do n't understand is the attitude that the climate data is kept secret and we should trust them .
To date not once has anyone been able to plug in the existing data into a model that reproduces the result seen in real life .
The understanding of the subject at hand is not as complete as all would like us to believe .
If you think that makes the general population dumb , i think quite the opposite , the general population is realizing that no one understands the matter well , most are trying to get rich from bad science and f care about the results .
Everyone knows that we need to do something about our polluting the planet but we do n't care about making Al Gore rich .
Trust no one .
make the original data public so we can have a real discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 years ago or such we had a scientific discussion on a simple matter of cutting boards.
Should they be made of wood or another material.
Newspapers and journals all were publishing articles that plastic was better than wood because it can be cleaned.
Later on another study of real life situations found that wooden cutting boards were healthier because they prevented bacteria from multiplying.I understand the ideas that are going into this subject matter.
What I don't understand is the attitude that the climate data is kept secret and we should trust them.
To date not once has anyone been able to plug in the existing data into a model that reproduces the result seen in real life.
The understanding of the subject at hand is not as complete as all would like us to believe.
If you think that makes the general population dumb, i think quite the opposite, the general population is realizing that no one understands the matter well, most are trying to get rich from bad science and f care about the results.
Everyone knows that we need to do something about our polluting the planet but we don't care about making Al Gore rich.
Trust no one.
make the original data public so we can have a real discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393292</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1260436200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but sometimes you've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you can't pick up from reading a blog.</p></div><p>Fortunately climate science is a lot more accessible than something like, say, micro-biology. If you have reasonable understanding of physics and geology you can probably <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" title="www.ipcc.ch">read the IPCC report with no problem</a> [www.ipcc.ch], and understand the reasoning behind global warming. And I encourage you to do so, because you will find things sound very different in the actual report than they do when you hear about it in the news and on blogs.<br> <br>
For example, many people have mentioned that the most important contributing factor to the recent warming trend is greenhouse gasses. But if you read the report where it says that, you will find a footnote there that absolves the writer of any commitment to that actual position.  This is what is known on Wikipedia as 'weasel words'.<br> <br>
Chapter two of the report goes deeply into the science of radiative forcing, which of course, is the heart of the greenhouse gas theory. This is where physics and math knowledge comes in handy.  It is a great chapter. However, one thing you never see reported in the news or anywhere, is that <i>it isn't entirely clear that the net effect of human pollution on the global climate system has been positive.</i> That is, it is entirely possible that human pollution has been cooling the earth, not warming it. Think about the implications of that.<br> <br>
Or another thing you <a href="http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&amp;Number=847094&amp;site\_id=1#import" title="keyhole.com">hear about in sensationalistic terms</a> [keyhole.com] is rising sea levels. If you actually read the report, you will see that ocean levels are changing around 3.1 millimeters a year, and roughly projected to continue at that pace. Think about it: on any given coast, geological factors (ie. plate tectonics) are making significantly larger changes than that.<br> <br>
One other important surprising thing you will find, is that no one knows how much greenhouse gasses are contributing to the current trends in global temperature. The report says that it is very likely that most of it is human caused (again, with that qualifying footnote) based on the idea that computer simulations couldn't find any other explanation. How much do you trust this kind of logic?
<br> <br>
In other words, if you really want to know the truth about global warming, I strongly suggest you read the IPCC report and draw your own conclusions. Don't rely on what you've heard from scientists when they talk to news reporters, or on 'informational' websites. Read what they say when they are talking scientifically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but sometimes you 've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you ca n't pick up from reading a blog.Fortunately climate science is a lot more accessible than something like , say , micro-biology .
If you have reasonable understanding of physics and geology you can probably read the IPCC report with no problem [ www.ipcc.ch ] , and understand the reasoning behind global warming .
And I encourage you to do so , because you will find things sound very different in the actual report than they do when you hear about it in the news and on blogs .
For example , many people have mentioned that the most important contributing factor to the recent warming trend is greenhouse gasses .
But if you read the report where it says that , you will find a footnote there that absolves the writer of any commitment to that actual position .
This is what is known on Wikipedia as 'weasel words' .
Chapter two of the report goes deeply into the science of radiative forcing , which of course , is the heart of the greenhouse gas theory .
This is where physics and math knowledge comes in handy .
It is a great chapter .
However , one thing you never see reported in the news or anywhere , is that it is n't entirely clear that the net effect of human pollution on the global climate system has been positive .
That is , it is entirely possible that human pollution has been cooling the earth , not warming it .
Think about the implications of that .
Or another thing you hear about in sensationalistic terms [ keyhole.com ] is rising sea levels .
If you actually read the report , you will see that ocean levels are changing around 3.1 millimeters a year , and roughly projected to continue at that pace .
Think about it : on any given coast , geological factors ( ie .
plate tectonics ) are making significantly larger changes than that .
One other important surprising thing you will find , is that no one knows how much greenhouse gasses are contributing to the current trends in global temperature .
The report says that it is very likely that most of it is human caused ( again , with that qualifying footnote ) based on the idea that computer simulations could n't find any other explanation .
How much do you trust this kind of logic ?
In other words , if you really want to know the truth about global warming , I strongly suggest you read the IPCC report and draw your own conclusions .
Do n't rely on what you 've heard from scientists when they talk to news reporters , or on 'informational ' websites .
Read what they say when they are talking scientifically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but sometimes you've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you can't pick up from reading a blog.Fortunately climate science is a lot more accessible than something like, say, micro-biology.
If you have reasonable understanding of physics and geology you can probably read the IPCC report with no problem [www.ipcc.ch], and understand the reasoning behind global warming.
And I encourage you to do so, because you will find things sound very different in the actual report than they do when you hear about it in the news and on blogs.
For example, many people have mentioned that the most important contributing factor to the recent warming trend is greenhouse gasses.
But if you read the report where it says that, you will find a footnote there that absolves the writer of any commitment to that actual position.
This is what is known on Wikipedia as 'weasel words'.
Chapter two of the report goes deeply into the science of radiative forcing, which of course, is the heart of the greenhouse gas theory.
This is where physics and math knowledge comes in handy.
It is a great chapter.
However, one thing you never see reported in the news or anywhere, is that it isn't entirely clear that the net effect of human pollution on the global climate system has been positive.
That is, it is entirely possible that human pollution has been cooling the earth, not warming it.
Think about the implications of that.
Or another thing you hear about in sensationalistic terms [keyhole.com] is rising sea levels.
If you actually read the report, you will see that ocean levels are changing around 3.1 millimeters a year, and roughly projected to continue at that pace.
Think about it: on any given coast, geological factors (ie.
plate tectonics) are making significantly larger changes than that.
One other important surprising thing you will find, is that no one knows how much greenhouse gasses are contributing to the current trends in global temperature.
The report says that it is very likely that most of it is human caused (again, with that qualifying footnote) based on the idea that computer simulations couldn't find any other explanation.
How much do you trust this kind of logic?
In other words, if you really want to know the truth about global warming, I strongly suggest you read the IPCC report and draw your own conclusions.
Don't rely on what you've heard from scientists when they talk to news reporters, or on 'informational' websites.
Read what they say when they are talking scientifically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391418</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260472260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You dont need to be an expert to see that the raw data is being withheld. And if you cannot reproduce the result, which some other climatologist with X years may want to actually do, because the data is being withheld then A) throw scientific theory out the window (needs to be REPRODUCEABLE) and B) you dont need a degree in bullshitology to smell it.</p><p>Climatologists can be activists too. Just because one is a scientist does not mean they are honest, trustworthy or above the underhanded activism we see with climategate. If you think we should blindly follow these scientists just because they have degrees then maybe you aren't reading enough blogs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You dont need to be an expert to see that the raw data is being withheld .
And if you can not reproduce the result , which some other climatologist with X years may want to actually do , because the data is being withheld then A ) throw scientific theory out the window ( needs to be REPRODUCEABLE ) and B ) you dont need a degree in bullshitology to smell it.Climatologists can be activists too .
Just because one is a scientist does not mean they are honest , trustworthy or above the underhanded activism we see with climategate .
If you think we should blindly follow these scientists just because they have degrees then maybe you are n't reading enough blogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You dont need to be an expert to see that the raw data is being withheld.
And if you cannot reproduce the result, which some other climatologist with X years may want to actually do, because the data is being withheld then A) throw scientific theory out the window (needs to be REPRODUCEABLE) and B) you dont need a degree in bullshitology to smell it.Climatologists can be activists too.
Just because one is a scientist does not mean they are honest, trustworthy or above the underhanded activism we see with climategate.
If you think we should blindly follow these scientists just because they have degrees then maybe you aren't reading enough blogs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389926</id>
	<title>When scientists are made into politicians.</title>
	<author>w3woody</author>
	<datestamp>1260467580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem, in my opinion, is the idea (under development for decades) that the correct way to govern is to ask the experts in their field what we should do. So we turn to the climate scientists and ask not just "is the Earth warming?" but "what should we do to stop it?" We turn to social scientists and ask not just "does television affect test scores" but "what sort of television should we regulate?" We turn to other scientists and ask not just "what is going on" but "how should we fix it?"</p><p>When we hand any group of people that sort of power, of course people who are attracted to power are drawn to that field. Not only do we get cranks who claim to be scientists attempting to drive the conversation (such as those so-called "researchers" who periodically pop up and tell us pornography leads to rape), but we also subvert the real Ph.D.s.</p><p>Science should be in the realm of explaining what is going on. But deciding what we should do about it belongs strictly to the realm of politicians. Scientists may be asked for their input ("will policy A or policy B be better?"), but they should not be creating, driving, or steering policy.</p><p>In the case of Global Warming, the real problem (in my mind) was that these guys were also neck-deep in the UN's IPCC process, which is drafting treaty proposals on the economic changes that the world should make to fight global warming. By being neck deep in the politics, and by believing truly that we must act now to combat global warming, the incentive became about the power and honor of belonging to the IPCC and to help drive policy--not to get the best data possible from multiple disciplines and share that data with other scientists who were experts in those disciplines. The incentives, in other words, was to prove <i>certainty</i> about Global Warming to help drive IPCC policy, not to distribute data and allow uncertainty to creep into the proxy climate studies--such as tree ring studies, which are inherently messy and uncertain.</p><p>I suspect that trust in science has been eroding for as long as we've been asking scientists to play politics. This isn't the start of the avalanche; it's just a major slide in a problem going on for a very long time. And it will continue to get worse so long as the airwaves are populated by charlatans pretending to be scientists attempting to drive policy (like the anti-porn, anti-second-hand-smoking, pro-organic farming, anti-pesticides guys who, after affecting change, are proven after the fact to be fakes), and so long as politicians, attempting to keep votes without having to put his neck on the line, continues to subcontract his job out to untouchable "experts" which he can blame for any failures. (Well, I was <i>told...</i>--don't blame me.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem , in my opinion , is the idea ( under development for decades ) that the correct way to govern is to ask the experts in their field what we should do .
So we turn to the climate scientists and ask not just " is the Earth warming ?
" but " what should we do to stop it ?
" We turn to social scientists and ask not just " does television affect test scores " but " what sort of television should we regulate ?
" We turn to other scientists and ask not just " what is going on " but " how should we fix it ?
" When we hand any group of people that sort of power , of course people who are attracted to power are drawn to that field .
Not only do we get cranks who claim to be scientists attempting to drive the conversation ( such as those so-called " researchers " who periodically pop up and tell us pornography leads to rape ) , but we also subvert the real Ph.D.s.Science should be in the realm of explaining what is going on .
But deciding what we should do about it belongs strictly to the realm of politicians .
Scientists may be asked for their input ( " will policy A or policy B be better ?
" ) , but they should not be creating , driving , or steering policy.In the case of Global Warming , the real problem ( in my mind ) was that these guys were also neck-deep in the UN 's IPCC process , which is drafting treaty proposals on the economic changes that the world should make to fight global warming .
By being neck deep in the politics , and by believing truly that we must act now to combat global warming , the incentive became about the power and honor of belonging to the IPCC and to help drive policy--not to get the best data possible from multiple disciplines and share that data with other scientists who were experts in those disciplines .
The incentives , in other words , was to prove certainty about Global Warming to help drive IPCC policy , not to distribute data and allow uncertainty to creep into the proxy climate studies--such as tree ring studies , which are inherently messy and uncertain.I suspect that trust in science has been eroding for as long as we 've been asking scientists to play politics .
This is n't the start of the avalanche ; it 's just a major slide in a problem going on for a very long time .
And it will continue to get worse so long as the airwaves are populated by charlatans pretending to be scientists attempting to drive policy ( like the anti-porn , anti-second-hand-smoking , pro-organic farming , anti-pesticides guys who , after affecting change , are proven after the fact to be fakes ) , and so long as politicians , attempting to keep votes without having to put his neck on the line , continues to subcontract his job out to untouchable " experts " which he can blame for any failures .
( Well , I was told...--do n't blame me .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem, in my opinion, is the idea (under development for decades) that the correct way to govern is to ask the experts in their field what we should do.
So we turn to the climate scientists and ask not just "is the Earth warming?
" but "what should we do to stop it?
" We turn to social scientists and ask not just "does television affect test scores" but "what sort of television should we regulate?
" We turn to other scientists and ask not just "what is going on" but "how should we fix it?
"When we hand any group of people that sort of power, of course people who are attracted to power are drawn to that field.
Not only do we get cranks who claim to be scientists attempting to drive the conversation (such as those so-called "researchers" who periodically pop up and tell us pornography leads to rape), but we also subvert the real Ph.D.s.Science should be in the realm of explaining what is going on.
But deciding what we should do about it belongs strictly to the realm of politicians.
Scientists may be asked for their input ("will policy A or policy B be better?
"), but they should not be creating, driving, or steering policy.In the case of Global Warming, the real problem (in my mind) was that these guys were also neck-deep in the UN's IPCC process, which is drafting treaty proposals on the economic changes that the world should make to fight global warming.
By being neck deep in the politics, and by believing truly that we must act now to combat global warming, the incentive became about the power and honor of belonging to the IPCC and to help drive policy--not to get the best data possible from multiple disciplines and share that data with other scientists who were experts in those disciplines.
The incentives, in other words, was to prove certainty about Global Warming to help drive IPCC policy, not to distribute data and allow uncertainty to creep into the proxy climate studies--such as tree ring studies, which are inherently messy and uncertain.I suspect that trust in science has been eroding for as long as we've been asking scientists to play politics.
This isn't the start of the avalanche; it's just a major slide in a problem going on for a very long time.
And it will continue to get worse so long as the airwaves are populated by charlatans pretending to be scientists attempting to drive policy (like the anti-porn, anti-second-hand-smoking, pro-organic farming, anti-pesticides guys who, after affecting change, are proven after the fact to be fakes), and so long as politicians, attempting to keep votes without having to put his neck on the line, continues to subcontract his job out to untouchable "experts" which he can blame for any failures.
(Well, I was told...--don't blame me.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393928</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Space shuttle launch. Yeah right. I bet you believe we landed on the moon too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Space shuttle launch .
Yeah right .
I bet you believe we landed on the moon too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space shuttle launch.
Yeah right.
I bet you believe we landed on the moon too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389568</id>
	<title>Re:Just tell me, how do I know which one to trust?</title>
	<author>confusednoise</author>
	<datestamp>1260466620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the risk of engaging in a flame war (when I really should be working)...
<br> <br>

As far as climate change goes, I think I would go with the consensus of the scientists.

<br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_opinion\_on\_climate\_change#Scientific\_consensus" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_opinion\_on\_climate\_change#Scientific\_consensus</a> [wikipedia.org]


<br> <br>
Key bits:<blockquote><div><p>The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
But no doubt this post will follow with reams of people telling us why these opinions are suspect.

<br>
<br>
An interesting thing that has been happening with the vaccine debate is that the very people who are most expert on the field are prevented from weighing in on the issue, as in "well, we can't believe Dr. X, he published a Nature paper on immunology so clearly he is biased and can't be trusted".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the risk of engaging in a flame war ( when I really should be working ) .. . As far as climate change goes , I think I would go with the consensus of the scientists .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific \ _opinion \ _on \ _climate \ _change # Scientific \ _consensus [ wikipedia.org ] Key bits : The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change , including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries .
At present , no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement .
A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements .
But no doubt this post will follow with reams of people telling us why these opinions are suspect .
An interesting thing that has been happening with the vaccine debate is that the very people who are most expert on the field are prevented from weighing in on the issue , as in " well , we ca n't believe Dr. X , he published a Nature paper on immunology so clearly he is biased and ca n't be trusted " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the risk of engaging in a flame war (when I really should be working)...
 

As far as climate change goes, I think I would go with the consensus of the scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_opinion\_on\_climate\_change#Scientific\_consensus [wikipedia.org]


 
Key bits:The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.
At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement.
A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.
But no doubt this post will follow with reams of people telling us why these opinions are suspect.
An interesting thing that has been happening with the vaccine debate is that the very people who are most expert on the field are prevented from weighing in on the issue, as in "well, we can't believe Dr. X, he published a Nature paper on immunology so clearly he is biased and can't be trusted".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744</id>
	<title>Funding</title>
	<author>pete-classic</author>
	<datestamp>1260464040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting <em>hundreds of billions of dollars from governments</em> over the last couple of decades could have <em>somehow</em> politicized Science?</p><p>-Peter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science ? -Peter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?-Peter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388940</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1260464640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree, people already doubt Math and Physics.  Honest to goodness people who reject math, saying it's just a theory, there's no such thing as 1 or 2 so 1+1=2 is meaningless babble and doesn't prove anything.  They're the kind of people you see on TV, claiming to be actual scientists, saying that since either the LHC will destroy the world, or it won't, it's a 50\% chance, only two options, so 50/50.  There are a lot, A LOT of people who think that there's no such thing as probability, either.  They say that since God designed our fates, everything meant to happen has a 100\% chance, and everything else has a 0\% chance.  If I roll a die, and cover it up and look, maybe it says 3.  So if I ask you, who doesn't see the number, what the chances are it's 3, it's 100\%, because it is a 3.  The fact that you can't see it can't change reality, they say!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , people already doubt Math and Physics .
Honest to goodness people who reject math , saying it 's just a theory , there 's no such thing as 1 or 2 so 1 + 1 = 2 is meaningless babble and does n't prove anything .
They 're the kind of people you see on TV , claiming to be actual scientists , saying that since either the LHC will destroy the world , or it wo n't , it 's a 50 \ % chance , only two options , so 50/50 .
There are a lot , A LOT of people who think that there 's no such thing as probability , either .
They say that since God designed our fates , everything meant to happen has a 100 \ % chance , and everything else has a 0 \ % chance .
If I roll a die , and cover it up and look , maybe it says 3 .
So if I ask you , who does n't see the number , what the chances are it 's 3 , it 's 100 \ % , because it is a 3 .
The fact that you ca n't see it ca n't change reality , they say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, people already doubt Math and Physics.
Honest to goodness people who reject math, saying it's just a theory, there's no such thing as 1 or 2 so 1+1=2 is meaningless babble and doesn't prove anything.
They're the kind of people you see on TV, claiming to be actual scientists, saying that since either the LHC will destroy the world, or it won't, it's a 50\% chance, only two options, so 50/50.
There are a lot, A LOT of people who think that there's no such thing as probability, either.
They say that since God designed our fates, everything meant to happen has a 100\% chance, and everything else has a 0\% chance.
If I roll a die, and cover it up and look, maybe it says 3.
So if I ask you, who doesn't see the number, what the chances are it's 3, it's 100\%, because it is a 3.
The fact that you can't see it can't change reality, they say!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392688</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1260477000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches, or their new TV is even thinner.</p><p>Thing is, do they even realise that is science?</p></div></blockquote><p>Precisely.  No sane person doubts gravity.  It's too easily demonstrated.  When some doubts quantum theory, you just point to a tv set and say, "Here's what quantum theory led us."</p><p>The same will one day be true for evolution.  It will also, sadly, be true for climate science. (i.e. if the effectiveness of climate science is concretely demonstrated, we're screwed)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches , or their new TV is even thinner.Thing is , do they even realise that is science ? Precisely .
No sane person doubts gravity .
It 's too easily demonstrated .
When some doubts quantum theory , you just point to a tv set and say , " Here 's what quantum theory led us .
" The same will one day be true for evolution .
It will also , sadly , be true for climate science .
( i.e. if the effectiveness of climate science is concretely demonstrated , we 're screwed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm certain that people believe it when a spacecraft launches, or their new TV is even thinner.Thing is, do they even realise that is science?Precisely.
No sane person doubts gravity.
It's too easily demonstrated.
When some doubts quantum theory, you just point to a tv set and say, "Here's what quantum theory led us.
"The same will one day be true for evolution.
It will also, sadly, be true for climate science.
(i.e. if the effectiveness of climate science is concretely demonstrated, we're screwed)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396204</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now.  Witness the disbelief in findings regarding the lack of connection between autism and vaccines, brain cancer and cellphones and climate change.</p></div><p>And just imagine, for a moment, what will happen to the "lay public" if, in fact there is no AGW. Lot's of advances in scientific understanding of climate will undoubtedly be made over the next few decades. Let's just imagine a scenario where global temperatures make a noticeable decline over that time period. With no corresponding decline in human carbon emission.</p><p>You think there's a decrease in automatic trust of "scientific consensus" now? Wait for the coming tidal wave, if predicted warming continues not to occur.</p><p>And it will be, I guess, entirely deserved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now .
Witness the disbelief in findings regarding the lack of connection between autism and vaccines , brain cancer and cellphones and climate change.And just imagine , for a moment , what will happen to the " lay public " if , in fact there is no AGW .
Lot 's of advances in scientific understanding of climate will undoubtedly be made over the next few decades .
Let 's just imagine a scenario where global temperatures make a noticeable decline over that time period .
With no corresponding decline in human carbon emission.You think there 's a decrease in automatic trust of " scientific consensus " now ?
Wait for the coming tidal wave , if predicted warming continues not to occur.And it will be , I guess , entirely deserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lay public has been mistrusting science for quite a while now.
Witness the disbelief in findings regarding the lack of connection between autism and vaccines, brain cancer and cellphones and climate change.And just imagine, for a moment, what will happen to the "lay public" if, in fact there is no AGW.
Lot's of advances in scientific understanding of climate will undoubtedly be made over the next few decades.
Let's just imagine a scenario where global temperatures make a noticeable decline over that time period.
With no corresponding decline in human carbon emission.You think there's a decrease in automatic trust of "scientific consensus" now?
Wait for the coming tidal wave, if predicted warming continues not to occur.And it will be, I guess, entirely deserved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398796</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260473100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The media has propagated this view of science, because journalists could never hack the subjects themselves, and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it.</p></div><p>It's even worse, they deliberately misrepresent science because they think that's their job:</p><blockquote><div><p> <strong>Blumberg:</strong> Trumping up FOXP2 as yet another star gene in a series of star genes (the "god" gene, the "depression" gene, the "schizophrenia" gene, etc.) not only sets FOXP2 up for a fall; it also misses an opportunity to educate the public about how complex behavior - including the capacity for language - develops and evolves.</p><p> <strong>Wade:</strong> I'm a little puzzled by your complaint, which seems to me to ignore the special dietary needs of a newspaper's readers and to assume they can be served indigestible fare similar to that in academic journals. []</p><p>As for missing an opportunity to educate the public, that, with respect, is your job, not mine. Education is the business of schools and universities. The business of newspapers is news.</p></div></blockquote><p> <i> <a href="http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/david\_shenk/2009/11/is\_foxp2\_really\_a\_speech\_gene\_a\_neuroscientist\_challenges\_the\_new\_york\_times.php" title="theatlantic.com" rel="nofollow">source</a> [theatlantic.com] via <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1951" title="upenn.edu" rel="nofollow">languagelog</a> [upenn.edu] </i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The media has propagated this view of science , because journalists could never hack the subjects themselves , and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it.It 's even worse , they deliberately misrepresent science because they think that 's their job : Blumberg : Trumping up FOXP2 as yet another star gene in a series of star genes ( the " god " gene , the " depression " gene , the " schizophrenia " gene , etc .
) not only sets FOXP2 up for a fall ; it also misses an opportunity to educate the public about how complex behavior - including the capacity for language - develops and evolves .
Wade : I 'm a little puzzled by your complaint , which seems to me to ignore the special dietary needs of a newspaper 's readers and to assume they can be served indigestible fare similar to that in academic journals .
[ ] As for missing an opportunity to educate the public , that , with respect , is your job , not mine .
Education is the business of schools and universities .
The business of newspapers is news .
source [ theatlantic.com ] via languagelog [ upenn.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media has propagated this view of science, because journalists could never hack the subjects themselves, and they just want to get their own back on those people who could do it.It's even worse, they deliberately misrepresent science because they think that's their job: Blumberg: Trumping up FOXP2 as yet another star gene in a series of star genes (the "god" gene, the "depression" gene, the "schizophrenia" gene, etc.
) not only sets FOXP2 up for a fall; it also misses an opportunity to educate the public about how complex behavior - including the capacity for language - develops and evolves.
Wade: I'm a little puzzled by your complaint, which seems to me to ignore the special dietary needs of a newspaper's readers and to assume they can be served indigestible fare similar to that in academic journals.
[]As for missing an opportunity to educate the public, that, with respect, is your job, not mine.
Education is the business of schools and universities.
The business of newspapers is news.
source [theatlantic.com] via languagelog [upenn.edu] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389792</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260467220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not science I think that is in question.</p><p>Is is science paid for with public funds that comes into question.</p><p>The emails aren't what's damning them (though it certainly paints them in a poor light).  It's the comments in the code for processing the data that are damning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not science I think that is in question.Is is science paid for with public funds that comes into question.The emails are n't what 's damning them ( though it certainly paints them in a poor light ) .
It 's the comments in the code for processing the data that are damning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not science I think that is in question.Is is science paid for with public funds that comes into question.The emails aren't what's damning them (though it certainly paints them in a poor light).
It's the comments in the code for processing the data that are damning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389170</id>
	<title>Re:Math is now a science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Math is inductive in choice of axioms, deductive in their application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Math is inductive in choice of axioms , deductive in their application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math is inductive in choice of axioms, deductive in their application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390224</id>
	<title>Surely this won't make the public doubt the basics</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1260468540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like geology or evolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like geology or evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like geology or evolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390786</id>
	<title>If I see one more use of the word "Bubble"...</title>
	<author>flajann</author>
	<datestamp>1260470340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is everything that's about to change now referred to as a "bubble"? The "real-estate bubble", the "stock decline bubble", etc?<p>

Not to mention that every scandal is referred to as gate. "Filegate", "Climategate", "Bloodgate", "Billygate", "Hookergate", etc.</p><p>

Maybe we can combine these silly hackneyed sound bite artifices, such as the "Mediagate Bubble"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is everything that 's about to change now referred to as a " bubble " ?
The " real-estate bubble " , the " stock decline bubble " , etc ?
Not to mention that every scandal is referred to as gate .
" Filegate " , " Climategate " , " Bloodgate " , " Billygate " , " Hookergate " , etc .
Maybe we can combine these silly hackneyed sound bite artifices , such as the " Mediagate Bubble " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is everything that's about to change now referred to as a "bubble"?
The "real-estate bubble", the "stock decline bubble", etc?
Not to mention that every scandal is referred to as gate.
"Filegate", "Climategate", "Bloodgate", "Billygate", "Hookergate", etc.
Maybe we can combine these silly hackneyed sound bite artifices, such as the "Mediagate Bubble"!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500</id>
	<title>Nothing interesting?  Look at the code</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1260466440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's amazing the poster can claim with a stright face "nothing interesting" was found, when the top Slashot post in the very article he links to has a very long debate covering the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/" title="wattsupwiththat.com" rel="nofollow">source code</a> [wattsupwiththat.com] that was released.</p><p>One very "interesting" item from that is this code:</p><p><tt><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]<br>;<br>; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!<br>;<br>yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]<br>valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$<br>2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor<br>(...)<br>;<br>; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION<br>;<br>yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)<br>densall=densall+yearlyadj<br></tt></p><p>Which to me, is pretty damning stuff.  Yes if you look currently that recalculation is not used (in that module anyway) but that code should NEVER have been typed and is a giant red flag something weird is going on.  Yes I mock up sample data in my own code, but never have I taken real data and applied varying magic constants across the dataset.  At the very least you'd expect to see a source for these amazing numbers quoted in the code - the only information we have is that it is "a correction for the decline" which is the heart of what worries people about the emails too.</p><p>Furthermore, the use of this is commented out NOW.  But when exactly was it commented out?  What datasets were published when this code was running?  You can't say "look it does nothing now" because at some time it was doing something.  And that is the heart of the problem,  without data or the code visible no-one can know.  So all the output they have produced is simply not science, even if parts of it happen to be accurate - because we have no way to independently discern what is fact and what is manipulated speculation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing the poster can claim with a stright face " nothing interesting " was found , when the top Slashot post in the very article he links to has a very long debate covering the source code [ wattsupwiththat.com ] that was released.One very " interesting " item from that is this code : ; mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod = [ 1881,1940 ] ; ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline ! !
; yrloc = [ 1400,findgen ( 19 ) * 5. + 1904 ] valadj = [ 0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6 , $ 2.6,2.6,2.6 ] * 0.75 ; fudge factor ( ... ) ; ; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION ; yearlyadj = interpol ( valadj,yrloc,x ) densall = densall + yearlyadjWhich to me , is pretty damning stuff .
Yes if you look currently that recalculation is not used ( in that module anyway ) but that code should NEVER have been typed and is a giant red flag something weird is going on .
Yes I mock up sample data in my own code , but never have I taken real data and applied varying magic constants across the dataset .
At the very least you 'd expect to see a source for these amazing numbers quoted in the code - the only information we have is that it is " a correction for the decline " which is the heart of what worries people about the emails too.Furthermore , the use of this is commented out NOW .
But when exactly was it commented out ?
What datasets were published when this code was running ?
You ca n't say " look it does nothing now " because at some time it was doing something .
And that is the heart of the problem , without data or the code visible no-one can know .
So all the output they have produced is simply not science , even if parts of it happen to be accurate - because we have no way to independently discern what is fact and what is manipulated speculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing the poster can claim with a stright face "nothing interesting" was found, when the top Slashot post in the very article he links to has a very long debate covering the source code [wattsupwiththat.com] that was released.One very "interesting" item from that is this code: ;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940];; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor(...);; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION;yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)densall=densall+yearlyadjWhich to me, is pretty damning stuff.
Yes if you look currently that recalculation is not used (in that module anyway) but that code should NEVER have been typed and is a giant red flag something weird is going on.
Yes I mock up sample data in my own code, but never have I taken real data and applied varying magic constants across the dataset.
At the very least you'd expect to see a source for these amazing numbers quoted in the code - the only information we have is that it is "a correction for the decline" which is the heart of what worries people about the emails too.Furthermore, the use of this is commented out NOW.
But when exactly was it commented out?
What datasets were published when this code was running?
You can't say "look it does nothing now" because at some time it was doing something.
And that is the heart of the problem,  without data or the code visible no-one can know.
So all the output they have produced is simply not science, even if parts of it happen to be accurate - because we have no way to independently discern what is fact and what is manipulated speculation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30412278</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticism requires more than just questioning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260615300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "scientists" are obviously wrong, they don't agree with Rush Limbaugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " scientists " are obviously wrong , they do n't agree with Rush Limbaugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "scientists" are obviously wrong, they don't agree with Rush Limbaugh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394184</id>
	<title>Re:So unnecessary</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1260439740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The greatest threat is probably sea level rise.</p> </div><p>It's not. Sea levels are projected to continue changing at around 3.1 millimeters a year. This may sound slightly scary, but plate tectonics move faster than that.<br> <br>
In my mind, the greatest threat would be massive droughts caused by lack of rainfall.  Droughts are the most expensive natural disasters, costing billions of dollars in lost crops. But there is no real confidence in the predictions of how rainfall will change as a result of global warming.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The greatest threat is probably sea level rise .
It 's not .
Sea levels are projected to continue changing at around 3.1 millimeters a year .
This may sound slightly scary , but plate tectonics move faster than that .
In my mind , the greatest threat would be massive droughts caused by lack of rainfall .
Droughts are the most expensive natural disasters , costing billions of dollars in lost crops .
But there is no real confidence in the predictions of how rainfall will change as a result of global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The greatest threat is probably sea level rise.
It's not.
Sea levels are projected to continue changing at around 3.1 millimeters a year.
This may sound slightly scary, but plate tectonics move faster than that.
In my mind, the greatest threat would be massive droughts caused by lack of rainfall.
Droughts are the most expensive natural disasters, costing billions of dollars in lost crops.
But there is no real confidence in the predictions of how rainfall will change as a result of global warming.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389250</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.</p></div><p>I'd like to see you "Design an experiment" that falsifies the global warming hypothesis.  Go out an get yourself a model Sun and then figure out how to simulate an experimental and control version of Earth.  My understanding is that entropy/chaos and imperfect assumptions in any such model can lead to spectacularly divergent results.  So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists, a true "global warming experiment" can't be run.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment , people will pay attention to you , regardless of politics.I 'd like to see you " Design an experiment " that falsifies the global warming hypothesis .
Go out an get yourself a model Sun and then figure out how to simulate an experimental and control version of Earth .
My understanding is that entropy/chaos and imperfect assumptions in any such model can lead to spectacularly divergent results .
So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists , a true " global warming experiment " ca n't be run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can falsify any of the theories by experiment, people will pay attention to you, regardless of politics.I'd like to see you "Design an experiment" that falsifies the global warming hypothesis.
Go out an get yourself a model Sun and then figure out how to simulate an experimental and control version of Earth.
My understanding is that entropy/chaos and imperfect assumptions in any such model can lead to spectacularly divergent results.
So until a realistic Sun/Earth computer model exists, a true "global warming experiment" can't be run.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390452</id>
	<title>Mathemathics has 0\% credibility for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260469200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>0.999...=1 is Math fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>0.999... = 1 is Math fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0.999...=1 is Math fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392782</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260477420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not enough information has been recorded yet to really prove global warming is a direct result of human activity.  In all reality one super volcano or a series of smaller eruptions would do more to the climate then we could ever do.  We are still a small force on this planet but big enough to start wondering about our impact on the environment so I still say to reduce pollution but lets not destroy our economies while doing so...   I just wonder if the increased co2 will result in more plant life and thus more oxygen in the atmosphere, just wondering...  Also don't forget that the planet has been warmer in its past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not enough information has been recorded yet to really prove global warming is a direct result of human activity .
In all reality one super volcano or a series of smaller eruptions would do more to the climate then we could ever do .
We are still a small force on this planet but big enough to start wondering about our impact on the environment so I still say to reduce pollution but lets not destroy our economies while doing so... I just wonder if the increased co2 will result in more plant life and thus more oxygen in the atmosphere , just wondering... Also do n't forget that the planet has been warmer in its past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not enough information has been recorded yet to really prove global warming is a direct result of human activity.
In all reality one super volcano or a series of smaller eruptions would do more to the climate then we could ever do.
We are still a small force on this planet but big enough to start wondering about our impact on the environment so I still say to reduce pollution but lets not destroy our economies while doing so...   I just wonder if the increased co2 will result in more plant life and thus more oxygen in the atmosphere, just wondering...  Also don't forget that the planet has been warmer in its past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389966</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>TeethWhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1260467700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Climate Science is a STUDY, much like Social Studies, Political "Science", and most (but not all) fields of Psychology. You cannot experiment on Climate on the timeframes or scales these "scientists" are suggesting. You cannot produce a hypothesis, alter variables, and confirm or deny your ideas.</p></div><p>
Sounds like someone took 'Guns, Germs and Steel' a little too seriously.  And in a way you're right.  We can't create the earth's atmosphere in a lab to tinker with it, just as we can't create a star in a lab to play around with it.  But we can get damn close.  What you seem to overlook is that soft sciences like political science are almost entirely dominated by surveys and the correlations that those surveys find.  Hard psychology, climate science, and astronomy, on the other hand, consist of theories that are backed up by experiment.  (Overly simple) example:  The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering of sunlight by N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.  I can't create something as big as the Earth's atmosphere in the lab, with all its characteristics, and do experiments on it, but I can damn sure examine Rayleigh scattering of different mixtures of gases in the lab and compare the 80\% N2 / 20 \% O2 mixture's scattering properties with that of the atmosphere.  Hell, if I did the same experiment using a totally different composition of gases and claimed that a planet with an atmosphere composed of those gases would have a sky with color x, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to deny me (at least not without a different explanation that was also backed up by experimental evidence).
</p><p>
The real problem with your (and Jared Diamond's) argument is not so much the premise (that fields like climate science and astronomy are different from fields like chemistry and physics) as the way the premise is presented.  Saying 'Climate science isn't science' is disingenuous.  More accurate would be something like 'Climate science isn't <i>only experimental science</i>.'  It's more accurate and it meshes better with the intuition about the position that a field like climate science holds in our epistemic space</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate Science is a STUDY , much like Social Studies , Political " Science " , and most ( but not all ) fields of Psychology .
You can not experiment on Climate on the timeframes or scales these " scientists " are suggesting .
You can not produce a hypothesis , alter variables , and confirm or deny your ideas .
Sounds like someone took 'Guns , Germs and Steel ' a little too seriously .
And in a way you 're right .
We ca n't create the earth 's atmosphere in a lab to tinker with it , just as we ca n't create a star in a lab to play around with it .
But we can get damn close .
What you seem to overlook is that soft sciences like political science are almost entirely dominated by surveys and the correlations that those surveys find .
Hard psychology , climate science , and astronomy , on the other hand , consist of theories that are backed up by experiment .
( Overly simple ) example : The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering of sunlight by N2 and O2 in the atmosphere .
I ca n't create something as big as the Earth 's atmosphere in the lab , with all its characteristics , and do experiments on it , but I can damn sure examine Rayleigh scattering of different mixtures of gases in the lab and compare the 80 \ % N2 / 20 \ % O2 mixture 's scattering properties with that of the atmosphere .
Hell , if I did the same experiment using a totally different composition of gases and claimed that a planet with an atmosphere composed of those gases would have a sky with color x , I think anyone would be hard-pressed to deny me ( at least not without a different explanation that was also backed up by experimental evidence ) .
The real problem with your ( and Jared Diamond 's ) argument is not so much the premise ( that fields like climate science and astronomy are different from fields like chemistry and physics ) as the way the premise is presented .
Saying 'Climate science is n't science ' is disingenuous .
More accurate would be something like 'Climate science is n't only experimental science .
' It 's more accurate and it meshes better with the intuition about the position that a field like climate science holds in our epistemic space</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate Science is a STUDY, much like Social Studies, Political "Science", and most (but not all) fields of Psychology.
You cannot experiment on Climate on the timeframes or scales these "scientists" are suggesting.
You cannot produce a hypothesis, alter variables, and confirm or deny your ideas.
Sounds like someone took 'Guns, Germs and Steel' a little too seriously.
And in a way you're right.
We can't create the earth's atmosphere in a lab to tinker with it, just as we can't create a star in a lab to play around with it.
But we can get damn close.
What you seem to overlook is that soft sciences like political science are almost entirely dominated by surveys and the correlations that those surveys find.
Hard psychology, climate science, and astronomy, on the other hand, consist of theories that are backed up by experiment.
(Overly simple) example:  The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering of sunlight by N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.
I can't create something as big as the Earth's atmosphere in the lab, with all its characteristics, and do experiments on it, but I can damn sure examine Rayleigh scattering of different mixtures of gases in the lab and compare the 80\% N2 / 20 \% O2 mixture's scattering properties with that of the atmosphere.
Hell, if I did the same experiment using a totally different composition of gases and claimed that a planet with an atmosphere composed of those gases would have a sky with color x, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to deny me (at least not without a different explanation that was also backed up by experimental evidence).
The real problem with your (and Jared Diamond's) argument is not so much the premise (that fields like climate science and astronomy are different from fields like chemistry and physics) as the way the premise is presented.
Saying 'Climate science isn't science' is disingenuous.
More accurate would be something like 'Climate science isn't only experimental science.
'  It's more accurate and it meshes better with the intuition about the position that a field like climate science holds in our epistemic space
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391768</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1260473580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were no peer reviewed papers in the 70s saying we were headed for an ice age.</p><p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/" title="realclimate.org">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/</a> [realclimate.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were no peer reviewed papers in the 70s saying we were headed for an ice age.http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ [ realclimate.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were no peer reviewed papers in the 70s saying we were headed for an ice age.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ [realclimate.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391964</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1260474240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People are understanding that SCIENTISTS are as likely as anyone to be venal, petty, biased, partisan, and above all the previous 8 year administration showed us: political.</p></div><p>I can't figure out where the pure and perfect image of scientists came from in the first place. Pick a scientific field and read a good history of it. It'll be rife with personality clashes, stolen work, wholesale persecution (as opposed to healthy skepticism) of new ideas, hostility, jealousy, politically motivated funding (or defunding) and even a few outright crimes here and there. It goes all the way back to Aristotle's fear of the number zero.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are understanding that SCIENTISTS are as likely as anyone to be venal , petty , biased , partisan , and above all the previous 8 year administration showed us : political.I ca n't figure out where the pure and perfect image of scientists came from in the first place .
Pick a scientific field and read a good history of it .
It 'll be rife with personality clashes , stolen work , wholesale persecution ( as opposed to healthy skepticism ) of new ideas , hostility , jealousy , politically motivated funding ( or defunding ) and even a few outright crimes here and there .
It goes all the way back to Aristotle 's fear of the number zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are understanding that SCIENTISTS are as likely as anyone to be venal, petty, biased, partisan, and above all the previous 8 year administration showed us: political.I can't figure out where the pure and perfect image of scientists came from in the first place.
Pick a scientific field and read a good history of it.
It'll be rife with personality clashes, stolen work, wholesale persecution (as opposed to healthy skepticism) of new ideas, hostility, jealousy, politically motivated funding (or defunding) and even a few outright crimes here and there.
It goes all the way back to Aristotle's fear of the number zero.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389392</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Peter Trepan</author>
	<datestamp>1260466140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short, wholesome, science-free life.</em> <br> <br>
The problem is that in a democratic system, they have the power to take the rest of us into the dark ages with them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short , wholesome , science-free life .
The problem is that in a democratic system , they have the power to take the rest of us into the dark ages with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who gives up on science because of this trifling matter is welcome to go back to the dark ages and live their short, wholesome, science-free life.
The problem is that in a democratic system, they have the power to take the rest of us into the dark ages with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399566</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260528180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, people have been brainwashed into thinking they can become experts on any subject in a few short minutes (witness all of the "well, why dont' they just do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." comments on Slashdot where readers who are familiar with a subject for the time it takes to read a condensed summary presume to be able to second guess experts who have devoted their lives to a particular field).</p></div></blockquote><p>The reason being that, from time to time, someone appears to have a silly refreshing view on something that ultimately becomes a breakthrough. It has happen so many times it isn't funny. Granted, not everybody is an Alexander Fleming, but there's a LOT of peple out there.</p><p>You cannot understand anthropogenic climate change? maybe it's because you don't want to. Please, re-read your quote of Al Gore. What's wrong with it? What makes you angry? Is it untrue in any way? No, it is not. You can verify all he says, even if you don't agree with *some* of the policies he proposes, facts are facts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , people have been brainwashed into thinking they can become experts on any subject in a few short minutes ( witness all of the " well , why dont ' they just do ... " comments on Slashdot where readers who are familiar with a subject for the time it takes to read a condensed summary presume to be able to second guess experts who have devoted their lives to a particular field ) .The reason being that , from time to time , someone appears to have a silly refreshing view on something that ultimately becomes a breakthrough .
It has happen so many times it is n't funny .
Granted , not everybody is an Alexander Fleming , but there 's a LOT of peple out there.You can not understand anthropogenic climate change ?
maybe it 's because you do n't want to .
Please , re-read your quote of Al Gore .
What 's wrong with it ?
What makes you angry ?
Is it untrue in any way ?
No , it is not .
You can verify all he says , even if you do n't agree with * some * of the policies he proposes , facts are facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, people have been brainwashed into thinking they can become experts on any subject in a few short minutes (witness all of the "well, why dont' they just do ..." comments on Slashdot where readers who are familiar with a subject for the time it takes to read a condensed summary presume to be able to second guess experts who have devoted their lives to a particular field).The reason being that, from time to time, someone appears to have a silly refreshing view on something that ultimately becomes a breakthrough.
It has happen so many times it isn't funny.
Granted, not everybody is an Alexander Fleming, but there's a LOT of peple out there.You cannot understand anthropogenic climate change?
maybe it's because you don't want to.
Please, re-read your quote of Al Gore.
What's wrong with it?
What makes you angry?
Is it untrue in any way?
No, it is not.
You can verify all he says, even if you don't agree with *some* of the policies he proposes, facts are facts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396220</id>
	<title>Re:What does he mean, begin to doubt?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problems occur when everybody who disagrees with you is "denying the scientific evidence", much of which you probably haven't looked at very closely yourself... </p><p>I looked at the moon landing evidence (a friend was interested) and was not satisfied with the <i>unconventional</i> explanations.</p><p>I looked at the WTC evidence, and was not satisfied with <i>conventional</i> explanations. (Practical free-fall of buildings never explained adequately.) </p><p>I looked at the vaccine debate. So far not satisfied with conventional explanations. (I'm still looking into it. If you want some interesting articles that question the party line, I'll be glad to supply some links.)</p><p>Never looked into evolution yet, and so far not inspired to do so, but it would be interesting to find intelligent critiques of the theory (I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mesh with the creationism movements ideas though...)</p><p>Many mainstreamers fail to seek out the quality questions and criticisms, prefering to point to the more obviously ridiculous claims instead. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problems occur when everybody who disagrees with you is " denying the scientific evidence " , much of which you probably have n't looked at very closely yourself... I looked at the moon landing evidence ( a friend was interested ) and was not satisfied with the unconventional explanations.I looked at the WTC evidence , and was not satisfied with conventional explanations .
( Practical free-fall of buildings never explained adequately .
) I looked at the vaccine debate .
So far not satisfied with conventional explanations .
( I 'm still looking into it .
If you want some interesting articles that question the party line , I 'll be glad to supply some links .
) Never looked into evolution yet , and so far not inspired to do so , but it would be interesting to find intelligent critiques of the theory ( I 'm pretty sure they would n't mesh with the creationism movements ideas though... ) Many mainstreamers fail to seek out the quality questions and criticisms , prefering to point to the more obviously ridiculous claims instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problems occur when everybody who disagrees with you is "denying the scientific evidence", much of which you probably haven't looked at very closely yourself... I looked at the moon landing evidence (a friend was interested) and was not satisfied with the unconventional explanations.I looked at the WTC evidence, and was not satisfied with conventional explanations.
(Practical free-fall of buildings never explained adequately.
) I looked at the vaccine debate.
So far not satisfied with conventional explanations.
(I'm still looking into it.
If you want some interesting articles that question the party line, I'll be glad to supply some links.
)Never looked into evolution yet, and so far not inspired to do so, but it would be interesting to find intelligent critiques of the theory (I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mesh with the creationism movements ideas though...)Many mainstreamers fail to seek out the quality questions and criticisms, prefering to point to the more obviously ridiculous claims instead. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389584</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Problem is, people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves. I'm not saying we need to have blind trust in authority, but sometimes you've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you can't pick up from reading a blog.</p></div><p>This is an excellent point but for me it raises the question of what came first. I say this because when reading Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion" paperback he addresses the complaint levelled against him that he's not a theologian and therefore not qualified to pass comment. The response struck me as falling foul of the same thing you say here - he claims that he doesn't need to be an expert in the field to dismiss the conclusions of those who are.</p><p>I'm (fortunately, I guess) not old enough to trace the rise of this clash of science and religion (the more recent turn of events of scientists seemingly "going after" religion) but I wonder if the attitude displayed by some of those scientists - that they do not need to be experts in the field to pass comment - has come back to bite them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is , people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves .
I 'm not saying we need to have blind trust in authority , but sometimes you 've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you ca n't pick up from reading a blog.This is an excellent point but for me it raises the question of what came first .
I say this because when reading Richard Dawkins 's book " The God Delusion " paperback he addresses the complaint levelled against him that he 's not a theologian and therefore not qualified to pass comment .
The response struck me as falling foul of the same thing you say here - he claims that he does n't need to be an expert in the field to dismiss the conclusions of those who are.I 'm ( fortunately , I guess ) not old enough to trace the rise of this clash of science and religion ( the more recent turn of events of scientists seemingly " going after " religion ) but I wonder if the attitude displayed by some of those scientists - that they do not need to be experts in the field to pass comment - has come back to bite them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is, people really believe that they can become experts on extremely complicated topics and weigh the evidence for themselves.
I'm not saying we need to have blind trust in authority, but sometimes you've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you can't pick up from reading a blog.This is an excellent point but for me it raises the question of what came first.
I say this because when reading Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion" paperback he addresses the complaint levelled against him that he's not a theologian and therefore not qualified to pass comment.
The response struck me as falling foul of the same thing you say here - he claims that he doesn't need to be an expert in the field to dismiss the conclusions of those who are.I'm (fortunately, I guess) not old enough to trace the rise of this clash of science and religion (the more recent turn of events of scientists seemingly "going after" religion) but I wonder if the attitude displayed by some of those scientists - that they do not need to be experts in the field to pass comment - has come back to bite them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393022</id>
	<title>Why is This an Issue?</title>
	<author>Hercules Peanut</author>
	<datestamp>1260478440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I correct in understanding that there is concern over he concept of questioning science or math? Shouldn't we be doing just that? Isn't questioning these things a good thing? Couldn't it (wouldn't it) lead to greater interest and understanding? Isn't that the nature of science? It's more than just saying maybe they are right. Doesn't it include saying maybe they are wrong?<br>
<br>
It seems like hubris to think the unwashed masses should just accept these things because it is beyond them to undertsand. Perhap I just don't understand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I correct in understanding that there is concern over he concept of questioning science or math ?
Should n't we be doing just that ?
Is n't questioning these things a good thing ?
Could n't it ( would n't it ) lead to greater interest and understanding ?
Is n't that the nature of science ?
It 's more than just saying maybe they are right .
Does n't it include saying maybe they are wrong ?
It seems like hubris to think the unwashed masses should just accept these things because it is beyond them to undertsand .
Perhap I just do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I correct in understanding that there is concern over he concept of questioning science or math?
Shouldn't we be doing just that?
Isn't questioning these things a good thing?
Couldn't it (wouldn't it) lead to greater interest and understanding?
Isn't that the nature of science?
It's more than just saying maybe they are right.
Doesn't it include saying maybe they are wrong?
It seems like hubris to think the unwashed masses should just accept these things because it is beyond them to undertsand.
Perhap I just don't understand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399070</id>
	<title>peak oil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260564360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1465 messages later and still no mention of peak oil... answer: yes, we are doomed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1465 messages later and still no mention of peak oil... answer : yes , we are doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1465 messages later and still no mention of peak oil... answer: yes, we are doomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389236</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>As for the results of the CSU climate research, they're not in any doubt. Every criticism of them has been answered, and there are other studies that agree with the CSU results. So attack the scientists for being human if you must, but the science is sound and must be heeded.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>But science is hard to understand, and human weakness and temptation is something everyone understands all too easily.  So, the fact that the science is right is lost beneath the crowing of the right-wing bloggers, and the truth gets lost beneath the "truthiness".</p><p>The media has told us that popularity is truth, and so as more people who take the easy "global warming is a conspiracy" line, that is treated as if it invalidates the science.  Media coverage of science is almost uniformly terrible, and no-one has the slightest, because scare stories and conspiracies are easy to package than nuance and subtlety.  Fortunately, scientists have rarely needed popular acclaim, and have never received it, so nothing will really change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for the results of the CSU climate research , they 're not in any doubt .
Every criticism of them has been answered , and there are other studies that agree with the CSU results .
So attack the scientists for being human if you must , but the science is sound and must be heeded .
But science is hard to understand , and human weakness and temptation is something everyone understands all too easily .
So , the fact that the science is right is lost beneath the crowing of the right-wing bloggers , and the truth gets lost beneath the " truthiness " .The media has told us that popularity is truth , and so as more people who take the easy " global warming is a conspiracy " line , that is treated as if it invalidates the science .
Media coverage of science is almost uniformly terrible , and no-one has the slightest , because scare stories and conspiracies are easy to package than nuance and subtlety .
Fortunately , scientists have rarely needed popular acclaim , and have never received it , so nothing will really change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As for the results of the CSU climate research, they're not in any doubt.
Every criticism of them has been answered, and there are other studies that agree with the CSU results.
So attack the scientists for being human if you must, but the science is sound and must be heeded.
But science is hard to understand, and human weakness and temptation is something everyone understands all too easily.
So, the fact that the science is right is lost beneath the crowing of the right-wing bloggers, and the truth gets lost beneath the "truthiness".The media has told us that popularity is truth, and so as more people who take the easy "global warming is a conspiracy" line, that is treated as if it invalidates the science.
Media coverage of science is almost uniformly terrible, and no-one has the slightest, because scare stories and conspiracies are easy to package than nuance and subtlety.
Fortunately, scientists have rarely needed popular acclaim, and have never received it, so nothing will really change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389622</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>stainless-steel-vash</author>
	<datestamp>1260466740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doubt is fine, the problem is most people can't be bothered to educate themselves and think for themselves.</p><p>They would rather let a talking head (scientist, religious leader, etc) do their thinking and tell them which view point/idea has merit rather than being able to figure out what is correct, or more likely to be correct. Worse is that there is much closed mindedness in that people can't see any viewpoint but their own.</p><p>We, as a collective species, need to use our own brains and learn at least enough to intelligently follow a given discourse whether it be weather, law, or anything else.</p><p>Likelihood of that happening? 0\%- although this forecast has been done without much scientific rigour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doubt is fine , the problem is most people ca n't be bothered to educate themselves and think for themselves.They would rather let a talking head ( scientist , religious leader , etc ) do their thinking and tell them which view point/idea has merit rather than being able to figure out what is correct , or more likely to be correct .
Worse is that there is much closed mindedness in that people ca n't see any viewpoint but their own.We , as a collective species , need to use our own brains and learn at least enough to intelligently follow a given discourse whether it be weather , law , or anything else.Likelihood of that happening ?
0 \ % - although this forecast has been done without much scientific rigour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doubt is fine, the problem is most people can't be bothered to educate themselves and think for themselves.They would rather let a talking head (scientist, religious leader, etc) do their thinking and tell them which view point/idea has merit rather than being able to figure out what is correct, or more likely to be correct.
Worse is that there is much closed mindedness in that people can't see any viewpoint but their own.We, as a collective species, need to use our own brains and learn at least enough to intelligently follow a given discourse whether it be weather, law, or anything else.Likelihood of that happening?
0\%- although this forecast has been done without much scientific rigour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390194</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1260468480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can also see the data on global temperatures, stellar radiation, albeido, and black-body emitters.</p><p>By definition: a lay-man is someone who has not studied these things nor tried the (often complex) proofs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can also see the data on global temperatures , stellar radiation , albeido , and black-body emitters.By definition : a lay-man is someone who has not studied these things nor tried the ( often complex ) proofs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can also see the data on global temperatures, stellar radiation, albeido, and black-body emitters.By definition: a lay-man is someone who has not studied these things nor tried the (often complex) proofs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392418</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1260475860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lay public gets their knowledge of science from such shows as CSI.</p><p>You know, where they can enlarge a single pixel from a digital photo to read the license plate off a car reflected in a window from someones eye from 200 feet away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lay public gets their knowledge of science from such shows as CSI.You know , where they can enlarge a single pixel from a digital photo to read the license plate off a car reflected in a window from someones eye from 200 feet away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lay public gets their knowledge of science from such shows as CSI.You know, where they can enlarge a single pixel from a digital photo to read the license plate off a car reflected in a window from someones eye from 200 feet away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389648</id>
	<title>You are not correct</title>
	<author>jcupitt65</author>
	<datestamp>1260466800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>
In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's not true, please check your sources again. Some pop sci pieces on the subject appeared, but no serious scientist ever claimed that a new Ice Age was imminent.

</p><p>
You can read about the history of the 1970s global cooling scare on wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global\_cooling" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global\_cooling</a> [wikipedia.org]

</p><p>
Here's Newsweek talking about its own coverage of the issue, and quoting William Connolley:

</p><blockquote><div><p>The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today.</p></div></blockquote><p>
From <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/72481" title="newsweek.com">http://www.newsweek.com/id/72481</a> [newsweek.com]

</p><p>
And finally here's Connolley himself:

</p><blockquote><div><p>Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No. If you can find me a reference saying otherwise, I'll put it here.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
From <a href="http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage" title="wmconnolley.org.uk">http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage</a> [wmconnolley.org.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1975 , American Scientist , Nature , and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years .
That 's not true , please check your sources again .
Some pop sci pieces on the subject appeared , but no serious scientist ever claimed that a new Ice Age was imminent .
You can read about the history of the 1970s global cooling scare on wikipedia : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global \ _cooling [ wikipedia.org ] Here 's Newsweek talking about its own coverage of the issue , and quoting William Connolley : The point to remember , says Connolley , is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today .
From http : //www.newsweek.com/id/72481 [ newsweek.com ] And finally here 's Connolley himself : Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70 's ?
No. If you can find me a reference saying otherwise , I 'll put it here .
From http : //www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage [ wmconnolley.org.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In 1975, American Scientist, Nature, and New York Times were publishing story after story about the imminent New Ice Age that would plunge the world into subfreezing temperatures for the next 100 years.
That's not true, please check your sources again.
Some pop sci pieces on the subject appeared, but no serious scientist ever claimed that a new Ice Age was imminent.
You can read about the history of the 1970s global cooling scare on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global\_cooling [wikipedia.org]


Here's Newsweek talking about its own coverage of the issue, and quoting William Connolley:

The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today.
From http://www.newsweek.com/id/72481 [newsweek.com]


And finally here's Connolley himself:

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's?
No. If you can find me a reference saying otherwise, I'll put it here.
From http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage [wmconnolley.org.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399154</id>
	<title>Burden of Proof vs Corruption &amp; GroupThink</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1260522240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a reminder that the burden is on the alarmists to prove that: climate change is occurring AND that it is anthropogenic AND that the change is economically significant AND that it's harmful AND that it can be altered through human behaviour AND the socialist plan they're pushing would be effective AND that their plan will do more good than harm AND that their plan is the best of all alternatives, including the free market / property rights based ideas on how to attribute liability for externalities like pollution.  They can't even prove their first point without a massive amount of government bullying and deceit!</p><p>Virtually all of the data used in the global warming debate were either gathered, revised, or summarised by government institutions.  A very large fraction of the data came from the former Eastern Block countries, where data fudging and other corruption were completely routine.  Much of the data was gathered using different instruments with different levels of accuracy, and with the margin of error often being greater than the temperature rise being claimed.  Things like increasing urbanisation surrounding weather stations were never accounted for.  Methods of obtaining ancient temperature readings (ice core samples, tree rings, etc) are also limited in their precision, especially when you consider that arguments are being made on matters of a fraction of one degree.  Temperature effects of not-yet-understood natural cycles (terrestrial as well as cosmic) were completely written out of the realm of possibility.  Etc, etc, etc...</p><p>History is filled with examples of the "best minds" of every society being waaay off on very important things, and using state / church violence to enforce their folly on others.  Scientists are not immune to groupthink - especially when their institutions are funded and regulated by a single self-serving power monopoly, and especially when the difference between being labelled a "genius" / "hero" or a "quack" / "killer" depends on following the party line.  Being a climatologist and not pushing global warming means voting against your own job security and your self-esteem, as well as those of your colleagues, who would ostracise you, knowing that if the sky wasn't falling they'd be stuck teaching 7th grade science instead!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a reminder that the burden is on the alarmists to prove that : climate change is occurring AND that it is anthropogenic AND that the change is economically significant AND that it 's harmful AND that it can be altered through human behaviour AND the socialist plan they 're pushing would be effective AND that their plan will do more good than harm AND that their plan is the best of all alternatives , including the free market / property rights based ideas on how to attribute liability for externalities like pollution .
They ca n't even prove their first point without a massive amount of government bullying and deceit ! Virtually all of the data used in the global warming debate were either gathered , revised , or summarised by government institutions .
A very large fraction of the data came from the former Eastern Block countries , where data fudging and other corruption were completely routine .
Much of the data was gathered using different instruments with different levels of accuracy , and with the margin of error often being greater than the temperature rise being claimed .
Things like increasing urbanisation surrounding weather stations were never accounted for .
Methods of obtaining ancient temperature readings ( ice core samples , tree rings , etc ) are also limited in their precision , especially when you consider that arguments are being made on matters of a fraction of one degree .
Temperature effects of not-yet-understood natural cycles ( terrestrial as well as cosmic ) were completely written out of the realm of possibility .
Etc , etc , etc...History is filled with examples of the " best minds " of every society being waaay off on very important things , and using state / church violence to enforce their folly on others .
Scientists are not immune to groupthink - especially when their institutions are funded and regulated by a single self-serving power monopoly , and especially when the difference between being labelled a " genius " / " hero " or a " quack " / " killer " depends on following the party line .
Being a climatologist and not pushing global warming means voting against your own job security and your self-esteem , as well as those of your colleagues , who would ostracise you , knowing that if the sky was n't falling they 'd be stuck teaching 7th grade science instead !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a reminder that the burden is on the alarmists to prove that: climate change is occurring AND that it is anthropogenic AND that the change is economically significant AND that it's harmful AND that it can be altered through human behaviour AND the socialist plan they're pushing would be effective AND that their plan will do more good than harm AND that their plan is the best of all alternatives, including the free market / property rights based ideas on how to attribute liability for externalities like pollution.
They can't even prove their first point without a massive amount of government bullying and deceit!Virtually all of the data used in the global warming debate were either gathered, revised, or summarised by government institutions.
A very large fraction of the data came from the former Eastern Block countries, where data fudging and other corruption were completely routine.
Much of the data was gathered using different instruments with different levels of accuracy, and with the margin of error often being greater than the temperature rise being claimed.
Things like increasing urbanisation surrounding weather stations were never accounted for.
Methods of obtaining ancient temperature readings (ice core samples, tree rings, etc) are also limited in their precision, especially when you consider that arguments are being made on matters of a fraction of one degree.
Temperature effects of not-yet-understood natural cycles (terrestrial as well as cosmic) were completely written out of the realm of possibility.
Etc, etc, etc...History is filled with examples of the "best minds" of every society being waaay off on very important things, and using state / church violence to enforce their folly on others.
Scientists are not immune to groupthink - especially when their institutions are funded and regulated by a single self-serving power monopoly, and especially when the difference between being labelled a "genius" / "hero" or a "quack" / "killer" depends on following the party line.
Being a climatologist and not pushing global warming means voting against your own job security and your self-esteem, as well as those of your colleagues, who would ostracise you, knowing that if the sky wasn't falling they'd be stuck teaching 7th grade science instead!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30400124</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>silburnl</author>
	<datestamp>1260536160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...coercing journals to not publish the works of "skeptics", and excluding "skeptic" literature from the IPCC record.</p></div><p>Except (i) the emails in question were complaining about work that had already been published so they don't seem to have been very good at coercing the journals and (ii) the papers they were complaining about went on to be cited in the IPCC 4AR, so they weren't very good at corrupting the IPCC process either (even though Phil Jones was a lead author for the chapter in question).</p><p>Regards<br>Luke</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...coercing journals to not publish the works of " skeptics " , and excluding " skeptic " literature from the IPCC record.Except ( i ) the emails in question were complaining about work that had already been published so they do n't seem to have been very good at coercing the journals and ( ii ) the papers they were complaining about went on to be cited in the IPCC 4AR , so they were n't very good at corrupting the IPCC process either ( even though Phil Jones was a lead author for the chapter in question ) .RegardsLuke</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...coercing journals to not publish the works of "skeptics", and excluding "skeptic" literature from the IPCC record.Except (i) the emails in question were complaining about work that had already been published so they don't seem to have been very good at coercing the journals and (ii) the papers they were complaining about went on to be cited in the IPCC 4AR, so they weren't very good at corrupting the IPCC process either (even though Phil Jones was a lead author for the chapter in question).RegardsLuke
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390128</id>
	<title>Math is not a science!</title>
	<author>rjkimble</author>
	<datestamp>1260468240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Math is important to scientists, but math is not a science. You can tell this easily enough from the observation that math does not use the scientific method to pursue its goals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Math is important to scientists , but math is not a science .
You can tell this easily enough from the observation that math does not use the scientific method to pursue its goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Math is important to scientists, but math is not a science.
You can tell this easily enough from the observation that math does not use the scientific method to pursue its goals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392748</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>A beautiful mind</author>
	<datestamp>1260477300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A picture can lie a lot better than a thousand words. I see that picture popping up in the climate denialist literature all over the place, without most places referencing <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html" title="ornl.gov">the paper it is taken from</a> [ornl.gov].<br> <br>
The paper actually contains information that explains what you're seeing on the picture. The adjustments made are detailed, <a href="http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn\_anom25\_diffs\_pg.gif" title="ornl.gov">compared</a> [ornl.gov] and explained. The references for the expanded reasoning can be followed.<br> <br>
Besides, the graph is about the US temperature measurements. US != global. It could show warming and global warming could not be happening or it could show a decrease in temperature and global warming could be highly severe. Your argument is simply bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A picture can lie a lot better than a thousand words .
I see that picture popping up in the climate denialist literature all over the place , without most places referencing the paper it is taken from [ ornl.gov ] .
The paper actually contains information that explains what you 're seeing on the picture .
The adjustments made are detailed , compared [ ornl.gov ] and explained .
The references for the expanded reasoning can be followed .
Besides , the graph is about the US temperature measurements .
US ! = global .
It could show warming and global warming could not be happening or it could show a decrease in temperature and global warming could be highly severe .
Your argument is simply bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A picture can lie a lot better than a thousand words.
I see that picture popping up in the climate denialist literature all over the place, without most places referencing the paper it is taken from [ornl.gov].
The paper actually contains information that explains what you're seeing on the picture.
The adjustments made are detailed, compared [ornl.gov] and explained.
The references for the expanded reasoning can be followed.
Besides, the graph is about the US temperature measurements.
US != global.
It could show warming and global warming could not be happening or it could show a decrease in temperature and global warming could be highly severe.
Your argument is simply bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389958</id>
	<title>Messy Gender Studies?</title>
	<author>fortapocalypse</author>
	<datestamp>1260467700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where is the nsfw tag?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the nsfw tag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the nsfw tag?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390298</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Science isn't a Science!</title>
	<author>citab</author>
	<datestamp>1260468720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sure we might be warming, just as much as we might have been cooling in the 70s. But what does it matter? We need renewable energy regardless of what the environment is doing."</p><p>Totally agree... whoever is actually correct, there is no downside to cleaning up our air on the planet. We did pollute it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there's no disputing that! So even if global warming is false, we could still benefit from cleaner air and water!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sure we might be warming , just as much as we might have been cooling in the 70s .
But what does it matter ?
We need renewable energy regardless of what the environment is doing .
" Totally agree... whoever is actually correct , there is no downside to cleaning up our air on the planet .
We did pollute it ... there 's no disputing that !
So even if global warming is false , we could still benefit from cleaner air and water !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sure we might be warming, just as much as we might have been cooling in the 70s.
But what does it matter?
We need renewable energy regardless of what the environment is doing.
"Totally agree... whoever is actually correct, there is no downside to cleaning up our air on the planet.
We did pollute it ... there's no disputing that!
So even if global warming is false, we could still benefit from cleaner air and water!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389434</id>
	<title>Re:Open source</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1260466260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Others already pointed out that you're being a bit optimistic here, but I'll point out where you yourself indicated that: open source software can be modified by anyone - but it is successfully modified only by those who are intimately familiar with it. The rest of us just use it and trust that the coders who worked on it did the right thing. And that trust in open-source science and scientists just evaporated for a lot of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Others already pointed out that you 're being a bit optimistic here , but I 'll point out where you yourself indicated that : open source software can be modified by anyone - but it is successfully modified only by those who are intimately familiar with it .
The rest of us just use it and trust that the coders who worked on it did the right thing .
And that trust in open-source science and scientists just evaporated for a lot of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Others already pointed out that you're being a bit optimistic here, but I'll point out where you yourself indicated that: open source software can be modified by anyone - but it is successfully modified only by those who are intimately familiar with it.
The rest of us just use it and trust that the coders who worked on it did the right thing.
And that trust in open-source science and scientists just evaporated for a lot of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389292</id>
	<title>Re:What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. Personally, I would like to see a bit more skepticism when it comes to science. As in "Hey, show me some data and explain to me why what you say should work before I take your word for it." Or at least go out and do some of your own research before accepting something from some random scientist. Too often news organizations quote someone with some professorial or scientific title and pretend that the quote has value. Unless I know that person and have been able to assess their credibility in some way beforehand, they could have just as well quoted my barber. This presentation issue is a failing of news organizations though. Any person can still do their own filtering.</p><p>What we're getting now though is that ad hominem attacks on scientists (of the sort of "You work for institution XYZ, you're automatically disqualified from contributing.") is seen as valid approach in any discussion on any topic. This is complete idiocy, and a mark of the intellectually lazy. To some extent, the public press and scientists themselves contributed to the problem. The press has elevated scientists to the status of oracles, and the public was happy to believe the oracles. Many scientists thrived on that elevated status, and did little to dispel it. Now that the oracles have been shown to be as human as everybody, the public is engaging in a massive back-lash. To some extent, it's to be expected.</p><p>But no matter how explainable the situation, there is a fundamental problem if science is being put on the same level as high-school English Lit (see posters above for ready examples) - and that's going to cause more problems down the line. Sadly , I find this attitude is mostly prevalent in the US - and various voodoo-practicing countries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Personally , I would like to see a bit more skepticism when it comes to science .
As in " Hey , show me some data and explain to me why what you say should work before I take your word for it .
" Or at least go out and do some of your own research before accepting something from some random scientist .
Too often news organizations quote someone with some professorial or scientific title and pretend that the quote has value .
Unless I know that person and have been able to assess their credibility in some way beforehand , they could have just as well quoted my barber .
This presentation issue is a failing of news organizations though .
Any person can still do their own filtering.What we 're getting now though is that ad hominem attacks on scientists ( of the sort of " You work for institution XYZ , you 're automatically disqualified from contributing .
" ) is seen as valid approach in any discussion on any topic .
This is complete idiocy , and a mark of the intellectually lazy .
To some extent , the public press and scientists themselves contributed to the problem .
The press has elevated scientists to the status of oracles , and the public was happy to believe the oracles .
Many scientists thrived on that elevated status , and did little to dispel it .
Now that the oracles have been shown to be as human as everybody , the public is engaging in a massive back-lash .
To some extent , it 's to be expected.But no matter how explainable the situation , there is a fundamental problem if science is being put on the same level as high-school English Lit ( see posters above for ready examples ) - and that 's going to cause more problems down the line .
Sadly , I find this attitude is mostly prevalent in the US - and various voodoo-practicing countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Personally, I would like to see a bit more skepticism when it comes to science.
As in "Hey, show me some data and explain to me why what you say should work before I take your word for it.
" Or at least go out and do some of your own research before accepting something from some random scientist.
Too often news organizations quote someone with some professorial or scientific title and pretend that the quote has value.
Unless I know that person and have been able to assess their credibility in some way beforehand, they could have just as well quoted my barber.
This presentation issue is a failing of news organizations though.
Any person can still do their own filtering.What we're getting now though is that ad hominem attacks on scientists (of the sort of "You work for institution XYZ, you're automatically disqualified from contributing.
") is seen as valid approach in any discussion on any topic.
This is complete idiocy, and a mark of the intellectually lazy.
To some extent, the public press and scientists themselves contributed to the problem.
The press has elevated scientists to the status of oracles, and the public was happy to believe the oracles.
Many scientists thrived on that elevated status, and did little to dispel it.
Now that the oracles have been shown to be as human as everybody, the public is engaging in a massive back-lash.
To some extent, it's to be expected.But no matter how explainable the situation, there is a fundamental problem if science is being put on the same level as high-school English Lit (see posters above for ready examples) - and that's going to cause more problems down the line.
Sadly , I find this attitude is mostly prevalent in the US - and various voodoo-practicing countries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389576</id>
	<title>Credibility of Science</title>
	<author>IMightB</author>
	<datestamp>1260466620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If some one doubts the credibility of science, I would suggest to them, that they not use the products of science.   I mean if they don't believe in the general accuracy of science, then they can do without things like modern medicine, cars, computers and modern agriculture etc etc.   I mean if science is wrong to them, shouldn't they be living off the land?</p><p>As an aside, I blame the the flat earthers, the creationists for getting us into this position.   Because of their 100\% belief in their positions, in order to win arguements scientists had to go from:</p><p>Hey we *know* they're wrong, but here are some of our hypothesis that make more sense.</p><p>to</p><p>Hey we know they're wrong, but we've narrowed down what's right to these couple of theories.</p><p>to</p><p>Hey we know they're wrong, but we know that this theory is 100\% right.</p><p>Now if that theory turns out to be wrong, or tweaked in anyway, it puts scientists in a real bad light.</p><p>It's more polarization.   Just like politics has become steadily more polarized, science will as well, thanks to asshats that refuse to understand what it's really about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If some one doubts the credibility of science , I would suggest to them , that they not use the products of science .
I mean if they do n't believe in the general accuracy of science , then they can do without things like modern medicine , cars , computers and modern agriculture etc etc .
I mean if science is wrong to them , should n't they be living off the land ? As an aside , I blame the the flat earthers , the creationists for getting us into this position .
Because of their 100 \ % belief in their positions , in order to win arguements scientists had to go from : Hey we * know * they 're wrong , but here are some of our hypothesis that make more sense.toHey we know they 're wrong , but we 've narrowed down what 's right to these couple of theories.toHey we know they 're wrong , but we know that this theory is 100 \ % right.Now if that theory turns out to be wrong , or tweaked in anyway , it puts scientists in a real bad light.It 's more polarization .
Just like politics has become steadily more polarized , science will as well , thanks to asshats that refuse to understand what it 's really about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If some one doubts the credibility of science, I would suggest to them, that they not use the products of science.
I mean if they don't believe in the general accuracy of science, then they can do without things like modern medicine, cars, computers and modern agriculture etc etc.
I mean if science is wrong to them, shouldn't they be living off the land?As an aside, I blame the the flat earthers, the creationists for getting us into this position.
Because of their 100\% belief in their positions, in order to win arguements scientists had to go from:Hey we *know* they're wrong, but here are some of our hypothesis that make more sense.toHey we know they're wrong, but we've narrowed down what's right to these couple of theories.toHey we know they're wrong, but we know that this theory is 100\% right.Now if that theory turns out to be wrong, or tweaked in anyway, it puts scientists in a real bad light.It's more polarization.
Just like politics has become steadily more polarized, science will as well, thanks to asshats that refuse to understand what it's really about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397036</id>
	<title>Re:Hundreds of billions???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260451980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fossil fuel industries actually do a lot of basic applied science.</p><p>\just saying</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fossil fuel industries actually do a lot of basic applied science. \ just saying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fossil fuel industries actually do a lot of basic applied science.\just saying</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394954</id>
	<title>Re:Scientists are human.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260442500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original data are available. They can be purchased, just as the data used by CRU were purchased. That's one of the lies being spread about climategate - that CRU was holding on to some data that are not available anywhere else and they deleted some holy grail original tape. It's bullshit. Much of the data was bought from sources with an NDA. CRU could not respond legally to the FOIA requests. The original data are still there, still for sale, still with an NDA. Nothing is stopping some coal-burning industry shill from buying the data, analyzing it, and proving AGW wrong. Go for it, denialists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original data are available .
They can be purchased , just as the data used by CRU were purchased .
That 's one of the lies being spread about climategate - that CRU was holding on to some data that are not available anywhere else and they deleted some holy grail original tape .
It 's bullshit .
Much of the data was bought from sources with an NDA .
CRU could not respond legally to the FOIA requests .
The original data are still there , still for sale , still with an NDA .
Nothing is stopping some coal-burning industry shill from buying the data , analyzing it , and proving AGW wrong .
Go for it , denialists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original data are available.
They can be purchased, just as the data used by CRU were purchased.
That's one of the lies being spread about climategate - that CRU was holding on to some data that are not available anywhere else and they deleted some holy grail original tape.
It's bullshit.
Much of the data was bought from sources with an NDA.
CRU could not respond legally to the FOIA requests.
The original data are still there, still for sale, still with an NDA.
Nothing is stopping some coal-burning industry shill from buying the data, analyzing it, and proving AGW wrong.
Go for it, denialists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396262</id>
	<title>Re:It *WAS* bad science</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1260447420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WHy do you consider less then ten document uot of thousands taken out of context as evidence of bad science?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WHy do you consider less then ten document uot of thousands taken out of context as evidence of bad science ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHy do you consider less then ten document uot of thousands taken out of context as evidence of bad science?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390360</id>
	<title>Re:Science Should Always be Questioned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...we shouldn't always take things at face value just because Bill Nye the Science Guy says so.</p></div><p>I disagree. In fact, I think we should take this as the next step in helping science. Religious folks get away with their arguments by saying "Because ${DEITY} says so in \%{RELIGIOUS VOLUME}" or "Because ${DEITY} put it there." I think we should just start saying "Because Bill Nye said so!" and then explode in a puff a smoke and run away... then return and explain how that puff of smoke was contained in that little ball and why it made smoke when I threw it against the ground.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we should n't always take things at face value just because Bill Nye the Science Guy says so.I disagree .
In fact , I think we should take this as the next step in helping science .
Religious folks get away with their arguments by saying " Because $ { DEITY } says so in \ % { RELIGIOUS VOLUME } " or " Because $ { DEITY } put it there .
" I think we should just start saying " Because Bill Nye said so !
" and then explode in a puff a smoke and run away... then return and explain how that puff of smoke was contained in that little ball and why it made smoke when I threw it against the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...we shouldn't always take things at face value just because Bill Nye the Science Guy says so.I disagree.
In fact, I think we should take this as the next step in helping science.
Religious folks get away with their arguments by saying "Because ${DEITY} says so in \%{RELIGIOUS VOLUME}" or "Because ${DEITY} put it there.
" I think we should just start saying "Because Bill Nye said so!
" and then explode in a puff a smoke and run away... then return and explain how that puff of smoke was contained in that little ball and why it made smoke when I threw it against the ground.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390230</id>
	<title>Credibility of Science?</title>
	<author>d34dluk3</author>
	<datestamp>1260468540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've long felt that 'Science' has not gotten the scrutiny and skepticism from society that other facts of life do. (Much like religion in the past, which contributed to some of the widely publicized recent sex scandals).

</p><p>Before you jump all over me for being a knuckle-dragging Arkansan, listen to how I came to this conclusion. I recently graduated with a degree in the sciences from a fairly prestigious university. While I was there, I worked as an undergraduate research assistant in several of our labs.

</p><p> I quickly came to the conclusion that people would do ANYTHING to further their own agenda (whether it was grants, ideology, whatever). I saw people fabricate data, intentionally misinterpret data, unintentionally misinterpret data, use poor technique and then claim valid results, etc. If the advisor said he wanted results, results he was going to get.

</p><p> This experience rid me of my rose-colored glasses when it came to science. I realized that scientists are just like anyone else. They have their own goals and, if necessary, will lie, cheat, and steal to reach them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've long felt that 'Science ' has not gotten the scrutiny and skepticism from society that other facts of life do .
( Much like religion in the past , which contributed to some of the widely publicized recent sex scandals ) .
Before you jump all over me for being a knuckle-dragging Arkansan , listen to how I came to this conclusion .
I recently graduated with a degree in the sciences from a fairly prestigious university .
While I was there , I worked as an undergraduate research assistant in several of our labs .
I quickly came to the conclusion that people would do ANYTHING to further their own agenda ( whether it was grants , ideology , whatever ) .
I saw people fabricate data , intentionally misinterpret data , unintentionally misinterpret data , use poor technique and then claim valid results , etc .
If the advisor said he wanted results , results he was going to get .
This experience rid me of my rose-colored glasses when it came to science .
I realized that scientists are just like anyone else .
They have their own goals and , if necessary , will lie , cheat , and steal to reach them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've long felt that 'Science' has not gotten the scrutiny and skepticism from society that other facts of life do.
(Much like religion in the past, which contributed to some of the widely publicized recent sex scandals).
Before you jump all over me for being a knuckle-dragging Arkansan, listen to how I came to this conclusion.
I recently graduated with a degree in the sciences from a fairly prestigious university.
While I was there, I worked as an undergraduate research assistant in several of our labs.
I quickly came to the conclusion that people would do ANYTHING to further their own agenda (whether it was grants, ideology, whatever).
I saw people fabricate data, intentionally misinterpret data, unintentionally misinterpret data, use poor technique and then claim valid results, etc.
If the advisor said he wanted results, results he was going to get.
This experience rid me of my rose-colored glasses when it came to science.
I realized that scientists are just like anyone else.
They have their own goals and, if necessary, will lie, cheat, and steal to reach them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397894</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1260459300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since I'm pretty sure you don't have an LHC in your backyard or your own temperature satellite in orbit,</p> </div><p>Gee, if only we could get the raw data so that we could run our own-- oh wait a minute...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I 'm pretty sure you do n't have an LHC in your backyard or your own temperature satellite in orbit , Gee , if only we could get the raw data so that we could run our own-- oh wait a minute.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I'm pretty sure you don't have an LHC in your backyard or your own temperature satellite in orbit, Gee, if only we could get the raw data so that we could run our own-- oh wait a minute...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398124</id>
	<title>Re:These "scientists" weren't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260462300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless of your idea of 'facts', writing in an email that you will delete data rather than hand it over in a "FOIR" is not a good look and when the data is found to be 'missing', you are not going to have much integrity left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of your idea of 'facts ' , writing in an email that you will delete data rather than hand it over in a " FOIR " is not a good look and when the data is found to be 'missing ' , you are not going to have much integrity left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of your idea of 'facts', writing in an email that you will delete data rather than hand it over in a "FOIR" is not a good look and when the data is found to be 'missing', you are not going to have much integrity left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392330</id>
	<title>Hard scienc</title>
	<author>Garble Snarky</author>
	<datestamp>1260475500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an engineer, calling climate studies a "hard science" seems like a stretch to me. It does generally follow a mathematical-model-based scientific method, but those models are extremely complicated/poor compared to the models of basic physics. There is a big distinction within "hard science" that needs to be made.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an engineer , calling climate studies a " hard science " seems like a stretch to me .
It does generally follow a mathematical-model-based scientific method , but those models are extremely complicated/poor compared to the models of basic physics .
There is a big distinction within " hard science " that needs to be made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an engineer, calling climate studies a "hard science" seems like a stretch to me.
It does generally follow a mathematical-model-based scientific method, but those models are extremely complicated/poor compared to the models of basic physics.
There is a big distinction within "hard science" that needs to be made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388904</id>
	<title>Science has always been this way</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1260464580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Revolutionary idea is first rejected and ridiculed by the establishment for years or decades until there is finally enough evidence for it. then that idea becomes the establishment and the cycle repeats itself until the next revolutionary idea.</p><p>dinosaurs to birds, evolution and natural selection and a long list of others all started out fighting the establishment. a lot of our current views on dino's didn't get accepted until after Jurassic Park came out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Revolutionary idea is first rejected and ridiculed by the establishment for years or decades until there is finally enough evidence for it .
then that idea becomes the establishment and the cycle repeats itself until the next revolutionary idea.dinosaurs to birds , evolution and natural selection and a long list of others all started out fighting the establishment .
a lot of our current views on dino 's did n't get accepted until after Jurassic Park came out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Revolutionary idea is first rejected and ridiculed by the establishment for years or decades until there is finally enough evidence for it.
then that idea becomes the establishment and the cycle repeats itself until the next revolutionary idea.dinosaurs to birds, evolution and natural selection and a long list of others all started out fighting the establishment.
a lot of our current views on dino's didn't get accepted until after Jurassic Park came out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390638</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm. No.</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1260469800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad math is merely an approximation of the physical universe and is fundamentally wrong.</p><p>The Universe is quantum (yes, it is).  Math needs to be reinvented (ALL OF IT) to be quantum.</p><p>Physics isn't applied math - math is an approximated model of physics.  Now if you believe the Universe is just some simulation or some shit, does that simulation exist in a physical Universe?  Or is it turtles all the way down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad math is merely an approximation of the physical universe and is fundamentally wrong.The Universe is quantum ( yes , it is ) .
Math needs to be reinvented ( ALL OF IT ) to be quantum.Physics is n't applied math - math is an approximated model of physics .
Now if you believe the Universe is just some simulation or some shit , does that simulation exist in a physical Universe ?
Or is it turtles all the way down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad math is merely an approximation of the physical universe and is fundamentally wrong.The Universe is quantum (yes, it is).
Math needs to be reinvented (ALL OF IT) to be quantum.Physics isn't applied math - math is an approximated model of physics.
Now if you believe the Universe is just some simulation or some shit, does that simulation exist in a physical Universe?
Or is it turtles all the way down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391794</id>
	<title>Re:One citation explains it all.</title>
	<author>avandesande</author>
	<datestamp>1260473640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education."</p><p>- Bertrand Russel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Men are born ignorant , not stupid .
They are made stupid by education .
" - Bertrand Russel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Men are born ignorant, not stupid.
They are made stupid by education.
"- Bertrand Russel</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390590</id>
	<title>Private conversations are meant to be private.</title>
	<author>aphexbrett</author>
	<datestamp>1260469620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Post anyone's private emails or transcripts of their back room dealings (e.g. politicians) and you'll get a different perception about what goes on.  The emails were private for a reason.  This situation would be no different if leaks happened in any other field or industry. Stop singling out scientists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Post anyone 's private emails or transcripts of their back room dealings ( e.g .
politicians ) and you 'll get a different perception about what goes on .
The emails were private for a reason .
This situation would be no different if leaks happened in any other field or industry .
Stop singling out scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Post anyone's private emails or transcripts of their back room dealings (e.g.
politicians) and you'll get a different perception about what goes on.
The emails were private for a reason.
This situation would be no different if leaks happened in any other field or industry.
Stop singling out scientists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391570</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing interesting? Look at the code</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1260472860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And I linked to one of many journals that--shock of all shocks--didn't publish anything regarding the leak.</i></p><p>"AND".  But what goes on the first side of that And?  Why it's the Slashdot article that hosts the debate I mentioned.  The way you worded your sentence in context with the fact the whole link went to Slashdot implied that Slashdot found nothing odd either.  If you really wanted to say "While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals" talking only about journals, that sentence (or fragments therein) should have linked to the journals, not to the Slashdot discussion.</p><p>As for the journals... the same journals that are accused of shutting out scientists who dissented from the global line also prefer to ignore proof they shut out scientists.  Really?  That's the proof you have that nothing is amiss?</p><p><i>You did a really good job of quoting me out of context. You did an even better job of quoting source code out of context. I'm also pretty certain you probably got that from another site.</i></p><p>You did a great job misunderstanding the context you provided.</p><p>And then you further compound your misunderstanding by not even reading the context I provided.</p><p>I am a coder and looked through the samples myself (as well as the full modules the samples were taken from).  Note that the code snippet linked to in the article I posted would seem to indicate it is being used when *I* in fact pointed out the code to use the adjusted data was commented out, so I'm just just cutting and pasting here or even using this information out of context.  I'm applying a field I know very well (coding) to the data at hand that has been released and trying to give teh fullest context, while explaining how it's still an issue even if the use is commented out.</p><p>I actually never even saw the prior Slashdot article before your link, or I certainly would have commented in it.</p><p><i>It's pretty damning but it's commented out. If you read the comments of the Slashdot article I linked, you'll see that this source code isn't automatically accepted as the word of god and is actually under heavy debate. </i></p><p>For someone accusing me of not reading you seem to have a rather fixed preconception of what I said that is at odds with what I wrote, since it fact it was I who pointed out the use of the adjustments were commented out.</p><p>I still can't get past people acting like the very presence of the code, along with the complete unknown around when the code was actually commented out (it's not like we have a full CVS repository unfortunately but given the wild nature of the code I doubt they even use one) is not nearly as bad as if the code was really used.  As I keep explaining, there is simply no reason in real coding for code like that, that modifies real data instead of just mocking test data, to be used.</p><p>I have not fully read through the linked Slashdot discussion, but I saw nothing there upmodded to prominence which convinced me my take on this was not valid.</p><p><i>I'm supposed to believe you but I'm not supposed to believe the scientific journal of Nature?</i></p><p>Why yes actually, because I based my analysis on information (code) that we can all clearly see, while Nature is basing information on data partly obscured.  That is why I am prone to trust many bloggers more now than most media because blogger can more fully disclose sources of data, and are also much more prone to post corrections when wrong.</p><p>Also I have no vested in interest in being wrong or right, whereas Nature could have its reputation compromised if it turns out to be wrong, so of course they will tend to fight anything that says they are.</p><p>And as I said even if what they say is correct it does not matter if external entities cannot verify.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I linked to one of many journals that--shock of all shocks--did n't publish anything regarding the leak. " AND " .
But what goes on the first side of that And ?
Why it 's the Slashdot article that hosts the debate I mentioned .
The way you worded your sentence in context with the fact the whole link went to Slashdot implied that Slashdot found nothing odd either .
If you really wanted to say " While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals " talking only about journals , that sentence ( or fragments therein ) should have linked to the journals , not to the Slashdot discussion.As for the journals... the same journals that are accused of shutting out scientists who dissented from the global line also prefer to ignore proof they shut out scientists .
Really ? That 's the proof you have that nothing is amiss ? You did a really good job of quoting me out of context .
You did an even better job of quoting source code out of context .
I 'm also pretty certain you probably got that from another site.You did a great job misunderstanding the context you provided.And then you further compound your misunderstanding by not even reading the context I provided.I am a coder and looked through the samples myself ( as well as the full modules the samples were taken from ) .
Note that the code snippet linked to in the article I posted would seem to indicate it is being used when * I * in fact pointed out the code to use the adjusted data was commented out , so I 'm just just cutting and pasting here or even using this information out of context .
I 'm applying a field I know very well ( coding ) to the data at hand that has been released and trying to give teh fullest context , while explaining how it 's still an issue even if the use is commented out.I actually never even saw the prior Slashdot article before your link , or I certainly would have commented in it.It 's pretty damning but it 's commented out .
If you read the comments of the Slashdot article I linked , you 'll see that this source code is n't automatically accepted as the word of god and is actually under heavy debate .
For someone accusing me of not reading you seem to have a rather fixed preconception of what I said that is at odds with what I wrote , since it fact it was I who pointed out the use of the adjustments were commented out.I still ca n't get past people acting like the very presence of the code , along with the complete unknown around when the code was actually commented out ( it 's not like we have a full CVS repository unfortunately but given the wild nature of the code I doubt they even use one ) is not nearly as bad as if the code was really used .
As I keep explaining , there is simply no reason in real coding for code like that , that modifies real data instead of just mocking test data , to be used.I have not fully read through the linked Slashdot discussion , but I saw nothing there upmodded to prominence which convinced me my take on this was not valid.I 'm supposed to believe you but I 'm not supposed to believe the scientific journal of Nature ? Why yes actually , because I based my analysis on information ( code ) that we can all clearly see , while Nature is basing information on data partly obscured .
That is why I am prone to trust many bloggers more now than most media because blogger can more fully disclose sources of data , and are also much more prone to post corrections when wrong.Also I have no vested in interest in being wrong or right , whereas Nature could have its reputation compromised if it turns out to be wrong , so of course they will tend to fight anything that says they are.And as I said even if what they say is correct it does not matter if external entities can not verify .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I linked to one of many journals that--shock of all shocks--didn't publish anything regarding the leak."AND".
But what goes on the first side of that And?
Why it's the Slashdot article that hosts the debate I mentioned.
The way you worded your sentence in context with the fact the whole link went to Slashdot implied that Slashdot found nothing odd either.
If you really wanted to say "While nothing interesting was found by most scientific journals" talking only about journals, that sentence (or fragments therein) should have linked to the journals, not to the Slashdot discussion.As for the journals... the same journals that are accused of shutting out scientists who dissented from the global line also prefer to ignore proof they shut out scientists.
Really?  That's the proof you have that nothing is amiss?You did a really good job of quoting me out of context.
You did an even better job of quoting source code out of context.
I'm also pretty certain you probably got that from another site.You did a great job misunderstanding the context you provided.And then you further compound your misunderstanding by not even reading the context I provided.I am a coder and looked through the samples myself (as well as the full modules the samples were taken from).
Note that the code snippet linked to in the article I posted would seem to indicate it is being used when *I* in fact pointed out the code to use the adjusted data was commented out, so I'm just just cutting and pasting here or even using this information out of context.
I'm applying a field I know very well (coding) to the data at hand that has been released and trying to give teh fullest context, while explaining how it's still an issue even if the use is commented out.I actually never even saw the prior Slashdot article before your link, or I certainly would have commented in it.It's pretty damning but it's commented out.
If you read the comments of the Slashdot article I linked, you'll see that this source code isn't automatically accepted as the word of god and is actually under heavy debate.
For someone accusing me of not reading you seem to have a rather fixed preconception of what I said that is at odds with what I wrote, since it fact it was I who pointed out the use of the adjustments were commented out.I still can't get past people acting like the very presence of the code, along with the complete unknown around when the code was actually commented out (it's not like we have a full CVS repository unfortunately but given the wild nature of the code I doubt they even use one) is not nearly as bad as if the code was really used.
As I keep explaining, there is simply no reason in real coding for code like that, that modifies real data instead of just mocking test data, to be used.I have not fully read through the linked Slashdot discussion, but I saw nothing there upmodded to prominence which convinced me my take on this was not valid.I'm supposed to believe you but I'm not supposed to believe the scientific journal of Nature?Why yes actually, because I based my analysis on information (code) that we can all clearly see, while Nature is basing information on data partly obscured.
That is why I am prone to trust many bloggers more now than most media because blogger can more fully disclose sources of data, and are also much more prone to post corrections when wrong.Also I have no vested in interest in being wrong or right, whereas Nature could have its reputation compromised if it turns out to be wrong, so of course they will tend to fight anything that says they are.And as I said even if what they say is correct it does not matter if external entities cannot verify.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396926</id>
	<title>JWM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260451260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is no surprise to see the the climate scientists found in the task of ignoring some data, picking data, and even making up some data, and then trying to discredit anyone who disagrees. Such actions are common in the current culture. If you have followed any of the evolution theories over the years you find the exact same actions being performed. When the actual empirical data is reviewed you find that much data had been ignored, some data is actually imaginary, and then they will attack anyone who disagrees. Much if not all the so called evolutionary science in text books today, and on TV has already been dis-proven by true science, but it is taboo to say such a thing in public. Big bang theories and age of the earth calculations have been debunked yet are still taught as fact. Yes most of it is political positioning. Just like the climate hoax used to get money and force political and economic decisions, so has the evolution hoax been used to force political, economic, and cultural decisions and shape a culture. Anyone who disagrees must be a disruptive person or a person that is crazy. How dare anyone disagree with the scientific community.Those that disagree loose jobs, loose money, get blackballed, called names and made out to be dumb and stupid. Others viewing shake in fear.  And they become the biggest bullies of all. Yet the scientific community has become their own worse enemy. They trade status, money, power, and unquestioned authority for the truth. At what point does the abundance of non-truth become brain washing? When you have a culture that believes a lie, and punishes anyone that disagrees you have successfully brainwashed a country, nation, or world. Scary isn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is no surprise to see the the climate scientists found in the task of ignoring some data , picking data , and even making up some data , and then trying to discredit anyone who disagrees .
Such actions are common in the current culture .
If you have followed any of the evolution theories over the years you find the exact same actions being performed .
When the actual empirical data is reviewed you find that much data had been ignored , some data is actually imaginary , and then they will attack anyone who disagrees .
Much if not all the so called evolutionary science in text books today , and on TV has already been dis-proven by true science , but it is taboo to say such a thing in public .
Big bang theories and age of the earth calculations have been debunked yet are still taught as fact .
Yes most of it is political positioning .
Just like the climate hoax used to get money and force political and economic decisions , so has the evolution hoax been used to force political , economic , and cultural decisions and shape a culture .
Anyone who disagrees must be a disruptive person or a person that is crazy .
How dare anyone disagree with the scientific community.Those that disagree loose jobs , loose money , get blackballed , called names and made out to be dumb and stupid .
Others viewing shake in fear .
And they become the biggest bullies of all .
Yet the scientific community has become their own worse enemy .
They trade status , money , power , and unquestioned authority for the truth .
At what point does the abundance of non-truth become brain washing ?
When you have a culture that believes a lie , and punishes anyone that disagrees you have successfully brainwashed a country , nation , or world .
Scary is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is no surprise to see the the climate scientists found in the task of ignoring some data, picking data, and even making up some data, and then trying to discredit anyone who disagrees.
Such actions are common in the current culture.
If you have followed any of the evolution theories over the years you find the exact same actions being performed.
When the actual empirical data is reviewed you find that much data had been ignored, some data is actually imaginary, and then they will attack anyone who disagrees.
Much if not all the so called evolutionary science in text books today, and on TV has already been dis-proven by true science, but it is taboo to say such a thing in public.
Big bang theories and age of the earth calculations have been debunked yet are still taught as fact.
Yes most of it is political positioning.
Just like the climate hoax used to get money and force political and economic decisions, so has the evolution hoax been used to force political, economic, and cultural decisions and shape a culture.
Anyone who disagrees must be a disruptive person or a person that is crazy.
How dare anyone disagree with the scientific community.Those that disagree loose jobs, loose money, get blackballed, called names and made out to be dumb and stupid.
Others viewing shake in fear.
And they become the biggest bullies of all.
Yet the scientific community has become their own worse enemy.
They trade status, money, power, and unquestioned authority for the truth.
At what point does the abundance of non-truth become brain washing?
When you have a culture that believes a lie, and punishes anyone that disagrees you have successfully brainwashed a country, nation, or world.
Scary isn't it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392468</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticism requires more than just questioning</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1260476040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say healthy skepticism is particularly good when the skeptic doesn't understand the underlying ideas that go into the subject matter.  If I don't even understand the ideas, why should I be easily convinced?
</p><p>No, I think the problem is more with people picking and choosing what they want to believe without applying genuine doubt or skepticism.  For example, there are people who want to believe or disbelieve that global warming is happening, regardless of what they're presented with.  They are only willing to apply skepticism to the position that they don't want to believe in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say healthy skepticism is particularly good when the skeptic does n't understand the underlying ideas that go into the subject matter .
If I do n't even understand the ideas , why should I be easily convinced ?
No , I think the problem is more with people picking and choosing what they want to believe without applying genuine doubt or skepticism .
For example , there are people who want to believe or disbelieve that global warming is happening , regardless of what they 're presented with .
They are only willing to apply skepticism to the position that they do n't want to believe in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say healthy skepticism is particularly good when the skeptic doesn't understand the underlying ideas that go into the subject matter.
If I don't even understand the ideas, why should I be easily convinced?
No, I think the problem is more with people picking and choosing what they want to believe without applying genuine doubt or skepticism.
For example, there are people who want to believe or disbelieve that global warming is happening, regardless of what they're presented with.
They are only willing to apply skepticism to the position that they don't want to believe in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391014</id>
	<title>Everyone's an Expert</title>
	<author>SwedishChef</author>
	<datestamp>1260470940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Internet has given everyone just enough information for them to think that they're as expert in whatever field as anyone else and the forum to broadcast their opinion. A Stanford researcher not too long ago discovered that ignorant people have no idea that they are ignorant and this plays well on the Internet. With no real ability to discern pseudo science from actual science, your average Joe Schmoe still feels perfectly qualified to commend on anything that he's read on a blog or watched on the History channel.</p><p>Welcome to the 21st Century... everything is politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet has given everyone just enough information for them to think that they 're as expert in whatever field as anyone else and the forum to broadcast their opinion .
A Stanford researcher not too long ago discovered that ignorant people have no idea that they are ignorant and this plays well on the Internet .
With no real ability to discern pseudo science from actual science , your average Joe Schmoe still feels perfectly qualified to commend on anything that he 's read on a blog or watched on the History channel.Welcome to the 21st Century... everything is politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet has given everyone just enough information for them to think that they're as expert in whatever field as anyone else and the forum to broadcast their opinion.
A Stanford researcher not too long ago discovered that ignorant people have no idea that they are ignorant and this plays well on the Internet.
With no real ability to discern pseudo science from actual science, your average Joe Schmoe still feels perfectly qualified to commend on anything that he's read on a blog or watched on the History channel.Welcome to the 21st Century... everything is politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390352</id>
	<title>essence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skepticism is not the enemy but the essence of science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skepticism is not the enemy but the essence of science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skepticism is not the enemy but the essence of science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244</id>
	<title>How to restore healthy debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best way to restore healthy debate on climate change science is to open source everything...the data, the source code for the computer models, and the methodology for how the data is collected: specific locations of data collection (is it a rural area, a parking lot in a city, on a school roof, in direct sunlight or in the shade), date and time of day (noon, midnight, 5pm), weather conditions at the time it is collected (sunny, raining, under a snow drift), age of the equipment (mercury thermometer installed in 1953 or digital sensor device). All of these factors would influence a simple temperature reading. Heck there are probably dozens of other factors that I am not considering.</p><p>Since our government is PAYING for so much of this research it should be no problem to PUBLISH all of these details and let everyone debate from a common framework.  However, I believe our government has an agenda and therefore won't ever take such a logical approach.</p><p>While we are at it, let's do the same thing for how inflation, unemployment, public health statistics, education metrics, and poverty rates are calculated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best way to restore healthy debate on climate change science is to open source everything...the data , the source code for the computer models , and the methodology for how the data is collected : specific locations of data collection ( is it a rural area , a parking lot in a city , on a school roof , in direct sunlight or in the shade ) , date and time of day ( noon , midnight , 5pm ) , weather conditions at the time it is collected ( sunny , raining , under a snow drift ) , age of the equipment ( mercury thermometer installed in 1953 or digital sensor device ) .
All of these factors would influence a simple temperature reading .
Heck there are probably dozens of other factors that I am not considering.Since our government is PAYING for so much of this research it should be no problem to PUBLISH all of these details and let everyone debate from a common framework .
However , I believe our government has an agenda and therefore wo n't ever take such a logical approach.While we are at it , let 's do the same thing for how inflation , unemployment , public health statistics , education metrics , and poverty rates are calculated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best way to restore healthy debate on climate change science is to open source everything...the data, the source code for the computer models, and the methodology for how the data is collected: specific locations of data collection (is it a rural area, a parking lot in a city, on a school roof, in direct sunlight or in the shade), date and time of day (noon, midnight, 5pm), weather conditions at the time it is collected (sunny, raining, under a snow drift), age of the equipment (mercury thermometer installed in 1953 or digital sensor device).
All of these factors would influence a simple temperature reading.
Heck there are probably dozens of other factors that I am not considering.Since our government is PAYING for so much of this research it should be no problem to PUBLISH all of these details and let everyone debate from a common framework.
However, I believe our government has an agenda and therefore won't ever take such a logical approach.While we are at it, let's do the same thing for how inflation, unemployment, public health statistics, education metrics, and poverty rates are calculated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391992</id>
	<title>Science doesn't demand belief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260474300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... but Scientism does.<br><br>Scientism is what Chris Mooney advocates ("Unscientific America").  He thinks that scientists and their supporters "must work to influence public opinion, and anticipate and thwart the skeptics." Ironically, this isn't was science demands; it is what True Believers demand. Under this system, scientists assume the roles vacated by discredited religionists under a new modern secular mass movement, replacing old ideas with a new metaphysics of value which is always completely unscientific (by definition) in order to craft a worldview as a viable context for meaningful and moral human action. This is ostensibly done with "science" as its foundation and framework, which is of course nonsense.<br><br>Science doesn't say anything about value. It can quantify physical and empirical properties of things, but it can't give direction on what those properties should mean to humanity or politics or religion or economy. We have to infer those connections from another value context, which is intuitive to humans but never scientific. There are no scientific tests for human rights, for acquaintance, for aesthetics, for morality, for being, or for value. It is impossible to prove that these things exist in an empirical domain; they rely ultimately upon a conviction.<br><br>People don't operate under the rules of science which level all measurable things in a sort of objective equality. Humans naturally stratify things into value groups, and that is what has ultimately brought about "Climategate."  It isn't good enough merely to do science for the sake of finding things out; it has to mean something. It has to be important. When it comes to praxis, there is also a moral dimension because application always involves human action. None of those are scientific phenomena, but they begin to lead scientists in different circles more familiar to those who seek religion. We soon find that there are scientists who see data where there are none to be seen; scientists who desperately need to advocate a cause. Scientism gets in the way of science, really. It's just another religion.<br><br>None of us possess all of the objective facts. We don't do primary research of a generalized nature (few of us do any at all); we increasingly specialize. This requires a great deal of faith in other specialists who claim to have the first-hand knowledge that we lack. In this regard, we are something like those who once waited for Moses to come down from the mountain. While the true prophet of religion is measured on a scale that weighs the purity of his causes, the true scientist is identified by his lack of any cause at all. True scientists are the ones who don't evangelize--they don't have a reason to influence public opinion or to thwart skeptics. When scientists forsake science to become activists, like Chris Mooney thinks they should, that is when things like "Climategate" happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but Scientism does.Scientism is what Chris Mooney advocates ( " Unscientific America " ) .
He thinks that scientists and their supporters " must work to influence public opinion , and anticipate and thwart the skeptics .
" Ironically , this is n't was science demands ; it is what True Believers demand .
Under this system , scientists assume the roles vacated by discredited religionists under a new modern secular mass movement , replacing old ideas with a new metaphysics of value which is always completely unscientific ( by definition ) in order to craft a worldview as a viable context for meaningful and moral human action .
This is ostensibly done with " science " as its foundation and framework , which is of course nonsense.Science does n't say anything about value .
It can quantify physical and empirical properties of things , but it ca n't give direction on what those properties should mean to humanity or politics or religion or economy .
We have to infer those connections from another value context , which is intuitive to humans but never scientific .
There are no scientific tests for human rights , for acquaintance , for aesthetics , for morality , for being , or for value .
It is impossible to prove that these things exist in an empirical domain ; they rely ultimately upon a conviction.People do n't operate under the rules of science which level all measurable things in a sort of objective equality .
Humans naturally stratify things into value groups , and that is what has ultimately brought about " Climategate .
" It is n't good enough merely to do science for the sake of finding things out ; it has to mean something .
It has to be important .
When it comes to praxis , there is also a moral dimension because application always involves human action .
None of those are scientific phenomena , but they begin to lead scientists in different circles more familiar to those who seek religion .
We soon find that there are scientists who see data where there are none to be seen ; scientists who desperately need to advocate a cause .
Scientism gets in the way of science , really .
It 's just another religion.None of us possess all of the objective facts .
We do n't do primary research of a generalized nature ( few of us do any at all ) ; we increasingly specialize .
This requires a great deal of faith in other specialists who claim to have the first-hand knowledge that we lack .
In this regard , we are something like those who once waited for Moses to come down from the mountain .
While the true prophet of religion is measured on a scale that weighs the purity of his causes , the true scientist is identified by his lack of any cause at all .
True scientists are the ones who do n't evangelize--they do n't have a reason to influence public opinion or to thwart skeptics .
When scientists forsake science to become activists , like Chris Mooney thinks they should , that is when things like " Climategate " happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but Scientism does.Scientism is what Chris Mooney advocates ("Unscientific America").
He thinks that scientists and their supporters "must work to influence public opinion, and anticipate and thwart the skeptics.
" Ironically, this isn't was science demands; it is what True Believers demand.
Under this system, scientists assume the roles vacated by discredited religionists under a new modern secular mass movement, replacing old ideas with a new metaphysics of value which is always completely unscientific (by definition) in order to craft a worldview as a viable context for meaningful and moral human action.
This is ostensibly done with "science" as its foundation and framework, which is of course nonsense.Science doesn't say anything about value.
It can quantify physical and empirical properties of things, but it can't give direction on what those properties should mean to humanity or politics or religion or economy.
We have to infer those connections from another value context, which is intuitive to humans but never scientific.
There are no scientific tests for human rights, for acquaintance, for aesthetics, for morality, for being, or for value.
It is impossible to prove that these things exist in an empirical domain; they rely ultimately upon a conviction.People don't operate under the rules of science which level all measurable things in a sort of objective equality.
Humans naturally stratify things into value groups, and that is what has ultimately brought about "Climategate.
"  It isn't good enough merely to do science for the sake of finding things out; it has to mean something.
It has to be important.
When it comes to praxis, there is also a moral dimension because application always involves human action.
None of those are scientific phenomena, but they begin to lead scientists in different circles more familiar to those who seek religion.
We soon find that there are scientists who see data where there are none to be seen; scientists who desperately need to advocate a cause.
Scientism gets in the way of science, really.
It's just another religion.None of us possess all of the objective facts.
We don't do primary research of a generalized nature (few of us do any at all); we increasingly specialize.
This requires a great deal of faith in other specialists who claim to have the first-hand knowledge that we lack.
In this regard, we are something like those who once waited for Moses to come down from the mountain.
While the true prophet of religion is measured on a scale that weighs the purity of his causes, the true scientist is identified by his lack of any cause at all.
True scientists are the ones who don't evangelize--they don't have a reason to influence public opinion or to thwart skeptics.
When scientists forsake science to become activists, like Chris Mooney thinks they should, that is when things like "Climategate" happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392722</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't start it, just makes it worse</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1260477180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"but sometimes you've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you can't pick up from reading a blog"</p></div><p>But openness wouldn't hurt. This is science. It should be testable by a mechanism. Someone might decide (as a hobby) to test it (and find it's wrong). It would also silence the sceptics (if it's right).</p><p>The Royal Society (a group of scientists) took umbrage against John Harrison's method of determining longitude by using clocks. The Royal Society favoured using stars for navigation. John Harrison wasn't a man with any scientific qualification, yet worked out the best solution to the problem.</p><p>I am not an anti-scientific person. I have worked in drug testing and seen what goes on there and mostly trust those drugs precisely because it is open and regulated. The CRU seemed to have nothing like the procedures that the drug companies have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" but sometimes you 've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you ca n't pick up from reading a blog " But openness would n't hurt .
This is science .
It should be testable by a mechanism .
Someone might decide ( as a hobby ) to test it ( and find it 's wrong ) .
It would also silence the sceptics ( if it 's right ) .The Royal Society ( a group of scientists ) took umbrage against John Harrison 's method of determining longitude by using clocks .
The Royal Society favoured using stars for navigation .
John Harrison was n't a man with any scientific qualification , yet worked out the best solution to the problem.I am not an anti-scientific person .
I have worked in drug testing and seen what goes on there and mostly trust those drugs precisely because it is open and regulated .
The CRU seemed to have nothing like the procedures that the drug companies have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but sometimes you've got to recognize that someone who studied climatology for X years might actually know a thing or two that you can't pick up from reading a blog"But openness wouldn't hurt.
This is science.
It should be testable by a mechanism.
Someone might decide (as a hobby) to test it (and find it's wrong).
It would also silence the sceptics (if it's right).The Royal Society (a group of scientists) took umbrage against John Harrison's method of determining longitude by using clocks.
The Royal Society favoured using stars for navigation.
John Harrison wasn't a man with any scientific qualification, yet worked out the best solution to the problem.I am not an anti-scientific person.
I have worked in drug testing and seen what goes on there and mostly trust those drugs precisely because it is open and regulated.
The CRU seemed to have nothing like the procedures that the drug companies have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389736</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1260467100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yeah, I'm sure that publishing conclusions that piss off the most lucrative business on Earth will grant scientists lots of funding and eternal happiness.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm sure that publishing conclusions that piss off the most lucrative business on Earth will grant scientists lots of funding and eternal happiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yeah, I'm sure that publishing conclusions that piss off the most lucrative business on Earth will grant scientists lots of funding and eternal happiness.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397396</id>
	<title>Math is not to be doubted.</title>
	<author>ehud42</author>
	<datestamp>1260455040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that 2+2=5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that 2 + 2 = 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that 2+2=5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395158</id>
	<title>Re:How to restore healthy debate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260443280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the data are for sale by meteorological services. It's a business. They gather data, and sell them. They aren't interested in open-sourcing themselves out of business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the data are for sale by meteorological services .
It 's a business .
They gather data , and sell them .
They are n't interested in open-sourcing themselves out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the data are for sale by meteorological services.
It's a business.
They gather data, and sell them.
They aren't interested in open-sourcing themselves out of business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389680</id>
	<title>Re:These "scientists" weren't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This actually is a misunderstanding of the scientific method.  What you are describing is a type of hypothesis free method.  For the traditional scientific method you start with a hypothesis and design an experiment to test that hypothesis.  Thus, good scientists following the traditional method always start out with a preconceived notation of what the results should be.  It is a necessary step to designing a good experiment.</p><p>What good scientists also do (which I believe is what you actually should be objecting to) is weigh experimental results that do not support the hypothesis properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This actually is a misunderstanding of the scientific method .
What you are describing is a type of hypothesis free method .
For the traditional scientific method you start with a hypothesis and design an experiment to test that hypothesis .
Thus , good scientists following the traditional method always start out with a preconceived notation of what the results should be .
It is a necessary step to designing a good experiment.What good scientists also do ( which I believe is what you actually should be objecting to ) is weigh experimental results that do not support the hypothesis properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This actually is a misunderstanding of the scientific method.
What you are describing is a type of hypothesis free method.
For the traditional scientific method you start with a hypothesis and design an experiment to test that hypothesis.
Thus, good scientists following the traditional method always start out with a preconceived notation of what the results should be.
It is a necessary step to designing a good experiment.What good scientists also do (which I believe is what you actually should be objecting to) is weigh experimental results that do not support the hypothesis properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_247</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_209</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_241</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30401326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_198</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_239</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_202</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_185</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_212</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_226</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_195</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_236</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_228</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_220</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_238</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_230</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_207</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_201</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_215</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_184</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_225</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_192</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_233</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_244</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_187</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_197</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30400124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30408232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_243</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_217</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_186</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_227</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_194</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30408442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_235</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_246</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_204</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_214</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_206</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_216</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_222</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_191</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_232</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_245</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_203</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_211</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_221</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30415436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_189</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_240</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_199</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_183</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_224</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_193</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30415736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_234</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30412278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_219</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_205</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_188</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_229</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_213</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_196</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_237</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_223</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_190</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_200</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_231</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_242</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_208</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_218</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_210</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_1524211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389468
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390416
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395194
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392538
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390376
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392468
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30412278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390472
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392582
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391964
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392826
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391618
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392748
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30400124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30415736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30415436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30408442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30396430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30408232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30395158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30401326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30399336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30398526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30393166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30394184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30391992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30397894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30392094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30389736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30390400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_1524211.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_1524211.30388900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
