<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_12_2246208</id>
	<title>The Limits To Skepticism</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260628320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="https://slashdot.org/~jamierel=nofollow">jamie</a> found a long and painstaking piece up at The Economist asking and provisionally answering the question: "Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust\_scientists">remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong</a>?" The author, who is not named, spent several hours picking apart the arguments of one Willis Eschenbach, AGW denialist, who on Dec. 8 published what he called the "smoking gun" &mdash; it was supposed to prove that the adjustments climate scientists make to historical temperature records are arbitrary to the point of intentional manipulation. The conclusion: <i>"[H]ere's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further 'smoking gun' claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story. And then I'll probably go ahead and try to investigate the claim and write a blog post about it, because that's my job. Oh, and by the way: <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media\_releases/nt/20091030.shtml">October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jamie found a long and painstaking piece up at The Economist asking and provisionally answering the question : " Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it 's shown to be wrong ?
" The author , who is not named , spent several hours picking apart the arguments of one Willis Eschenbach , AGW denialist , who on Dec. 8 published what he called the " smoking gun "    it was supposed to prove that the adjustments climate scientists make to historical temperature records are arbitrary to the point of intentional manipulation .
The conclusion : " [ H ] ere 's my solution to this problem : this is why we have peer review .
Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things .
One thing they can not do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand .
So for the time being , my response to any and all further 'smoking gun ' claims begins with : show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here .
Otherwise , you 're a crank and this is not a story .
And then I 'll probably go ahead and try to investigate the claim and write a blog post about it , because that 's my job .
Oh , and by the way : October was the hottest month on record in Darwin , Australia .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jamie found a long and painstaking piece up at The Economist asking and provisionally answering the question: "Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong?
" The author, who is not named, spent several hours picking apart the arguments of one Willis Eschenbach, AGW denialist, who on Dec. 8 published what he called the "smoking gun" — it was supposed to prove that the adjustments climate scientists make to historical temperature records are arbitrary to the point of intentional manipulation.
The conclusion: "[H]ere's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review.
Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things.
One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand.
So for the time being, my response to any and all further 'smoking gun' claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here.
Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.
And then I'll probably go ahead and try to investigate the claim and write a blog post about it, because that's my job.
Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30433776</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1260819240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course one of the things that come out of all those released emails on the topic from apparent "scientists" were people actively trying to block publications or submissions from anyone that didn't agree with their findings. It has been also pointed out since this whole thing got rolling, many "scientific" peer review journals have become more concerned with advocacy and politics than actual science.</p><p>I am not saying that we should not pay attention to these mediums, however I would disagree strongly that one should disregard any other source simply because it isn't approved. That reeks badly of fanaticism and religious fervor. I will say it again, people and scientists need to stop being lazy and whiny. It makes me so angry when I hear this sort of bunk. They are basically saying, I don't want to have to bother refuting these crackpots (notice the actual word he used in the article: "humbug" denoting how seriously he is taking this), people should just believe me because I am right. That is BS, and against scientific method. Also there is nothing to say they have to disprove anything, they only have to PROVE what they are saying, and people will make up their own mind what they feel is correct. At some point consensus will be determined (which it already has to a certain degree), and that will be the facts until proven otherwise.</p><p>I personally do not disagree than some action should be taken, however unprofessional attitudes, and a continued troubling activities of supposed scientists wearing more than one hat, to myself discredits not their findings so much as their intentions. I really hope all of this is not a construct of some underlying pattern of the global scientific community as a whole and how they undertake science professionally.</p><p>Anyway I have no problem with people arguing passionately their position (even if it should be unbiased and dissociative), however the time old argument of "I am right, and you are wrong because you are stupid" doesn't hold too much water for me, nor does it really make me want to believe anything you say. You want me to take things on faith, and only read ascribed books, as interpreted by specialists.</p><p>You sir just described religion, a bible, and priests. Have fun with that fun club. They seem to be doing so much good for the world these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course one of the things that come out of all those released emails on the topic from apparent " scientists " were people actively trying to block publications or submissions from anyone that did n't agree with their findings .
It has been also pointed out since this whole thing got rolling , many " scientific " peer review journals have become more concerned with advocacy and politics than actual science.I am not saying that we should not pay attention to these mediums , however I would disagree strongly that one should disregard any other source simply because it is n't approved .
That reeks badly of fanaticism and religious fervor .
I will say it again , people and scientists need to stop being lazy and whiny .
It makes me so angry when I hear this sort of bunk .
They are basically saying , I do n't want to have to bother refuting these crackpots ( notice the actual word he used in the article : " humbug " denoting how seriously he is taking this ) , people should just believe me because I am right .
That is BS , and against scientific method .
Also there is nothing to say they have to disprove anything , they only have to PROVE what they are saying , and people will make up their own mind what they feel is correct .
At some point consensus will be determined ( which it already has to a certain degree ) , and that will be the facts until proven otherwise.I personally do not disagree than some action should be taken , however unprofessional attitudes , and a continued troubling activities of supposed scientists wearing more than one hat , to myself discredits not their findings so much as their intentions .
I really hope all of this is not a construct of some underlying pattern of the global scientific community as a whole and how they undertake science professionally.Anyway I have no problem with people arguing passionately their position ( even if it should be unbiased and dissociative ) , however the time old argument of " I am right , and you are wrong because you are stupid " does n't hold too much water for me , nor does it really make me want to believe anything you say .
You want me to take things on faith , and only read ascribed books , as interpreted by specialists.You sir just described religion , a bible , and priests .
Have fun with that fun club .
They seem to be doing so much good for the world these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course one of the things that come out of all those released emails on the topic from apparent "scientists" were people actively trying to block publications or submissions from anyone that didn't agree with their findings.
It has been also pointed out since this whole thing got rolling, many "scientific" peer review journals have become more concerned with advocacy and politics than actual science.I am not saying that we should not pay attention to these mediums, however I would disagree strongly that one should disregard any other source simply because it isn't approved.
That reeks badly of fanaticism and religious fervor.
I will say it again, people and scientists need to stop being lazy and whiny.
It makes me so angry when I hear this sort of bunk.
They are basically saying, I don't want to have to bother refuting these crackpots (notice the actual word he used in the article: "humbug" denoting how seriously he is taking this), people should just believe me because I am right.
That is BS, and against scientific method.
Also there is nothing to say they have to disprove anything, they only have to PROVE what they are saying, and people will make up their own mind what they feel is correct.
At some point consensus will be determined (which it already has to a certain degree), and that will be the facts until proven otherwise.I personally do not disagree than some action should be taken, however unprofessional attitudes, and a continued troubling activities of supposed scientists wearing more than one hat, to myself discredits not their findings so much as their intentions.
I really hope all of this is not a construct of some underlying pattern of the global scientific community as a whole and how they undertake science professionally.Anyway I have no problem with people arguing passionately their position (even if it should be unbiased and dissociative), however the time old argument of "I am right, and you are wrong because you are stupid" doesn't hold too much water for me, nor does it really make me want to believe anything you say.
You want me to take things on faith, and only read ascribed books, as interpreted by specialists.You sir just described religion, a bible, and priests.
Have fun with that fun club.
They seem to be doing so much good for the world these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421068</id>
	<title>Don't look at the tree look at the FOREST</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1260737700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firstly truly shows us an example of peer review NOT working, that is something we all now take for wrong, but peer review shows as true. I am doubtful you will find tons of those, you may probably only cite a few scandal SPARSELY distributed in a few fields.
But as a whole, peer review WORKS,  for every example of peer review working SLOWLY toward pruning the fraud, you have tons over tons over tons of peer review properly edging our knowledge toward an increase and not s atgnation/dcrease a fraud is. <br> <br>Furthermore even if you can make the case of a few paper not being shown for the fraud they were for a long time, the OVERWHELMING number of paper in climate science is really improbably all wrong. That stretch the imagination. <br> <br> At some point you have to draw a line in sand <b>as layman</b> (expert is different, they should always be skeptic and try to falsify the previous results) and say , everything BEFORE that line is skepticism, and after that line it is DENIALISM. COE ? We are long past that point. Thermodynamic ? Ditto. Climate Change ? IMHO we have been at the line for some time. People are not SKPETIC of the scientist results. Cliamte scientist have had an hypothese, they went by the calculation, falsification, peer review process. Thousand of times. As a LAYMAN, past that point it isn't skepticism, it is DENIALISM. Just like those PMM building guy with magnet  which keep beeing skeptic of COE, without even a basic understanding on magnetism. Elitist ? Maybe but then again if I go to a doctor, an expert, and he says me I need an op, then I go to a few other doctors for a a confirmation, if after I have been to half a dozen doctor I am still "skeptic" I need an Op, then I am not anymore in search fo a second opinion, I am cherry picking until I find a doctor which says I don't need an Op, *IN DENIAL*. <b>And that is exactly what climate change denialist are doing, catching on any single misplaced detail to deny the FULL BODY OF EVIDENCE. </b> <br> <br> <br>By the way : bad science on climate denialist</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly truly shows us an example of peer review NOT working , that is something we all now take for wrong , but peer review shows as true .
I am doubtful you will find tons of those , you may probably only cite a few scandal SPARSELY distributed in a few fields .
But as a whole , peer review WORKS , for every example of peer review working SLOWLY toward pruning the fraud , you have tons over tons over tons of peer review properly edging our knowledge toward an increase and not s atgnation/dcrease a fraud is .
Furthermore even if you can make the case of a few paper not being shown for the fraud they were for a long time , the OVERWHELMING number of paper in climate science is really improbably all wrong .
That stretch the imagination .
At some point you have to draw a line in sand as layman ( expert is different , they should always be skeptic and try to falsify the previous results ) and say , everything BEFORE that line is skepticism , and after that line it is DENIALISM .
COE ?
We are long past that point .
Thermodynamic ?
Ditto. Climate Change ?
IMHO we have been at the line for some time .
People are not SKPETIC of the scientist results .
Cliamte scientist have had an hypothese , they went by the calculation , falsification , peer review process .
Thousand of times .
As a LAYMAN , past that point it is n't skepticism , it is DENIALISM .
Just like those PMM building guy with magnet which keep beeing skeptic of COE , without even a basic understanding on magnetism .
Elitist ?
Maybe but then again if I go to a doctor , an expert , and he says me I need an op , then I go to a few other doctors for a a confirmation , if after I have been to half a dozen doctor I am still " skeptic " I need an Op , then I am not anymore in search fo a second opinion , I am cherry picking until I find a doctor which says I do n't need an Op , * IN DENIAL * .
And that is exactly what climate change denialist are doing , catching on any single misplaced detail to deny the FULL BODY OF EVIDENCE .
By the way : bad science on climate denialist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly truly shows us an example of peer review NOT working, that is something we all now take for wrong, but peer review shows as true.
I am doubtful you will find tons of those, you may probably only cite a few scandal SPARSELY distributed in a few fields.
But as a whole, peer review WORKS,  for every example of peer review working SLOWLY toward pruning the fraud, you have tons over tons over tons of peer review properly edging our knowledge toward an increase and not s atgnation/dcrease a fraud is.
Furthermore even if you can make the case of a few paper not being shown for the fraud they were for a long time, the OVERWHELMING number of paper in climate science is really improbably all wrong.
That stretch the imagination.
At some point you have to draw a line in sand as layman (expert is different, they should always be skeptic and try to falsify the previous results) and say , everything BEFORE that line is skepticism, and after that line it is DENIALISM.
COE ?
We are long past that point.
Thermodynamic ?
Ditto. Climate Change ?
IMHO we have been at the line for some time.
People are not SKPETIC of the scientist results.
Cliamte scientist have had an hypothese, they went by the calculation, falsification, peer review process.
Thousand of times.
As a LAYMAN, past that point it isn't skepticism, it is DENIALISM.
Just like those PMM building guy with magnet  which keep beeing skeptic of COE, without even a basic understanding on magnetism.
Elitist ?
Maybe but then again if I go to a doctor, an expert, and he says me I need an op, then I go to a few other doctors for a a confirmation, if after I have been to half a dozen doctor I am still "skeptic" I need an Op, then I am not anymore in search fo a second opinion, I am cherry picking until I find a doctor which says I don't need an Op, *IN DENIAL*.
And that is exactly what climate change denialist are doing, catching on any single misplaced detail to deny the FULL BODY OF EVIDENCE.
By the way : bad science on climate denialist</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423748</id>
	<title>Re:There is one simple reason that I...</title>
	<author>dwguenther</author>
	<datestamp>1260730980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  You just proved the author's point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just proved the author 's point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  You just proved the author's point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420502</id>
	<title>Re:Australian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260644100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia."</p><p>Well phoo-hee-doo! North Idaho and Eastern Washington states had RECORD snowfalls last year. So who cares about one place getting a little warmer when a few other places got much colder. Climate data should not be reduced to headlines-as-if-they-were-ultimate-facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh , and by the way : October was the hottest month on record in Darwin , Australia .
" Well phoo-hee-doo !
North Idaho and Eastern Washington states had RECORD snowfalls last year .
So who cares about one place getting a little warmer when a few other places got much colder .
Climate data should not be reduced to headlines-as-if-they-were-ultimate-facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia.
"Well phoo-hee-doo!
North Idaho and Eastern Washington states had RECORD snowfalls last year.
So who cares about one place getting a little warmer when a few other places got much colder.
Climate data should not be reduced to headlines-as-if-they-were-ultimate-facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419756</id>
	<title>Three things</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1260637560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. I'm from Darwin. It's a lovely town to live in -- relaxed, beautiful and friendly (though on the downside there's a housing crisis now). It's always great to see the homestead up in lights. I miss living there.</p><p>2. Adjustment is a fine thing but of course subjective. I'd be interested in seeing the <em>average adjustment</em> across all data points. If the law of averages holds -- ie if there really is correction for effectively randomised local conditions -- then the worldwide average correction should be close to zero. I don't think that's too much to ask, is it?</p><p>3. A worldwide emissions trading scheme will create an estimated $3 trillion market. That's hammer-of-god money. It scares me, personally. Carbon taxes have the same effect in economic terms, with fewer places for fiddles to hide. It's also easier to offset carbon taxes with income tax cuts.</p><p>Until recently I've been pretty much convinced of human global warming. Now I'm beginning to wonder. I'm not a skeptic / denialist / seal-murderer per se, but the current round of stuff is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... unsettling.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
I 'm from Darwin .
It 's a lovely town to live in -- relaxed , beautiful and friendly ( though on the downside there 's a housing crisis now ) .
It 's always great to see the homestead up in lights .
I miss living there.2 .
Adjustment is a fine thing but of course subjective .
I 'd be interested in seeing the average adjustment across all data points .
If the law of averages holds -- ie if there really is correction for effectively randomised local conditions -- then the worldwide average correction should be close to zero .
I do n't think that 's too much to ask , is it ? 3 .
A worldwide emissions trading scheme will create an estimated $ 3 trillion market .
That 's hammer-of-god money .
It scares me , personally .
Carbon taxes have the same effect in economic terms , with fewer places for fiddles to hide .
It 's also easier to offset carbon taxes with income tax cuts.Until recently I 've been pretty much convinced of human global warming .
Now I 'm beginning to wonder .
I 'm not a skeptic / denialist / seal-murderer per se , but the current round of stuff is ... unsettling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
I'm from Darwin.
It's a lovely town to live in -- relaxed, beautiful and friendly (though on the downside there's a housing crisis now).
It's always great to see the homestead up in lights.
I miss living there.2.
Adjustment is a fine thing but of course subjective.
I'd be interested in seeing the average adjustment across all data points.
If the law of averages holds -- ie if there really is correction for effectively randomised local conditions -- then the worldwide average correction should be close to zero.
I don't think that's too much to ask, is it?3.
A worldwide emissions trading scheme will create an estimated $3 trillion market.
That's hammer-of-god money.
It scares me, personally.
Carbon taxes have the same effect in economic terms, with fewer places for fiddles to hide.
It's also easier to offset carbon taxes with income tax cuts.Until recently I've been pretty much convinced of human global warming.
Now I'm beginning to wonder.
I'm not a skeptic / denialist / seal-murderer per se, but the current round of stuff is ... unsettling.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420482</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>Kohath</author>
	<datestamp>1260643860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing is, most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it isn't convenient for them.  So naturally, denying everything allows things to proceed as they are now, along the current status quo.</p></div><p>Wow. They actually want to keep doing things that, as far as they can tell, make them better off?  Those people sound completely rational.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1) The U.S. currently consumes 25\% of the world oil.  China and India each have about 3 times the population.  If China and India scale up and consume oil at the same per-capita rate as the U.S., then they will use 150\% of the world's oil.  That's probably not going to sit well with the rest of the world, besides being impossible and causing serious economic problems.</p></div><p>Economics explains how populations behave under these pressures.  More oil becomes available and/or prices rise and demand drops.  I think it's in the first chapter of every elementary Economics book.</p><p>Also, the talking point about the US using 25\% of resources is a half truth.  We're 27\% of the world's GDP.  We produce things with those resources.  You thought we were just hoarding them?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) The U.S. currently produces around 20 metric tons of CO2 per capita.  This is inline with other first world nations and/or oil rich nations.  China and India are around 4 and 1 metric tons per capita.  Once again, if they scale up to match their first world peers, that's a lot more CO2 pouring into the world's atmosphere.</p></div><p>And?  I guess the people of China and India shouldn't want to have better lives?  Or shouldn't be allowed to?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So deny global warming all you want... that isn't going to solve the actual problems we're headed towards.  Some models indicate temperatures will rise between 1 and 6 degrees C over the next century, and we can probably get along fine at the lower end.  But it is more likely that economic distortions and/or all out energy wars will wreak havoc, before the oceans flood have a chance to drown us all.</p></div><p>You'd think a century would give us time to take 10 steps back from the water line.  Or build a half meter high sea wall in critical spots.  I guess not though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it is n't convenient for them .
So naturally , denying everything allows things to proceed as they are now , along the current status quo.Wow .
They actually want to keep doing things that , as far as they can tell , make them better off ?
Those people sound completely rational.1 ) The U.S. currently consumes 25 \ % of the world oil .
China and India each have about 3 times the population .
If China and India scale up and consume oil at the same per-capita rate as the U.S. , then they will use 150 \ % of the world 's oil .
That 's probably not going to sit well with the rest of the world , besides being impossible and causing serious economic problems.Economics explains how populations behave under these pressures .
More oil becomes available and/or prices rise and demand drops .
I think it 's in the first chapter of every elementary Economics book.Also , the talking point about the US using 25 \ % of resources is a half truth .
We 're 27 \ % of the world 's GDP .
We produce things with those resources .
You thought we were just hoarding them ? 2 ) The U.S. currently produces around 20 metric tons of CO2 per capita .
This is inline with other first world nations and/or oil rich nations .
China and India are around 4 and 1 metric tons per capita .
Once again , if they scale up to match their first world peers , that 's a lot more CO2 pouring into the world 's atmosphere.And ?
I guess the people of China and India should n't want to have better lives ?
Or should n't be allowed to ? So deny global warming all you want... that is n't going to solve the actual problems we 're headed towards .
Some models indicate temperatures will rise between 1 and 6 degrees C over the next century , and we can probably get along fine at the lower end .
But it is more likely that economic distortions and/or all out energy wars will wreak havoc , before the oceans flood have a chance to drown us all.You 'd think a century would give us time to take 10 steps back from the water line .
Or build a half meter high sea wall in critical spots .
I guess not though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it isn't convenient for them.
So naturally, denying everything allows things to proceed as they are now, along the current status quo.Wow.
They actually want to keep doing things that, as far as they can tell, make them better off?
Those people sound completely rational.1) The U.S. currently consumes 25\% of the world oil.
China and India each have about 3 times the population.
If China and India scale up and consume oil at the same per-capita rate as the U.S., then they will use 150\% of the world's oil.
That's probably not going to sit well with the rest of the world, besides being impossible and causing serious economic problems.Economics explains how populations behave under these pressures.
More oil becomes available and/or prices rise and demand drops.
I think it's in the first chapter of every elementary Economics book.Also, the talking point about the US using 25\% of resources is a half truth.
We're 27\% of the world's GDP.
We produce things with those resources.
You thought we were just hoarding them?2) The U.S. currently produces around 20 metric tons of CO2 per capita.
This is inline with other first world nations and/or oil rich nations.
China and India are around 4 and 1 metric tons per capita.
Once again, if they scale up to match their first world peers, that's a lot more CO2 pouring into the world's atmosphere.And?
I guess the people of China and India shouldn't want to have better lives?
Or shouldn't be allowed to?So deny global warming all you want... that isn't going to solve the actual problems we're headed towards.
Some models indicate temperatures will rise between 1 and 6 degrees C over the next century, and we can probably get along fine at the lower end.
But it is more likely that economic distortions and/or all out energy wars will wreak havoc, before the oceans flood have a chance to drown us all.You'd think a century would give us time to take 10 steps back from the water line.
Or build a half meter high sea wall in critical spots.
I guess not though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421064</id>
	<title>Counter-question:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260737700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong?</p></div><p>Counter-question: How do you know that it&rsquo;s &ldquo;denialist humbug&rdquo;? Maybe it is. But: <em>How do you <strong>know</strong> </em>?</p><p>See. There&rsquo;s your answer.</p><p>&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</p><p>Truthiness (&ldquo;gut feeling&rdquo;) is not knowing. And that&rsquo;s exactly why we forever keep open minded. (So if you are skeptical of others, by the same philosophy, you also have to always stay skeptical of your own &ldquo;beliefs&rdquo;. [Really &ldquo;beliefs&rdquo; don&rsquo;t belong here at all.])<br>Because sometimes there <em>is</em> something that we call denialist humbug, and that turns out to be true. (I bet we can come up with numerous examples, where something completely contradicted the &ldquo;known&rdquo; beliefs of that time.)</p><p>But the nice thing is, that you can just calibrate how hard it is to accept certain new things, based on how sure you are of what you (think you) know. You can train yourself to balance it properly. And most likely that&rsquo;s what you&rsquo;re doing already.<br>So something that does not fit, will have a hard time convincing you, for a good reason.</p><p>&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</p><p>See, with truth and knowing, we often think in a very automatic way. And not about what that all means, and what we really <em>know</em>. Or what is a real <em>fact</em>.</p><p>If you think about it, before ending up in your brain, all information went trough thousand filters, modulators, and other things that created &ldquo;bias&rdquo;. Else it wouldn&rsquo;t even be useful to you.<br>It all went at least trough your senses. Which themselves have a huge natual bias.<br>And even worse: Because we are social lifeforms, most of it came from other people. So how do you know that anything of what they told you has any relationship with what you call &ldquo;truth&rdquo;?</p><p>What is truth / what are facts anyway? We can&rsquo;t even prove, that anything except for ourselves exists at all. Or that it just is made up by the brain.</p><p>But what we know is, that we humans only accept things, if they fit into our mental model of the world. If not, even if it&rsquo;s true and we know it, we can&rsquo;t fit it in there. But we <em>have</em> to fit it in there, because humans only can know things by associating them with other things. No fitting in, no association, no knowing. Period.<br>That&rsquo;s a big problem. Because often, what would be best of us, or seen as &ldquo;truth&rdquo;, just does not fit. And gets dismissed. We&rsquo;re all doing it constantly. At least every second comment here contains something like that.</p><p>And the worst thing: We can&rsquo;t even say if things are absolute facts. Is the sun yellow? Well, depends on how you look at it. What color does it really have?<br>You can got down that path, with logic. But it will be a looong way, until yo have linked it all back to quantum physics and mathematics. If we would try to guarantee that our beliefs are all facts, we wouldn&rsquo;t get anything done at all.</p><p>But even then, we end up at some paradigms and axioms. Things that we can&rsquo;t explain further. Like the big bang. Like the basic &ldquo;why?&rdquo; and &ldquo;from where?&rdquo;. (Some put a &ldquo;god&rdquo; behind that all, and ignore/forbid that that god also would have to come from somewhere, to prevent themselves from going crazy over that ultimate problem.)</p><p>What happens if we have <em>multiple</em> of those basic paradigms, which conflict, but where none of them can be proven to be right or wrong. That&rsquo;s really bad. Luckily, basic physics are relatively clean from those.</p><p>But in practice, since we can&rsquo;t walk that road all the way to the end, we stop where our paradigms meet. And then walk from there with logic, until we come out at the same conclusions.<br>And if we can&rsquo;t find anything matching, we humans normally choose one of two things:<br>A) Time out: Give up, because it&rsquo;s not worth the effort.<br>B) Pointlessly fight over conflicting paradigms, until we end up at (A). ^^</p><p>&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</p><p>Allright, I hope my long and hard thoughts about this weren&rsquo;t for nothing, and helped you a bit, in understanding the problem.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it 's shown to be wrong ? Counter-question : How do you know that it    s    denialist humbug    ?
Maybe it is .
But : How do you know ? See .
There    s your answer.                                                             Truthiness (    gut feeling    ) is not knowing .
And that    s exactly why we forever keep open minded .
( So if you are skeptical of others , by the same philosophy , you also have to always stay skeptical of your own    beliefs    .
[ Really    beliefs    don    t belong here at all .
] ) Because sometimes there is something that we call denialist humbug , and that turns out to be true .
( I bet we can come up with numerous examples , where something completely contradicted the    known    beliefs of that time .
) But the nice thing is , that you can just calibrate how hard it is to accept certain new things , based on how sure you are of what you ( think you ) know .
You can train yourself to balance it properly .
And most likely that    s what you    re doing already.So something that does not fit , will have a hard time convincing you , for a good reason.                                                             See , with truth and knowing , we often think in a very automatic way .
And not about what that all means , and what we really know .
Or what is a real fact.If you think about it , before ending up in your brain , all information went trough thousand filters , modulators , and other things that created    bias    .
Else it wouldn    t even be useful to you.It all went at least trough your senses .
Which themselves have a huge natual bias.And even worse : Because we are social lifeforms , most of it came from other people .
So how do you know that anything of what they told you has any relationship with what you call    truth    ? What is truth / what are facts anyway ?
We can    t even prove , that anything except for ourselves exists at all .
Or that it just is made up by the brain.But what we know is , that we humans only accept things , if they fit into our mental model of the world .
If not , even if it    s true and we know it , we can    t fit it in there .
But we have to fit it in there , because humans only can know things by associating them with other things .
No fitting in , no association , no knowing .
Period.That    s a big problem .
Because often , what would be best of us , or seen as    truth    , just does not fit .
And gets dismissed .
We    re all doing it constantly .
At least every second comment here contains something like that.And the worst thing : We can    t even say if things are absolute facts .
Is the sun yellow ?
Well , depends on how you look at it .
What color does it really have ? You can got down that path , with logic .
But it will be a looong way , until yo have linked it all back to quantum physics and mathematics .
If we would try to guarantee that our beliefs are all facts , we wouldn    t get anything done at all.But even then , we end up at some paradigms and axioms .
Things that we can    t explain further .
Like the big bang .
Like the basic    why ?    and    from where ?    .
( Some put a    god    behind that all , and ignore/forbid that that god also would have to come from somewhere , to prevent themselves from going crazy over that ultimate problem .
) What happens if we have multiple of those basic paradigms , which conflict , but where none of them can be proven to be right or wrong .
That    s really bad .
Luckily , basic physics are relatively clean from those.But in practice , since we can    t walk that road all the way to the end , we stop where our paradigms meet .
And then walk from there with logic , until we come out at the same conclusions.And if we can    t find anything matching , we humans normally choose one of two things : A ) Time out : Give up , because it    s not worth the effort.B ) Pointlessly fight over conflicting paradigms , until we end up at ( A ) .
^ ^                                                             Allright , I hope my long and hard thoughts about this weren    t for nothing , and helped you a bit , in understanding the problem .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong?Counter-question: How do you know that it’s “denialist humbug”?
Maybe it is.
But: How do you know ?See.
There’s your answer.————————————————————Truthiness (“gut feeling”) is not knowing.
And that’s exactly why we forever keep open minded.
(So if you are skeptical of others, by the same philosophy, you also have to always stay skeptical of your own “beliefs”.
[Really “beliefs” don’t belong here at all.
])Because sometimes there is something that we call denialist humbug, and that turns out to be true.
(I bet we can come up with numerous examples, where something completely contradicted the “known” beliefs of that time.
)But the nice thing is, that you can just calibrate how hard it is to accept certain new things, based on how sure you are of what you (think you) know.
You can train yourself to balance it properly.
And most likely that’s what you’re doing already.So something that does not fit, will have a hard time convincing you, for a good reason.————————————————————See, with truth and knowing, we often think in a very automatic way.
And not about what that all means, and what we really know.
Or what is a real fact.If you think about it, before ending up in your brain, all information went trough thousand filters, modulators, and other things that created “bias”.
Else it wouldn’t even be useful to you.It all went at least trough your senses.
Which themselves have a huge natual bias.And even worse: Because we are social lifeforms, most of it came from other people.
So how do you know that anything of what they told you has any relationship with what you call “truth”?What is truth / what are facts anyway?
We can’t even prove, that anything except for ourselves exists at all.
Or that it just is made up by the brain.But what we know is, that we humans only accept things, if they fit into our mental model of the world.
If not, even if it’s true and we know it, we can’t fit it in there.
But we have to fit it in there, because humans only can know things by associating them with other things.
No fitting in, no association, no knowing.
Period.That’s a big problem.
Because often, what would be best of us, or seen as “truth”, just does not fit.
And gets dismissed.
We’re all doing it constantly.
At least every second comment here contains something like that.And the worst thing: We can’t even say if things are absolute facts.
Is the sun yellow?
Well, depends on how you look at it.
What color does it really have?You can got down that path, with logic.
But it will be a looong way, until yo have linked it all back to quantum physics and mathematics.
If we would try to guarantee that our beliefs are all facts, we wouldn’t get anything done at all.But even then, we end up at some paradigms and axioms.
Things that we can’t explain further.
Like the big bang.
Like the basic “why?” and “from where?”.
(Some put a “god” behind that all, and ignore/forbid that that god also would have to come from somewhere, to prevent themselves from going crazy over that ultimate problem.
)What happens if we have multiple of those basic paradigms, which conflict, but where none of them can be proven to be right or wrong.
That’s really bad.
Luckily, basic physics are relatively clean from those.But in practice, since we can’t walk that road all the way to the end, we stop where our paradigms meet.
And then walk from there with logic, until we come out at the same conclusions.And if we can’t find anything matching, we humans normally choose one of two things:A) Time out: Give up, because it’s not worth the effort.B) Pointlessly fight over conflicting paradigms, until we end up at (A).
^^————————————————————Allright, I hope my long and hard thoughts about this weren’t for nothing, and helped you a bit, in understanding the problem.
:)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421406</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>luzr</author>
	<datestamp>1260700080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, I can agree with above points, but where is the "settled science"?

There are good reasons to get aways from fossil fuels, but that does not prove or disprove AGW theory, correct?<p><div class="quote"><p>That's probably not going to sit well with the rest of the world, besides being impossible and causing serious economic problems.</p></div><p>See? Right here you say that artificially increasing prices of oil via carbon tax is OK, but if prices will go up because of economy (that happens if some resource becomes scarce), all sudden everything is wrong and we will have serious problems.

Don't you see that carbon taxes will create exactly the same problem, this time possibly for some artificial reson?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I can agree with above points , but where is the " settled science " ?
There are good reasons to get aways from fossil fuels , but that does not prove or disprove AGW theory , correct ? That 's probably not going to sit well with the rest of the world , besides being impossible and causing serious economic problems.See ?
Right here you say that artificially increasing prices of oil via carbon tax is OK , but if prices will go up because of economy ( that happens if some resource becomes scarce ) , all sudden everything is wrong and we will have serious problems .
Do n't you see that carbon taxes will create exactly the same problem , this time possibly for some artificial reson ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I can agree with above points, but where is the "settled science"?
There are good reasons to get aways from fossil fuels, but that does not prove or disprove AGW theory, correct?That's probably not going to sit well with the rest of the world, besides being impossible and causing serious economic problems.See?
Right here you say that artificially increasing prices of oil via carbon tax is OK, but if prices will go up because of economy (that happens if some resource becomes scarce), all sudden everything is wrong and we will have serious problems.
Don't you see that carbon taxes will create exactly the same problem, this time possibly for some artificial reson?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419368</id>
	<title>Re:reply by Willis</title>
	<author>jasonwc</author>
	<datestamp>1260634440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just in case anyone is wondering, when I saw the post it was at "1". Somebody moderated as "Overrated" after I responded to the link.</p><p>Moderation             0<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 50\% Insightful<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 50\% Overrated</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just in case anyone is wondering , when I saw the post it was at " 1 " .
Somebody moderated as " Overrated " after I responded to the link.Moderation 0     50 \ % Insightful     50 \ % Overrated</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just in case anyone is wondering, when I saw the post it was at "1".
Somebody moderated as "Overrated" after I responded to the link.Moderation             0
    50\% Insightful
    50\% Overrated</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30427548</id>
	<title>Sacred Cow</title>
	<author>lucm</author>
	<datestamp>1260720600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Church of the Self-Righteous has its own concept of Trinity:</p><p>1) Global warming<br>2) Darwin's theory of evolution<br>3) Apple products</p><p>Suggesting that any of these three sacred cows is not infaillible is a blasphemy; worse, a mortal sin.</p><p>As with any dogma, rebellion only leads to excommunication:<br>1) Raise an issue about Global Warming: you are an agent of Big Oil, evil and corrupt.<br>2) Discuss flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution: you are a fundamentalist christian, a bigot and a fool.<br>3) Disagree with pricing or superiority of Apple products: you are paid by Microsoft, or plain stupid.</p><p>It must be really, really awesome to be on the side of Truth all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Church of the Self-Righteous has its own concept of Trinity : 1 ) Global warming2 ) Darwin 's theory of evolution3 ) Apple productsSuggesting that any of these three sacred cows is not infaillible is a blasphemy ; worse , a mortal sin.As with any dogma , rebellion only leads to excommunication : 1 ) Raise an issue about Global Warming : you are an agent of Big Oil , evil and corrupt.2 ) Discuss flaws in Darwin 's theory of evolution : you are a fundamentalist christian , a bigot and a fool.3 ) Disagree with pricing or superiority of Apple products : you are paid by Microsoft , or plain stupid.It must be really , really awesome to be on the side of Truth all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Church of the Self-Righteous has its own concept of Trinity:1) Global warming2) Darwin's theory of evolution3) Apple productsSuggesting that any of these three sacred cows is not infaillible is a blasphemy; worse, a mortal sin.As with any dogma, rebellion only leads to excommunication:1) Raise an issue about Global Warming: you are an agent of Big Oil, evil and corrupt.2) Discuss flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution: you are a fundamentalist christian, a bigot and a fool.3) Disagree with pricing or superiority of Apple products: you are paid by Microsoft, or plain stupid.It must be really, really awesome to be on the side of Truth all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419264</id>
	<title>Re:Requires a PHD .... HAHAHAH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, we don't:</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 years</b></p><p>By Steve Connor, Science Editor<br>Tuesday, 5 September 2006</p><p>The rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core which highlights the reality of climate change.</p><p>Air bubbles trapped in ice for hundreds of thousands of years have revealed that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere in a manner that has no known natural parallel.<br>Related articles</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Frances Cairncross: We must start adapting to climate change<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Search the news archive for more stories</p><p>Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) in Cambridge have found there have been eight cycles of atmospheric change in the past 800,000 years when carbon dioxide and methane have risen to peak levels.</p><p>Each time, the world also experienced the relatively high temperatures associated with warm, inter-glacial periods, which were almost certainly linked with levels of carbon dioxide and possibly methane in the atmosphere.</p><p>However, existing levels of carbon dioxide and methane are far higher than anything seen during these earlier warm periods, said Eric Wolff of the BAS.</p><p>"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change," Dr Wolff said. "Over the past 200 years, human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range and we have no analogue for what will happen next.</p><p>"We have a no-analogue situation. We don't have anything in the past that we can measure directly," he added.</p><p>The ice core was drilled from a thick area of ice on Antarctica known as Dome C. The core is nearly 3.2km long and reaches to a depth where air bubbles became trapped in ice that formed 800,000 years ago.</p><p>"It's from those air bubbles that we know for sure that carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 per cent in the past 200 years. Before that 200 years, which is when man's been influencing the atmosphere, it was pretty steady to within 5 per cent," Dr Wolff said.</p><p>The core shows that carbon dioxide was always between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the 800,000 years. However, now it is 380 ppm. Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb.</p><p>But the rate of change is even more dramatic, with increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years -- and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years.</p><p>"The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can't cope with it," Dr Wolff told the British Association meeting at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.</p><p>"On such a crowded planet, we have little capacity to adapt to changes that are much faster than anything in human experience."</p></div> </blockquote><p>http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ice-bubbles-reveal-biggest-rise-in-co2-for-800000-years-414711.html</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , we do n't : Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 yearsBy Steve Connor , Science EditorTuesday , 5 September 2006The rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years , according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core which highlights the reality of climate change.Air bubbles trapped in ice for hundreds of thousands of years have revealed that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere in a manner that has no known natural parallel.Related articles         * Frances Cairncross : We must start adapting to climate change         * Search the news archive for more storiesScientists at the British Antarctic Survey ( BAS ) in Cambridge have found there have been eight cycles of atmospheric change in the past 800,000 years when carbon dioxide and methane have risen to peak levels.Each time , the world also experienced the relatively high temperatures associated with warm , inter-glacial periods , which were almost certainly linked with levels of carbon dioxide and possibly methane in the atmosphere.However , existing levels of carbon dioxide and methane are far higher than anything seen during these earlier warm periods , said Eric Wolff of the BAS .
" Ice cores reveal the Earth 's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years .
When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change , " Dr Wolff said .
" Over the past 200 years , human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range and we have no analogue for what will happen next .
" We have a no-analogue situation .
We do n't have anything in the past that we can measure directly , " he added.The ice core was drilled from a thick area of ice on Antarctica known as Dome C. The core is nearly 3.2km long and reaches to a depth where air bubbles became trapped in ice that formed 800,000 years ago .
" It 's from those air bubbles that we know for sure that carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 per cent in the past 200 years .
Before that 200 years , which is when man 's been influencing the atmosphere , it was pretty steady to within 5 per cent , " Dr Wolff said.The core shows that carbon dioxide was always between 180 parts per million ( ppm ) and 300 ppm during the 800,000 years .
However , now it is 380 ppm .
Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion ( ppb ) in this timescale , but now it stands at 1,780 ppb.But the rate of change is even more dramatic , with increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years -- and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years .
" The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems ca n't cope with it , " Dr Wolff told the British Association meeting at the University of East Anglia in Norwich .
" On such a crowded planet , we have little capacity to adapt to changes that are much faster than anything in human experience .
" http : //www.independent.co.uk/environment/ice-bubbles-reveal-biggest-rise-in-co2-for-800000-years-414711.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, we don't: Ice bubbles reveal biggest rise in CO2 for 800,000 yearsBy Steve Connor, Science EditorTuesday, 5 September 2006The rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core which highlights the reality of climate change.Air bubbles trapped in ice for hundreds of thousands of years have revealed that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere in a manner that has no known natural parallel.Related articles
        * Frances Cairncross: We must start adapting to climate change
        * Search the news archive for more storiesScientists at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) in Cambridge have found there have been eight cycles of atmospheric change in the past 800,000 years when carbon dioxide and methane have risen to peak levels.Each time, the world also experienced the relatively high temperatures associated with warm, inter-glacial periods, which were almost certainly linked with levels of carbon dioxide and possibly methane in the atmosphere.However, existing levels of carbon dioxide and methane are far higher than anything seen during these earlier warm periods, said Eric Wolff of the BAS.
"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years.
When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change," Dr Wolff said.
"Over the past 200 years, human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range and we have no analogue for what will happen next.
"We have a no-analogue situation.
We don't have anything in the past that we can measure directly," he added.The ice core was drilled from a thick area of ice on Antarctica known as Dome C. The core is nearly 3.2km long and reaches to a depth where air bubbles became trapped in ice that formed 800,000 years ago.
"It's from those air bubbles that we know for sure that carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 per cent in the past 200 years.
Before that 200 years, which is when man's been influencing the atmosphere, it was pretty steady to within 5 per cent," Dr Wolff said.The core shows that carbon dioxide was always between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the 800,000 years.
However, now it is 380 ppm.
Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb.But the rate of change is even more dramatic, with increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years -- and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years.
"The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can't cope with it," Dr Wolff told the British Association meeting at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
"On such a crowded planet, we have little capacity to adapt to changes that are much faster than anything in human experience.
" http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ice-bubbles-reveal-biggest-rise-in-co2-for-800000-years-414711.html
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420708</id>
	<title>Re:Is this an issue outside the US?</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1260646140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Were humans among the living things that were thriving at that time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were humans among the living things that were thriving at that time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were humans among the living things that were thriving at that time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424478</id>
	<title>What a whiner</title>
	<author>Xenophon Fenderson,</author>
	<datestamp>1260737460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the deal: Science is skepticism.  No theory is 100\% correct, and long-held axioms tend to be disproved by new evidence (just ask Aristotle or Newton).  By saying, "I am a scientist", you acknowledge that whatever you believe to be true today can easily be demonstrated as being false by some new datum tomorrow.  And I say "tough toenails" to anyone who wants the title of "scientist" but isn't willing to be intellectually rigorous in this regard.  That's right - every belief, every axiom, every hypothesis, every theory, every rule, every "law" must be, in a scientist's mind, tagged with a confidence factor that never, ever hits 100\%.</p><p>Now, this is just what I believe.  I could very well be wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the deal : Science is skepticism .
No theory is 100 \ % correct , and long-held axioms tend to be disproved by new evidence ( just ask Aristotle or Newton ) .
By saying , " I am a scientist " , you acknowledge that whatever you believe to be true today can easily be demonstrated as being false by some new datum tomorrow .
And I say " tough toenails " to anyone who wants the title of " scientist " but is n't willing to be intellectually rigorous in this regard .
That 's right - every belief , every axiom , every hypothesis , every theory , every rule , every " law " must be , in a scientist 's mind , tagged with a confidence factor that never , ever hits 100 \ % .Now , this is just what I believe .
I could very well be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the deal: Science is skepticism.
No theory is 100\% correct, and long-held axioms tend to be disproved by new evidence (just ask Aristotle or Newton).
By saying, "I am a scientist", you acknowledge that whatever you believe to be true today can easily be demonstrated as being false by some new datum tomorrow.
And I say "tough toenails" to anyone who wants the title of "scientist" but isn't willing to be intellectually rigorous in this regard.
That's right - every belief, every axiom, every hypothesis, every theory, every rule, every "law" must be, in a scientist's mind, tagged with a confidence factor that never, ever hits 100\%.Now, this is just what I believe.
I could very well be wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420510</id>
	<title>KGB truth?</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1260644160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, OK, FIS pravda.  The UEA CRU emails were hosted on a server in Tomsk known to be used by the Russian intelligence services.  Could the crack have been from them too?  In what level of chess does this benefit the Rodina?  They're still going to export the same at the same prices.  Energy is less priced in the old or new worlds and more in the third, where more marginal volume sits.  Or have they been listening to known capitalist running dogs like GoldmanSachs (vampire squid) and JPMorgan?<p>
Maybe some siloviki is just mad some Carbon credits might expire worthless?  Hammer everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , OK , FIS pravda .
The UEA CRU emails were hosted on a server in Tomsk known to be used by the Russian intelligence services .
Could the crack have been from them too ?
In what level of chess does this benefit the Rodina ?
They 're still going to export the same at the same prices .
Energy is less priced in the old or new worlds and more in the third , where more marginal volume sits .
Or have they been listening to known capitalist running dogs like GoldmanSachs ( vampire squid ) and JPMorgan ?
Maybe some siloviki is just mad some Carbon credits might expire worthless ?
Hammer everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, OK, FIS pravda.
The UEA CRU emails were hosted on a server in Tomsk known to be used by the Russian intelligence services.
Could the crack have been from them too?
In what level of chess does this benefit the Rodina?
They're still going to export the same at the same prices.
Energy is less priced in the old or new worlds and more in the third, where more marginal volume sits.
Or have they been listening to known capitalist running dogs like GoldmanSachs (vampire squid) and JPMorgan?
Maybe some siloviki is just mad some Carbon credits might expire worthless?
Hammer everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30431652</id>
	<title>Statistical Tools</title>
	<author>gryf</author>
	<datestamp>1260809220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The very problem the original author Eschenbach describes, is what the Economist author ( also of unknown background, there's no evidence to assume related statistics expertise ) considers a feature. Given the supposed problems with the temperature record at Darwin, some scientist used a 'statistical tool' to 'homogenize' it. The result became the mirror image of the actual raw data. The yardstick by which the 'homogenized' data was validated was also homogenized data that we now know was 'fixed' using several 'tricks' that an anonymous contributor described as 'botch after botch after botch'.
<p>
Further, it's surprising to describe 'cherry picking' in a contributor's work without mentioning, at least contrasting against, the recent Briffa controversy wherein the history of global climate was measured by three trees in an entire valley in Siberia. Maybe it was valid, but if so why did Briffa suppress the source data for a decade?
</p><p>
Since the obvious trend in the Darwin data is a cooling trend, the question remains, what changes to the screen or siting produce<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/consistent/ cooling even as global temperatures are supposed to be rising? This is supposed to be the hottest October in record so the raw data should illustrate that somehow.
</p><p>
The Economist author also appears to miss the controversial disclosures regarding peer review. With a collection of scientists working to change who reviews peers, who accepts papers, and even redefining what 'peer review' itself is supposed to mean, the final appeal to authority near the end of the piece undermines his thesis by grabbing for a rhetorical stanchion that has rusted through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The very problem the original author Eschenbach describes , is what the Economist author ( also of unknown background , there 's no evidence to assume related statistics expertise ) considers a feature .
Given the supposed problems with the temperature record at Darwin , some scientist used a 'statistical tool ' to 'homogenize ' it .
The result became the mirror image of the actual raw data .
The yardstick by which the 'homogenized ' data was validated was also homogenized data that we now know was 'fixed ' using several 'tricks ' that an anonymous contributor described as 'botch after botch after botch' .
Further , it 's surprising to describe 'cherry picking ' in a contributor 's work without mentioning , at least contrasting against , the recent Briffa controversy wherein the history of global climate was measured by three trees in an entire valley in Siberia .
Maybe it was valid , but if so why did Briffa suppress the source data for a decade ?
Since the obvious trend in the Darwin data is a cooling trend , the question remains , what changes to the screen or siting produce /consistent/ cooling even as global temperatures are supposed to be rising ?
This is supposed to be the hottest October in record so the raw data should illustrate that somehow .
The Economist author also appears to miss the controversial disclosures regarding peer review .
With a collection of scientists working to change who reviews peers , who accepts papers , and even redefining what 'peer review ' itself is supposed to mean , the final appeal to authority near the end of the piece undermines his thesis by grabbing for a rhetorical stanchion that has rusted through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very problem the original author Eschenbach describes, is what the Economist author ( also of unknown background, there's no evidence to assume related statistics expertise ) considers a feature.
Given the supposed problems with the temperature record at Darwin, some scientist used a 'statistical tool' to 'homogenize' it.
The result became the mirror image of the actual raw data.
The yardstick by which the 'homogenized' data was validated was also homogenized data that we now know was 'fixed' using several 'tricks' that an anonymous contributor described as 'botch after botch after botch'.
Further, it's surprising to describe 'cherry picking' in a contributor's work without mentioning, at least contrasting against, the recent Briffa controversy wherein the history of global climate was measured by three trees in an entire valley in Siberia.
Maybe it was valid, but if so why did Briffa suppress the source data for a decade?
Since the obvious trend in the Darwin data is a cooling trend, the question remains, what changes to the screen or siting produce /consistent/ cooling even as global temperatures are supposed to be rising?
This is supposed to be the hottest October in record so the raw data should illustrate that somehow.
The Economist author also appears to miss the controversial disclosures regarding peer review.
With a collection of scientists working to change who reviews peers, who accepts papers, and even redefining what 'peer review' itself is supposed to mean, the final appeal to authority near the end of the piece undermines his thesis by grabbing for a rhetorical stanchion that has rusted through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420254</id>
	<title>Re:Is this an issue outside the US?</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1260641760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why would a warmer Earth be bad?</p></div><p>All our infrastructure is build around our current climate and having to change it all due to climate change would get kind of expensive.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That is why they labeled it a "travesty" that the data doesn't support their socialistic political agenda.</p></div><p>Go watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg" title="youtube.com">this</a> [youtube.com] and learn that the quoted text happen to be all out of context and none of them so far indicate actual fraud.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why would a warmer Earth be bad ? All our infrastructure is build around our current climate and having to change it all due to climate change would get kind of expensive.That is why they labeled it a " travesty " that the data does n't support their socialistic political agenda.Go watch this [ youtube.com ] and learn that the quoted text happen to be all out of context and none of them so far indicate actual fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why would a warmer Earth be bad?All our infrastructure is build around our current climate and having to change it all due to climate change would get kind of expensive.That is why they labeled it a "travesty" that the data doesn't support their socialistic political agenda.Go watch this [youtube.com] and learn that the quoted text happen to be all out of context and none of them so far indicate actual fraud.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419284</id>
	<title>Same as argument against Darwin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is the denialist seem to feel one inconsistency and you HAVE to throw out an entire theory. With Darwin if there's any piece of missing information then the entire theory is false. And of coarse the Bible needing no proof is correct. With weather if one area gets cooler and the rest hotter than of coarse the Earth isn't heating because one area is cooling. Weather simply doesn't work that way. You can have a severe drought east of the Rockies "because" there is flooding West of the Rockies so the fact there's rain on the west slops doesn't mean there is no drought on the eastern side. Weather is complex and scientist know that but the lay person doesn't. It's easy to cherry pick evidence and make it say whatever you want. My question to the deniers is how many once in a hundred year events has to occur in a single decade before you acknowledge there's a problem? Weather and temperatures have to be viewed as a whole and over time not a single event. You can have one year of cooling and not mean the trouble is over. It's taken several decades to confirm the change but the change is traceable to the beginning of the industrial revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the denialist seem to feel one inconsistency and you HAVE to throw out an entire theory .
With Darwin if there 's any piece of missing information then the entire theory is false .
And of coarse the Bible needing no proof is correct .
With weather if one area gets cooler and the rest hotter than of coarse the Earth is n't heating because one area is cooling .
Weather simply does n't work that way .
You can have a severe drought east of the Rockies " because " there is flooding West of the Rockies so the fact there 's rain on the west slops does n't mean there is no drought on the eastern side .
Weather is complex and scientist know that but the lay person does n't .
It 's easy to cherry pick evidence and make it say whatever you want .
My question to the deniers is how many once in a hundred year events has to occur in a single decade before you acknowledge there 's a problem ?
Weather and temperatures have to be viewed as a whole and over time not a single event .
You can have one year of cooling and not mean the trouble is over .
It 's taken several decades to confirm the change but the change is traceable to the beginning of the industrial revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the denialist seem to feel one inconsistency and you HAVE to throw out an entire theory.
With Darwin if there's any piece of missing information then the entire theory is false.
And of coarse the Bible needing no proof is correct.
With weather if one area gets cooler and the rest hotter than of coarse the Earth isn't heating because one area is cooling.
Weather simply doesn't work that way.
You can have a severe drought east of the Rockies "because" there is flooding West of the Rockies so the fact there's rain on the west slops doesn't mean there is no drought on the eastern side.
Weather is complex and scientist know that but the lay person doesn't.
It's easy to cherry pick evidence and make it say whatever you want.
My question to the deniers is how many once in a hundred year events has to occur in a single decade before you acknowledge there's a problem?
Weather and temperatures have to be viewed as a whole and over time not a single event.
You can have one year of cooling and not mean the trouble is over.
It's taken several decades to confirm the change but the change is traceable to the beginning of the industrial revolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422642</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260720540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I object to the propaganda.</p><p>Fair enough.   There is some exaggerated propaganda.  Just like with Y2k.  But don't forget that part of the reason that Y2k didn't "happen" is that prople fixed quite a few bugs before 1 January 2000.  Lots of money was spent on Y2k, and not all of it was wasted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I object to the propaganda.Fair enough .
There is some exaggerated propaganda .
Just like with Y2k .
But do n't forget that part of the reason that Y2k did n't " happen " is that prople fixed quite a few bugs before 1 January 2000 .
Lots of money was spent on Y2k , and not all of it was wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I object to the propaganda.Fair enough.
There is some exaggerated propaganda.
Just like with Y2k.
But don't forget that part of the reason that Y2k didn't "happen" is that prople fixed quite a few bugs before 1 January 2000.
Lots of money was spent on Y2k, and not all of it was wasted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423264</id>
	<title>Re:Peer review is not everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260726420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientist are always careful to qualify what they say, it's part of the scientific language because everything they say is supposed to be objective, verifiable truth. That doesn't mean they are not confident about what they are saying, just that they can't ultimately prove it, which is truth in every topic in every science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientist are always careful to qualify what they say , it 's part of the scientific language because everything they say is supposed to be objective , verifiable truth .
That does n't mean they are not confident about what they are saying , just that they ca n't ultimately prove it , which is truth in every topic in every science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientist are always careful to qualify what they say, it's part of the scientific language because everything they say is supposed to be objective, verifiable truth.
That doesn't mean they are not confident about what they are saying, just that they can't ultimately prove it, which is truth in every topic in every science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419466</id>
	<title>AGW deniers are Fox News watching types</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260635220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look at the website of actual scientists, and in particular, if you want to weed out the crap, science bloggers who haven't created a web site solely to peddle their American Enterprise Institute-sponsored, Fox New-inspired, American Petroleum Institute-approved AGW denialism crap, they all (99\%) support the consensus.</p><p>In other words, if you find an AGW denialist website, it's one of the following:<br>- political rag (no scientific credentials)<br>- industry-sponsored self-serving outlet (scientific creds tainted by obvious conflict of interest when it's not 100\% PR)<br>- denialist scientist with nothing else to tell the public but denialism</p><p>Look at scienceblogs.com. Not one denialist. Or maybe 1 in 100. Look at all the publically speaking scientists; no, I'm not asking you to trust them more for that, I'm asking you to look at them because they spoke to the public before talking of GW. They don't just talk of that. The occasional scientist denialist only creates his blog to speak of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the website of actual scientists , and in particular , if you want to weed out the crap , science bloggers who have n't created a web site solely to peddle their American Enterprise Institute-sponsored , Fox New-inspired , American Petroleum Institute-approved AGW denialism crap , they all ( 99 \ % ) support the consensus.In other words , if you find an AGW denialist website , it 's one of the following : - political rag ( no scientific credentials ) - industry-sponsored self-serving outlet ( scientific creds tainted by obvious conflict of interest when it 's not 100 \ % PR ) - denialist scientist with nothing else to tell the public but denialismLook at scienceblogs.com .
Not one denialist .
Or maybe 1 in 100 .
Look at all the publically speaking scientists ; no , I 'm not asking you to trust them more for that , I 'm asking you to look at them because they spoke to the public before talking of GW .
They do n't just talk of that .
The occasional scientist denialist only creates his blog to speak of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the website of actual scientists, and in particular, if you want to weed out the crap, science bloggers who haven't created a web site solely to peddle their American Enterprise Institute-sponsored, Fox New-inspired, American Petroleum Institute-approved AGW denialism crap, they all (99\%) support the consensus.In other words, if you find an AGW denialist website, it's one of the following:- political rag (no scientific credentials)- industry-sponsored self-serving outlet (scientific creds tainted by obvious conflict of interest when it's not 100\% PR)- denialist scientist with nothing else to tell the public but denialismLook at scienceblogs.com.
Not one denialist.
Or maybe 1 in 100.
Look at all the publically speaking scientists; no, I'm not asking you to trust them more for that, I'm asking you to look at them because they spoke to the public before talking of GW.
They don't just talk of that.
The occasional scientist denialist only creates his blog to speak of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423028</id>
	<title>Re:PhD required?</title>
	<author>Daishiman</author>
	<datestamp>1260724080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently those brilliant people who understand statistics can't be bothered to refute AGW. Might it be perhaps because some of them HAVE looked at the process, consider it sound, and don't find it worthy of their time to add an "I agree" to the endless posting of much more valid scientific work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently those brilliant people who understand statistics ca n't be bothered to refute AGW .
Might it be perhaps because some of them HAVE looked at the process , consider it sound , and do n't find it worthy of their time to add an " I agree " to the endless posting of much more valid scientific work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently those brilliant people who understand statistics can't be bothered to refute AGW.
Might it be perhaps because some of them HAVE looked at the process, consider it sound, and don't find it worthy of their time to add an "I agree" to the endless posting of much more valid scientific work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420278</id>
	<title>Re:Is this an issue outside the US?</title>
	<author>Reapman</author>
	<datestamp>1260642000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest I think the point your making is hurting your argument.  Saying that ONLY the United States (and parts of England) are stupid enough to believe that global warming isn't happening shows you aren't paying enough attention to the non English speaking parts of the world, and even those countries that do speak English (such as Canada where I am).  It is quite likely that you only hear about views coming out of the US because either your from it or because thats where a lot of media comes from.  I get some news from Japan and I'd say that there's some differing opinions there, too.  Thats just one example.  Also note, telling me to look at my thermometer, when here it's currently -30C, isn't going to help much.</p><p>Note, I'm not saying I disagree that global warming/change isn't happening, I'm saying your argument isn't helping your case.  Please stop assuming that outside of the US is some enlightened wondrously great world.  People are people anywhere you go, being American doesn't make people naturally smart or naturally dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest I think the point your making is hurting your argument .
Saying that ONLY the United States ( and parts of England ) are stupid enough to believe that global warming is n't happening shows you are n't paying enough attention to the non English speaking parts of the world , and even those countries that do speak English ( such as Canada where I am ) .
It is quite likely that you only hear about views coming out of the US because either your from it or because thats where a lot of media comes from .
I get some news from Japan and I 'd say that there 's some differing opinions there , too .
Thats just one example .
Also note , telling me to look at my thermometer , when here it 's currently -30C , is n't going to help much.Note , I 'm not saying I disagree that global warming/change is n't happening , I 'm saying your argument is n't helping your case .
Please stop assuming that outside of the US is some enlightened wondrously great world .
People are people anywhere you go , being American does n't make people naturally smart or naturally dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest I think the point your making is hurting your argument.
Saying that ONLY the United States (and parts of England) are stupid enough to believe that global warming isn't happening shows you aren't paying enough attention to the non English speaking parts of the world, and even those countries that do speak English (such as Canada where I am).
It is quite likely that you only hear about views coming out of the US because either your from it or because thats where a lot of media comes from.
I get some news from Japan and I'd say that there's some differing opinions there, too.
Thats just one example.
Also note, telling me to look at my thermometer, when here it's currently -30C, isn't going to help much.Note, I'm not saying I disagree that global warming/change isn't happening, I'm saying your argument isn't helping your case.
Please stop assuming that outside of the US is some enlightened wondrously great world.
People are people anywhere you go, being American doesn't make people naturally smart or naturally dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419996</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260639480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I grew up hearing the claims of CFC's depleting the ozone layer and acid rain causing deforestation, and I saw them to be true with time.  Once a few measures were put in place to reduce the root cause, the problems all but vanished and nature rebounded with astounding speed.  The key here is that those "theories" of the root causes could be physically modeled in laboratories, not extrapolations of curve fits as is the case with global warming.  I've thrown students out of lab courses for what I then considered to be faking data, only to observe graduate level statistics courses teaching methods to normalize and transform data to modify the influence so that they fit some model; so called acceptable methods of data manipulation to achieve the desired result.  Not being able to refute the AGW concepts is like not being able to refute that there is a God.  There is no physical proof, but rather bits and pieces of information here and there that could be interpreted in some manner that can either confirm or deny existence.  Without hard evidence, the debate recycles and nothing of consequence is gained but a sore throat from the shouting matches.  Politicians love a good crisis, as people tend to willingly give up their hard fought rights so that government will do something to fix it.  In this case, politicians have fed the competitive nature of funding and status in the community by throwing money and prestige to anyone publishing supporting articles.  When the journal asks for reviewers, it seeks out those with long histories of publishing well received articles, namely those who have raised the "impact" of the journal on the field, as this builds prestige of the journal and with it, more subscriptions.  Editors and reviewers know this and support whatever zeitgeist exists at the time, be it global warming alarmism, meteoric crashes with earth, or terrorism.  At the end of the day, science has been politicized for the gain of some and the detriment of all.  Few realize the consequences that the actions of these "climatologists" will have on the implicit trust of the scientific method, but those that do shudder at the thought of science being reduced to the same level of public trust as talk show hosts.  For all the armchair scientists, I say that they are on to something when they question how increased taxes and government spending are the solutions to global warming.  Skepticism of group think should be encouraged, not shouted down.  That is the way of science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew up hearing the claims of CFC 's depleting the ozone layer and acid rain causing deforestation , and I saw them to be true with time .
Once a few measures were put in place to reduce the root cause , the problems all but vanished and nature rebounded with astounding speed .
The key here is that those " theories " of the root causes could be physically modeled in laboratories , not extrapolations of curve fits as is the case with global warming .
I 've thrown students out of lab courses for what I then considered to be faking data , only to observe graduate level statistics courses teaching methods to normalize and transform data to modify the influence so that they fit some model ; so called acceptable methods of data manipulation to achieve the desired result .
Not being able to refute the AGW concepts is like not being able to refute that there is a God .
There is no physical proof , but rather bits and pieces of information here and there that could be interpreted in some manner that can either confirm or deny existence .
Without hard evidence , the debate recycles and nothing of consequence is gained but a sore throat from the shouting matches .
Politicians love a good crisis , as people tend to willingly give up their hard fought rights so that government will do something to fix it .
In this case , politicians have fed the competitive nature of funding and status in the community by throwing money and prestige to anyone publishing supporting articles .
When the journal asks for reviewers , it seeks out those with long histories of publishing well received articles , namely those who have raised the " impact " of the journal on the field , as this builds prestige of the journal and with it , more subscriptions .
Editors and reviewers know this and support whatever zeitgeist exists at the time , be it global warming alarmism , meteoric crashes with earth , or terrorism .
At the end of the day , science has been politicized for the gain of some and the detriment of all .
Few realize the consequences that the actions of these " climatologists " will have on the implicit trust of the scientific method , but those that do shudder at the thought of science being reduced to the same level of public trust as talk show hosts .
For all the armchair scientists , I say that they are on to something when they question how increased taxes and government spending are the solutions to global warming .
Skepticism of group think should be encouraged , not shouted down .
That is the way of science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew up hearing the claims of CFC's depleting the ozone layer and acid rain causing deforestation, and I saw them to be true with time.
Once a few measures were put in place to reduce the root cause, the problems all but vanished and nature rebounded with astounding speed.
The key here is that those "theories" of the root causes could be physically modeled in laboratories, not extrapolations of curve fits as is the case with global warming.
I've thrown students out of lab courses for what I then considered to be faking data, only to observe graduate level statistics courses teaching methods to normalize and transform data to modify the influence so that they fit some model; so called acceptable methods of data manipulation to achieve the desired result.
Not being able to refute the AGW concepts is like not being able to refute that there is a God.
There is no physical proof, but rather bits and pieces of information here and there that could be interpreted in some manner that can either confirm or deny existence.
Without hard evidence, the debate recycles and nothing of consequence is gained but a sore throat from the shouting matches.
Politicians love a good crisis, as people tend to willingly give up their hard fought rights so that government will do something to fix it.
In this case, politicians have fed the competitive nature of funding and status in the community by throwing money and prestige to anyone publishing supporting articles.
When the journal asks for reviewers, it seeks out those with long histories of publishing well received articles, namely those who have raised the "impact" of the journal on the field, as this builds prestige of the journal and with it, more subscriptions.
Editors and reviewers know this and support whatever zeitgeist exists at the time, be it global warming alarmism, meteoric crashes with earth, or terrorism.
At the end of the day, science has been politicized for the gain of some and the detriment of all.
Few realize the consequences that the actions of these "climatologists" will have on the implicit trust of the scientific method, but those that do shudder at the thought of science being reduced to the same level of public trust as talk show hosts.
For all the armchair scientists, I say that they are on to something when they question how increased taxes and government spending are the solutions to global warming.
Skepticism of group think should be encouraged, not shouted down.
That is the way of science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419876</id>
	<title>Open-minded?</title>
	<author>MaggieL</author>
	<datestamp>1260638640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say somebody who's referring to skepticism as "denialist humbug" is in no danger of being accused of being "open-minded". For him the "science is settled". Sad.</p><p>This isn't science, it's collectivist religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say somebody who 's referring to skepticism as " denialist humbug " is in no danger of being accused of being " open-minded " .
For him the " science is settled " .
Sad.This is n't science , it 's collectivist religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say somebody who's referring to skepticism as "denialist humbug" is in no danger of being accused of being "open-minded".
For him the "science is settled".
Sad.This isn't science, it's collectivist religion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420876</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260734460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um they are the ones saying 'hey change your ways'.  They are asking for TRILLIONS of dollars in funding and changes.  Well they damn well better prove it and making absolutely crystal clear to everyone.  They better make time for it...  Many times when I work with someone 'who is too busy to help or explain something' it usually means they are so out of their league and way behind in actually doing anything because they do not understand it at all.</p><p>I was hoping for some proper science.  It has been evident for many years that all we get out of these folks is 'trust us we know what we are doing you wouldnt understand all the statistics'.  You even help them do it with your 'dont bother the man behind the curtain'.  Well try us.  Or as my professor with a doctorate in statistics said on the first day of classes 'lies damn lies and statistics'.  You can cherry pick data to make things have a higher mean or lower or whatever you like.  Just by changing a few numbers, or adding in something, or even throwing things out.  Hell its a stats 101 exercise to do so.</p><p>I was hoping both sides would calm down and do some real science.  Instead both sides have retrenched in.  The REAL skeptics should be the scientists coming up with these ideas.  They should spend every day trying to disprove their own ideas.  Instead we are plowing forward as if everything is on the line.  It may very well be.  But if the science behind it is 'fuzzy math' then we are could be wasting a good amount of money when we could be doing things like buy food for people who need it.  Or other worthwhile endeavors.</p><p>The skeptics or 'deniers' are busy building their own plans now on the leaked data.  And the GW crowd is busy trying to bury the PR disaster.  Instead of real science we get politics and finger pointing.  A pox on both groups.</p><p>My spidy BS detector is going off in a big way with both of these groups.  It is rarely wrong.  *sarcasm on* Trust me...  I dont have time to discuss it, its a waste of my time *sarcasm off*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um they are the ones saying 'hey change your ways' .
They are asking for TRILLIONS of dollars in funding and changes .
Well they damn well better prove it and making absolutely crystal clear to everyone .
They better make time for it... Many times when I work with someone 'who is too busy to help or explain something ' it usually means they are so out of their league and way behind in actually doing anything because they do not understand it at all.I was hoping for some proper science .
It has been evident for many years that all we get out of these folks is 'trust us we know what we are doing you wouldnt understand all the statistics' .
You even help them do it with your 'dont bother the man behind the curtain' .
Well try us .
Or as my professor with a doctorate in statistics said on the first day of classes 'lies damn lies and statistics' .
You can cherry pick data to make things have a higher mean or lower or whatever you like .
Just by changing a few numbers , or adding in something , or even throwing things out .
Hell its a stats 101 exercise to do so.I was hoping both sides would calm down and do some real science .
Instead both sides have retrenched in .
The REAL skeptics should be the scientists coming up with these ideas .
They should spend every day trying to disprove their own ideas .
Instead we are plowing forward as if everything is on the line .
It may very well be .
But if the science behind it is 'fuzzy math ' then we are could be wasting a good amount of money when we could be doing things like buy food for people who need it .
Or other worthwhile endeavors.The skeptics or 'deniers ' are busy building their own plans now on the leaked data .
And the GW crowd is busy trying to bury the PR disaster .
Instead of real science we get politics and finger pointing .
A pox on both groups.My spidy BS detector is going off in a big way with both of these groups .
It is rarely wrong .
* sarcasm on * Trust me... I dont have time to discuss it , its a waste of my time * sarcasm off *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um they are the ones saying 'hey change your ways'.
They are asking for TRILLIONS of dollars in funding and changes.
Well they damn well better prove it and making absolutely crystal clear to everyone.
They better make time for it...  Many times when I work with someone 'who is too busy to help or explain something' it usually means they are so out of their league and way behind in actually doing anything because they do not understand it at all.I was hoping for some proper science.
It has been evident for many years that all we get out of these folks is 'trust us we know what we are doing you wouldnt understand all the statistics'.
You even help them do it with your 'dont bother the man behind the curtain'.
Well try us.
Or as my professor with a doctorate in statistics said on the first day of classes 'lies damn lies and statistics'.
You can cherry pick data to make things have a higher mean or lower or whatever you like.
Just by changing a few numbers, or adding in something, or even throwing things out.
Hell its a stats 101 exercise to do so.I was hoping both sides would calm down and do some real science.
Instead both sides have retrenched in.
The REAL skeptics should be the scientists coming up with these ideas.
They should spend every day trying to disprove their own ideas.
Instead we are plowing forward as if everything is on the line.
It may very well be.
But if the science behind it is 'fuzzy math' then we are could be wasting a good amount of money when we could be doing things like buy food for people who need it.
Or other worthwhile endeavors.The skeptics or 'deniers' are busy building their own plans now on the leaked data.
And the GW crowd is busy trying to bury the PR disaster.
Instead of real science we get politics and finger pointing.
A pox on both groups.My spidy BS detector is going off in a big way with both of these groups.
It is rarely wrong.
*sarcasm on* Trust me...  I dont have time to discuss it, its a waste of my time *sarcasm off*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294</id>
	<title>Peer review is not everything</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1260633660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are tons of examples of peer review not working.  Even ignoring papers that are outright fraud but still manage to get through, scientific journals are places for debate, they don't establish truth. Any particular paper (that is good) will be looking at certain evidence, and possibly be considering its implications, it doesn't establish the final word on the matter.<br> <br>
Now, you can choose to rely on the opinions of scientists to form your opinions, and often that is enough, but if you really want to be sure of any particular topic, you should investigate it yourself. It might take a lot of work, but you will be rewarded with knowledge.<br> <br>
That said, global warming isn't all that inaccessible.  If you have a basic background in math and physics, you can get close to the cutting edge just by reading the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" title="www.ipcc.ch">IPCC report </a> [www.ipcc.ch] since its such a great summary of the field. I guarantee you will quadruple your understanding of the topic just by reading that alone, and it will give you a good launching point to dig deeper, because everything it talks about is directly referenced to real peer reviewed papers.<br> <br>
Some interesting things I found reading the IPCC report:<ul> <li>
It isn't entirely certain that the net effect of human pollution is warming, it could also be cooling (see chapter 2).</li><li>
Despite some sensationalistic propaganda floating around, sea level rises are happening slower than geological processes (plate tectonics etc) on any given coast (see chapter 5).</li><li>
There is no reliable knowledge of how much CO2 has affected the current warming trend. The report says 'most of it' based on the logic that they can't think of another explanation.(see chapter 9)</li><li>
The writers of the IPCC report aren't very confident of their main conclusion, which is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is human caused. In the report, they are very careful to qualify that statement; although they are not so careful in press conferences (see the synthesis report).</li></ul><p>
Every self-respecting geek who is willing to opine on the subject of global warming should read that report. Otherwise they are leaving themselves uninformed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are tons of examples of peer review not working .
Even ignoring papers that are outright fraud but still manage to get through , scientific journals are places for debate , they do n't establish truth .
Any particular paper ( that is good ) will be looking at certain evidence , and possibly be considering its implications , it does n't establish the final word on the matter .
Now , you can choose to rely on the opinions of scientists to form your opinions , and often that is enough , but if you really want to be sure of any particular topic , you should investigate it yourself .
It might take a lot of work , but you will be rewarded with knowledge .
That said , global warming is n't all that inaccessible .
If you have a basic background in math and physics , you can get close to the cutting edge just by reading the IPCC report [ www.ipcc.ch ] since its such a great summary of the field .
I guarantee you will quadruple your understanding of the topic just by reading that alone , and it will give you a good launching point to dig deeper , because everything it talks about is directly referenced to real peer reviewed papers .
Some interesting things I found reading the IPCC report : It is n't entirely certain that the net effect of human pollution is warming , it could also be cooling ( see chapter 2 ) .
Despite some sensationalistic propaganda floating around , sea level rises are happening slower than geological processes ( plate tectonics etc ) on any given coast ( see chapter 5 ) .
There is no reliable knowledge of how much CO2 has affected the current warming trend .
The report says 'most of it ' based on the logic that they ca n't think of another explanation .
( see chapter 9 ) The writers of the IPCC report are n't very confident of their main conclusion , which is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is human caused .
In the report , they are very careful to qualify that statement ; although they are not so careful in press conferences ( see the synthesis report ) .
Every self-respecting geek who is willing to opine on the subject of global warming should read that report .
Otherwise they are leaving themselves uninformed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are tons of examples of peer review not working.
Even ignoring papers that are outright fraud but still manage to get through, scientific journals are places for debate, they don't establish truth.
Any particular paper (that is good) will be looking at certain evidence, and possibly be considering its implications, it doesn't establish the final word on the matter.
Now, you can choose to rely on the opinions of scientists to form your opinions, and often that is enough, but if you really want to be sure of any particular topic, you should investigate it yourself.
It might take a lot of work, but you will be rewarded with knowledge.
That said, global warming isn't all that inaccessible.
If you have a basic background in math and physics, you can get close to the cutting edge just by reading the IPCC report  [www.ipcc.ch] since its such a great summary of the field.
I guarantee you will quadruple your understanding of the topic just by reading that alone, and it will give you a good launching point to dig deeper, because everything it talks about is directly referenced to real peer reviewed papers.
Some interesting things I found reading the IPCC report: 
It isn't entirely certain that the net effect of human pollution is warming, it could also be cooling (see chapter 2).
Despite some sensationalistic propaganda floating around, sea level rises are happening slower than geological processes (plate tectonics etc) on any given coast (see chapter 5).
There is no reliable knowledge of how much CO2 has affected the current warming trend.
The report says 'most of it' based on the logic that they can't think of another explanation.
(see chapter 9)
The writers of the IPCC report aren't very confident of their main conclusion, which is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is human caused.
In the report, they are very careful to qualify that statement; although they are not so careful in press conferences (see the synthesis report).
Every self-respecting geek who is willing to opine on the subject of global warming should read that report.
Otherwise they are leaving themselves uninformed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420340</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Kohath</author>
	<datestamp>1260642600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes you just have to accept that the other person just might know more about a topic than you.</p></div><p>Other times, you don't.</p><p>Peer review is essential.  When the science is being used as an excuse to control <i>everyone's</i> life, then <i>everyone</i> is a peer, and we are all entitled to review the findings.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes you just have to accept that the other person just might know more about a topic than you.Other times , you do n't.Peer review is essential .
When the science is being used as an excuse to control everyone 's life , then everyone is a peer , and we are all entitled to review the findings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes you just have to accept that the other person just might know more about a topic than you.Other times, you don't.Peer review is essential.
When the science is being used as an excuse to control everyone's life, then everyone is a peer, and we are all entitled to review the findings.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419370</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1260634440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that the climate science isn't the problem in terms of AGW; the problem is that the solutions to AGW are arguably economically questionable.  Hence the issue has become intensely politicized.  People who strongly oppose the proposed solutions to AGW are often the same ones who tend to argue aainst AW as a whole regardless of their actual knowlede of the topic.  People need to be able to separate the two issues from one another, that is to say that the existence of AGW is a separate issue than any solutions to AGW.  However, it will never ever happen.  Both ends of the issues will not yield ground and everyone ends up losing something in the bickering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that the climate science is n't the problem in terms of AGW ; the problem is that the solutions to AGW are arguably economically questionable .
Hence the issue has become intensely politicized .
People who strongly oppose the proposed solutions to AGW are often the same ones who tend to argue aainst AW as a whole regardless of their actual knowlede of the topic .
People need to be able to separate the two issues from one another , that is to say that the existence of AGW is a separate issue than any solutions to AGW .
However , it will never ever happen .
Both ends of the issues will not yield ground and everyone ends up losing something in the bickering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that the climate science isn't the problem in terms of AGW; the problem is that the solutions to AGW are arguably economically questionable.
Hence the issue has become intensely politicized.
People who strongly oppose the proposed solutions to AGW are often the same ones who tend to argue aainst AW as a whole regardless of their actual knowlede of the topic.
People need to be able to separate the two issues from one another, that is to say that the existence of AGW is a separate issue than any solutions to AGW.
However, it will never ever happen.
Both ends of the issues will not yield ground and everyone ends up losing something in the bickering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30425976</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1260706020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you object to the blantant misrepresentation of scientific facts by mass-media journalists lacking the necessary education to understand the issue they're writing about?</p><p>Welcome to the club, active since... well, one hell of a long time. Read <a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&amp;id=1623" title="smbc-comics.com">this</a> [smbc-comics.com] and <a href="http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174" title="phdcomics.com">this</a> [phdcomics.com] for a rough idea on how modern journalism really works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you object to the blantant misrepresentation of scientific facts by mass-media journalists lacking the necessary education to understand the issue they 're writing about ? Welcome to the club , active since... well , one hell of a long time .
Read this [ smbc-comics.com ] and this [ phdcomics.com ] for a rough idea on how modern journalism really works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you object to the blantant misrepresentation of scientific facts by mass-media journalists lacking the necessary education to understand the issue they're writing about?Welcome to the club, active since... well, one hell of a long time.
Read this [smbc-comics.com] and this [phdcomics.com] for a rough idea on how modern journalism really works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</id>
	<title>re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>jelizondo</author>
	<datestamp>1260632340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I beg all of you to please see this <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan\_haidt\_on\_the\_moral\_mind.html" title="ted.com" rel="nofollow">TED Talk</a> [ted.com] before modding me down again. Ive been labelled <i>heretic</i> for posting on related stories in the last couple of weeks, actually modded insightful until the thought police arrived and modded me troll. </p><p>The weather exhibits <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic\_system" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">chaotic behavior</a> [wikipedia.org] and to find precisely <i>one single cause</i> for variation is futile, like CO2 emissions from human activities.</p><p> <strong>The hottest day on record!</strong> screams the summary. Er, well since 1941. Well and good, how do you know the hottest day last century in Australia didn't happen in 1940?</p><p>The Earth has been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last\_glacial\_period" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">getting warmer</a> [wikipedia.org] since about 10,000 years ago. Truth. AGW doesn't explain that. But it does follow that the Earth was getting warmer while we humans still lived in caves and were probably numbered in the thousands, not in millions of people. No, we are told. AGW is about the <i>speeding up</i> of warming. Really? We know for sure what the speed of variation would be without humans around? Let us not confuse premises with facts.</p><p>The variables are many and not one of them is well understood: ocean currents, atmospheric currents, solar radiation (insolation), the effect of the strength of the Van Allen belt, volcanic eruptions, etc. No weather model can correctly predict past, known, climate; how can one believe that the future predictions are correct?</p><p>We need a more open discussion and a lot less cries of <strong>burn the heretics</strong>. We are talking about science, not religion.</p><p>BTW, if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past, known weather, please post a link.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I beg all of you to please see this TED Talk [ ted.com ] before modding me down again .
Ive been labelled heretic for posting on related stories in the last couple of weeks , actually modded insightful until the thought police arrived and modded me troll .
The weather exhibits chaotic behavior [ wikipedia.org ] and to find precisely one single cause for variation is futile , like CO2 emissions from human activities .
The hottest day on record !
screams the summary .
Er , well since 1941 .
Well and good , how do you know the hottest day last century in Australia did n't happen in 1940 ? The Earth has been getting warmer [ wikipedia.org ] since about 10,000 years ago .
Truth. AGW does n't explain that .
But it does follow that the Earth was getting warmer while we humans still lived in caves and were probably numbered in the thousands , not in millions of people .
No , we are told .
AGW is about the speeding up of warming .
Really ? We know for sure what the speed of variation would be without humans around ?
Let us not confuse premises with facts.The variables are many and not one of them is well understood : ocean currents , atmospheric currents , solar radiation ( insolation ) , the effect of the strength of the Van Allen belt , volcanic eruptions , etc .
No weather model can correctly predict past , known , climate ; how can one believe that the future predictions are correct ? We need a more open discussion and a lot less cries of burn the heretics .
We are talking about science , not religion.BTW , if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past , known weather , please post a link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I beg all of you to please see this TED Talk [ted.com] before modding me down again.
Ive been labelled heretic for posting on related stories in the last couple of weeks, actually modded insightful until the thought police arrived and modded me troll.
The weather exhibits chaotic behavior [wikipedia.org] and to find precisely one single cause for variation is futile, like CO2 emissions from human activities.
The hottest day on record!
screams the summary.
Er, well since 1941.
Well and good, how do you know the hottest day last century in Australia didn't happen in 1940?The Earth has been getting warmer [wikipedia.org] since about 10,000 years ago.
Truth. AGW doesn't explain that.
But it does follow that the Earth was getting warmer while we humans still lived in caves and were probably numbered in the thousands, not in millions of people.
No, we are told.
AGW is about the speeding up of warming.
Really? We know for sure what the speed of variation would be without humans around?
Let us not confuse premises with facts.The variables are many and not one of them is well understood: ocean currents, atmospheric currents, solar radiation (insolation), the effect of the strength of the Van Allen belt, volcanic eruptions, etc.
No weather model can correctly predict past, known, climate; how can one believe that the future predictions are correct?We need a more open discussion and a lot less cries of burn the heretics.
We are talking about science, not religion.BTW, if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past, known weather, please post a link.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420622</id>
	<title>The stakes are too high.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1260645360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's kind of tough for someone in Ohio and Michigan to swallow the pill of higher energy costs and a further reduced lifestyle to save the very port cities that blithly ignored the total social destruction brought about the port cities forcing free trade and international finance down the rest of the nation's throat.  I mean, its very hard to care about San Francisco being under 20 feet of water when the people of San Francisco had no problem unload millions of Japanese and Korean cars to the destruction of half of the jobs in the Cleveland, Akron, Detroit, and more.  After decades of being told to accept a reduced lifestyle and adjust due to change brought on by the shipping of massive goods by the coast, suddenly the coast wants even further cuts in the interior's way of life to continue?  It seems to me that if you look at the map and see Japan, Korea, and half of China underwater, that all looks pretty good if you just got laid off from GM Detroit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's kind of tough for someone in Ohio and Michigan to swallow the pill of higher energy costs and a further reduced lifestyle to save the very port cities that blithly ignored the total social destruction brought about the port cities forcing free trade and international finance down the rest of the nation 's throat .
I mean , its very hard to care about San Francisco being under 20 feet of water when the people of San Francisco had no problem unload millions of Japanese and Korean cars to the destruction of half of the jobs in the Cleveland , Akron , Detroit , and more .
After decades of being told to accept a reduced lifestyle and adjust due to change brought on by the shipping of massive goods by the coast , suddenly the coast wants even further cuts in the interior 's way of life to continue ?
It seems to me that if you look at the map and see Japan , Korea , and half of China underwater , that all looks pretty good if you just got laid off from GM Detroit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's kind of tough for someone in Ohio and Michigan to swallow the pill of higher energy costs and a further reduced lifestyle to save the very port cities that blithly ignored the total social destruction brought about the port cities forcing free trade and international finance down the rest of the nation's throat.
I mean, its very hard to care about San Francisco being under 20 feet of water when the people of San Francisco had no problem unload millions of Japanese and Korean cars to the destruction of half of the jobs in the Cleveland, Akron, Detroit, and more.
After decades of being told to accept a reduced lifestyle and adjust due to change brought on by the shipping of massive goods by the coast, suddenly the coast wants even further cuts in the interior's way of life to continue?
It seems to me that if you look at the map and see Japan, Korea, and half of China underwater, that all looks pretty good if you just got laid off from GM Detroit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30429394</id>
	<title>You make a Valid point, BUTT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260790860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the so called smoking gun emails make mention of jerry meandering of said peer reviewed process by the total blocking or stonewall of those either opposed to the science as the have claimed in the emails to have done, the question becomes not when do I quit being a skeptic but rather when should I start. The problem is when you talk openly about rigging the peer review system you openly revert to mysticism, you know, a belief based on a gut feeling not on a proven mathematical model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the so called smoking gun emails make mention of jerry meandering of said peer reviewed process by the total blocking or stonewall of those either opposed to the science as the have claimed in the emails to have done , the question becomes not when do I quit being a skeptic but rather when should I start .
The problem is when you talk openly about rigging the peer review system you openly revert to mysticism , you know , a belief based on a gut feeling not on a proven mathematical model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the so called smoking gun emails make mention of jerry meandering of said peer reviewed process by the total blocking or stonewall of those either opposed to the science as the have claimed in the emails to have done, the question becomes not when do I quit being a skeptic but rather when should I start.
The problem is when you talk openly about rigging the peer review system you openly revert to mysticism, you know, a belief based on a gut feeling not on a proven mathematical model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30427314</id>
	<title>Re:Open-minded?</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1260717960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>denialist humbug</p><p>If it quacks like a duck.......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>denialist humbugIf it quacks like a duck...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>denialist humbugIf it quacks like a duck.......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419818</id>
	<title>Re:Hottest month in Darwin...</title>
	<author>Jacques Chester</author>
	<datestamp>1260638220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Darwin was founded in 1869 as Port Darwin / Palmerston.</p><p>The data under discussion is a series from records beginning in the 1880s, which were later continued into a series taken from a weather station at Darwin Airport (from the 1920s onwards, I believe).</p><p>There are anomalies in the series which coincide with the Japanese bombing of Darwin and the city being struck by Cyclone Tracy, the worst natural disaster in the city's history.</p><p>Two things that aren't exactly clear to me are:</p><ul>
<li>When the airport-based series takes over from earlier records, and</li><li>Whether "airport" means the current site of the airport, or the original site of the airport (which is much closer to the sea), or some mix of both.</li></ul><p>I suppose if I still lived in Darwin I could ring the Bureau of Meteorology and ask them about it. They or the State Library should be able to sort out the question of what was gathered where and when.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Darwin was founded in 1869 as Port Darwin / Palmerston.The data under discussion is a series from records beginning in the 1880s , which were later continued into a series taken from a weather station at Darwin Airport ( from the 1920s onwards , I believe ) .There are anomalies in the series which coincide with the Japanese bombing of Darwin and the city being struck by Cyclone Tracy , the worst natural disaster in the city 's history.Two things that are n't exactly clear to me are : When the airport-based series takes over from earlier records , andWhether " airport " means the current site of the airport , or the original site of the airport ( which is much closer to the sea ) , or some mix of both.I suppose if I still lived in Darwin I could ring the Bureau of Meteorology and ask them about it .
They or the State Library should be able to sort out the question of what was gathered where and when .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darwin was founded in 1869 as Port Darwin / Palmerston.The data under discussion is a series from records beginning in the 1880s, which were later continued into a series taken from a weather station at Darwin Airport (from the 1920s onwards, I believe).There are anomalies in the series which coincide with the Japanese bombing of Darwin and the city being struck by Cyclone Tracy, the worst natural disaster in the city's history.Two things that aren't exactly clear to me are:
When the airport-based series takes over from earlier records, andWhether "airport" means the current site of the airport, or the original site of the airport (which is much closer to the sea), or some mix of both.I suppose if I still lived in Darwin I could ring the Bureau of Meteorology and ask them about it.
They or the State Library should be able to sort out the question of what was gathered where and when.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420568</id>
	<title>Re:And how do you get a peer reviewed AGW article?</title>
	<author>joe\_frisch</author>
	<datestamp>1260644760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I don't agree with your argument, your post certainly wasn't a troll - someone is mis-using mod points.<br>So - in the real world how can peer review be made to work - especially in a field where such a stunning amount of money and political pressure is involved? I'll agree that there is a problem - but how to fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't agree with your argument , your post certainly was n't a troll - someone is mis-using mod points.So - in the real world how can peer review be made to work - especially in a field where such a stunning amount of money and political pressure is involved ?
I 'll agree that there is a problem - but how to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't agree with your argument, your post certainly wasn't a troll - someone is mis-using mod points.So - in the real world how can peer review be made to work - especially in a field where such a stunning amount of money and political pressure is involved?
I'll agree that there is a problem - but how to fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421288</id>
	<title>It Won't Resolve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260697560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        Sadly science does not possess truth. What science does is to constantly update its beliefs so that science is less wrong perpetually.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Throw in Arthur C. Clark's remark that the universe is stranger than we can ever imagine.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Take the above and toss it to a person who has some sort of agenda and is loaded with numerous false beliefs and is emotionally way out there. He also can point out that science has no real grasp on the ultimate truth and that logic and science are some kind of strange variable in themselves.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Now take that individual and have him running about teaching and declaring his false beliefs and passing them to a population that is in no way equipped to discern the nature and problems involved when false information invades every little corner of their minds.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; That sets up a condition in which social disaster is a certainty. A population that does not or can not understand is a population that will turn to violence and overthrow of governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly science does not possess truth .
What science does is to constantly update its beliefs so that science is less wrong perpetually .
                Throw in Arthur C. Clark 's remark that the universe is stranger than we can ever imagine .
                Take the above and toss it to a person who has some sort of agenda and is loaded with numerous false beliefs and is emotionally way out there .
He also can point out that science has no real grasp on the ultimate truth and that logic and science are some kind of strange variable in themselves .
                  Now take that individual and have him running about teaching and declaring his false beliefs and passing them to a population that is in no way equipped to discern the nature and problems involved when false information invades every little corner of their minds .
                  That sets up a condition in which social disaster is a certainty .
A population that does not or can not understand is a population that will turn to violence and overthrow of governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        Sadly science does not possess truth.
What science does is to constantly update its beliefs so that science is less wrong perpetually.
                Throw in Arthur C. Clark's remark that the universe is stranger than we can ever imagine.
                Take the above and toss it to a person who has some sort of agenda and is loaded with numerous false beliefs and is emotionally way out there.
He also can point out that science has no real grasp on the ultimate truth and that logic and science are some kind of strange variable in themselves.
                  Now take that individual and have him running about teaching and declaring his false beliefs and passing them to a population that is in no way equipped to discern the nature and problems involved when false information invades every little corner of their minds.
                  That sets up a condition in which social disaster is a certainty.
A population that does not or can not understand is a population that will turn to violence and overthrow of governments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419920</id>
	<title>Some of them really are "denialists"</title>
	<author>Livius</author>
	<datestamp>1260638880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are skeptics and there are cult-like denialists.  Denialism exists and it has to be fought because it is particularly damaging.  Since the phenomenon is poorly-understood, we need to be able to discuss climate change and raise doubts and questions without the lunatic fringe dismissing the whole thing on the feeblest of pretexts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are skeptics and there are cult-like denialists .
Denialism exists and it has to be fought because it is particularly damaging .
Since the phenomenon is poorly-understood , we need to be able to discuss climate change and raise doubts and questions without the lunatic fringe dismissing the whole thing on the feeblest of pretexts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are skeptics and there are cult-like denialists.
Denialism exists and it has to be fought because it is particularly damaging.
Since the phenomenon is poorly-understood, we need to be able to discuss climate change and raise doubts and questions without the lunatic fringe dismissing the whole thing on the feeblest of pretexts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423306</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1260726780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great post! I, and dozens of intelligent, educated, and honest people that I know, would fall into one of the 2 through 6 categories.<br> <br>
The only adjustment I would make to this post would be to ease off the whole "con man" angle. Although I'm certain that many people feel this way about certain AGW proponents, that term(con man) is more antagonistic than equivalent terms like "disingenuous", "closed to criticism", or "suspicious".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great post !
I , and dozens of intelligent , educated , and honest people that I know , would fall into one of the 2 through 6 categories .
The only adjustment I would make to this post would be to ease off the whole " con man " angle .
Although I 'm certain that many people feel this way about certain AGW proponents , that term ( con man ) is more antagonistic than equivalent terms like " disingenuous " , " closed to criticism " , or " suspicious " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great post!
I, and dozens of intelligent, educated, and honest people that I know, would fall into one of the 2 through 6 categories.
The only adjustment I would make to this post would be to ease off the whole "con man" angle.
Although I'm certain that many people feel this way about certain AGW proponents, that term(con man) is more antagonistic than equivalent terms like "disingenuous", "closed to criticism", or "suspicious".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419690</id>
	<title>April is the cruellest month</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1260636960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every year a whole shitload of peer-reviewed articles get published, most of which are worthless crap that are not necessarily lies.</p><p>Peer review is not a QA process. A review board of peers does not guarantee the quality of a paper just like a jury of peers does not guarantee justice. A paper passing peer review only means that the paper has met the *minimum* standard of getting published. It left to the readers to assess the value and trustworthiness of the paper, which is what *publication* is for in the first place. If I read a paper and don't agree with its author, I publish my own research to refute it rather than file a complaint against the reviewers (who are usually anonymous anyway), and wait for the feedback from the reviewers, and hopefully get it approved for publication asap.</p><p>But here, we're talking about the *leaked* stuff here. Being leaked means that the material has NOT passed peer review, and the above chivalrous way does not apply.</p><p>There are indeed "interesting" things going on according to the leaked material (esp. a readme file by an unlucky "Harry"), and it's interesting enough for a heated and hopefully fruitful discussion, which is NOT at the peer-reviewed-publication level. On the contrary, these discussions provides a good complement angle which is not necessarily worthless.</p><p>Oh, and by the way, <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The\_Waste\_Land" title="wikisource.org" rel="nofollow">April is the cruellest month, breeding lilacs out of dead land, <b>mixing memory and desire</b>, stirring dull roots with spring rain</a> [wikisource.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) [emphasis mine]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every year a whole shitload of peer-reviewed articles get published , most of which are worthless crap that are not necessarily lies.Peer review is not a QA process .
A review board of peers does not guarantee the quality of a paper just like a jury of peers does not guarantee justice .
A paper passing peer review only means that the paper has met the * minimum * standard of getting published .
It left to the readers to assess the value and trustworthiness of the paper , which is what * publication * is for in the first place .
If I read a paper and do n't agree with its author , I publish my own research to refute it rather than file a complaint against the reviewers ( who are usually anonymous anyway ) , and wait for the feedback from the reviewers , and hopefully get it approved for publication asap.But here , we 're talking about the * leaked * stuff here .
Being leaked means that the material has NOT passed peer review , and the above chivalrous way does not apply.There are indeed " interesting " things going on according to the leaked material ( esp .
a readme file by an unlucky " Harry " ) , and it 's interesting enough for a heated and hopefully fruitful discussion , which is NOT at the peer-reviewed-publication level .
On the contrary , these discussions provides a good complement angle which is not necessarily worthless.Oh , and by the way , April is the cruellest month , breeding lilacs out of dead land , mixing memory and desire , stirring dull roots with spring rain [ wikisource.org ] ; - ) [ emphasis mine ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every year a whole shitload of peer-reviewed articles get published, most of which are worthless crap that are not necessarily lies.Peer review is not a QA process.
A review board of peers does not guarantee the quality of a paper just like a jury of peers does not guarantee justice.
A paper passing peer review only means that the paper has met the *minimum* standard of getting published.
It left to the readers to assess the value and trustworthiness of the paper, which is what *publication* is for in the first place.
If I read a paper and don't agree with its author, I publish my own research to refute it rather than file a complaint against the reviewers (who are usually anonymous anyway), and wait for the feedback from the reviewers, and hopefully get it approved for publication asap.But here, we're talking about the *leaked* stuff here.
Being leaked means that the material has NOT passed peer review, and the above chivalrous way does not apply.There are indeed "interesting" things going on according to the leaked material (esp.
a readme file by an unlucky "Harry"), and it's interesting enough for a heated and hopefully fruitful discussion, which is NOT at the peer-reviewed-publication level.
On the contrary, these discussions provides a good complement angle which is not necessarily worthless.Oh, and by the way, April is the cruellest month, breeding lilacs out of dead land, mixing memory and desire, stirring dull roots with spring rain [wikisource.org] ;-) [emphasis mine]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420202</id>
	<title>Re:PhD required?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260641340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that we often lend too much weight to the letters PhD. They used to have a sort of mystical air about them, until I got a PhD. Then I realized that besides the few really brilliant people, there are a lot of more normal people that just worked hard but are of a more mediocre intelligence and can say dumb stuff about the field they have studied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that we often lend too much weight to the letters PhD .
They used to have a sort of mystical air about them , until I got a PhD .
Then I realized that besides the few really brilliant people , there are a lot of more normal people that just worked hard but are of a more mediocre intelligence and can say dumb stuff about the field they have studied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that we often lend too much weight to the letters PhD.
They used to have a sort of mystical air about them, until I got a PhD.
Then I realized that besides the few really brilliant people, there are a lot of more normal people that just worked hard but are of a more mediocre intelligence and can say dumb stuff about the field they have studied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420736</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>bnenning</author>
	<datestamp>1260646440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outstanding post. It would be great if you could get it to a wider audience. AGW proponents are being needlessly polarizing and alienating those of us in categories 4 and 5, with whom there should be some common ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outstanding post .
It would be great if you could get it to a wider audience .
AGW proponents are being needlessly polarizing and alienating those of us in categories 4 and 5 , with whom there should be some common ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outstanding post.
It would be great if you could get it to a wider audience.
AGW proponents are being needlessly polarizing and alienating those of us in categories 4 and 5, with whom there should be some common ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419258</id>
	<title>Re:Requires a PHD .... HAHAHAH</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1260633420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>none, not one of these people has been able to reliably prove that humans have anything to do with climate change.</p></div><p>And why would that matter? If we believe the climate will change to reduce our living space thorough riding sea levels then we should do something about that, regardless of the root cause.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>none , not one of these people has been able to reliably prove that humans have anything to do with climate change.And why would that matter ?
If we believe the climate will change to reduce our living space thorough riding sea levels then we should do something about that , regardless of the root cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>none, not one of these people has been able to reliably prove that humans have anything to do with climate change.And why would that matter?
If we believe the climate will change to reduce our living space thorough riding sea levels then we should do something about that, regardless of the root cause.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419338</id>
	<title>"AGW denialist"?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1260634080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what European country will be first to make "AGW denial" a crime?</p><p>Look.  These guys are wrong, ok?  So just say so.  Once.  And then move on.  Do eminent geographers launch into frenzies of analysis whenever some loony asserts that the Earth is flat?  Acting defensive just makes you look defensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what European country will be first to make " AGW denial " a crime ? Look .
These guys are wrong , ok ?
So just say so .
Once. And then move on .
Do eminent geographers launch into frenzies of analysis whenever some loony asserts that the Earth is flat ?
Acting defensive just makes you look defensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what European country will be first to make "AGW denial" a crime?Look.
These guys are wrong, ok?
So just say so.
Once.  And then move on.
Do eminent geographers launch into frenzies of analysis whenever some loony asserts that the Earth is flat?
Acting defensive just makes you look defensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420474</id>
	<title>right...</title>
	<author>arclyte</author>
	<datestamp>1260643800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i doubt that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i doubt that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i doubt that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421374</id>
	<title>Arrogant NONSENSE</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1260699300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is utter nonsense, Climate data, unlike say Quantum string theory, does not require more than school mathematics and some (scientific) and other common sense.<br><br>The data, and lack of it, and the unreliability of proxies eg tree rings and ice cores is clear. The effects of poor experimental methods on modern data and the fact that, even then, recent data does not, in a statistically significant sense, support a warming hypothesis is obvious. If you plot, say, the last 10 years data it fits a slowly DECLINING line, not a Hockey Stick.<br><br>The mathematical models used by Climatologists have never been demonstrated to work, and almost always demonstrably fail, exactly as Chaos theory predicts, ie instability of the solutions of differential manifolds with respect to small variations of initial conditions.<br><br>UK climate scientists have been at this for fifty years, especially at the Met Office and have NEVER got it to work.<br><br>You need no PhD to conclude that AGW is populist un-scientific Bullshit, and is no more than a media scare story eg Flu Pandemic. It is also a symptom of the group-think here to label opponents as "deniers".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is utter nonsense , Climate data , unlike say Quantum string theory , does not require more than school mathematics and some ( scientific ) and other common sense.The data , and lack of it , and the unreliability of proxies eg tree rings and ice cores is clear .
The effects of poor experimental methods on modern data and the fact that , even then , recent data does not , in a statistically significant sense , support a warming hypothesis is obvious .
If you plot , say , the last 10 years data it fits a slowly DECLINING line , not a Hockey Stick.The mathematical models used by Climatologists have never been demonstrated to work , and almost always demonstrably fail , exactly as Chaos theory predicts , ie instability of the solutions of differential manifolds with respect to small variations of initial conditions.UK climate scientists have been at this for fifty years , especially at the Met Office and have NEVER got it to work.You need no PhD to conclude that AGW is populist un-scientific Bullshit , and is no more than a media scare story eg Flu Pandemic .
It is also a symptom of the group-think here to label opponents as " deniers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is utter nonsense, Climate data, unlike say Quantum string theory, does not require more than school mathematics and some (scientific) and other common sense.The data, and lack of it, and the unreliability of proxies eg tree rings and ice cores is clear.
The effects of poor experimental methods on modern data and the fact that, even then, recent data does not, in a statistically significant sense, support a warming hypothesis is obvious.
If you plot, say, the last 10 years data it fits a slowly DECLINING line, not a Hockey Stick.The mathematical models used by Climatologists have never been demonstrated to work, and almost always demonstrably fail, exactly as Chaos theory predicts, ie instability of the solutions of differential manifolds with respect to small variations of initial conditions.UK climate scientists have been at this for fifty years, especially at the Met Office and have NEVER got it to work.You need no PhD to conclude that AGW is populist un-scientific Bullshit, and is no more than a media scare story eg Flu Pandemic.
It is also a symptom of the group-think here to label opponents as "deniers".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article's point isn't to ignore all that.  It's that to say that some random blogger likely doesn't have the tools to correctly analyze the data, and may well be doing their own shaping of the facts.  And proving that to yourself is going to take a couple of hours (at least) of research and your time.  The end result of which is probably going to be that the people who posted the data were aware of the factor in question, went and checked what the source was, and have a good explanation for what's going on with the data and why they did what they did.</p><p>All of which is public record, and has been analyzed six ways from tuesday, by people with far better credentials than you or the blogger is likely to have.</p><p>So, in this writer's opinion, it's not worth his time.  If someone can get into the peer-reviewed journals, where the standards of competence and knowledge are much higher than on a random blog, he'll pay attention.  Because every time he's gone and done the background check on some blogger's new climate data scandal, he's found it isn't a scandal at all, and quite often (like in this case) the blogger <em>already knew that</em>.  But was posting it as a scandal anyway.</p><p>So it was a waste of time, both to read the blog and to take it seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article 's point is n't to ignore all that .
It 's that to say that some random blogger likely does n't have the tools to correctly analyze the data , and may well be doing their own shaping of the facts .
And proving that to yourself is going to take a couple of hours ( at least ) of research and your time .
The end result of which is probably going to be that the people who posted the data were aware of the factor in question , went and checked what the source was , and have a good explanation for what 's going on with the data and why they did what they did.All of which is public record , and has been analyzed six ways from tuesday , by people with far better credentials than you or the blogger is likely to have.So , in this writer 's opinion , it 's not worth his time .
If someone can get into the peer-reviewed journals , where the standards of competence and knowledge are much higher than on a random blog , he 'll pay attention .
Because every time he 's gone and done the background check on some blogger 's new climate data scandal , he 's found it is n't a scandal at all , and quite often ( like in this case ) the blogger already knew that .
But was posting it as a scandal anyway.So it was a waste of time , both to read the blog and to take it seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article's point isn't to ignore all that.
It's that to say that some random blogger likely doesn't have the tools to correctly analyze the data, and may well be doing their own shaping of the facts.
And proving that to yourself is going to take a couple of hours (at least) of research and your time.
The end result of which is probably going to be that the people who posted the data were aware of the factor in question, went and checked what the source was, and have a good explanation for what's going on with the data and why they did what they did.All of which is public record, and has been analyzed six ways from tuesday, by people with far better credentials than you or the blogger is likely to have.So, in this writer's opinion, it's not worth his time.
If someone can get into the peer-reviewed journals, where the standards of competence and knowledge are much higher than on a random blog, he'll pay attention.
Because every time he's gone and done the background check on some blogger's new climate data scandal, he's found it isn't a scandal at all, and quite often (like in this case) the blogger already knew that.
But was posting it as a scandal anyway.So it was a waste of time, both to read the blog and to take it seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422708</id>
	<title>Oh, by the way...</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1260721140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, by the way, October 2009 was the 3rd coldest on record in the US northern plains. Arguing global warming by anecdote is so discredited and self-defeating one wonders why the global warming hysterics still use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , by the way , October 2009 was the 3rd coldest on record in the US northern plains .
Arguing global warming by anecdote is so discredited and self-defeating one wonders why the global warming hysterics still use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, by the way, October 2009 was the 3rd coldest on record in the US northern plains.
Arguing global warming by anecdote is so discredited and self-defeating one wonders why the global warming hysterics still use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419790</id>
	<title>religion... if only...</title>
	<author>purpleraison</author>
	<datestamp>1260637980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong?"</p><p>Does this apply to religion as well?</p><p>Unfortunately, folks only assume this applies to science, but how many muslims (christians, et al.) think skepticism applies to religious snake-oil salesman as well? Consider this: if religions were held to task too we would never have met George Bush or Osama Bin Laden.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it 's shown to be wrong ?
" Does this apply to religion as well ? Unfortunately , folks only assume this applies to science , but how many muslims ( christians , et al .
) think skepticism applies to religious snake-oil salesman as well ?
Consider this : if religions were held to task too we would never have met George Bush or Osama Bin Laden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong?
"Does this apply to religion as well?Unfortunately, folks only assume this applies to science, but how many muslims (christians, et al.
) think skepticism applies to religious snake-oil salesman as well?
Consider this: if religions were held to task too we would never have met George Bush or Osama Bin Laden.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419232</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BTW, if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past, known weather, please post a link.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5477/270" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">At your service</a> [sciencemag.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past , known weather , please post a link .
At your service [ sciencemag.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past, known weather, please post a link.
At your service [sciencemag.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424016</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1260733440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also huge money to be lost from the changes required to deal with climate change too so I'd be skeptical of both sides of the argument personally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also huge money to be lost from the changes required to deal with climate change too so I 'd be skeptical of both sides of the argument personally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also huge money to be lost from the changes required to deal with climate change too so I'd be skeptical of both sides of the argument personally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30440478</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1260813300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>BTW, if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past, known weather, please post a link.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why would you expect a <b>climate</b> model to predict weather?  That's not their function.  Rather they predict the envelope that weather fits within.  The chaotic nature of weather is not an issue with climate because it just defines the limits of the chaotic behavior not what happens between those limits.  My understanding is that climate models do a pretty good job of predicting past climate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past , known weather , please post a link.Why would you expect a climate model to predict weather ?
That 's not their function .
Rather they predict the envelope that weather fits within .
The chaotic nature of weather is not an issue with climate because it just defines the limits of the chaotic behavior not what happens between those limits .
My understanding is that climate models do a pretty good job of predicting past climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past, known weather, please post a link.Why would you expect a climate model to predict weather?
That's not their function.
Rather they predict the envelope that weather fits within.
The chaotic nature of weather is not an issue with climate because it just defines the limits of the chaotic behavior not what happens between those limits.
My understanding is that climate models do a pretty good job of predicting past climate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424198</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>jabster</author>
	<datestamp>1260735120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time, which we'd rather they spent doing their actual job.</i></p><p>Yeah! Doing their jobs!</p><p>Which apparently means flying off to Copenhagen, driving around in gas-guzzling limos and SUVs, and galavanting around with the free hookers.</p><p>As soon as those screaming about the Climate Crisis, start ACTING like there's a Climate Crisis, maybe I'll start to listen to them.</p><p>Instead they spew out carbon equivalent to all of that expelled by Morocco for an entire year.</p><p>Crisis my ass.</p><p>-john</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time , which we 'd rather they spent doing their actual job.Yeah !
Doing their jobs ! Which apparently means flying off to Copenhagen , driving around in gas-guzzling limos and SUVs , and galavanting around with the free hookers.As soon as those screaming about the Climate Crisis , start ACTING like there 's a Climate Crisis , maybe I 'll start to listen to them.Instead they spew out carbon equivalent to all of that expelled by Morocco for an entire year.Crisis my ass.-john</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time, which we'd rather they spent doing their actual job.Yeah!
Doing their jobs!Which apparently means flying off to Copenhagen, driving around in gas-guzzling limos and SUVs, and galavanting around with the free hookers.As soon as those screaming about the Climate Crisis, start ACTING like there's a Climate Crisis, maybe I'll start to listen to them.Instead they spew out carbon equivalent to all of that expelled by Morocco for an entire year.Crisis my ass.-john</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420598</id>
	<title>If you Need a PHD to understand it - its a Secret</title>
	<author>gadlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1260645120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The argument that you need a PH.D to understand the climate models you folks have created means you've simply created a magic language like the religions of past - Latin for example being the official language of the Church which conveniently was not understandable by the common man. By creating a complicated language and set of mysterious rituals (like the 'Trick' of the one guy everyone on the Sky is Falling Brigade uses to pump up their numbers) you don't manage to be convincing. People aren't at the point any more when some guy in a robe speaking in a indecipherable tongue is enough to be convincing.  So pronouncing that you'll cease to answer critics if they don't rise to your level is counterproductive. But if you want to climb on your high horse, feel free. That's sure to convince reasonable people that you and your fellows aren't full of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument that you need a PH.D to understand the climate models you folks have created means you 've simply created a magic language like the religions of past - Latin for example being the official language of the Church which conveniently was not understandable by the common man .
By creating a complicated language and set of mysterious rituals ( like the 'Trick ' of the one guy everyone on the Sky is Falling Brigade uses to pump up their numbers ) you do n't manage to be convincing .
People are n't at the point any more when some guy in a robe speaking in a indecipherable tongue is enough to be convincing .
So pronouncing that you 'll cease to answer critics if they do n't rise to your level is counterproductive .
But if you want to climb on your high horse , feel free .
That 's sure to convince reasonable people that you and your fellows are n't full of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument that you need a PH.D to understand the climate models you folks have created means you've simply created a magic language like the religions of past - Latin for example being the official language of the Church which conveniently was not understandable by the common man.
By creating a complicated language and set of mysterious rituals (like the 'Trick' of the one guy everyone on the Sky is Falling Brigade uses to pump up their numbers) you don't manage to be convincing.
People aren't at the point any more when some guy in a robe speaking in a indecipherable tongue is enough to be convincing.
So pronouncing that you'll cease to answer critics if they don't rise to your level is counterproductive.
But if you want to climb on your high horse, feel free.
That's sure to convince reasonable people that you and your fellows aren't full of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426022</id>
	<title>Re:The author's claims are idiotic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260706380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, I'm truly interested in a citation about the IPCC referencing non-peer reviewed papers for their report.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I 'm truly interested in a citation about the IPCC referencing non-peer reviewed papers for their report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I'm truly interested in a citation about the IPCC referencing non-peer reviewed papers for their report.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421236</id>
	<title>Re:Peer review is not everything</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1260696960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Every self respecting geek" my ass.  Is it really that hard to provide a <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/publications\_ipcc\_fourth\_assessment\_report\_wg1\_report\_the\_physical\_science\_basis.htm" title="www.ipcc.ch">proper</a> [www.ipcc.ch] link to the document you're advocating as good background material?  Or did I get it wrong, because really, it's just a guess that that's the one you're referring to.  There's several dozen available on the IPCC web site for the last session alone.  I'm not in the mood to dig through them all, only to discover that the one you're talking about was from two, maybe three sessions back.<br>
<br>
Did I guess correctly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Every self respecting geek " my ass .
Is it really that hard to provide a proper [ www.ipcc.ch ] link to the document you 're advocating as good background material ?
Or did I get it wrong , because really , it 's just a guess that that 's the one you 're referring to .
There 's several dozen available on the IPCC web site for the last session alone .
I 'm not in the mood to dig through them all , only to discover that the one you 're talking about was from two , maybe three sessions back .
Did I guess correctly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Every self respecting geek" my ass.
Is it really that hard to provide a proper [www.ipcc.ch] link to the document you're advocating as good background material?
Or did I get it wrong, because really, it's just a guess that that's the one you're referring to.
There's several dozen available on the IPCC web site for the last session alone.
I'm not in the mood to dig through them all, only to discover that the one you're talking about was from two, maybe three sessions back.
Did I guess correctly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30496498</id>
	<title>bravo</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1261157160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30430074</id>
	<title>Global Warming is a science problem, not the debat</title>
	<author>josephcmiller2</author>
	<datestamp>1260800340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AGW is a scientific problem that climatologists can work on.  But the effect on our economic, social, geographical, pschological, etc. aspects are not climate issues.  Therefore regardless of the result of any global climate study, the climatologist is not in a position to claim what that means for us.  If they do make claims without the proper "credentials" as some of you point out, they are acting advocates, not scientists.  They must involve those who can interpret what these climate changes will mean for us, the people.  Otherwise, they are engaging in the same kind of baseless-claim-making that they accuse their opponents of.
<br> <br>
Not to even mention the fact that these studies are as much an exercise at statistics as they are in the scientific measuring, etc.  Some of these guys are demonstrably not very good at the statistics portion of their science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AGW is a scientific problem that climatologists can work on .
But the effect on our economic , social , geographical , pschological , etc .
aspects are not climate issues .
Therefore regardless of the result of any global climate study , the climatologist is not in a position to claim what that means for us .
If they do make claims without the proper " credentials " as some of you point out , they are acting advocates , not scientists .
They must involve those who can interpret what these climate changes will mean for us , the people .
Otherwise , they are engaging in the same kind of baseless-claim-making that they accuse their opponents of .
Not to even mention the fact that these studies are as much an exercise at statistics as they are in the scientific measuring , etc .
Some of these guys are demonstrably not very good at the statistics portion of their science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AGW is a scientific problem that climatologists can work on.
But the effect on our economic, social, geographical, pschological, etc.
aspects are not climate issues.
Therefore regardless of the result of any global climate study, the climatologist is not in a position to claim what that means for us.
If they do make claims without the proper "credentials" as some of you point out, they are acting advocates, not scientists.
They must involve those who can interpret what these climate changes will mean for us, the people.
Otherwise, they are engaging in the same kind of baseless-claim-making that they accuse their opponents of.
Not to even mention the fact that these studies are as much an exercise at statistics as they are in the scientific measuring, etc.
Some of these guys are demonstrably not very good at the statistics portion of their science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420336</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Americium</author>
	<datestamp>1260642600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then publish open source. You might find other scientists making fun of you constantly when you get it wrong tho. ArXiV has so much crap on it already..... that I love to make fun of. (that's not to say it doesn't have good stuff too.)</p><p>On another topic, even if the earth isn't warming, carbon is ruining the beautiful lakes here in Maine, and it's from the factories in Illinois and other states west of here. Personally, I really don't mind global warming that much (actually it hasn't bothered me at all yet, has it bothered you?), but the pollution and acid rain sucks, and that's why I try to somewhat support these climate talks (not with money tho). By the time global warming is actually a catastrophe, we should be able to cool the earth; I actually saw a great talk about how small scale nuclear warfare (not thermonuclear) between India and Pakistan would cool the Earth quite well for a decade or so..... . Seriously tho, how about we just have a real 4th of July in the USA and blow up a bunch of nukes, not only will it look fucking amazing, but it'll save the planet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then publish open source .
You might find other scientists making fun of you constantly when you get it wrong tho .
ArXiV has so much crap on it already..... that I love to make fun of .
( that 's not to say it does n't have good stuff too .
) On another topic , even if the earth is n't warming , carbon is ruining the beautiful lakes here in Maine , and it 's from the factories in Illinois and other states west of here .
Personally , I really do n't mind global warming that much ( actually it has n't bothered me at all yet , has it bothered you ?
) , but the pollution and acid rain sucks , and that 's why I try to somewhat support these climate talks ( not with money tho ) .
By the time global warming is actually a catastrophe , we should be able to cool the earth ; I actually saw a great talk about how small scale nuclear warfare ( not thermonuclear ) between India and Pakistan would cool the Earth quite well for a decade or so..... . Seriously tho , how about we just have a real 4th of July in the USA and blow up a bunch of nukes , not only will it look fucking amazing , but it 'll save the planet ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then publish open source.
You might find other scientists making fun of you constantly when you get it wrong tho.
ArXiV has so much crap on it already..... that I love to make fun of.
(that's not to say it doesn't have good stuff too.
)On another topic, even if the earth isn't warming, carbon is ruining the beautiful lakes here in Maine, and it's from the factories in Illinois and other states west of here.
Personally, I really don't mind global warming that much (actually it hasn't bothered me at all yet, has it bothered you?
), but the pollution and acid rain sucks, and that's why I try to somewhat support these climate talks (not with money tho).
By the time global warming is actually a catastrophe, we should be able to cool the earth; I actually saw a great talk about how small scale nuclear warfare (not thermonuclear) between India and Pakistan would cool the Earth quite well for a decade or so..... . Seriously tho, how about we just have a real 4th of July in the USA and blow up a bunch of nukes, not only will it look fucking amazing, but it'll save the planet ;) </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420402</id>
	<title>Re:PhD required?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1260643260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also find this canonization of PhDs very dangerous. For one, it is something of a religious thing (which is why I chose the term). "This person has a PhD and thus must be an authority on the subject, you have to list to what he says because you can't possibly understand what's behind it." Well to me that kind of things sounds a lot like "This person is a priest and thus must be an authority on the subject." You are being told "You can't understand, so just believe the authority." That is problematic, and is completely contrary to the scientific method. As such it can lead to bad science.</p><p>For an interesting example, google around for James Randi's dealings with Homeopathy. You have to remember that this wasn't something that came out of nowhere, there was actually a respected lab in France getting results. Randi (along with others) came in to test it and in the end found it was bullshit. However a large part of the reason that this was going on was because a PhD was at the head of it, and there was a canonization going on. "Oh he's a distinguished professor so he MUST know what he's talking about! You can't question him, you aren't on the same level!" Good science was being left at the door because a PhD said it must be the truth.</p><p>Then there is, of course, as you've mentioned that plenty of people have good understandings of obscure topics, despite no degrees. A degree means you trained in a formal academic setting and did what they required to get it. That's all. A great example of people who are experts without degrees would in the the programming world. People like Michael Abrash or John Carmack who don't have advanced degrees (or sometimes even undergraduate degrees) yet are experts in their field. They have an understanding in excess of almost anyone else, have done original research and so on. That they can't prepend "Dr." to their name isn't relevant.</p><p>Finally, as you also noted, some things aren't even all that complex. Perhaps a journalist finds inferential statistics hopelessly complex, however not everyone does. You don't need a PhD to deal with that and indeed if you did we'd find it in far less use since there are few people with Math PhDs, fewer still with a specialization in statistics. Rather it is something that PhDs (and grad students and even undergrads) make use of in their work. A not especially complex tool in a large box of tools they use to do their research.</p><p>To me, it just reeks of canonization, of the "academic priesthood" idea. There is no way the normal man could POSSIBLY understand this, thus we all have to accept it as holy writ. No, sorry, I don't like religion for that kind of thinking and I REALLY don't like it in my science. We need zombie Feynman to come back and slap some sense in to people with statements like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also find this canonization of PhDs very dangerous .
For one , it is something of a religious thing ( which is why I chose the term ) .
" This person has a PhD and thus must be an authority on the subject , you have to list to what he says because you ca n't possibly understand what 's behind it .
" Well to me that kind of things sounds a lot like " This person is a priest and thus must be an authority on the subject .
" You are being told " You ca n't understand , so just believe the authority .
" That is problematic , and is completely contrary to the scientific method .
As such it can lead to bad science.For an interesting example , google around for James Randi 's dealings with Homeopathy .
You have to remember that this was n't something that came out of nowhere , there was actually a respected lab in France getting results .
Randi ( along with others ) came in to test it and in the end found it was bullshit .
However a large part of the reason that this was going on was because a PhD was at the head of it , and there was a canonization going on .
" Oh he 's a distinguished professor so he MUST know what he 's talking about !
You ca n't question him , you are n't on the same level !
" Good science was being left at the door because a PhD said it must be the truth.Then there is , of course , as you 've mentioned that plenty of people have good understandings of obscure topics , despite no degrees .
A degree means you trained in a formal academic setting and did what they required to get it .
That 's all .
A great example of people who are experts without degrees would in the the programming world .
People like Michael Abrash or John Carmack who do n't have advanced degrees ( or sometimes even undergraduate degrees ) yet are experts in their field .
They have an understanding in excess of almost anyone else , have done original research and so on .
That they ca n't prepend " Dr. " to their name is n't relevant.Finally , as you also noted , some things are n't even all that complex .
Perhaps a journalist finds inferential statistics hopelessly complex , however not everyone does .
You do n't need a PhD to deal with that and indeed if you did we 'd find it in far less use since there are few people with Math PhDs , fewer still with a specialization in statistics .
Rather it is something that PhDs ( and grad students and even undergrads ) make use of in their work .
A not especially complex tool in a large box of tools they use to do their research.To me , it just reeks of canonization , of the " academic priesthood " idea .
There is no way the normal man could POSSIBLY understand this , thus we all have to accept it as holy writ .
No , sorry , I do n't like religion for that kind of thinking and I REALLY do n't like it in my science .
We need zombie Feynman to come back and slap some sense in to people with statements like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also find this canonization of PhDs very dangerous.
For one, it is something of a religious thing (which is why I chose the term).
"This person has a PhD and thus must be an authority on the subject, you have to list to what he says because you can't possibly understand what's behind it.
" Well to me that kind of things sounds a lot like "This person is a priest and thus must be an authority on the subject.
" You are being told "You can't understand, so just believe the authority.
" That is problematic, and is completely contrary to the scientific method.
As such it can lead to bad science.For an interesting example, google around for James Randi's dealings with Homeopathy.
You have to remember that this wasn't something that came out of nowhere, there was actually a respected lab in France getting results.
Randi (along with others) came in to test it and in the end found it was bullshit.
However a large part of the reason that this was going on was because a PhD was at the head of it, and there was a canonization going on.
"Oh he's a distinguished professor so he MUST know what he's talking about!
You can't question him, you aren't on the same level!
" Good science was being left at the door because a PhD said it must be the truth.Then there is, of course, as you've mentioned that plenty of people have good understandings of obscure topics, despite no degrees.
A degree means you trained in a formal academic setting and did what they required to get it.
That's all.
A great example of people who are experts without degrees would in the the programming world.
People like Michael Abrash or John Carmack who don't have advanced degrees (or sometimes even undergraduate degrees) yet are experts in their field.
They have an understanding in excess of almost anyone else, have done original research and so on.
That they can't prepend "Dr." to their name isn't relevant.Finally, as you also noted, some things aren't even all that complex.
Perhaps a journalist finds inferential statistics hopelessly complex, however not everyone does.
You don't need a PhD to deal with that and indeed if you did we'd find it in far less use since there are few people with Math PhDs, fewer still with a specialization in statistics.
Rather it is something that PhDs (and grad students and even undergrads) make use of in their work.
A not especially complex tool in a large box of tools they use to do their research.To me, it just reeks of canonization, of the "academic priesthood" idea.
There is no way the normal man could POSSIBLY understand this, thus we all have to accept it as holy writ.
No, sorry, I don't like religion for that kind of thinking and I REALLY don't like it in my science.
We need zombie Feynman to come back and slap some sense in to people with statements like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424288</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Bongo</author>
	<datestamp>1260735900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While labeled flamebait, this is something of a problem, even in less politicized fields of science. Most scientists are earnest truth-seekers, but a minority are not, and the peer-review system is not always robust to them. I work in an area of computer science that will never make Fox News, but even in this area things are sometimes suppressed for what's hard to describe as other than political reasons. At the very least, politically unpopular positions get all sorts of extra hoops to jump through that others don't--- e.g. if you're casting doubt on a position the journal editor or one of his friends staked his career on, better expect some <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/08/the\_saga\_of\_the\_journal\_commen.php" title="scienceblogs.com">random made-up requirements</a> [scienceblogs.com]. If your paper scoops a large and well-funded group's work, there's a chance it'll be rejected by one of their friends, so they get to publication first--- and their publication might coincidentally borrow a few ideas or theorems from your rejected paper.</p><p>It's not all bad, and in fact most is probably good. But there are some very rotten parts of the scientific-publishing apparatus. It doesn't help that most journals are run by for-profit companies that are a bit shady themselves (Kluwer, Springer, etc.) who have no real interest in the quality of the science they publish or how to improve it. And it doubly doesn't help that the academic rat-race has gotten increasingly cut-throat, so people feel they need to resort to dirty tricks to get/keep a job, get tenure, get grants, etc.</p></div><p>It seems perfectly natural and common place that anybody in employment has political issues to deal with, and that occasionally these will actually get in the way of the job being done right. Institutions also need to survive, and they also have political games to play.</p><p>What raised my sceptical curiosity about climate change was the constant repeating that anybody who disagreed was corrupt, and anybody who was in line was honest. If I accept that oil companies could be distorting research, then I have to also accept that activists can be distorting research. Any research could be distorted, potentially. Not that it is for real, necessarily, but the potential is there because we're all people with some degree of self-interest. Imagining you have a noble cause on your side really does not help one escape self-delusionary bias--at least money is a bit easier to see, but principles about saving the world? The world's religions have suffered massively due to their inability to self--discern their ideals from their human failings. But no... only the "bad" people disagree. That's what made me sceptical. I'm not a scientist, but I am human.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While labeled flamebait , this is something of a problem , even in less politicized fields of science .
Most scientists are earnest truth-seekers , but a minority are not , and the peer-review system is not always robust to them .
I work in an area of computer science that will never make Fox News , but even in this area things are sometimes suppressed for what 's hard to describe as other than political reasons .
At the very least , politically unpopular positions get all sorts of extra hoops to jump through that others do n't--- e.g .
if you 're casting doubt on a position the journal editor or one of his friends staked his career on , better expect some random made-up requirements [ scienceblogs.com ] .
If your paper scoops a large and well-funded group 's work , there 's a chance it 'll be rejected by one of their friends , so they get to publication first--- and their publication might coincidentally borrow a few ideas or theorems from your rejected paper.It 's not all bad , and in fact most is probably good .
But there are some very rotten parts of the scientific-publishing apparatus .
It does n't help that most journals are run by for-profit companies that are a bit shady themselves ( Kluwer , Springer , etc .
) who have no real interest in the quality of the science they publish or how to improve it .
And it doubly does n't help that the academic rat-race has gotten increasingly cut-throat , so people feel they need to resort to dirty tricks to get/keep a job , get tenure , get grants , etc.It seems perfectly natural and common place that anybody in employment has political issues to deal with , and that occasionally these will actually get in the way of the job being done right .
Institutions also need to survive , and they also have political games to play.What raised my sceptical curiosity about climate change was the constant repeating that anybody who disagreed was corrupt , and anybody who was in line was honest .
If I accept that oil companies could be distorting research , then I have to also accept that activists can be distorting research .
Any research could be distorted , potentially .
Not that it is for real , necessarily , but the potential is there because we 're all people with some degree of self-interest .
Imagining you have a noble cause on your side really does not help one escape self-delusionary bias--at least money is a bit easier to see , but principles about saving the world ?
The world 's religions have suffered massively due to their inability to self--discern their ideals from their human failings .
But no... only the " bad " people disagree .
That 's what made me sceptical .
I 'm not a scientist , but I am human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While labeled flamebait, this is something of a problem, even in less politicized fields of science.
Most scientists are earnest truth-seekers, but a minority are not, and the peer-review system is not always robust to them.
I work in an area of computer science that will never make Fox News, but even in this area things are sometimes suppressed for what's hard to describe as other than political reasons.
At the very least, politically unpopular positions get all sorts of extra hoops to jump through that others don't--- e.g.
if you're casting doubt on a position the journal editor or one of his friends staked his career on, better expect some random made-up requirements [scienceblogs.com].
If your paper scoops a large and well-funded group's work, there's a chance it'll be rejected by one of their friends, so they get to publication first--- and their publication might coincidentally borrow a few ideas or theorems from your rejected paper.It's not all bad, and in fact most is probably good.
But there are some very rotten parts of the scientific-publishing apparatus.
It doesn't help that most journals are run by for-profit companies that are a bit shady themselves (Kluwer, Springer, etc.
) who have no real interest in the quality of the science they publish or how to improve it.
And it doubly doesn't help that the academic rat-race has gotten increasingly cut-throat, so people feel they need to resort to dirty tricks to get/keep a job, get tenure, get grants, etc.It seems perfectly natural and common place that anybody in employment has political issues to deal with, and that occasionally these will actually get in the way of the job being done right.
Institutions also need to survive, and they also have political games to play.What raised my sceptical curiosity about climate change was the constant repeating that anybody who disagreed was corrupt, and anybody who was in line was honest.
If I accept that oil companies could be distorting research, then I have to also accept that activists can be distorting research.
Any research could be distorted, potentially.
Not that it is for real, necessarily, but the potential is there because we're all people with some degree of self-interest.
Imagining you have a noble cause on your side really does not help one escape self-delusionary bias--at least money is a bit easier to see, but principles about saving the world?
The world's religions have suffered massively due to their inability to self--discern their ideals from their human failings.
But no... only the "bad" people disagree.
That's what made me sceptical.
I'm not a scientist, but I am human.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419458</id>
	<title>Sadly, this explored the limits of credulity</title>
	<author>crmartin</author>
	<datestamp>1260635160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and demonstrated the anonymous Economist author was a little short of <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">the facts</a> [wattsupwiththat.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and demonstrated the anonymous Economist author was a little short of the facts [ wattsupwiththat.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and demonstrated the anonymous Economist author was a little short of the facts [wattsupwiththat.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419662</id>
	<title>Re:Simple Explanation: Darwin was bombed in 1941</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1260636780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A little geography.  Darwin is a VERY small city so your weird statement is bullshit grasping at straws.<br>I don't know why I bother.  Facts are not going to help against those that are convinced that everything said by scientists and educated clergy is a lie.  Climate is just the next anti-intellectual soft target after evolution for groups that see education as a threat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A little geography .
Darwin is a VERY small city so your weird statement is bullshit grasping at straws.I do n't know why I bother .
Facts are not going to help against those that are convinced that everything said by scientists and educated clergy is a lie .
Climate is just the next anti-intellectual soft target after evolution for groups that see education as a threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little geography.
Darwin is a VERY small city so your weird statement is bullshit grasping at straws.I don't know why I bother.
Facts are not going to help against those that are convinced that everything said by scientists and educated clergy is a lie.
Climate is just the next anti-intellectual soft target after evolution for groups that see education as a threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420426</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260643440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The end result of which is probably going to be that the people who posted the data were aware of the factor in question, went and checked what the source was, and have a good explanation for what's going on with the data and why they did what they did.</p></div><p>So you are saying verifying the data/assumptions/explanations from first principles is a bad thing now? Or that only a few anointed should do it? No wonder climate scientists are getting a bad rep. You are on the way to becoming a religion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The end result of which is probably going to be that the people who posted the data were aware of the factor in question , went and checked what the source was , and have a good explanation for what 's going on with the data and why they did what they did.So you are saying verifying the data/assumptions/explanations from first principles is a bad thing now ?
Or that only a few anointed should do it ?
No wonder climate scientists are getting a bad rep. You are on the way to becoming a religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The end result of which is probably going to be that the people who posted the data were aware of the factor in question, went and checked what the source was, and have a good explanation for what's going on with the data and why they did what they did.So you are saying verifying the data/assumptions/explanations from first principles is a bad thing now?
Or that only a few anointed should do it?
No wonder climate scientists are getting a bad rep. You are on the way to becoming a religion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419752</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1260637500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because"</p></div></blockquote><p>First let me say the next line is not directed at you but at the Heartland Institute and other groups that get the "denier" label put on them.<br>It's really more a case of "lay off the misleading bullshit you are paid to dispense you freaks" only phrased in more polite language.  It's a situation where one group is expected to be squeaky clean and the other are professional liars.  Their success is equivalent to the highly successful PR campaign to increase the number of women smokers in the USA some years back and no more ethical.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe " just because " First let me say the next line is not directed at you but at the Heartland Institute and other groups that get the " denier " label put on them.It 's really more a case of " lay off the misleading bullshit you are paid to dispense you freaks " only phrased in more polite language .
It 's a situation where one group is expected to be squeaky clean and the other are professional liars .
Their success is equivalent to the highly successful PR campaign to increase the number of women smokers in the USA some years back and no more ethical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because"First let me say the next line is not directed at you but at the Heartland Institute and other groups that get the "denier" label put on them.It's really more a case of "lay off the misleading bullshit you are paid to dispense you freaks" only phrased in more polite language.
It's a situation where one group is expected to be squeaky clean and the other are professional liars.
Their success is equivalent to the highly successful PR campaign to increase the number of women smokers in the USA some years back and no more ethical.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420072</id>
	<title>no credibilty on either side</title>
	<author>mmjcon147</author>
	<datestamp>1260640200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of good science, or lack thereof, Climate Science has a credibility problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of good science , or lack thereof , Climate Science has a credibility problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of good science, or lack thereof, Climate Science has a credibility problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423744</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1260730860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not publishing your data is bad science. Why do we care about leaked emails. That was their creditability down the toilet as far as i am concerned.
<br> <br>
I God we trust. The rest of you *show me the data*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not publishing your data is bad science .
Why do we care about leaked emails .
That was their creditability down the toilet as far as i am concerned .
I God we trust .
The rest of you * show me the data * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not publishing your data is bad science.
Why do we care about leaked emails.
That was their creditability down the toilet as far as i am concerned.
I God we trust.
The rest of you *show me the data*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420412</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260643380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great theories often fall flat when the assumptions they are based on are incorrect. Weather is chaotic, climate is not. Climate is the long term statistics of weather and is insensitive to initial conditions.
<br> <br>
A good test of a model is it's ability to predict unknown phenomena, climate models of the 80's predicted a phenomena that is now called "polar amplification", they also predicted that the stratosphere would cool from increased CO2 while the troposphere would warm, both trends have been observed by sattelites. Other predictions have also been <a href="http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ddc/observed/index.html" title="columbia.edu">observed</a> [columbia.edu].
<br> <br>
Here are a few reasons why you may get modded as a troll
<br> <br>
The Mathematical definition for chaos comes from Lorenz who spotted the principle while studying weather models, to insinuate climate scientists are unaware of these facts is simply ignorant*.
<br> <br>
There is a whole branch of science that is a sort of cross between climate science and geology, it's called paleoclimatology, to insinuate climate scientists have somehow missed natural variation is also ignorant.
<br> <br>
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg" title="wikipedia.org">radiative forcings</a> [wikipedia.org] that effect climate have been taken into account in models, without the AGW component the upward trend in tempratures dissapears. To suggest climate scientists somehow missed the giant ball of flames in the sky is ignorant.
<br> <br>
Here is a <a href="http://www.earthsimulator.org.uk/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=21&amp;Itemid=42" title="earthsimulator.org.uk">link</a> [earthsimulator.org.uk] (scroll down to the embedded video), that uses finite element analysis and basic physical/chemical laws to correctly reconstruct past CLIMATE regardless of the initial RANDOM values that define the weather. All the various models I am aware of have the same ability. The video is somewhat simplistic since it does not show the ocean currents and other features of climate that it predicts but if you have ever looked at weather patterns you will clearly recognise that hurricanes are predicted in the correct places, other larger features are much more acurately simulated.
<br> <br>
ignorant* = Not an insult and definitely curable, watching TED talks is an excellent place to start the road to recovery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great theories often fall flat when the assumptions they are based on are incorrect .
Weather is chaotic , climate is not .
Climate is the long term statistics of weather and is insensitive to initial conditions .
A good test of a model is it 's ability to predict unknown phenomena , climate models of the 80 's predicted a phenomena that is now called " polar amplification " , they also predicted that the stratosphere would cool from increased CO2 while the troposphere would warm , both trends have been observed by sattelites .
Other predictions have also been observed [ columbia.edu ] .
Here are a few reasons why you may get modded as a troll The Mathematical definition for chaos comes from Lorenz who spotted the principle while studying weather models , to insinuate climate scientists are unaware of these facts is simply ignorant * .
There is a whole branch of science that is a sort of cross between climate science and geology , it 's called paleoclimatology , to insinuate climate scientists have somehow missed natural variation is also ignorant .
The radiative forcings [ wikipedia.org ] that effect climate have been taken into account in models , without the AGW component the upward trend in tempratures dissapears .
To suggest climate scientists somehow missed the giant ball of flames in the sky is ignorant .
Here is a link [ earthsimulator.org.uk ] ( scroll down to the embedded video ) , that uses finite element analysis and basic physical/chemical laws to correctly reconstruct past CLIMATE regardless of the initial RANDOM values that define the weather .
All the various models I am aware of have the same ability .
The video is somewhat simplistic since it does not show the ocean currents and other features of climate that it predicts but if you have ever looked at weather patterns you will clearly recognise that hurricanes are predicted in the correct places , other larger features are much more acurately simulated .
ignorant * = Not an insult and definitely curable , watching TED talks is an excellent place to start the road to recovery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great theories often fall flat when the assumptions they are based on are incorrect.
Weather is chaotic, climate is not.
Climate is the long term statistics of weather and is insensitive to initial conditions.
A good test of a model is it's ability to predict unknown phenomena, climate models of the 80's predicted a phenomena that is now called "polar amplification", they also predicted that the stratosphere would cool from increased CO2 while the troposphere would warm, both trends have been observed by sattelites.
Other predictions have also been observed [columbia.edu].
Here are a few reasons why you may get modded as a troll
 
The Mathematical definition for chaos comes from Lorenz who spotted the principle while studying weather models, to insinuate climate scientists are unaware of these facts is simply ignorant*.
There is a whole branch of science that is a sort of cross between climate science and geology, it's called paleoclimatology, to insinuate climate scientists have somehow missed natural variation is also ignorant.
The radiative forcings [wikipedia.org] that effect climate have been taken into account in models, without the AGW component the upward trend in tempratures dissapears.
To suggest climate scientists somehow missed the giant ball of flames in the sky is ignorant.
Here is a link [earthsimulator.org.uk] (scroll down to the embedded video), that uses finite element analysis and basic physical/chemical laws to correctly reconstruct past CLIMATE regardless of the initial RANDOM values that define the weather.
All the various models I am aware of have the same ability.
The video is somewhat simplistic since it does not show the ocean currents and other features of climate that it predicts but if you have ever looked at weather patterns you will clearly recognise that hurricanes are predicted in the correct places, other larger features are much more acurately simulated.
ignorant* = Not an insult and definitely curable, watching TED talks is an excellent place to start the road to recovery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420436</id>
	<title>Re:Hottest month in Darwin...</title>
	<author>Kenoli</author>
	<datestamp>1260643560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They've been keeping records for what, 150-200 years? That's a lot by our puny standards, but not in geological times.</p></div><p>More like 68 years. Not really a lot by anyone's standards.<br>
<br>
Anyway it seems almost offtopic in the summary.<br>
Some crazy global warming drama, oh and BY THE WAY
the average temperature record for October at some place gets beat by 0.4C!<br>
I'm not sure how something so ridiculously insignificant be relevant to this story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been keeping records for what , 150-200 years ?
That 's a lot by our puny standards , but not in geological times.More like 68 years .
Not really a lot by anyone 's standards .
Anyway it seems almost offtopic in the summary .
Some crazy global warming drama , oh and BY THE WAY the average temperature record for October at some place gets beat by 0.4C !
I 'm not sure how something so ridiculously insignificant be relevant to this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been keeping records for what, 150-200 years?
That's a lot by our puny standards, but not in geological times.More like 68 years.
Not really a lot by anyone's standards.
Anyway it seems almost offtopic in the summary.
Some crazy global warming drama, oh and BY THE WAY
the average temperature record for October at some place gets beat by 0.4C!
I'm not sure how something so ridiculously insignificant be relevant to this story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420162</id>
	<title>Solving GW for $100M a year...</title>
	<author>jordandeamattson</author>
	<datestamp>1260640920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If our goal is truly to reduce global temperature increases - for the moment let's concede they exist - then we should be looking for the most cost effective solution. Given that CO2 is not the number one global warming gas by far (it is actually methane and most of it comes from cows and other ruminates) and the contribution of CO2 to global warming lessens based on the amount in the atmosphere, curbing carbon emissions at a cost of billions per year, this isn't the best way to do it.</p><p>As outlined in Super Freakanomics, there are various geo-engineering approaches to address global warming being developed by people like Nathan Myhold and his Intellectual Ventures, which can do it at a much lower cost. The most promising is based on the Pinatubo Effect - sulfur in the upper atmosphere - and can be accomplished for under $100M per year (less than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.30 cents per American per year). It also has the benefit of having been proven to be effective and safe.</p><p>So, think about that the next time a major push is on for a cap and trade system or carbon tax. And by the way, Al Gore, is opposed to doing this. He would much rather go the less effective, more expensive, and unproven way of reducing CO2 emissions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If our goal is truly to reduce global temperature increases - for the moment let 's concede they exist - then we should be looking for the most cost effective solution .
Given that CO2 is not the number one global warming gas by far ( it is actually methane and most of it comes from cows and other ruminates ) and the contribution of CO2 to global warming lessens based on the amount in the atmosphere , curbing carbon emissions at a cost of billions per year , this is n't the best way to do it.As outlined in Super Freakanomics , there are various geo-engineering approaches to address global warming being developed by people like Nathan Myhold and his Intellectual Ventures , which can do it at a much lower cost .
The most promising is based on the Pinatubo Effect - sulfur in the upper atmosphere - and can be accomplished for under $ 100M per year ( less than .30 cents per American per year ) .
It also has the benefit of having been proven to be effective and safe.So , think about that the next time a major push is on for a cap and trade system or carbon tax .
And by the way , Al Gore , is opposed to doing this .
He would much rather go the less effective , more expensive , and unproven way of reducing CO2 emissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If our goal is truly to reduce global temperature increases - for the moment let's concede they exist - then we should be looking for the most cost effective solution.
Given that CO2 is not the number one global warming gas by far (it is actually methane and most of it comes from cows and other ruminates) and the contribution of CO2 to global warming lessens based on the amount in the atmosphere, curbing carbon emissions at a cost of billions per year, this isn't the best way to do it.As outlined in Super Freakanomics, there are various geo-engineering approaches to address global warming being developed by people like Nathan Myhold and his Intellectual Ventures, which can do it at a much lower cost.
The most promising is based on the Pinatubo Effect - sulfur in the upper atmosphere - and can be accomplished for under $100M per year (less than .30 cents per American per year).
It also has the benefit of having been proven to be effective and safe.So, think about that the next time a major push is on for a cap and trade system or carbon tax.
And by the way, Al Gore, is opposed to doing this.
He would much rather go the less effective, more expensive, and unproven way of reducing CO2 emissions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419378</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because", it stops being science.</i></p><p>Understanding why the speed of light in a vacuum is the universe's speed limit requires a 300 year history in scientific advances, and that's considered dogma.</p><p>Sometimes you just have to accept that the other person just might know more about a topic than you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe " just because " , it stops being science.Understanding why the speed of light in a vacuum is the universe 's speed limit requires a 300 year history in scientific advances , and that 's considered dogma.Sometimes you just have to accept that the other person just might know more about a topic than you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because", it stops being science.Understanding why the speed of light in a vacuum is the universe's speed limit requires a 300 year history in scientific advances, and that's considered dogma.Sometimes you just have to accept that the other person just might know more about a topic than you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419614</id>
	<title>Re:I am very sceptical...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260636300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, I don't really care if he wrote anonymously or not but here is why I have an issue with him.<p><div class="quote"><p>Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.</p></div><p>
Should you're words carry more weight because you have been trained in an area you are speaking on?...yep.  Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a PhD?...no and to suggest it is irresponsible and idiotic.  To also suggest that someone not so decorated by academia can never show statistical manipulation is stupid as well.  This is the modern version of holding mass in latin so that you have to come through the priest to get your religion.  Modern "science" and more specifically the elitist academics need to be careful before there is a scientific backlash/reformation and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.  When you act like this and spread these types of attitudes you do more harm that good and eventually no one listens even if you're right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I do n't really care if he wrote anonymously or not but here is why I have an issue with him.Well , here 's my solution to this problem : this is why we have peer review .
Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things .
One thing they can not do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand .
So for the time being , my response to any and all further " smoking gun " claims begins with : show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here .
Otherwise , you 're a crank and this is not a story .
Should you 're words carry more weight because you have been trained in an area you are speaking on ? ...yep .
Should you be completely dismissed because you do n't have a PhD ? ...no and to suggest it is irresponsible and idiotic .
To also suggest that someone not so decorated by academia can never show statistical manipulation is stupid as well .
This is the modern version of holding mass in latin so that you have to come through the priest to get your religion .
Modern " science " and more specifically the elitist academics need to be careful before there is a scientific backlash/reformation and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water .
When you act like this and spread these types of attitudes you do more harm that good and eventually no one listens even if you 're right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I don't really care if he wrote anonymously or not but here is why I have an issue with him.Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review.
Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things.
One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand.
So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here.
Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.
Should you're words carry more weight because you have been trained in an area you are speaking on?...yep.
Should you be completely dismissed because you don't have a PhD?...no and to suggest it is irresponsible and idiotic.
To also suggest that someone not so decorated by academia can never show statistical manipulation is stupid as well.
This is the modern version of holding mass in latin so that you have to come through the priest to get your religion.
Modern "science" and more specifically the elitist academics need to be careful before there is a scientific backlash/reformation and the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.
When you act like this and spread these types of attitudes you do more harm that good and eventually no one listens even if you're right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30444660</id>
	<title>Peer reviewed does not mean reliable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260895020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes anyone think that a peer review process inside of closed environment of like minded thinkers is any less likely to produce skewed results than just publishing the report? I can produce, going back over the decades, all kinds of "peer reviewed" reports that were proven totally wrong. The AGW "scientist" know which side their bread is buttered on, just like everyone else.</p><p>Perhaps the AGW scientist should just start up an inquisition, burning unbelievers at the stake in order to consolidate their own power... or has that been done already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes anyone think that a peer review process inside of closed environment of like minded thinkers is any less likely to produce skewed results than just publishing the report ?
I can produce , going back over the decades , all kinds of " peer reviewed " reports that were proven totally wrong .
The AGW " scientist " know which side their bread is buttered on , just like everyone else.Perhaps the AGW scientist should just start up an inquisition , burning unbelievers at the stake in order to consolidate their own power... or has that been done already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes anyone think that a peer review process inside of closed environment of like minded thinkers is any less likely to produce skewed results than just publishing the report?
I can produce, going back over the decades, all kinds of "peer reviewed" reports that were proven totally wrong.
The AGW "scientist" know which side their bread is buttered on, just like everyone else.Perhaps the AGW scientist should just start up an inquisition, burning unbelievers at the stake in order to consolidate their own power... or has that been done already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419112</id>
	<title>I am very sceptical...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260631920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am very sceptical with regards to a "not named" author claims...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am very sceptical with regards to a " not named " author claims... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am very sceptical with regards to a "not named" author claims... ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419776</id>
	<title>Re:I am very sceptical...</title>
	<author>pdabbadabba</author>
	<datestamp>1260637800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right that non-PhDs can certainly do PhD-level work from time to time. But how do the rest of us know whether to trust the work without expert-level knowledge ourselves? Allowing us to know who to trust to make technical claims is part of the function of the academic degree as a social institution. Peer-review serves a similar purpose. So, yes, I think lay people generally should ignore the contributions of people without "credentials" until someone with credentials can give it their seal of approval (note that this does not mean I think that non-credentialed researchers should be ignored by the credentialed, only by laypeople), not because they are sure to be worthless, but because most of us just have no tools with which to evaluate the work other then just looking to the letters behind the author's name. Sad but true.</p><p>So, I agree with your criticism of his implied claim that non-credentialed scientists can never contribute to advanced fields. But I think the thrust of his article (and, even, of the quote you selected) is quite correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right that non-PhDs can certainly do PhD-level work from time to time .
But how do the rest of us know whether to trust the work without expert-level knowledge ourselves ?
Allowing us to know who to trust to make technical claims is part of the function of the academic degree as a social institution .
Peer-review serves a similar purpose .
So , yes , I think lay people generally should ignore the contributions of people without " credentials " until someone with credentials can give it their seal of approval ( note that this does not mean I think that non-credentialed researchers should be ignored by the credentialed , only by laypeople ) , not because they are sure to be worthless , but because most of us just have no tools with which to evaluate the work other then just looking to the letters behind the author 's name .
Sad but true.So , I agree with your criticism of his implied claim that non-credentialed scientists can never contribute to advanced fields .
But I think the thrust of his article ( and , even , of the quote you selected ) is quite correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right that non-PhDs can certainly do PhD-level work from time to time.
But how do the rest of us know whether to trust the work without expert-level knowledge ourselves?
Allowing us to know who to trust to make technical claims is part of the function of the academic degree as a social institution.
Peer-review serves a similar purpose.
So, yes, I think lay people generally should ignore the contributions of people without "credentials" until someone with credentials can give it their seal of approval (note that this does not mean I think that non-credentialed researchers should be ignored by the credentialed, only by laypeople), not because they are sure to be worthless, but because most of us just have no tools with which to evaluate the work other then just looking to the letters behind the author's name.
Sad but true.So, I agree with your criticism of his implied claim that non-credentialed scientists can never contribute to advanced fields.
But I think the thrust of his article (and, even, of the quote you selected) is quite correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423560</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260729360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The propaganda goes both ways.  I recall a caller into a right-wing talk show host who argued that sea levels couldn't possibly be rising because ice is less dense than water.  As ice melts, shouldn't sea levels recede?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The propaganda goes both ways .
I recall a caller into a right-wing talk show host who argued that sea levels could n't possibly be rising because ice is less dense than water .
As ice melts , should n't sea levels recede ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The propaganda goes both ways.
I recall a caller into a right-wing talk show host who argued that sea levels couldn't possibly be rising because ice is less dense than water.
As ice melts, shouldn't sea levels recede?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420638</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>jstults</author>
	<datestamp>1260645480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's that to say that some random blogger likely doesn't have the tools to correctly analyze the data</p></div><p>Most of the palaeoclimatology stuff is just curve fitting, they use Matlab (Octave) and R (read the emails), so yeah, some random blogger actually would have the tools that the 'pros' use quite readily available.  The silly thing with the paleo stuff is that it is so easily reproducible if you have access to the data, that's why there's a bit of empire building by data hoarding in this community.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's that to say that some random blogger likely does n't have the tools to correctly analyze the dataMost of the palaeoclimatology stuff is just curve fitting , they use Matlab ( Octave ) and R ( read the emails ) , so yeah , some random blogger actually would have the tools that the 'pros ' use quite readily available .
The silly thing with the paleo stuff is that it is so easily reproducible if you have access to the data , that 's why there 's a bit of empire building by data hoarding in this community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's that to say that some random blogger likely doesn't have the tools to correctly analyze the dataMost of the palaeoclimatology stuff is just curve fitting, they use Matlab (Octave) and R (read the emails), so yeah, some random blogger actually would have the tools that the 'pros' use quite readily available.
The silly thing with the paleo stuff is that it is so easily reproducible if you have access to the data, that's why there's a bit of empire building by data hoarding in this community.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420784</id>
	<title>How Scientific</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260646920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia.</p><p>So to prove AGW wrong, no place may be warmer than it has ever been before? So it's not falsifiable? How useful...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Oh , and by the way : October was the hottest month on record in Darwin , Australia.So to prove AGW wrong , no place may be warmer than it has ever been before ?
So it 's not falsifiable ?
How useful.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia.So to prove AGW wrong, no place may be warmer than it has ever been before?
So it's not falsifiable?
How useful...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421188</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>cold fjord</author>
	<datestamp>1260696240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.<br></i></p><p>I don't think you've captured the true flavor of their hijinks.</p><p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews\_wsj" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow"> Rigging a Climate 'Consensus'  -  About those emails and 'peer review.'</a> [wsj.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>This September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site, <a href="http://climateaudit.org/" title="climateaudit.org" rel="nofollow">Climateaudit.org</a> [climateaudit.org]. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers.</p><p>As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann &amp; Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!"</p><p>Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.</p></div> </blockquote><p><i>Scientists actually are pretty skeptical people by nature,...... Most "skeptics" are nothing more than contrarians; skepticism to me implies a willingness to investigate the issue for one's self, but most of the denial movement shows such a poor grasp of the science that they clearly haven't done so.</i></p><p>When it comes to climate, there seems to be two groups - skeptics, and believers.  It is amazingly difficult to get believers to reevaluate new data (and perhaps endanger millions in grants?).</p><p><a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220" title="opinionjournal.com" rel="nofollow">Climate of Fear - Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. </a> [opinionjournal.com]<br><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking\_liberties/entry5964504.shtml" title="cbsnews.com" rel="nofollow">Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review</a> [cbsnews.com]<br><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation </a> [telegraph.co.uk]</p><p>Can most scientists afford to be skeptics?</p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/perhaps-a-conspiracy-is-unnecessary-where-a-carrot-will-suffice/" title="wattsupwiththat.com" rel="nofollow">To which Paul Vaughan responded as follows</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]:</p><p>Personal anecdote:<br>Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:</p><p>Successful candidates will:<br>1) Demonstrate AGW.<br>2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.<br>3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 &amp; 2.</p><p>Follow the money -- perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.</p><p>Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.</p></div></blockquote><p>After all, there is huge money to be made and transferred due to "Climate change", even if it all turns out to be a scientific fraud.</p><p><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html" title="www.cbc.ca" rel="nofollow">European fraudsters steal $7B in carbon credit scam </a> [www.cbc.ca]<br><a href="http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjAwY2MxZDQzMjYyOThjYTY0MTVkNTlhMjc0MGU5N2E=" title="nationalreview.com" rel="nofollow">Planet Gore</a> [nationalreview.com]<br><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003163.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">The new socialism</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They were n't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process was n't doing its job : weeding out bad science.I do n't think you 've captured the true flavor of their hijinks .
Rigging a Climate 'Consensus ' - About those emails and 'peer review .
' [ wsj.com ] This September , Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that : " Those such as [ Stephen ] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted .
" Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site , Climateaudit.org [ climateaudit.org ] .
He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers.As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals , Mr. Mann &amp; Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus , but it was not absolute , as they discovered in 2003 .
Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email , after the journal " Climate Research " published a paper not to Mr. Mann 's liking , that " This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature' .
Obviously , they found a solution to that--take over a journal ! " Mr .
Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed : " Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to , or cite papers in , this journal .
We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board .
" In other words , keep dissent out of the respected journals .
When that fails , redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views .
Scientists actually are pretty skeptical people by nature,...... Most " skeptics " are nothing more than contrarians ; skepticism to me implies a willingness to investigate the issue for one 's self , but most of the denial movement shows such a poor grasp of the science that they clearly have n't done so.When it comes to climate , there seems to be two groups - skeptics , and believers .
It is amazingly difficult to get believers to reevaluate new data ( and perhaps endanger millions in grants ?
) .Climate of Fear - Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence .
[ opinionjournal.com ] Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review [ cbsnews.com ] Climate change : this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation [ telegraph.co.uk ] Can most scientists afford to be skeptics ?
To which Paul Vaughan responded as follows [ wattsupwiththat.com ] : Personal anecdote : Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding , after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations , I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety : Successful candidates will : 1 ) Demonstrate AGW.2 ) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.3 ) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 &amp; 2.Follow the money -- perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.After all , there is huge money to be made and transferred due to " Climate change " , even if it all turns out to be a scientific fraud.European fraudsters steal $ 7B in carbon credit scam [ www.cbc.ca ] Planet Gore [ nationalreview.com ] The new socialism [ washingtonpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.I don't think you've captured the true flavor of their hijinks.
Rigging a Climate 'Consensus'  -  About those emails and 'peer review.
' [wsj.com] This September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.
" Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site, Climateaudit.org [climateaudit.org].
He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers.As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann &amp; Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003.
Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'.
Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!"Mr.
Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.
" In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals.
When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.
Scientists actually are pretty skeptical people by nature,...... Most "skeptics" are nothing more than contrarians; skepticism to me implies a willingness to investigate the issue for one's self, but most of the denial movement shows such a poor grasp of the science that they clearly haven't done so.When it comes to climate, there seems to be two groups - skeptics, and believers.
It is amazingly difficult to get believers to reevaluate new data (and perhaps endanger millions in grants?
).Climate of Fear - Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
[opinionjournal.com]Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review [cbsnews.com]Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation  [telegraph.co.uk]Can most scientists afford to be skeptics?
To which Paul Vaughan responded as follows [wattsupwiththat.com]:Personal anecdote:Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:Successful candidates will:1) Demonstrate AGW.2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 &amp; 2.Follow the money -- perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.After all, there is huge money to be made and transferred due to "Climate change", even if it all turns out to be a scientific fraud.European fraudsters steal $7B in carbon credit scam  [www.cbc.ca]Planet Gore [nationalreview.com]The new socialism [washingtonpost.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419122</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>OverlordQ</author>
	<datestamp>1260632160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason I don't think going, "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you" instead of refuting the points they bring up is going to engender somebody to change their viewpoint, rather the opposite. If somebody is already believing there is a cover-up this is about the only thing you could do, besides admit it, that reinforces that idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason I do n't think going , " Lalalalalala , I ca n't hear you " instead of refuting the points they bring up is going to engender somebody to change their viewpoint , rather the opposite .
If somebody is already believing there is a cover-up this is about the only thing you could do , besides admit it , that reinforces that idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason I don't think going, "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you" instead of refuting the points they bring up is going to engender somebody to change their viewpoint, rather the opposite.
If somebody is already believing there is a cover-up this is about the only thing you could do, besides admit it, that reinforces that idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424484</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1260737460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the arguments have been rebutted repeatedly and scientists have a lot better things to do than repeat the same research ad infinitum every time someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about calls the whole thing a crock based on some very shaky arguments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the arguments have been rebutted repeatedly and scientists have a lot better things to do than repeat the same research ad infinitum every time someone who does n't have a clue what they 're talking about calls the whole thing a crock based on some very shaky arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the arguments have been rebutted repeatedly and scientists have a lot better things to do than repeat the same research ad infinitum every time someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about calls the whole thing a crock based on some very shaky arguments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423662</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>downhole</author>
	<datestamp>1260730260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for taking a more reasonable look at why many people don't really buy into AGW. For me, I don't really have the time to fully evaluate the claims that the earth is getting warmer and that it is mostly due to human release of CO2. IMHO, for things like this, we can never really be 100\% sure about it - it's more of a question of how confident we are in the whole chain of events, that the earth is warming, that the warming is caused by human activity, and that the results of this warming will be catastrophically bad. What are you prepared to do about it based on your level of confidence in the theory?</p><p>I may not know much about climate theory, but I do know a little about power production technology. The important part to me is that I have no confidence that human society as a whole will be able to achieve a meaningful reduction in CO2 output. Even the current debates, which are mostly for stuff like reducing the rate of increase of CO2 output or holding the output rates to a level of a few years ago, have gone nowhere, and as far as I can tell, if you fully buy into AGW, those levels of reductions will accomplish nothing at all. None of the solutions that the big AGW advocates have been pushing really work - solar power, wind power, electric and hybrid cars have no capability to give us a really meaningful reduction in CO2 output in the context of AWG theory; even if they manage a 10\% overall reduction, which I highly doubt, it still won't change anything. The best thing we can do to actually reduce CO2 output is to build lots more nuclear plants - they are a pretty mature technology and they work right now, and each one can fully eliminate a gas or coal plant which produces tremendous amounts of CO2. But even if we went all-out on that, I still don't think we could take enough fossil fuel plants offline fast enough to even slow down AGW.</p><p>If you wanted to actually reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a real difference, you'd have to turn off all of the fossil fuel power plants and abandon all of the cars, trucks, trains, buses, and ships, and do it all right now. You'd have to reduce human society to a 18th century subsistence farming level of technology. Trouble is, there are 6 billion people on the planet, and we can't feed them all with subsistence farming. If you really want to do this, then a LOT of people are going to die. Like billions of people. The Holocaust, the Gulags, Mao's mass murders, all of it is just a drop in the bucket compared to what this would cause. Even nuclear war probably wouldn't kill that many people. And you'd also be saying goodbye to the technology what would allow us to save ourselves from all of the other potential threats to human society out there.</p><p>It's pretty damn hard for me to believe that even if AGW is real and the results will be catastrophic, that it will be that bad. I say we keep doing pretty much what we're doing right now and rely on our ever-increasing technology to prevent or mitigate anything bad that actually happens.</p><p>I'm also affected by the behavior of the big AGW pushers - if these guys really believe that AGW is happening and that the results will be apocalypse-level bad, then why are they always flying private jets to ritzy conferences where they drive around in limos and SUVs, producing more CO2 than some small countries? Why are they pushing things that won't actually reduce CO2 emissions meaningfully, but will make them rich and increase their levels of power and influence? It looks like they're just milking the theory for money and power. If they don't really believe it, then why should I?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for taking a more reasonable look at why many people do n't really buy into AGW .
For me , I do n't really have the time to fully evaluate the claims that the earth is getting warmer and that it is mostly due to human release of CO2 .
IMHO , for things like this , we can never really be 100 \ % sure about it - it 's more of a question of how confident we are in the whole chain of events , that the earth is warming , that the warming is caused by human activity , and that the results of this warming will be catastrophically bad .
What are you prepared to do about it based on your level of confidence in the theory ? I may not know much about climate theory , but I do know a little about power production technology .
The important part to me is that I have no confidence that human society as a whole will be able to achieve a meaningful reduction in CO2 output .
Even the current debates , which are mostly for stuff like reducing the rate of increase of CO2 output or holding the output rates to a level of a few years ago , have gone nowhere , and as far as I can tell , if you fully buy into AGW , those levels of reductions will accomplish nothing at all .
None of the solutions that the big AGW advocates have been pushing really work - solar power , wind power , electric and hybrid cars have no capability to give us a really meaningful reduction in CO2 output in the context of AWG theory ; even if they manage a 10 \ % overall reduction , which I highly doubt , it still wo n't change anything .
The best thing we can do to actually reduce CO2 output is to build lots more nuclear plants - they are a pretty mature technology and they work right now , and each one can fully eliminate a gas or coal plant which produces tremendous amounts of CO2 .
But even if we went all-out on that , I still do n't think we could take enough fossil fuel plants offline fast enough to even slow down AGW.If you wanted to actually reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a real difference , you 'd have to turn off all of the fossil fuel power plants and abandon all of the cars , trucks , trains , buses , and ships , and do it all right now .
You 'd have to reduce human society to a 18th century subsistence farming level of technology .
Trouble is , there are 6 billion people on the planet , and we ca n't feed them all with subsistence farming .
If you really want to do this , then a LOT of people are going to die .
Like billions of people .
The Holocaust , the Gulags , Mao 's mass murders , all of it is just a drop in the bucket compared to what this would cause .
Even nuclear war probably would n't kill that many people .
And you 'd also be saying goodbye to the technology what would allow us to save ourselves from all of the other potential threats to human society out there.It 's pretty damn hard for me to believe that even if AGW is real and the results will be catastrophic , that it will be that bad .
I say we keep doing pretty much what we 're doing right now and rely on our ever-increasing technology to prevent or mitigate anything bad that actually happens.I 'm also affected by the behavior of the big AGW pushers - if these guys really believe that AGW is happening and that the results will be apocalypse-level bad , then why are they always flying private jets to ritzy conferences where they drive around in limos and SUVs , producing more CO2 than some small countries ?
Why are they pushing things that wo n't actually reduce CO2 emissions meaningfully , but will make them rich and increase their levels of power and influence ?
It looks like they 're just milking the theory for money and power .
If they do n't really believe it , then why should I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for taking a more reasonable look at why many people don't really buy into AGW.
For me, I don't really have the time to fully evaluate the claims that the earth is getting warmer and that it is mostly due to human release of CO2.
IMHO, for things like this, we can never really be 100\% sure about it - it's more of a question of how confident we are in the whole chain of events, that the earth is warming, that the warming is caused by human activity, and that the results of this warming will be catastrophically bad.
What are you prepared to do about it based on your level of confidence in the theory?I may not know much about climate theory, but I do know a little about power production technology.
The important part to me is that I have no confidence that human society as a whole will be able to achieve a meaningful reduction in CO2 output.
Even the current debates, which are mostly for stuff like reducing the rate of increase of CO2 output or holding the output rates to a level of a few years ago, have gone nowhere, and as far as I can tell, if you fully buy into AGW, those levels of reductions will accomplish nothing at all.
None of the solutions that the big AGW advocates have been pushing really work - solar power, wind power, electric and hybrid cars have no capability to give us a really meaningful reduction in CO2 output in the context of AWG theory; even if they manage a 10\% overall reduction, which I highly doubt, it still won't change anything.
The best thing we can do to actually reduce CO2 output is to build lots more nuclear plants - they are a pretty mature technology and they work right now, and each one can fully eliminate a gas or coal plant which produces tremendous amounts of CO2.
But even if we went all-out on that, I still don't think we could take enough fossil fuel plants offline fast enough to even slow down AGW.If you wanted to actually reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a real difference, you'd have to turn off all of the fossil fuel power plants and abandon all of the cars, trucks, trains, buses, and ships, and do it all right now.
You'd have to reduce human society to a 18th century subsistence farming level of technology.
Trouble is, there are 6 billion people on the planet, and we can't feed them all with subsistence farming.
If you really want to do this, then a LOT of people are going to die.
Like billions of people.
The Holocaust, the Gulags, Mao's mass murders, all of it is just a drop in the bucket compared to what this would cause.
Even nuclear war probably wouldn't kill that many people.
And you'd also be saying goodbye to the technology what would allow us to save ourselves from all of the other potential threats to human society out there.It's pretty damn hard for me to believe that even if AGW is real and the results will be catastrophic, that it will be that bad.
I say we keep doing pretty much what we're doing right now and rely on our ever-increasing technology to prevent or mitigate anything bad that actually happens.I'm also affected by the behavior of the big AGW pushers - if these guys really believe that AGW is happening and that the results will be apocalypse-level bad, then why are they always flying private jets to ritzy conferences where they drive around in limos and SUVs, producing more CO2 than some small countries?
Why are they pushing things that won't actually reduce CO2 emissions meaningfully, but will make them rich and increase their levels of power and influence?
It looks like they're just milking the theory for money and power.
If they don't really believe it, then why should I?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30425680</id>
	<title>Too strong, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260703260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     I think the view that anything that is not in a peer-reviewed journal is by a "crank" is ridiculous.  HOWEVER, just because someone puts some data up on some blog doesn't make it noteworthy either -- a lot of them ARE cranks.  The thing is, though, they get weeded out -- look at the very example the article covers (a claim that climate data was faked via adding arbitrary "adjustment" factors).  At first glance the graphs look convincing but they were demonstrated to not be statistically significant.  I think, quite simply, the popular press should not try to cover science issues they do not understand (at least to the extent that they should not overstate uncertain results as certainties.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the view that anything that is not in a peer-reviewed journal is by a " crank " is ridiculous .
HOWEVER , just because someone puts some data up on some blog does n't make it noteworthy either -- a lot of them ARE cranks .
The thing is , though , they get weeded out -- look at the very example the article covers ( a claim that climate data was faked via adding arbitrary " adjustment " factors ) .
At first glance the graphs look convincing but they were demonstrated to not be statistically significant .
I think , quite simply , the popular press should not try to cover science issues they do not understand ( at least to the extent that they should not overstate uncertain results as certainties .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     I think the view that anything that is not in a peer-reviewed journal is by a "crank" is ridiculous.
HOWEVER, just because someone puts some data up on some blog doesn't make it noteworthy either -- a lot of them ARE cranks.
The thing is, though, they get weeded out -- look at the very example the article covers (a claim that climate data was faked via adding arbitrary "adjustment" factors).
At first glance the graphs look convincing but they were demonstrated to not be statistically significant.
I think, quite simply, the popular press should not try to cover science issues they do not understand (at least to the extent that they should not overstate uncertain results as certainties.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423340</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1260727140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm?  You can explain why the speed of light in a vacuum is as fast as you can go to a ten year old in a couple of hours.</p><p>Climate is a <i>lot</i> more complicated, but the big reason you can't explain it simply is because nobody understands it.  Still, even without actually understanding it you can identify trends.</p><p>The global warming crowd does have a bad habit of rather overstating the certainty in things, but that's probably due to how politicized the issue has become.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm ?
You can explain why the speed of light in a vacuum is as fast as you can go to a ten year old in a couple of hours.Climate is a lot more complicated , but the big reason you ca n't explain it simply is because nobody understands it .
Still , even without actually understanding it you can identify trends.The global warming crowd does have a bad habit of rather overstating the certainty in things , but that 's probably due to how politicized the issue has become .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm?
You can explain why the speed of light in a vacuum is as fast as you can go to a ten year old in a couple of hours.Climate is a lot more complicated, but the big reason you can't explain it simply is because nobody understands it.
Still, even without actually understanding it you can identify trends.The global warming crowd does have a bad habit of rather overstating the certainty in things, but that's probably due to how politicized the issue has become.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420126</id>
	<title>Re:Requires a PHD .... HAHAHAH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260640560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've driven to work along the same route everyday for the last 15 years, no accidents, no problems. This morning for the first time I try the high co2 blend gasoline. 5 miles down the road bam I get hit by a semi. Damn that co2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've driven to work along the same route everyday for the last 15 years , no accidents , no problems .
This morning for the first time I try the high co2 blend gasoline .
5 miles down the road bam I get hit by a semi .
Damn that co2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've driven to work along the same route everyday for the last 15 years, no accidents, no problems.
This morning for the first time I try the high co2 blend gasoline.
5 miles down the road bam I get hit by a semi.
Damn that co2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419782</id>
	<title>Re:Is this an issue outside the US?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260637920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, and Greenland is green right?  It sooooo warm right now, it's all rising so stratospherically, that a place where the Vikings settled and farmed, is nothing but a vast icesheet.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , and Greenland is green right ?
It sooooo warm right now , it 's all rising so stratospherically , that a place where the Vikings settled and farmed , is nothing but a vast icesheet.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, and Greenland is green right?
It sooooo warm right now, it's all rising so stratospherically, that a place where the Vikings settled and farmed, is nothing but a vast icesheet.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30432980</id>
	<title>I AM YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260815220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DO YOU KNOW that CO2 is a TRACE GAS, that means there is MUCH less then 1\% of CO2 in the atmosphere !!!!!!</p><p>There is more ARGON then there is CO2.</p><p>I am NOT a Global Warming Sceptic or Climate Change Denier<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I AM a person who did very well in college, 2 BS degrees, one agriculture the other information systems, sometimes on the Dens list, did BEST in science courses also took years of Karate, and I have done very well over the years in knowing what information designs would rise to the top, what was good and bad features in software, made MANY GOOD suggestions to engineers as to how to solve problems efficiently, and knew which sciences were REAL IN THE LONG RUN !!!</p><p>And I can tell you this, THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING IT IS TOTAL NONSENSE !!!</p><p>THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN MADE THAT WARMING IS BAD !!</p><p>THERE IS NO CONFIRMED CURRENTLY EXISTING PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING OR OUT OF CONTROL SEA LEVEL CHANGES IT IS ALL WITHIN NORMAL VARIATIONS !</p><p>IF IT DID EXIST IT WOULD BE GOOD.</p><p>And the fossil record DEBUNKS EVOLUTION !!!!!!</p><p>YOU DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO RESEARCH THESE TOPICS WITH AN OPEN MIND AND FIND THE TRUTH !!!</p><p>If you read the real latest scientific articles on both of these subjects they are riddled with PROOF AGAINST THE CAUSE, EXCUSES, GUESS WORK, DENIAL, FALSE HOPE -- THEY KNOW ONLY ONE TRUTH, THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON AND THEIR FAVORITE THEORIES HAVE BEEN ROYALLY DISPROVED BY THEIR OWN STUDIES !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DO YOU KNOW that CO2 is a TRACE GAS , that means there is MUCH less then 1 \ % of CO2 in the atmosphere ! ! ! ! !
! There is more ARGON then there is CO2.I am NOT a Global Warming Sceptic or Climate Change Denier ... ... I AM a person who did very well in college , 2 BS degrees , one agriculture the other information systems , sometimes on the Dens list , did BEST in science courses also took years of Karate , and I have done very well over the years in knowing what information designs would rise to the top , what was good and bad features in software , made MANY GOOD suggestions to engineers as to how to solve problems efficiently , and knew which sciences were REAL IN THE LONG RUN ! !
! And I can tell you this , THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING IT IS TOTAL NONSENSE ! !
! THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN MADE THAT WARMING IS BAD !
! THERE IS NO CONFIRMED CURRENTLY EXISTING PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING OR OUT OF CONTROL SEA LEVEL CHANGES IT IS ALL WITHIN NORMAL VARIATIONS ! IF IT DID EXIST IT WOULD BE GOOD.And the fossil record DEBUNKS EVOLUTION ! ! ! ! !
! YOU DO N'T HAVE THE GUTS TO RESEARCH THESE TOPICS WITH AN OPEN MIND AND FIND THE TRUTH ! !
! If you read the real latest scientific articles on both of these subjects they are riddled with PROOF AGAINST THE CAUSE , EXCUSES , GUESS WORK , DENIAL , FALSE HOPE -- THEY KNOW ONLY ONE TRUTH , THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON AND THEIR FAVORITE THEORIES HAVE BEEN ROYALLY DISPROVED BY THEIR OWN STUDIES ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DO YOU KNOW that CO2 is a TRACE GAS, that means there is MUCH less then 1\% of CO2 in the atmosphere !!!!!
!There is more ARGON then there is CO2.I am NOT a Global Warming Sceptic or Climate Change Denier ... ... I AM a person who did very well in college, 2 BS degrees, one agriculture the other information systems, sometimes on the Dens list, did BEST in science courses also took years of Karate, and I have done very well over the years in knowing what information designs would rise to the top, what was good and bad features in software, made MANY GOOD suggestions to engineers as to how to solve problems efficiently, and knew which sciences were REAL IN THE LONG RUN !!
!And I can tell you this, THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING IT IS TOTAL NONSENSE !!
!THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN MADE THAT WARMING IS BAD !
!THERE IS NO CONFIRMED CURRENTLY EXISTING PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING OR OUT OF CONTROL SEA LEVEL CHANGES IT IS ALL WITHIN NORMAL VARIATIONS !IF IT DID EXIST IT WOULD BE GOOD.And the fossil record DEBUNKS EVOLUTION !!!!!
!YOU DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO RESEARCH THESE TOPICS WITH AN OPEN MIND AND FIND THE TRUTH !!
!If you read the real latest scientific articles on both of these subjects they are riddled with PROOF AGAINST THE CAUSE, EXCUSES, GUESS WORK, DENIAL, FALSE HOPE -- THEY KNOW ONLY ONE TRUTH, THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON AND THEIR FAVORITE THEORIES HAVE BEEN ROYALLY DISPROVED BY THEIR OWN STUDIES !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424598</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>DuBois</author>
	<datestamp>1260695220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One of the authors doesn't even believe that CFCs affect the ozone layer.</p></div></blockquote><p>What peer reviewed evidence do you have that unqualifiedly points to CFCs as having major, driving effect on the ozone layer. I'm interested.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the authors does n't even believe that CFCs affect the ozone layer.What peer reviewed evidence do you have that unqualifiedly points to CFCs as having major , driving effect on the ozone layer .
I 'm interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the authors doesn't even believe that CFCs affect the ozone layer.What peer reviewed evidence do you have that unqualifiedly points to CFCs as having major, driving effect on the ozone layer.
I'm interested.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419416</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>AtomicSnarl</author>
	<datestamp>1260634740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>More to the point, peer review is NOT theory validation -- it is supposed to be a final edit by an impartial party to find errors of fact, reason, and presentation.  It is never supposed to be the "Stamp of Approval" about the topic, it is only a filter to weed out papers not yet ready for publication.
<br> <br>
Theory validation comes from those who read the papers and use the information to test, retest, or modify their own experiments to either confirm, deny, or suggest alternatives to the information presented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , peer review is NOT theory validation -- it is supposed to be a final edit by an impartial party to find errors of fact , reason , and presentation .
It is never supposed to be the " Stamp of Approval " about the topic , it is only a filter to weed out papers not yet ready for publication .
Theory validation comes from those who read the papers and use the information to test , retest , or modify their own experiments to either confirm , deny , or suggest alternatives to the information presented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, peer review is NOT theory validation -- it is supposed to be a final edit by an impartial party to find errors of fact, reason, and presentation.
It is never supposed to be the "Stamp of Approval" about the topic, it is only a filter to weed out papers not yet ready for publication.
Theory validation comes from those who read the papers and use the information to test, retest, or modify their own experiments to either confirm, deny, or suggest alternatives to the information presented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419158</id>
	<title>My take</title>
	<author>RJBeery</author>
	<datestamp>1260632460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's possible that the CRU of East Anglia grossly manipulated the data in an attempt to influence the public, AND that their presumptions that they are trying to make the data fit to happen to be true anyway.  Ironically, bad science does not make it wrong necessarily<br> <br>

Nevertheless, Climategate was a blow to scientific integrity.  If you don't think so then you haven't read enough about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible that the CRU of East Anglia grossly manipulated the data in an attempt to influence the public , AND that their presumptions that they are trying to make the data fit to happen to be true anyway .
Ironically , bad science does not make it wrong necessarily Nevertheless , Climategate was a blow to scientific integrity .
If you do n't think so then you have n't read enough about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible that the CRU of East Anglia grossly manipulated the data in an attempt to influence the public, AND that their presumptions that they are trying to make the data fit to happen to be true anyway.
Ironically, bad science does not make it wrong necessarily 

Nevertheless, Climategate was a blow to scientific integrity.
If you don't think so then you haven't read enough about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419896</id>
	<title>Re:Requires a PHD .... HAHAHAH</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1260638760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, here's my problem with that article. It starts out with a nice, scientific, analysis of atmospheric composition.  And then, suddenly it comes out with this quote:<p><div class="quote"><p>"The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can't cope with it,"</p> </div><p>What? Where did that come from?  What does he mean, the "Earth systems can't cope with it?"  I'm pretty sure the earth will do just fine. Does he mean that CO2 is being put into the atmosphere faster than it is being absorbed? But saying it like that doesn't sound as scary.  And then he concludes with this entirely unsubstantiated quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"On such a crowded planet, we have little capacity to adapt to changes that are much faster than anything in human experience."</p></div><p>The article started in such a scientific fashion, and now it ends with propaganda. There is no scientific justification for claiming we have little capacity to adapt to these changes. <br> <br>
This is a perfect example of a lot of global warming ideas: they start with solid science then extrapolate into fear-mongering and propaganda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , here 's my problem with that article .
It starts out with a nice , scientific , analysis of atmospheric composition .
And then , suddenly it comes out with this quote : " The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems ca n't cope with it , " What ?
Where did that come from ?
What does he mean , the " Earth systems ca n't cope with it ?
" I 'm pretty sure the earth will do just fine .
Does he mean that CO2 is being put into the atmosphere faster than it is being absorbed ?
But saying it like that does n't sound as scary .
And then he concludes with this entirely unsubstantiated quote : " On such a crowded planet , we have little capacity to adapt to changes that are much faster than anything in human experience .
" The article started in such a scientific fashion , and now it ends with propaganda .
There is no scientific justification for claiming we have little capacity to adapt to these changes .
This is a perfect example of a lot of global warming ideas : they start with solid science then extrapolate into fear-mongering and propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, here's my problem with that article.
It starts out with a nice, scientific, analysis of atmospheric composition.
And then, suddenly it comes out with this quote:"The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can't cope with it," What?
Where did that come from?
What does he mean, the "Earth systems can't cope with it?
"  I'm pretty sure the earth will do just fine.
Does he mean that CO2 is being put into the atmosphere faster than it is being absorbed?
But saying it like that doesn't sound as scary.
And then he concludes with this entirely unsubstantiated quote:"On such a crowded planet, we have little capacity to adapt to changes that are much faster than anything in human experience.
"The article started in such a scientific fashion, and now it ends with propaganda.
There is no scientific justification for claiming we have little capacity to adapt to these changes.
This is a perfect example of a lot of global warming ideas: they start with solid science then extrapolate into fear-mongering and propaganda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30425408</id>
	<title>Overweight, or too much CO2?</title>
	<author>DuBois</author>
	<datestamp>1260701220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'This man is too heavy,' said the doctor who had been called in to see a patient in the Land of Fools, 'and his ailment will undoubtedly become worse unless something is done about it.'<br> <br>He went home, leaving his knowledge and expected some action to be taken.<br> <br>When he returned to see the patient, he was met by sorrowing relatives.<br> <br>'Doctor,' they said, 'the man was sicker than we knew. Even after his weight had been reduced, he died.'<br> <br>'Perhaps he did not get his weight down fast enough.'<br> <br>'No, it couldn't have been that. We decided that the best way to take off weight was to cut his head off. We had that done in five minutes.'<br> <br>&mdash;Idries Shah, "Reflections"</htmltext>
<tokenext>'This man is too heavy, ' said the doctor who had been called in to see a patient in the Land of Fools , 'and his ailment will undoubtedly become worse unless something is done about it .
' He went home , leaving his knowledge and expected some action to be taken .
When he returned to see the patient , he was met by sorrowing relatives .
'Doctor, ' they said , 'the man was sicker than we knew .
Even after his weight had been reduced , he died .
' 'Perhaps he did not get his weight down fast enough .
' 'No , it could n't have been that .
We decided that the best way to take off weight was to cut his head off .
We had that done in five minutes .
'    Idries Shah , " Reflections "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'This man is too heavy,' said the doctor who had been called in to see a patient in the Land of Fools, 'and his ailment will undoubtedly become worse unless something is done about it.
' He went home, leaving his knowledge and expected some action to be taken.
When he returned to see the patient, he was met by sorrowing relatives.
'Doctor,' they said, 'the man was sicker than we knew.
Even after his weight had been reduced, he died.
' 'Perhaps he did not get his weight down fast enough.
' 'No, it couldn't have been that.
We decided that the best way to take off weight was to cut his head off.
We had that done in five minutes.
' —Idries Shah, "Reflections"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419656</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1260636720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The thing is, most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it isn't convenient for them. So naturally, denying everything allows things to proceed as they are now, along the current status quo.</i></p><p>Unless you probe the person, you'll never figure out what point of the grandparent's scale the person falls in. You're just blithely assuming that they're "denying everything" when in fact they may not.</p><p>In short, you're practicing the worst kind of prejudice, lumping everybody who doesn't agree with you exactly into the same group.</p><p>Try treating people as individuals, who have formed their own opinions. You might gain more traction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it is n't convenient for them .
So naturally , denying everything allows things to proceed as they are now , along the current status quo.Unless you probe the person , you 'll never figure out what point of the grandparent 's scale the person falls in .
You 're just blithely assuming that they 're " denying everything " when in fact they may not.In short , you 're practicing the worst kind of prejudice , lumping everybody who does n't agree with you exactly into the same group.Try treating people as individuals , who have formed their own opinions .
You might gain more traction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it isn't convenient for them.
So naturally, denying everything allows things to proceed as they are now, along the current status quo.Unless you probe the person, you'll never figure out what point of the grandparent's scale the person falls in.
You're just blithely assuming that they're "denying everything" when in fact they may not.In short, you're practicing the worst kind of prejudice, lumping everybody who doesn't agree with you exactly into the same group.Try treating people as individuals, who have formed their own opinions.
You might gain more traction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420656</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>angel'o'sphere</author>
	<datestamp>1260645660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Earth has been getting warmer [wikipedia.org] since about 10,000 years ago.</i><br>That is wrong.<br>The earth <b>got</b> warmer roughly 10000 yeas ago. Since then it had minour fluctuations in temperature.<br>Now the earth is rapidly heating up since 50 years.</p><p>Mind you, there is a difference between 10000 and 50 years.</p><p><i>effect of the strength of the Van Allen belt,</i></p><p>Oh my god, and what should the Van Allen Belt have to do with climate? Hello? your ignorance is beyond my understanding.</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Earth has been getting warmer [ wikipedia.org ] since about 10,000 years ago.That is wrong.The earth got warmer roughly 10000 yeas ago .
Since then it had minour fluctuations in temperature.Now the earth is rapidly heating up since 50 years.Mind you , there is a difference between 10000 and 50 years.effect of the strength of the Van Allen belt,Oh my god , and what should the Van Allen Belt have to do with climate ?
Hello ? your ignorance is beyond my understanding.angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Earth has been getting warmer [wikipedia.org] since about 10,000 years ago.That is wrong.The earth got warmer roughly 10000 yeas ago.
Since then it had minour fluctuations in temperature.Now the earth is rapidly heating up since 50 years.Mind you, there is a difference between 10000 and 50 years.effect of the strength of the Van Allen belt,Oh my god, and what should the Van Allen Belt have to do with climate?
Hello? your ignorance is beyond my understanding.angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419390</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>ushering05401</author>
	<datestamp>1260634560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here</i> </p><p>Of course, on of the issues revealed is that they were preventing dissenting opinions from being accepted in peer reviewed journals...</p><p>You can prove anything when you're allowed to select the peers reviewing.</p></div><p>No, you can't.  You can stonewall outsiders at best, and only until they are willing to circumvent your avenue of peer review despite the hardships and go public.</p><p>At that point, provided there is demonstrable merit to the work, the establishment can't just keep claiming that there isn't demonstrable merit without risking their credibility as 'Peers' qualified to do review.</p><p>Anyhow, whoever penned the response comes across as someone not directly involved with the talent in the field, only involved with normals.  Anyone having been exposed to enough abnormal cognitive talent would understand that pinning a bar to entry on PHD status will get your ass alienated and your career prospects dimmed.  Whoever wrote this was most likely trained to see what they see, and therefore attaching undue importance to the training.  That is how most normals are.  The others choose to apply preexisting cognitive talent to a field of interest and gain credentials in the process.  My experience is that these types attach importance to rigor and precision, find these qualities lacking in many of their titled peers, and are therefore ready to recognize it untitled individuals when they come to their attention.</p><p>All that being said, I have no idea if there is any merit to the particular works being discussed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here Of course , on of the issues revealed is that they were preventing dissenting opinions from being accepted in peer reviewed journals...You can prove anything when you 're allowed to select the peers reviewing.No , you ca n't .
You can stonewall outsiders at best , and only until they are willing to circumvent your avenue of peer review despite the hardships and go public.At that point , provided there is demonstrable merit to the work , the establishment ca n't just keep claiming that there is n't demonstrable merit without risking their credibility as 'Peers ' qualified to do review.Anyhow , whoever penned the response comes across as someone not directly involved with the talent in the field , only involved with normals .
Anyone having been exposed to enough abnormal cognitive talent would understand that pinning a bar to entry on PHD status will get your ass alienated and your career prospects dimmed .
Whoever wrote this was most likely trained to see what they see , and therefore attaching undue importance to the training .
That is how most normals are .
The others choose to apply preexisting cognitive talent to a field of interest and gain credentials in the process .
My experience is that these types attach importance to rigor and precision , find these qualities lacking in many of their titled peers , and are therefore ready to recognize it untitled individuals when they come to their attention.All that being said , I have no idea if there is any merit to the particular works being discussed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here Of course, on of the issues revealed is that they were preventing dissenting opinions from being accepted in peer reviewed journals...You can prove anything when you're allowed to select the peers reviewing.No, you can't.
You can stonewall outsiders at best, and only until they are willing to circumvent your avenue of peer review despite the hardships and go public.At that point, provided there is demonstrable merit to the work, the establishment can't just keep claiming that there isn't demonstrable merit without risking their credibility as 'Peers' qualified to do review.Anyhow, whoever penned the response comes across as someone not directly involved with the talent in the field, only involved with normals.
Anyone having been exposed to enough abnormal cognitive talent would understand that pinning a bar to entry on PHD status will get your ass alienated and your career prospects dimmed.
Whoever wrote this was most likely trained to see what they see, and therefore attaching undue importance to the training.
That is how most normals are.
The others choose to apply preexisting cognitive talent to a field of interest and gain credentials in the process.
My experience is that these types attach importance to rigor and precision, find these qualities lacking in many of their titled peers, and are therefore ready to recognize it untitled individuals when they come to their attention.All that being said, I have no idea if there is any merit to the particular works being discussed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422066</id>
	<title>The author's claims are idiotic</title>
	<author>pkphilip</author>
	<datestamp>1260712980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one thing, if you are given a data set with temperatures for various dates for various locations around the globe, you don't need a PhD to plot a simple chart showing temperatures along one axis and dates along another axis. A chart like that can be used to determine if the trend if towards higher temperatures or not.</p><p>A second chart which maps CO2 levels for those same dates can be used to arrive at a simple correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. Again, I don't see why someone with even rudimentary understanding of statistics can't do this.</p><p>And oh, if we are only going to be believing PhDs, allow me to point out that Gavin Schmidt's PhD is in Mathematics while IPCC head Pachauri's PhD is in mechanical engineering.</p><p>Also, may I point out the simple fact that many of the skeptics have PhDs in climatology and atmospheric sciences (Dr.Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy).</p><p>And if the author is going to be making a big deal about peer-review process (completely ignoring the fact that the peer review process being used was completely flawed because of lack of data to do this peer review), may I point out this article from BBC which points out that IPCC got the dates wrong for the melting of Himalayan Glaciers by 300 years?! and it took their "peer-review" process only 2 years to figure this out.</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>Also, IPCC now acknowledges that many of the papers they referenced for their reports didn't go through peer review at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one thing , if you are given a data set with temperatures for various dates for various locations around the globe , you do n't need a PhD to plot a simple chart showing temperatures along one axis and dates along another axis .
A chart like that can be used to determine if the trend if towards higher temperatures or not.A second chart which maps CO2 levels for those same dates can be used to arrive at a simple correlation between temperature and CO2 levels .
Again , I do n't see why someone with even rudimentary understanding of statistics ca n't do this.And oh , if we are only going to be believing PhDs , allow me to point out that Gavin Schmidt 's PhD is in Mathematics while IPCC head Pachauri 's PhD is in mechanical engineering.Also , may I point out the simple fact that many of the skeptics have PhDs in climatology and atmospheric sciences ( Dr.Roy Spencer , Dr. John Christy ) .And if the author is going to be making a big deal about peer-review process ( completely ignoring the fact that the peer review process being used was completely flawed because of lack of data to do this peer review ) , may I point out this article from BBC which points out that IPCC got the dates wrong for the melting of Himalayan Glaciers by 300 years ? !
and it took their " peer-review " process only 2 years to figure this out.http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south \ _asia/8387737.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] Also , IPCC now acknowledges that many of the papers they referenced for their reports did n't go through peer review at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one thing, if you are given a data set with temperatures for various dates for various locations around the globe, you don't need a PhD to plot a simple chart showing temperatures along one axis and dates along another axis.
A chart like that can be used to determine if the trend if towards higher temperatures or not.A second chart which maps CO2 levels for those same dates can be used to arrive at a simple correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.
Again, I don't see why someone with even rudimentary understanding of statistics can't do this.And oh, if we are only going to be believing PhDs, allow me to point out that Gavin Schmidt's PhD is in Mathematics while IPCC head Pachauri's PhD is in mechanical engineering.Also, may I point out the simple fact that many of the skeptics have PhDs in climatology and atmospheric sciences (Dr.Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christy).And if the author is going to be making a big deal about peer-review process (completely ignoring the fact that the peer review process being used was completely flawed because of lack of data to do this peer review), may I point out this article from BBC which points out that IPCC got the dates wrong for the melting of Himalayan Glaciers by 300 years?!
and it took their "peer-review" process only 2 years to figure this out.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south\_asia/8387737.stm [bbc.co.uk]Also, IPCC now acknowledges that many of the papers they referenced for their reports didn't go through peer review at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422052</id>
	<title>Scientific skepticism</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1260712680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>one one hand you have to have an open mind for the theory and data that it could be true, but remember that it has to be falsifiable to fit with the scientific method. Anything that cannot be proven true or false or has a hard time being proven true or false possibly might not be falsifiable and thus not subject to the scientific method.</p><p>In order to get a true scientific skeptical mind you have to remove all bias, be it religious or political or both it could even be a non-religious bias or personal bias or the scientist just wants grant money and is biased in the report. You have to look for bias, anything that has a bias cannot follow the scientific method. When following the scientific method you have to be neutral and use logic, reason, and critical thinking, something most people don't do these days.</p><p>Any modern spreadsheet, Excel, Openoffice.Org Calc, Lotus Symphony, iWork, etc have statistics functions to calculate the margin of error and correlation so you can import the raw data into a row or column and then use the build in statistical functions to check the data. I use that to check a lot of "peer reviewed" reports when I was in college and I found a lot of them didn't even bother to do these things and when I checked them the margin of error was high and the correlation was low. Obvious the reports I reviewed were cherry picked or something was wrong and it wasn't a random sample and the hypothesis checking was done wrong.</p><p>More people will criticize religion and politics, but  forget that religion and politics can corrupt science as can many other things corrupt science. Modern Science has turned into a secular religion that worships nature and the environment, Science isn't supposed to be a religion or like a religion, and it isn't the answer to everything and cannot be used for many things such as art, humanities, emotion, writing, relationships, etc. While it is good to use logic and reason, it is just as important to use emotions and imagination and balance the right and left sides of the human brain. Sometimes science skeptics tend to forget that.</p><p>Science like religion and politics needs major reform and seems to be a hybrid of politics and religion instead of what science used to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one one hand you have to have an open mind for the theory and data that it could be true , but remember that it has to be falsifiable to fit with the scientific method .
Anything that can not be proven true or false or has a hard time being proven true or false possibly might not be falsifiable and thus not subject to the scientific method.In order to get a true scientific skeptical mind you have to remove all bias , be it religious or political or both it could even be a non-religious bias or personal bias or the scientist just wants grant money and is biased in the report .
You have to look for bias , anything that has a bias can not follow the scientific method .
When following the scientific method you have to be neutral and use logic , reason , and critical thinking , something most people do n't do these days.Any modern spreadsheet , Excel , Openoffice.Org Calc , Lotus Symphony , iWork , etc have statistics functions to calculate the margin of error and correlation so you can import the raw data into a row or column and then use the build in statistical functions to check the data .
I use that to check a lot of " peer reviewed " reports when I was in college and I found a lot of them did n't even bother to do these things and when I checked them the margin of error was high and the correlation was low .
Obvious the reports I reviewed were cherry picked or something was wrong and it was n't a random sample and the hypothesis checking was done wrong.More people will criticize religion and politics , but forget that religion and politics can corrupt science as can many other things corrupt science .
Modern Science has turned into a secular religion that worships nature and the environment , Science is n't supposed to be a religion or like a religion , and it is n't the answer to everything and can not be used for many things such as art , humanities , emotion , writing , relationships , etc .
While it is good to use logic and reason , it is just as important to use emotions and imagination and balance the right and left sides of the human brain .
Sometimes science skeptics tend to forget that.Science like religion and politics needs major reform and seems to be a hybrid of politics and religion instead of what science used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one one hand you have to have an open mind for the theory and data that it could be true, but remember that it has to be falsifiable to fit with the scientific method.
Anything that cannot be proven true or false or has a hard time being proven true or false possibly might not be falsifiable and thus not subject to the scientific method.In order to get a true scientific skeptical mind you have to remove all bias, be it religious or political or both it could even be a non-religious bias or personal bias or the scientist just wants grant money and is biased in the report.
You have to look for bias, anything that has a bias cannot follow the scientific method.
When following the scientific method you have to be neutral and use logic, reason, and critical thinking, something most people don't do these days.Any modern spreadsheet, Excel, Openoffice.Org Calc, Lotus Symphony, iWork, etc have statistics functions to calculate the margin of error and correlation so you can import the raw data into a row or column and then use the build in statistical functions to check the data.
I use that to check a lot of "peer reviewed" reports when I was in college and I found a lot of them didn't even bother to do these things and when I checked them the margin of error was high and the correlation was low.
Obvious the reports I reviewed were cherry picked or something was wrong and it wasn't a random sample and the hypothesis checking was done wrong.More people will criticize religion and politics, but  forget that religion and politics can corrupt science as can many other things corrupt science.
Modern Science has turned into a secular religion that worships nature and the environment, Science isn't supposed to be a religion or like a religion, and it isn't the answer to everything and cannot be used for many things such as art, humanities, emotion, writing, relationships, etc.
While it is good to use logic and reason, it is just as important to use emotions and imagination and balance the right and left sides of the human brain.
Sometimes science skeptics tend to forget that.Science like religion and politics needs major reform and seems to be a hybrid of politics and religion instead of what science used to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420588</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1260644940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's the hottest month on record by mean temperature and there's actually a prediction made by climate scientists in Australia that Darwin would have the greatest increase in mean temperature of Australian capital cities in the hot months, meaning that Darwin, instead of Perth, would have the most days per year over 35C within a few years (and if you look at the article, it actually makes a note of the number of days over 35).</p><p>In other words, they made a prediction based on the science and that prediction is proving to be correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's the hottest month on record by mean temperature and there 's actually a prediction made by climate scientists in Australia that Darwin would have the greatest increase in mean temperature of Australian capital cities in the hot months , meaning that Darwin , instead of Perth , would have the most days per year over 35C within a few years ( and if you look at the article , it actually makes a note of the number of days over 35 ) .In other words , they made a prediction based on the science and that prediction is proving to be correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's the hottest month on record by mean temperature and there's actually a prediction made by climate scientists in Australia that Darwin would have the greatest increase in mean temperature of Australian capital cities in the hot months, meaning that Darwin, instead of Perth, would have the most days per year over 35C within a few years (and if you look at the article, it actually makes a note of the number of days over 35).In other words, they made a prediction based on the science and that prediction is proving to be correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419562</id>
	<title>Ignore the parent!!!!1!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260635880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is Slashdot.  We have to believe that that there is something sinister going on with the author's name being withheld, so that doubt is cast on the article and therefore AGW in general. Namegate! <b>NAMEGATE!!!!1!!1</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Slashdot .
We have to believe that that there is something sinister going on with the author 's name being withheld , so that doubt is cast on the article and therefore AGW in general .
Namegate ! NAMEGATE ! ! ! ! 1 !
! 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Slashdot.
We have to believe that that there is something sinister going on with the author's name being withheld, so that doubt is cast on the article and therefore AGW in general.
Namegate! NAMEGATE!!!!1!
!1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268</id>
	<title>Is this an issue outside the US?</title>
	<author>br00tus</author>
	<datestamp>1260633540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outside of the United States (other than some ignored sectors in England) this is not even a problem.  Scientists and the intelligentsia know about global warming and how it is caused by humans.  I'm not even sure how data from the last century could be manipulated - anyone with a thermometer can verify it, and the so-called "disputed" data is all very recent.  All of this is really more of a window into the American psychology or politics or what have you than anything to do with peer reviewed climate change.  Even if one scientist was manipulating data, which is not the case anyhow, that would not change the laws of physics where the burning of gasoline produces carbon dioxide.  Some anonymous criminals break into a university's computers, hold onto the data for months while they cherry pick certain quotes, then release it just before the Copenhagen summit.  This has no effect anywhere except in the United States, where a Senator from a fundamentalist, rural state demands the anonymous criminal's accusations be investigated.  In a country where people have to battle to teach evolution and common descent of life, and not that some magic man in the clouds created all living things several thousand years ago; where we have a $27 million dollar museum in Kentucky showing this latter theory or faith or whatever, is this the country where we want to hear the opinions of the amateurs from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outside of the United States ( other than some ignored sectors in England ) this is not even a problem .
Scientists and the intelligentsia know about global warming and how it is caused by humans .
I 'm not even sure how data from the last century could be manipulated - anyone with a thermometer can verify it , and the so-called " disputed " data is all very recent .
All of this is really more of a window into the American psychology or politics or what have you than anything to do with peer reviewed climate change .
Even if one scientist was manipulating data , which is not the case anyhow , that would not change the laws of physics where the burning of gasoline produces carbon dioxide .
Some anonymous criminals break into a university 's computers , hold onto the data for months while they cherry pick certain quotes , then release it just before the Copenhagen summit .
This has no effect anywhere except in the United States , where a Senator from a fundamentalist , rural state demands the anonymous criminal 's accusations be investigated .
In a country where people have to battle to teach evolution and common descent of life , and not that some magic man in the clouds created all living things several thousand years ago ; where we have a $ 27 million dollar museum in Kentucky showing this latter theory or faith or whatever , is this the country where we want to hear the opinions of the amateurs from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outside of the United States (other than some ignored sectors in England) this is not even a problem.
Scientists and the intelligentsia know about global warming and how it is caused by humans.
I'm not even sure how data from the last century could be manipulated - anyone with a thermometer can verify it, and the so-called "disputed" data is all very recent.
All of this is really more of a window into the American psychology or politics or what have you than anything to do with peer reviewed climate change.
Even if one scientist was manipulating data, which is not the case anyhow, that would not change the laws of physics where the burning of gasoline produces carbon dioxide.
Some anonymous criminals break into a university's computers, hold onto the data for months while they cherry pick certain quotes, then release it just before the Copenhagen summit.
This has no effect anywhere except in the United States, where a Senator from a fundamentalist, rural state demands the anonymous criminal's accusations be investigated.
In a country where people have to battle to teach evolution and common descent of life, and not that some magic man in the clouds created all living things several thousand years ago; where we have a $27 million dollar museum in Kentucky showing this latter theory or faith or whatever, is this the country where we want to hear the opinions of the amateurs from?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30428712</id>
	<title>Re:Peer review is not everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260823200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Every self-respecting geek who is willing to opine on the subject of global warming should read that report."<br>Welcome to slashdot. I didn't read your article.<br>I agree the government report should be read. I just don't think I have to read it to comment on your interesting things.</p><p>"It isn't entirely certain that the net effect of human pollution is warming, it could also be cooling (see chapter 2)."</p><p>This is hardly comforting. C02 is a greenhouse gas, it is supposed to warm the earth. What's doing the cooling? Nuclear dust? On that note I might submit that during times of war with lots of aerial bombing we might see lower temperatures for particular areas that lose sunlight, but I presume that afer about 5 days that gets really difficult to quantify. Anyways, this strikes at the heart of the issue. How do we regulate new pollutants such as cesium-137 and strontium-90?<br>http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nuclear-Blasts-Provide-with-Foolproof-Art-Authentication-Method-89302.shtml</p><p>"Despite some sensationalistic propaganda floating around, sea level rises are happening slower than geological processes (plate tectonics etc) on any given coast (see chapter 5)."</p><p>I fail to see how this matters as long as the sea levels are rising faster than expected. Heck, I believe someone's done the math on an earth without ice.</p><p>"There is no reliable knowledge of how much CO2 has affected the current warming trend. The report says 'most of it' based on the logic that they can't think of another explanation.(see chapter 9)"</p><p>This isn't saying nearly as much as you think it is. For a legal analogy "the suspect we found is the only one we have because he's the only one that fits the descriptioin". It's not so much science as it is logic and observation, but after enough observation and enough agreement on the logic this is usually as good as it gets.</p><p>"The writers of the IPCC report aren't very confident of their main conclusion, which is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is human caused. In the report, they are very careful to qualify that statement; although they are not so careful in press conferences (see the synthesis report).<br>"</p><p>Politics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Every self-respecting geek who is willing to opine on the subject of global warming should read that report .
" Welcome to slashdot .
I did n't read your article.I agree the government report should be read .
I just do n't think I have to read it to comment on your interesting things .
" It is n't entirely certain that the net effect of human pollution is warming , it could also be cooling ( see chapter 2 ) .
" This is hardly comforting .
C02 is a greenhouse gas , it is supposed to warm the earth .
What 's doing the cooling ?
Nuclear dust ?
On that note I might submit that during times of war with lots of aerial bombing we might see lower temperatures for particular areas that lose sunlight , but I presume that afer about 5 days that gets really difficult to quantify .
Anyways , this strikes at the heart of the issue .
How do we regulate new pollutants such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 ? http : //news.softpedia.com/news/Nuclear-Blasts-Provide-with-Foolproof-Art-Authentication-Method-89302.shtml " Despite some sensationalistic propaganda floating around , sea level rises are happening slower than geological processes ( plate tectonics etc ) on any given coast ( see chapter 5 ) .
" I fail to see how this matters as long as the sea levels are rising faster than expected .
Heck , I believe someone 's done the math on an earth without ice .
" There is no reliable knowledge of how much CO2 has affected the current warming trend .
The report says 'most of it ' based on the logic that they ca n't think of another explanation .
( see chapter 9 ) " This is n't saying nearly as much as you think it is .
For a legal analogy " the suspect we found is the only one we have because he 's the only one that fits the descriptioin " .
It 's not so much science as it is logic and observation , but after enough observation and enough agreement on the logic this is usually as good as it gets .
" The writers of the IPCC report are n't very confident of their main conclusion , which is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is human caused .
In the report , they are very careful to qualify that statement ; although they are not so careful in press conferences ( see the synthesis report ) .
" Politics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Every self-respecting geek who is willing to opine on the subject of global warming should read that report.
"Welcome to slashdot.
I didn't read your article.I agree the government report should be read.
I just don't think I have to read it to comment on your interesting things.
"It isn't entirely certain that the net effect of human pollution is warming, it could also be cooling (see chapter 2).
"This is hardly comforting.
C02 is a greenhouse gas, it is supposed to warm the earth.
What's doing the cooling?
Nuclear dust?
On that note I might submit that during times of war with lots of aerial bombing we might see lower temperatures for particular areas that lose sunlight, but I presume that afer about 5 days that gets really difficult to quantify.
Anyways, this strikes at the heart of the issue.
How do we regulate new pollutants such as cesium-137 and strontium-90?http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nuclear-Blasts-Provide-with-Foolproof-Art-Authentication-Method-89302.shtml"Despite some sensationalistic propaganda floating around, sea level rises are happening slower than geological processes (plate tectonics etc) on any given coast (see chapter 5).
"I fail to see how this matters as long as the sea levels are rising faster than expected.
Heck, I believe someone's done the math on an earth without ice.
"There is no reliable knowledge of how much CO2 has affected the current warming trend.
The report says 'most of it' based on the logic that they can't think of another explanation.
(see chapter 9)"This isn't saying nearly as much as you think it is.
For a legal analogy "the suspect we found is the only one we have because he's the only one that fits the descriptioin".
It's not so much science as it is logic and observation, but after enough observation and enough agreement on the logic this is usually as good as it gets.
"The writers of the IPCC report aren't very confident of their main conclusion, which is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is human caused.
In the report, they are very careful to qualify that statement; although they are not so careful in press conferences (see the synthesis report).
"Politics?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419174</id>
	<title>kdawson is a douche</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260632580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Round here, we don't appeal to authority as a way to argue your point, and we should not degrade people asking legit questions by calling them "denialist" - as if they "deny" for living or something.
</p><p>
Except maybe those FSM loons, but that's cthulu's business to take care of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Round here , we do n't appeal to authority as a way to argue your point , and we should not degrade people asking legit questions by calling them " denialist " - as if they " deny " for living or something .
Except maybe those FSM loons , but that 's cthulu 's business to take care of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Round here, we don't appeal to authority as a way to argue your point, and we should not degrade people asking legit questions by calling them "denialist" - as if they "deny" for living or something.
Except maybe those FSM loons, but that's cthulu's business to take care of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420820</id>
	<title>Re:Solving GW for $100M a year...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260647340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The most promising is based on the Pinatubo Effect - sulfur in the upper atmosphere - and can be accomplished for under $100M per year (less than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.30 cents per American per year). It also has the benefit of having been proven to be effective and safe."</p><p>That's the first time I have ever heard someone call sulfuric acid effective and safe.  We spent a significant amount of money to remove sulfur from coal plants to prevent acid rain.  Now you suggest we add it back!?!</p><p>Let me the first to nominate you for the "2009 Moron of the Year Award".  Unfortunately, competition is really stiff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The most promising is based on the Pinatubo Effect - sulfur in the upper atmosphere - and can be accomplished for under $ 100M per year ( less than .30 cents per American per year ) .
It also has the benefit of having been proven to be effective and safe .
" That 's the first time I have ever heard someone call sulfuric acid effective and safe .
We spent a significant amount of money to remove sulfur from coal plants to prevent acid rain .
Now you suggest we add it back ! ?
! Let me the first to nominate you for the " 2009 Moron of the Year Award " .
Unfortunately , competition is really stiff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The most promising is based on the Pinatubo Effect - sulfur in the upper atmosphere - and can be accomplished for under $100M per year (less than .30 cents per American per year).
It also has the benefit of having been proven to be effective and safe.
"That's the first time I have ever heard someone call sulfuric acid effective and safe.
We spent a significant amount of money to remove sulfur from coal plants to prevent acid rain.
Now you suggest we add it back!?
!Let me the first to nominate you for the "2009 Moron of the Year Award".
Unfortunately, competition is really stiff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30425330</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Bongo</author>
	<datestamp>1260700740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I beg all of you to please see this <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan\_haidt\_on\_the\_moral\_mind.html" title="ted.com">TED Talk</a> [ted.com] before modding me down again.</p></div><p>Thank you for the link I'll watch it now.</p><p>Just from the title, can I say, it has been obvious to me for a long time that AGW has been a conflict about <b>morality</b>. The key is to look at what people propose to do to solve AGW. That tells you their morality.</p><p>There is nothing in AGW science that tells you what you should do about it. If you are a Robert Mugabe, you probably think of climate change as an opportunity to exploit to starve all the people from competing factions. You can starve them deliberately and blame it on climate change. Or if you are really lucky, climate change happens for real and those people are left stranded without food.  Then you just prevent them migrating and starve them all. There is nothing about AGW that will change people's morality. This is what the environmental movement fails to understand. They see it as a way to make everyone become caring people, caring for each other and for the environment. It is far more likely that people will just react from the moral level that they are already at. A tribal Afghan will not stop firing rockets at American gunships just because he's now decided to devote himself to saving the planet. A Buddhist isn't about to stop spending all this time chanting in temples just because he's realised what he really needs to do is go out and learn how to build solar power stations for the village, as life is suffering anyway, so what difference does it make if the suffering is because of flood or disease? At the most climate change will be a football for environmentalists to progress the green party in Western countries. Nobody else cares.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I beg all of you to please see this TED Talk [ ted.com ] before modding me down again.Thank you for the link I 'll watch it now.Just from the title , can I say , it has been obvious to me for a long time that AGW has been a conflict about morality .
The key is to look at what people propose to do to solve AGW .
That tells you their morality.There is nothing in AGW science that tells you what you should do about it .
If you are a Robert Mugabe , you probably think of climate change as an opportunity to exploit to starve all the people from competing factions .
You can starve them deliberately and blame it on climate change .
Or if you are really lucky , climate change happens for real and those people are left stranded without food .
Then you just prevent them migrating and starve them all .
There is nothing about AGW that will change people 's morality .
This is what the environmental movement fails to understand .
They see it as a way to make everyone become caring people , caring for each other and for the environment .
It is far more likely that people will just react from the moral level that they are already at .
A tribal Afghan will not stop firing rockets at American gunships just because he 's now decided to devote himself to saving the planet .
A Buddhist is n't about to stop spending all this time chanting in temples just because he 's realised what he really needs to do is go out and learn how to build solar power stations for the village , as life is suffering anyway , so what difference does it make if the suffering is because of flood or disease ?
At the most climate change will be a football for environmentalists to progress the green party in Western countries .
Nobody else cares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I beg all of you to please see this TED Talk [ted.com] before modding me down again.Thank you for the link I'll watch it now.Just from the title, can I say, it has been obvious to me for a long time that AGW has been a conflict about morality.
The key is to look at what people propose to do to solve AGW.
That tells you their morality.There is nothing in AGW science that tells you what you should do about it.
If you are a Robert Mugabe, you probably think of climate change as an opportunity to exploit to starve all the people from competing factions.
You can starve them deliberately and blame it on climate change.
Or if you are really lucky, climate change happens for real and those people are left stranded without food.
Then you just prevent them migrating and starve them all.
There is nothing about AGW that will change people's morality.
This is what the environmental movement fails to understand.
They see it as a way to make everyone become caring people, caring for each other and for the environment.
It is far more likely that people will just react from the moral level that they are already at.
A tribal Afghan will not stop firing rockets at American gunships just because he's now decided to devote himself to saving the planet.
A Buddhist isn't about to stop spending all this time chanting in temples just because he's realised what he really needs to do is go out and learn how to build solar power stations for the village, as life is suffering anyway, so what difference does it make if the suffering is because of flood or disease?
At the most climate change will be a football for environmentalists to progress the green party in Western countries.
Nobody else cares.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420848</id>
	<title>Choice Quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260647700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"In an ideal world," Mr Trewin said, "we would like to have a good range of stations that haven't moved, haven't had changes in their local environment. But if we want to get any information with regard to the climate over the long term, we have to make the most of what data we have."</i> </p><p>They <i>have</i> to turn bad data into a "good" study.  Their jobs' depend upon it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In an ideal world , " Mr Trewin said , " we would like to have a good range of stations that have n't moved , have n't had changes in their local environment .
But if we want to get any information with regard to the climate over the long term , we have to make the most of what data we have .
" They have to turn bad data into a " good " study .
Their jobs ' depend upon it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In an ideal world," Mr Trewin said, "we would like to have a good range of stations that haven't moved, haven't had changes in their local environment.
But if we want to get any information with regard to the climate over the long term, we have to make the most of what data we have.
" They have to turn bad data into a "good" study.
Their jobs' depend upon it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419198</id>
	<title>What a stupid post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260632820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you need a Phd to be able to say anything about climate, tell Al Gore to shut his big mouth, especially considering all the wrong graphs he has show.<br>
If this guy claims that he knows and others don't why does he write <i>"Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia."</i>. This is a weather forecast of a local event, this has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate, and proves that the author is a jerk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need a Phd to be able to say anything about climate , tell Al Gore to shut his big mouth , especially considering all the wrong graphs he has show .
If this guy claims that he knows and others do n't why does he write " Oh , and by the way : October was the hottest month on record in Darwin , Australia. " .
This is a weather forecast of a local event , this has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate , and proves that the author is a jerk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need a Phd to be able to say anything about climate, tell Al Gore to shut his big mouth, especially considering all the wrong graphs he has show.
If this guy claims that he knows and others don't why does he write "Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia.".
This is a weather forecast of a local event, this has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate, and proves that the author is a jerk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426496</id>
	<title>Re:Solving GW for $100M a year...</title>
	<author>jordandeamattson</author>
	<datestamp>1260711000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If folks are actually interested in learning more about this - rather than taking cheap shots as anonymous cowards - take a look at what Intellectual Ventures have on their web site:</p><p><a href="http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page\_id=258" title="intellectu...reslab.com">http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page\_id=258</a> [intellectu...reslab.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If folks are actually interested in learning more about this - rather than taking cheap shots as anonymous cowards - take a look at what Intellectual Ventures have on their web site : http : //intellectualventureslab.com/ ? page \ _id = 258 [ intellectu...reslab.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If folks are actually interested in learning more about this - rather than taking cheap shots as anonymous cowards - take a look at what Intellectual Ventures have on their web site:http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page\_id=258 [intellectu...reslab.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419768</id>
	<title>Re:My take</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1260637740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this point, the East Anglia issues that have any actual evidence are twofold. Out of hundreds of thousands of e-mails, a very few seem to show signs of a couple of scientists wanting to make some data that has odd properties fit the rest of their data. The second issue is actually the bigger one - how can it be science if data is privileged and so not necessarily available to anyone else wishing to double check the original experiments. The problem of unverifiable sources is actually the bigger issue, IMHO.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But the data problem itself is not unusual for science - people doing real science in perfectly legitimate ways sometimes have to make judgement calls about how much weight to give different data, and peer review and other methods sometimes involve meta-judgements about those.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; A legitimate example would be where there were, say, four studies that all included at least 100 cases or more in their sample size, and a fifth study that had a much smaller size, say 13 cases. There is more than one means of statistically weighting that fifth study so it can be included but not given as much significance as the others, and the question of which methods to use is not always clear. I'd argue that since the first e-mail to draw attention was about some tree ring data that gave pretty good predictions up to the early 1960's, but that didn't predict the actual observed numbers very well post 1960, and they had other tree ring data from multiple areas that kept on giving good predictions up to the latest samples (about 1999), they had a similar problem. High altitude or latitude tree samples are certainly a smaller database than those for more common regions, as well. So, the data that didn't match well with everything else and didn't predict now established observations very well either seemed to also come from a special case database in other ways.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Yes, it shows that scientific integrity isn't always happening at every possible level. I don't think the researchers in question looked hard enough at how to treat the data fairly - they probably saw it as flawed enough that it simply couldn't be relied on, and wanted to have no part of it. Since the data had some useful predictive value for pre-1960 records, it was really more like a minority opinion than true bunkum, and the researchers should have considered what were the ethical limits of manipulating that data - but it does seem to be data where some types of manipulation (by which I mean mathematical normalisation, not a big red eraser approach) are justified.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But I think we have always had that problem. People do get caught cooking data and publishing deliberate frauds. Anyone who follows science knows not every practitioner is infalliably honest, constantly committed to absolute integrity, or adheres to all the formal principles of science. If that's the standard for science to earn respect, there are enough doctors that don't fully follow the oath that we should have no respect what-so-ever for medicine, and I shudder to think what would be a proportionate response to politicians. Here, somebody literally stole those e-mails, and it seems safe to construe that theft as a politically motivated act. If anyone wants to argue that the theft was motivated by the noble persuit of the TRUTH, I'd listen, but right now, I don't believe it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point , the East Anglia issues that have any actual evidence are twofold .
Out of hundreds of thousands of e-mails , a very few seem to show signs of a couple of scientists wanting to make some data that has odd properties fit the rest of their data .
The second issue is actually the bigger one - how can it be science if data is privileged and so not necessarily available to anyone else wishing to double check the original experiments .
The problem of unverifiable sources is actually the bigger issue , IMHO .
        But the data problem itself is not unusual for science - people doing real science in perfectly legitimate ways sometimes have to make judgement calls about how much weight to give different data , and peer review and other methods sometimes involve meta-judgements about those .
        A legitimate example would be where there were , say , four studies that all included at least 100 cases or more in their sample size , and a fifth study that had a much smaller size , say 13 cases .
There is more than one means of statistically weighting that fifth study so it can be included but not given as much significance as the others , and the question of which methods to use is not always clear .
I 'd argue that since the first e-mail to draw attention was about some tree ring data that gave pretty good predictions up to the early 1960 's , but that did n't predict the actual observed numbers very well post 1960 , and they had other tree ring data from multiple areas that kept on giving good predictions up to the latest samples ( about 1999 ) , they had a similar problem .
High altitude or latitude tree samples are certainly a smaller database than those for more common regions , as well .
So , the data that did n't match well with everything else and did n't predict now established observations very well either seemed to also come from a special case database in other ways .
        Yes , it shows that scientific integrity is n't always happening at every possible level .
I do n't think the researchers in question looked hard enough at how to treat the data fairly - they probably saw it as flawed enough that it simply could n't be relied on , and wanted to have no part of it .
Since the data had some useful predictive value for pre-1960 records , it was really more like a minority opinion than true bunkum , and the researchers should have considered what were the ethical limits of manipulating that data - but it does seem to be data where some types of manipulation ( by which I mean mathematical normalisation , not a big red eraser approach ) are justified .
      But I think we have always had that problem .
People do get caught cooking data and publishing deliberate frauds .
Anyone who follows science knows not every practitioner is infalliably honest , constantly committed to absolute integrity , or adheres to all the formal principles of science .
If that 's the standard for science to earn respect , there are enough doctors that do n't fully follow the oath that we should have no respect what-so-ever for medicine , and I shudder to think what would be a proportionate response to politicians .
Here , somebody literally stole those e-mails , and it seems safe to construe that theft as a politically motivated act .
If anyone wants to argue that the theft was motivated by the noble persuit of the TRUTH , I 'd listen , but right now , I do n't believe it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point, the East Anglia issues that have any actual evidence are twofold.
Out of hundreds of thousands of e-mails, a very few seem to show signs of a couple of scientists wanting to make some data that has odd properties fit the rest of their data.
The second issue is actually the bigger one - how can it be science if data is privileged and so not necessarily available to anyone else wishing to double check the original experiments.
The problem of unverifiable sources is actually the bigger issue, IMHO.
        But the data problem itself is not unusual for science - people doing real science in perfectly legitimate ways sometimes have to make judgement calls about how much weight to give different data, and peer review and other methods sometimes involve meta-judgements about those.
        A legitimate example would be where there were, say, four studies that all included at least 100 cases or more in their sample size, and a fifth study that had a much smaller size, say 13 cases.
There is more than one means of statistically weighting that fifth study so it can be included but not given as much significance as the others, and the question of which methods to use is not always clear.
I'd argue that since the first e-mail to draw attention was about some tree ring data that gave pretty good predictions up to the early 1960's, but that didn't predict the actual observed numbers very well post 1960, and they had other tree ring data from multiple areas that kept on giving good predictions up to the latest samples (about 1999), they had a similar problem.
High altitude or latitude tree samples are certainly a smaller database than those for more common regions, as well.
So, the data that didn't match well with everything else and didn't predict now established observations very well either seemed to also come from a special case database in other ways.
        Yes, it shows that scientific integrity isn't always happening at every possible level.
I don't think the researchers in question looked hard enough at how to treat the data fairly - they probably saw it as flawed enough that it simply couldn't be relied on, and wanted to have no part of it.
Since the data had some useful predictive value for pre-1960 records, it was really more like a minority opinion than true bunkum, and the researchers should have considered what were the ethical limits of manipulating that data - but it does seem to be data where some types of manipulation (by which I mean mathematical normalisation, not a big red eraser approach) are justified.
      But I think we have always had that problem.
People do get caught cooking data and publishing deliberate frauds.
Anyone who follows science knows not every practitioner is infalliably honest, constantly committed to absolute integrity, or adheres to all the formal principles of science.
If that's the standard for science to earn respect, there are enough doctors that don't fully follow the oath that we should have no respect what-so-ever for medicine, and I shudder to think what would be a proportionate response to politicians.
Here, somebody literally stole those e-mails, and it seems safe to construe that theft as a politically motivated act.
If anyone wants to argue that the theft was motivated by the noble persuit of the TRUTH, I'd listen, but right now, I don't believe it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184</id>
	<title>Hottest month in Darwin...</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1260632640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've been keeping records for what, 150-200 years?  That's a lot by our puny standards, but not in geological times.</p><p>And when you say, "tree rings!", I ask, "How precise are they?"  A cool but sunny summer, or hot but dusty/cloudy/smoky summer could produce anomalous results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been keeping records for what , 150-200 years ?
That 's a lot by our puny standards , but not in geological times.And when you say , " tree rings !
" , I ask , " How precise are they ?
" A cool but sunny summer , or hot but dusty/cloudy/smoky summer could produce anomalous results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been keeping records for what, 150-200 years?
That's a lot by our puny standards, but not in geological times.And when you say, "tree rings!
", I ask, "How precise are they?
"  A cool but sunny summer, or hot but dusty/cloudy/smoky summer could produce anomalous results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419482</id>
	<title>Fairly big issue in NL</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1260635280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From practically every discussion I've seen on this, the selective quoting from the e-mails.. a lot of damage has been done.</p><p>Quite frankly this has 2 causes, at least in NL:<br>1. We're cheap bastards.  Lowering our co2 emissions, investing in green energy, etc. etc. is all costing us money.. on the individual and government level.  So anything that challenges the notions that 'threaten to' invoke plans regulating going green is welcomed with wide open arms.</p><p>2. We, and I daresay most people around the world, have short attention spans and are lazy.  A person like Glenn Beck opens his mouth reading those choice quotes off an autocue, and outrage ensues.  A shitton of scientists then tackle those quotes, what they mean, what the underlying data is, and so forth and so on.. and 5 seconds in the person watching the TV will have already zapped away to one of 7 variants of "American Idol" (well, their NL equivalents).<br>Unfortunately, there is no soundbite cookiecut easily consumed way of educating people beyond the level of an 8 year old - and the matter at hand is far too complex for most 8 year olds to comprehend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From practically every discussion I 've seen on this , the selective quoting from the e-mails.. a lot of damage has been done.Quite frankly this has 2 causes , at least in NL : 1 .
We 're cheap bastards .
Lowering our co2 emissions , investing in green energy , etc .
etc. is all costing us money.. on the individual and government level .
So anything that challenges the notions that 'threaten to ' invoke plans regulating going green is welcomed with wide open arms.2 .
We , and I daresay most people around the world , have short attention spans and are lazy .
A person like Glenn Beck opens his mouth reading those choice quotes off an autocue , and outrage ensues .
A shitton of scientists then tackle those quotes , what they mean , what the underlying data is , and so forth and so on.. and 5 seconds in the person watching the TV will have already zapped away to one of 7 variants of " American Idol " ( well , their NL equivalents ) .Unfortunately , there is no soundbite cookiecut easily consumed way of educating people beyond the level of an 8 year old - and the matter at hand is far too complex for most 8 year olds to comprehend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From practically every discussion I've seen on this, the selective quoting from the e-mails.. a lot of damage has been done.Quite frankly this has 2 causes, at least in NL:1.
We're cheap bastards.
Lowering our co2 emissions, investing in green energy, etc.
etc. is all costing us money.. on the individual and government level.
So anything that challenges the notions that 'threaten to' invoke plans regulating going green is welcomed with wide open arms.2.
We, and I daresay most people around the world, have short attention spans and are lazy.
A person like Glenn Beck opens his mouth reading those choice quotes off an autocue, and outrage ensues.
A shitton of scientists then tackle those quotes, what they mean, what the underlying data is, and so forth and so on.. and 5 seconds in the person watching the TV will have already zapped away to one of 7 variants of "American Idol" (well, their NL equivalents).Unfortunately, there is no soundbite cookiecut easily consumed way of educating people beyond the level of an 8 year old - and the matter at hand is far too complex for most 8 year olds to comprehend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420752</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260646620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skeptics who do not use reason and logic are often called denialists.  This is an attempt to keep the term skeptic a useful one.  While this term may be hurtful, it also happens to be factual.</p><p>It is a waste of time debating someone who will never be satisfied with the evidence.  In short, denialists  can't be converted.  They act like morons and should be treated as such.  They should not be given credibility.</p><p>People who believe in AGW but have differing ideas about the response to it are NOT denialists.  Anyone who conflates the terms is misusing them.  You have constructed a strawman.  Not very helpful.</p><p>Disagreements about the response to global change/warming (AGW or not) are perfectly reasonable.  Wasting time debating denialists takes away from the things we should be doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skeptics who do not use reason and logic are often called denialists .
This is an attempt to keep the term skeptic a useful one .
While this term may be hurtful , it also happens to be factual.It is a waste of time debating someone who will never be satisfied with the evidence .
In short , denialists ca n't be converted .
They act like morons and should be treated as such .
They should not be given credibility.People who believe in AGW but have differing ideas about the response to it are NOT denialists .
Anyone who conflates the terms is misusing them .
You have constructed a strawman .
Not very helpful.Disagreements about the response to global change/warming ( AGW or not ) are perfectly reasonable .
Wasting time debating denialists takes away from the things we should be doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skeptics who do not use reason and logic are often called denialists.
This is an attempt to keep the term skeptic a useful one.
While this term may be hurtful, it also happens to be factual.It is a waste of time debating someone who will never be satisfied with the evidence.
In short, denialists  can't be converted.
They act like morons and should be treated as such.
They should not be given credibility.People who believe in AGW but have differing ideas about the response to it are NOT denialists.
Anyone who conflates the terms is misusing them.
You have constructed a strawman.
Not very helpful.Disagreements about the response to global change/warming (AGW or not) are perfectly reasonable.
Wasting time debating denialists takes away from the things we should be doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420246</id>
	<title>Re:Is this an issue outside the US?</title>
	<author>c-1ee</author>
	<datestamp>1260641700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think what I read on an earlier<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comment sums this up the best. AGW or not, don't #@$#ing trash the planet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what I read on an earlier / .
comment sums this up the best .
AGW or not , do n't # @ $ # ing trash the planet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what I read on an earlier /.
comment sums this up the best.
AGW or not, don't #@$#ing trash the planet!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419252</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While labeled flamebait, this is something of a problem, even in less politicized fields of science. Most scientists are earnest truth-seekers, but a minority are not, and the peer-review system is not always robust to them. I work in an area of computer science that will never make Fox News, but even in this area things are sometimes suppressed for what's hard to describe as other than political reasons. At the very least, politically unpopular positions get all sorts of extra hoops to jump through that others don't--- e.g. if you're casting doubt on a position the journal editor or one of his friends staked his career on, better expect some <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/08/the\_saga\_of\_the\_journal\_commen.php" title="scienceblogs.com">random made-up requirements</a> [scienceblogs.com]. If your paper scoops a large and well-funded group's work, there's a chance it'll be rejected by one of their friends, so they get to publication first--- and their publication might coincidentally borrow a few ideas or theorems from your rejected paper.</p><p>It's not all bad, and in fact most is probably good. But there are some very rotten parts of the scientific-publishing apparatus. It doesn't help that most journals are run by for-profit companies that are a bit shady themselves (Kluwer, Springer, etc.) who have no real interest in the quality of the science they publish or how to improve it. And it doubly doesn't help that the academic rat-race has gotten increasingly cut-throat, so people feel they need to resort to dirty tricks to get/keep a job, get tenure, get grants, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While labeled flamebait , this is something of a problem , even in less politicized fields of science .
Most scientists are earnest truth-seekers , but a minority are not , and the peer-review system is not always robust to them .
I work in an area of computer science that will never make Fox News , but even in this area things are sometimes suppressed for what 's hard to describe as other than political reasons .
At the very least , politically unpopular positions get all sorts of extra hoops to jump through that others do n't--- e.g .
if you 're casting doubt on a position the journal editor or one of his friends staked his career on , better expect some random made-up requirements [ scienceblogs.com ] .
If your paper scoops a large and well-funded group 's work , there 's a chance it 'll be rejected by one of their friends , so they get to publication first--- and their publication might coincidentally borrow a few ideas or theorems from your rejected paper.It 's not all bad , and in fact most is probably good .
But there are some very rotten parts of the scientific-publishing apparatus .
It does n't help that most journals are run by for-profit companies that are a bit shady themselves ( Kluwer , Springer , etc .
) who have no real interest in the quality of the science they publish or how to improve it .
And it doubly does n't help that the academic rat-race has gotten increasingly cut-throat , so people feel they need to resort to dirty tricks to get/keep a job , get tenure , get grants , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While labeled flamebait, this is something of a problem, even in less politicized fields of science.
Most scientists are earnest truth-seekers, but a minority are not, and the peer-review system is not always robust to them.
I work in an area of computer science that will never make Fox News, but even in this area things are sometimes suppressed for what's hard to describe as other than political reasons.
At the very least, politically unpopular positions get all sorts of extra hoops to jump through that others don't--- e.g.
if you're casting doubt on a position the journal editor or one of his friends staked his career on, better expect some random made-up requirements [scienceblogs.com].
If your paper scoops a large and well-funded group's work, there's a chance it'll be rejected by one of their friends, so they get to publication first--- and their publication might coincidentally borrow a few ideas or theorems from your rejected paper.It's not all bad, and in fact most is probably good.
But there are some very rotten parts of the scientific-publishing apparatus.
It doesn't help that most journals are run by for-profit companies that are a bit shady themselves (Kluwer, Springer, etc.
) who have no real interest in the quality of the science they publish or how to improve it.
And it doubly doesn't help that the academic rat-race has gotten increasingly cut-throat, so people feel they need to resort to dirty tricks to get/keep a job, get tenure, get grants, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420232</id>
	<title>Re:If it requires a PHD</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1260641580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So NASA says "Hey guys, we've found an asteroid that has a 90\% chance of hitting the Earth in a hundred years. We don't really know what'll happen, but we're pretty sure it'll be bad."</p><p>Would you say that the people who believe them and start taking steps to minimize the damage the asteroid can cause are blind-faith followers? You'd need to have a PhD in astrophysics and your own observatory to really check up on NASA; would you rather believe a bunch of assholes with telescopes in their back yards, who say it's really just Sputnik 14?</p><p>It's the same situation with the IPCC and global climate change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So NASA says " Hey guys , we 've found an asteroid that has a 90 \ % chance of hitting the Earth in a hundred years .
We do n't really know what 'll happen , but we 're pretty sure it 'll be bad .
" Would you say that the people who believe them and start taking steps to minimize the damage the asteroid can cause are blind-faith followers ?
You 'd need to have a PhD in astrophysics and your own observatory to really check up on NASA ; would you rather believe a bunch of assholes with telescopes in their back yards , who say it 's really just Sputnik 14 ? It 's the same situation with the IPCC and global climate change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So NASA says "Hey guys, we've found an asteroid that has a 90\% chance of hitting the Earth in a hundred years.
We don't really know what'll happen, but we're pretty sure it'll be bad.
"Would you say that the people who believe them and start taking steps to minimize the damage the asteroid can cause are blind-faith followers?
You'd need to have a PhD in astrophysics and your own observatory to really check up on NASA; would you rather believe a bunch of assholes with telescopes in their back yards, who say it's really just Sputnik 14?It's the same situation with the IPCC and global climate change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419830</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260638280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have direct proof of the Holocaust?  Are you skeptical that it happened without direct proof?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have direct proof of the Holocaust ?
Are you skeptical that it happened without direct proof ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have direct proof of the Holocaust?
Are you skeptical that it happened without direct proof?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420830</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes ... just one minor point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260647460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because", it stops being science. global warming is a perfect example of something with questionable science reaching the point it's being treated as a religion, and anyone questioning it is a heretic.</p></div><p>If you *know* it's questionable, then send your explanation to a peer-reviewed journal for all of us to see.</p><p>You can't? pity, but chances are then you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backing, as the guy analyzed in TFA. And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time, which we'd rather they spent doing their actual job.</p></div><p>Unfortunately, both those "actual scientists" and the "denialists" have no choice but to try to reason with the "armchair scientists" of which you speak<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because they happen to be voters.</p><p>At least, you do in most democratic nations.</p><p>Alternatively, you can just issue a bunch of propaganda that you hope can convince a large number of people of your point of view without actually reasoning with any of them. If you're lucky, the majority of the electorate will be dumb enough to let you get away with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe " just because " , it stops being science .
global warming is a perfect example of something with questionable science reaching the point it 's being treated as a religion , and anyone questioning it is a heretic.If you * know * it 's questionable , then send your explanation to a peer-reviewed journal for all of us to see.You ca n't ?
pity , but chances are then you 're no different from the thousands of other " armchair scientists " making outrageous claims with no actual backing , as the guy analyzed in TFA .
And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time , which we 'd rather they spent doing their actual job.Unfortunately , both those " actual scientists " and the " denialists " have no choice but to try to reason with the " armchair scientists " of which you speak ... because they happen to be voters.At least , you do in most democratic nations.Alternatively , you can just issue a bunch of propaganda that you hope can convince a large number of people of your point of view without actually reasoning with any of them .
If you 're lucky , the majority of the electorate will be dumb enough to let you get away with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because", it stops being science.
global warming is a perfect example of something with questionable science reaching the point it's being treated as a religion, and anyone questioning it is a heretic.If you *know* it's questionable, then send your explanation to a peer-reviewed journal for all of us to see.You can't?
pity, but chances are then you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backing, as the guy analyzed in TFA.
And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time, which we'd rather they spent doing their actual job.Unfortunately, both those "actual scientists" and the "denialists" have no choice but to try to reason with the "armchair scientists" of which you speak ... because they happen to be voters.At least, you do in most democratic nations.Alternatively, you can just issue a bunch of propaganda that you hope can convince a large number of people of your point of view without actually reasoning with any of them.
If you're lucky, the majority of the electorate will be dumb enough to let you get away with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419262</id>
	<title>Only Logical Solution to Wacko Skeptics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may borrow my tinfoil hat. Just remember to re-energize it before you return it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may borrow my tinfoil hat .
Just remember to re-energize it before you return it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may borrow my tinfoil hat.
Just remember to re-energize it before you return it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419116</id>
	<title>gone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260632100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you re-examine the original data when it's all been erased?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you re-examine the original data when it 's all been erased ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you re-examine the original data when it's all been erased?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419444</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Misguided liberals hijacked W's tactics.  Liberal, conservative, doesn't matter - it's stupidity, stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Misguided liberals hijacked W 's tactics .
Liberal , conservative , does n't matter - it 's stupidity , stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Misguided liberals hijacked W's tactics.
Liberal, conservative, doesn't matter - it's stupidity, stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419352</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>kevin7kal</author>
	<datestamp>1260634260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't Look like trolling to me.  Maybe I'm naive, but I was using dial up when that meant dialing into a BBS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't Look like trolling to me .
Maybe I 'm naive , but I was using dial up when that meant dialing into a BBS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't Look like trolling to me.
Maybe I'm naive, but I was using dial up when that meant dialing into a BBS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420762</id>
	<title>Link seems insufficiently "sticky"</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1260646680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earlier URL notwithstanding, the link to Willis's rebuttal seems to have moved <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">here.</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earlier URL notwithstanding , the link to Willis 's rebuttal seems to have moved here .
[ wattsupwiththat.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earlier URL notwithstanding, the link to Willis's rebuttal seems to have moved here.
[wattsupwiththat.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419500</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260635460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It really does weaken the position of those who support the AGW theory...</p></div><p>The thing is, most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it isn't convenient for them.  So naturally, denying everything allows things to proceed as they are now, along the current status quo.</p><p>Even if you don't believe AGW, how about some related topics:</p><p>1) The U.S. currently consumes 25\% of the world oil.  China and India each have about 3 times the population.  If China and India scale up and consume oil at the same per-capita rate as the U.S., then they will use 150\% of the world's oil.  That's probably not going to sit well with the rest of the world, besides being impossible and causing serious economic problems.</p><p>2) The U.S. currently produces around 20 metric tons of CO2 per capita.  This is inline with other first world nations and/or oil rich nations.  China and India are around 4 and 1 metric tons per capita.  Once again, if they scale up to match their first world peers, that's a lot more CO2 pouring into the world's atmosphere.</p><p>So deny global warming all you want... that isn't going to solve the actual problems we're headed towards.  Some models indicate temperatures will rise between 1 and 6 degrees C over the next century, and we can probably get along fine at the lower end.  But it is more likely that economic distortions and/or all out energy wars will wreak havoc, before the oceans flood have a chance to drown us all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really does weaken the position of those who support the AGW theory...The thing is , most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it is n't convenient for them .
So naturally , denying everything allows things to proceed as they are now , along the current status quo.Even if you do n't believe AGW , how about some related topics : 1 ) The U.S. currently consumes 25 \ % of the world oil .
China and India each have about 3 times the population .
If China and India scale up and consume oil at the same per-capita rate as the U.S. , then they will use 150 \ % of the world 's oil .
That 's probably not going to sit well with the rest of the world , besides being impossible and causing serious economic problems.2 ) The U.S. currently produces around 20 metric tons of CO2 per capita .
This is inline with other first world nations and/or oil rich nations .
China and India are around 4 and 1 metric tons per capita .
Once again , if they scale up to match their first world peers , that 's a lot more CO2 pouring into the world 's atmosphere.So deny global warming all you want... that is n't going to solve the actual problems we 're headed towards .
Some models indicate temperatures will rise between 1 and 6 degrees C over the next century , and we can probably get along fine at the lower end .
But it is more likely that economic distortions and/or all out energy wars will wreak havoc , before the oceans flood have a chance to drown us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really does weaken the position of those who support the AGW theory...The thing is, most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it isn't convenient for them.
So naturally, denying everything allows things to proceed as they are now, along the current status quo.Even if you don't believe AGW, how about some related topics:1) The U.S. currently consumes 25\% of the world oil.
China and India each have about 3 times the population.
If China and India scale up and consume oil at the same per-capita rate as the U.S., then they will use 150\% of the world's oil.
That's probably not going to sit well with the rest of the world, besides being impossible and causing serious economic problems.2) The U.S. currently produces around 20 metric tons of CO2 per capita.
This is inline with other first world nations and/or oil rich nations.
China and India are around 4 and 1 metric tons per capita.
Once again, if they scale up to match their first world peers, that's a lot more CO2 pouring into the world's atmosphere.So deny global warming all you want... that isn't going to solve the actual problems we're headed towards.
Some models indicate temperatures will rise between 1 and 6 degrees C over the next century, and we can probably get along fine at the lower end.
But it is more likely that economic distortions and/or all out energy wars will wreak havoc, before the oceans flood have a chance to drown us all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419960</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260639180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look at this graph and then tell me there's anything special about the last 200 years.  There obviously isn't.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice\_Age\_Temperature.png</p><p>We're not as hot as 130k, 240k or 340k years ago.  And somehow I don't think our co2 is responsible for those peaks. Al Gore may disagree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at this graph and then tell me there 's anything special about the last 200 years .
There obviously is n't.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Ice \ _Age \ _Temperature.pngWe 're not as hot as 130k , 240k or 340k years ago .
And somehow I do n't think our co2 is responsible for those peaks .
Al Gore may disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at this graph and then tell me there's anything special about the last 200 years.
There obviously isn't.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice\_Age\_Temperature.pngWe're not as hot as 130k, 240k or 340k years ago.
And somehow I don't think our co2 is responsible for those peaks.
Al Gore may disagree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272</id>
	<title>PhD required?</title>
	<author>TheCaptain</author>
	<datestamp>1260633540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand.</i></p><p>Aye, there's the rub...</p><p>I think the author is overlooking two simple facts:  not everyone with a website is an "average guy", and that there are more than a few people in the world who are capable of understanding advanced mathematics and statistical methods who don't have the related PhD that apparently enables one to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things .
One thing they can not do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand.Aye , there 's the rub...I think the author is overlooking two simple facts : not everyone with a website is an " average guy " , and that there are more than a few people in the world who are capable of understanding advanced mathematics and statistical methods who do n't have the related PhD that apparently enables one to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things.
One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand.Aye, there's the rub...I think the author is overlooking two simple facts:  not everyone with a website is an "average guy", and that there are more than a few people in the world who are capable of understanding advanced mathematics and statistical methods who don't have the related PhD that apparently enables one to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423332</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1260727020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A true spirit of science requires that you remain open minded.  Period.  Forever.  And never reach certainty.</p><p>This means that all actions are taken against a background of uncertainty.  That's the way the world is, and lying about it doesn't make it any better.  All you can say is that one interpretation of the perceived facts is more probable than another.  And *NOW* is when action is possible.  You can't act in either the past or the future, but only in the now.</p><p>Being open minded doesn't mean being indecisive.  It just means accepting that any action you take might not be the correct one.  You can only make your best guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A true spirit of science requires that you remain open minded .
Period. Forever .
And never reach certainty.This means that all actions are taken against a background of uncertainty .
That 's the way the world is , and lying about it does n't make it any better .
All you can say is that one interpretation of the perceived facts is more probable than another .
And * NOW * is when action is possible .
You ca n't act in either the past or the future , but only in the now.Being open minded does n't mean being indecisive .
It just means accepting that any action you take might not be the correct one .
You can only make your best guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A true spirit of science requires that you remain open minded.
Period.  Forever.
And never reach certainty.This means that all actions are taken against a background of uncertainty.
That's the way the world is, and lying about it doesn't make it any better.
All you can say is that one interpretation of the perceived facts is more probable than another.
And *NOW* is when action is possible.
You can't act in either the past or the future, but only in the now.Being open minded doesn't mean being indecisive.
It just means accepting that any action you take might not be the correct one.
You can only make your best guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420604</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260645180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I am in principle sceptic about the gas chambers. But I don't consider that detail important in the big scheme of things.</p><p>There are plenty of pictures of the holocaust on Wikipedia. That in itself is enough to prove that there was a systematic extinction of Jews, Poles and Gypsies. What proportion of them died in gas chambers is more or less irrelevant to history, since history primarily deals with questions about what people believed and wanted, what their motivation was and so on.</p><p>If for example it was discovered that the famous gas chambers were actually an hoax by the Allied countries, it would not rock the history about the holocaust as much as you may think. It would not need to be rewritten much. The big question in the history of the holocaust is not how the Jews died, but what the fucking hell the Germans were thinking.</p><p>Although if the gas chamber were a hoax it would sure rock the history of Allied propaganda during and after WW2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I am in principle sceptic about the gas chambers .
But I do n't consider that detail important in the big scheme of things.There are plenty of pictures of the holocaust on Wikipedia .
That in itself is enough to prove that there was a systematic extinction of Jews , Poles and Gypsies .
What proportion of them died in gas chambers is more or less irrelevant to history , since history primarily deals with questions about what people believed and wanted , what their motivation was and so on.If for example it was discovered that the famous gas chambers were actually an hoax by the Allied countries , it would not rock the history about the holocaust as much as you may think .
It would not need to be rewritten much .
The big question in the history of the holocaust is not how the Jews died , but what the fucking hell the Germans were thinking.Although if the gas chamber were a hoax it would sure rock the history of Allied propaganda during and after WW2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I am in principle sceptic about the gas chambers.
But I don't consider that detail important in the big scheme of things.There are plenty of pictures of the holocaust on Wikipedia.
That in itself is enough to prove that there was a systematic extinction of Jews, Poles and Gypsies.
What proportion of them died in gas chambers is more or less irrelevant to history, since history primarily deals with questions about what people believed and wanted, what their motivation was and so on.If for example it was discovered that the famous gas chambers were actually an hoax by the Allied countries, it would not rock the history about the holocaust as much as you may think.
It would not need to be rewritten much.
The big question in the history of the holocaust is not how the Jews died, but what the fucking hell the Germans were thinking.Although if the gas chamber were a hoax it would sure rock the history of Allied propaganda during and after WW2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30434064</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1260820800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree 100\%.</p><p>You can also add to your list of "denialist" categories:</p><p>I agree that something is going on, and man may be the cause of it, and everything you say might be true, and the consequences to be dire enough that we should probably start doing something about it now, however I do not believe you have proven ANYTHING definitely, nor have you inspired my confidence (which is what it is all about really) in your scientific method, your professionalism, or your arguments.</p><p>When scientists are prepared to try and actively disprove their own theories to try and reveal the truth, then I will hop on to the band wagon gladly. The opposite seems to be the rule however. The fact that they are trying to prove "denalists" "wrong" rather than to try and see if they are true simply tells me they have preconceived notion of what is right and wrong. The fact that there is a word at all for "denalists" tells me this is going the wrong way.</p><p>I know given the nature of the problem, getting an totally definitive answer will be very difficult, but ultimately not necessary. It just has to be definitive enough to form a consensus. Perhaps I am too harsh, but they seem to want a consensus before they have definitively proved their hypothesis. For me science is about repeatable results. As much fun as simulations and models are, until they can accurately predict the past, they are all but so much fiction. I don't envy the amount of work required due the sheer scale of time, physical area, and number of variables, but I don't think that is an excuse. If you are not up to the task, then don't call it science, call it Artistic Modeling or something, just don't hang this under the Scientific tree for creditability. You have to earn that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 100 \ % .You can also add to your list of " denialist " categories : I agree that something is going on , and man may be the cause of it , and everything you say might be true , and the consequences to be dire enough that we should probably start doing something about it now , however I do not believe you have proven ANYTHING definitely , nor have you inspired my confidence ( which is what it is all about really ) in your scientific method , your professionalism , or your arguments.When scientists are prepared to try and actively disprove their own theories to try and reveal the truth , then I will hop on to the band wagon gladly .
The opposite seems to be the rule however .
The fact that they are trying to prove " denalists " " wrong " rather than to try and see if they are true simply tells me they have preconceived notion of what is right and wrong .
The fact that there is a word at all for " denalists " tells me this is going the wrong way.I know given the nature of the problem , getting an totally definitive answer will be very difficult , but ultimately not necessary .
It just has to be definitive enough to form a consensus .
Perhaps I am too harsh , but they seem to want a consensus before they have definitively proved their hypothesis .
For me science is about repeatable results .
As much fun as simulations and models are , until they can accurately predict the past , they are all but so much fiction .
I do n't envy the amount of work required due the sheer scale of time , physical area , and number of variables , but I do n't think that is an excuse .
If you are not up to the task , then do n't call it science , call it Artistic Modeling or something , just do n't hang this under the Scientific tree for creditability .
You have to earn that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 100\%.You can also add to your list of "denialist" categories:I agree that something is going on, and man may be the cause of it, and everything you say might be true, and the consequences to be dire enough that we should probably start doing something about it now, however I do not believe you have proven ANYTHING definitely, nor have you inspired my confidence (which is what it is all about really) in your scientific method, your professionalism, or your arguments.When scientists are prepared to try and actively disprove their own theories to try and reveal the truth, then I will hop on to the band wagon gladly.
The opposite seems to be the rule however.
The fact that they are trying to prove "denalists" "wrong" rather than to try and see if they are true simply tells me they have preconceived notion of what is right and wrong.
The fact that there is a word at all for "denalists" tells me this is going the wrong way.I know given the nature of the problem, getting an totally definitive answer will be very difficult, but ultimately not necessary.
It just has to be definitive enough to form a consensus.
Perhaps I am too harsh, but they seem to want a consensus before they have definitively proved their hypothesis.
For me science is about repeatable results.
As much fun as simulations and models are, until they can accurately predict the past, they are all but so much fiction.
I don't envy the amount of work required due the sheer scale of time, physical area, and number of variables, but I don't think that is an excuse.
If you are not up to the task, then don't call it science, call it Artistic Modeling or something, just don't hang this under the Scientific tree for creditability.
You have to earn that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419454</id>
	<title>I see...</title>
	<author>Treeluvinhippy</author>
	<datestamp>1260635100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author is a skeptic only as long as their skepticism and logic leads to conclusions that match the authors personal beliefs. As soon as it doesn't, well lets put a damper on critical thinking. Mmkay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author is a skeptic only as long as their skepticism and logic leads to conclusions that match the authors personal beliefs .
As soon as it does n't , well lets put a damper on critical thinking .
Mmkay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author is a skeptic only as long as their skepticism and logic leads to conclusions that match the authors personal beliefs.
As soon as it doesn't, well lets put a damper on critical thinking.
Mmkay?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419600</id>
	<title>Re:If it requires a PHD</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1260636240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the dissenters are morons who don't understand it, what does that make the believers? Blind-faith followers?</p></div><p>Well, yeah. But Occam's Razor says that it's better to trust the guy with the PhD than the guy without, so we're marginally superior sheep at least<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the dissenters are morons who do n't understand it , what does that make the believers ?
Blind-faith followers ? Well , yeah .
But Occam 's Razor says that it 's better to trust the guy with the PhD than the guy without , so we 're marginally superior sheep at least ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the dissenters are morons who don't understand it, what does that make the believers?
Blind-faith followers?Well, yeah.
But Occam's Razor says that it's better to trust the guy with the PhD than the guy without, so we're marginally superior sheep at least ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420342</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1260642600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have a few examples of classic denialist behaviour here. You start off by acting like the suppressed whistleblower. You've got the facts, but the man is trying to keep you down.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The weather exhibits chaotic behavior and to find precisely one single cause for variation is futile, like CO2 emissions from human activities</p></div><p>Denialist behaviour: keep making the same point that has been discredited time and time again. Weather is not the same as climate. If you toss a coin a hundred times, it will come up heads approximately 50\% of the time. But that doesn't mean that you will know what the result will be on the 101st toss.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The hottest day on record! screams the summary. Er, well since 1941. Well and good, how do you know the hottest day last century in Australia didn't happen in 1940?</p></div><p>(No, it says the hottest month on record.) Now you have a bit of denialist misdirection. You couldn't argue with the fact that it was the hottest month on record, so you tried to change what they said to being the hottest month in the last century.</p><p>In any case, do you have any reason to think that some month in 1940 was hotter than any in the years after that? Or maybe are you trying to introduce unjustified doubt. This is textbook stuff: you don't have any facts with which to argue, so you just ask questions (that you can't answer yourself - I'll give you a hint, RTFA) to make it appear that opposition haven't considered all the possibilities.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Earth has been getting warmer since about 10,000 years ago. Truth. AGW doesn't explain that</p></div><p>This one is my favourite. What makes you think that it is getting warmer? Oh, you suddenly believe what the scientists say! The hockey stick graph gets discredited because we apparently can't accurately measure the temperatures before 1850, but we can measure it 110,000 years ago. It is this that cherry picking of results of which both sides accuse the other.</p><p>But is it relevant? Can the sudden increase in warming over the last century really be attributed to the end of the last ice age? As a comparison, 1998 was dramatically hotter than the surrounding years. This is not attributed (by anyone reliable) to global warming, but rather to El Nino. Do you think that it is possible that the similar sudden increase in temperature seen over the century may also be attributable to something other than the extremely mild warming the planet saw prior to that?</p><p>I have always maintained that it is not the amount of temperature change that is the problem, but the speed of which it occurs. If it happens too fast, the all animals (including humans) have problems adapting. This results in a large number of species going extinct.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No weather model can correctly predict past, known, climate; how can one believe that the future predictions are correct?</p></div><p>That's a pretty bold statement. Which models have you look at? This might be one of those "Something doesn't exist, although I have never bothered to check" moments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a few examples of classic denialist behaviour here .
You start off by acting like the suppressed whistleblower .
You 've got the facts , but the man is trying to keep you down.The weather exhibits chaotic behavior and to find precisely one single cause for variation is futile , like CO2 emissions from human activitiesDenialist behaviour : keep making the same point that has been discredited time and time again .
Weather is not the same as climate .
If you toss a coin a hundred times , it will come up heads approximately 50 \ % of the time .
But that does n't mean that you will know what the result will be on the 101st toss.The hottest day on record !
screams the summary .
Er , well since 1941 .
Well and good , how do you know the hottest day last century in Australia did n't happen in 1940 ?
( No , it says the hottest month on record .
) Now you have a bit of denialist misdirection .
You could n't argue with the fact that it was the hottest month on record , so you tried to change what they said to being the hottest month in the last century.In any case , do you have any reason to think that some month in 1940 was hotter than any in the years after that ?
Or maybe are you trying to introduce unjustified doubt .
This is textbook stuff : you do n't have any facts with which to argue , so you just ask questions ( that you ca n't answer yourself - I 'll give you a hint , RTFA ) to make it appear that opposition have n't considered all the possibilities.The Earth has been getting warmer since about 10,000 years ago .
Truth. AGW does n't explain thatThis one is my favourite .
What makes you think that it is getting warmer ?
Oh , you suddenly believe what the scientists say !
The hockey stick graph gets discredited because we apparently ca n't accurately measure the temperatures before 1850 , but we can measure it 110,000 years ago .
It is this that cherry picking of results of which both sides accuse the other.But is it relevant ?
Can the sudden increase in warming over the last century really be attributed to the end of the last ice age ?
As a comparison , 1998 was dramatically hotter than the surrounding years .
This is not attributed ( by anyone reliable ) to global warming , but rather to El Nino .
Do you think that it is possible that the similar sudden increase in temperature seen over the century may also be attributable to something other than the extremely mild warming the planet saw prior to that ? I have always maintained that it is not the amount of temperature change that is the problem , but the speed of which it occurs .
If it happens too fast , the all animals ( including humans ) have problems adapting .
This results in a large number of species going extinct.No weather model can correctly predict past , known , climate ; how can one believe that the future predictions are correct ? That 's a pretty bold statement .
Which models have you look at ?
This might be one of those " Something does n't exist , although I have never bothered to check " moments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a few examples of classic denialist behaviour here.
You start off by acting like the suppressed whistleblower.
You've got the facts, but the man is trying to keep you down.The weather exhibits chaotic behavior and to find precisely one single cause for variation is futile, like CO2 emissions from human activitiesDenialist behaviour: keep making the same point that has been discredited time and time again.
Weather is not the same as climate.
If you toss a coin a hundred times, it will come up heads approximately 50\% of the time.
But that doesn't mean that you will know what the result will be on the 101st toss.The hottest day on record!
screams the summary.
Er, well since 1941.
Well and good, how do you know the hottest day last century in Australia didn't happen in 1940?
(No, it says the hottest month on record.
) Now you have a bit of denialist misdirection.
You couldn't argue with the fact that it was the hottest month on record, so you tried to change what they said to being the hottest month in the last century.In any case, do you have any reason to think that some month in 1940 was hotter than any in the years after that?
Or maybe are you trying to introduce unjustified doubt.
This is textbook stuff: you don't have any facts with which to argue, so you just ask questions (that you can't answer yourself - I'll give you a hint, RTFA) to make it appear that opposition haven't considered all the possibilities.The Earth has been getting warmer since about 10,000 years ago.
Truth. AGW doesn't explain thatThis one is my favourite.
What makes you think that it is getting warmer?
Oh, you suddenly believe what the scientists say!
The hockey stick graph gets discredited because we apparently can't accurately measure the temperatures before 1850, but we can measure it 110,000 years ago.
It is this that cherry picking of results of which both sides accuse the other.But is it relevant?
Can the sudden increase in warming over the last century really be attributed to the end of the last ice age?
As a comparison, 1998 was dramatically hotter than the surrounding years.
This is not attributed (by anyone reliable) to global warming, but rather to El Nino.
Do you think that it is possible that the similar sudden increase in temperature seen over the century may also be attributable to something other than the extremely mild warming the planet saw prior to that?I have always maintained that it is not the amount of temperature change that is the problem, but the speed of which it occurs.
If it happens too fast, the all animals (including humans) have problems adapting.
This results in a large number of species going extinct.No weather model can correctly predict past, known, climate; how can one believe that the future predictions are correct?That's a pretty bold statement.
Which models have you look at?
This might be one of those "Something doesn't exist, although I have never bothered to check" moments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426846</id>
	<title>Show me one real anti AGW paper</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1260714120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone provide a link to one single anti AGW paper that has solid, unbiased scientists behind it?</p><p>I googled a bit trying to find one and could not.  The best I could find was lists like this:<br>http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html</p><p>But going down the list, and searching the history of the authors, their connections and business associations, every one of them is questionable.  And each paper had numerous papers refuting it, or the original authors had later changed their mind.</p><p>Before I hit submit I found one more<br>http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord\_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8<br>But was from 2007 and seems to be largely refuted.<br>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/</p><p>Is there one single anti AGW paper that most climate scientists say "yes, this is a pretty valid counter argument and we need to study if further"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone provide a link to one single anti AGW paper that has solid , unbiased scientists behind it ? I googled a bit trying to find one and could not .
The best I could find was lists like this : http : //www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htmlBut going down the list , and searching the history of the authors , their connections and business associations , every one of them is questionable .
And each paper had numerous papers refuting it , or the original authors had later changed their mind.Before I hit submit I found one morehttp : //epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm ? FuseAction = Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord \ _id = 84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8But was from 2007 and seems to be largely refuted.http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/Is there one single anti AGW paper that most climate scientists say " yes , this is a pretty valid counter argument and we need to study if further " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone provide a link to one single anti AGW paper that has solid, unbiased scientists behind it?I googled a bit trying to find one and could not.
The best I could find was lists like this:http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htmlBut going down the list, and searching the history of the authors, their connections and business associations, every one of them is questionable.
And each paper had numerous papers refuting it, or the original authors had later changed their mind.Before I hit submit I found one morehttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord\_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8But was from 2007 and seems to be largely refuted.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/Is there one single anti AGW paper that most climate scientists say "yes, this is a pretty valid counter argument and we need to study if further"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422352</id>
	<title>Re:I am very sceptical...</title>
	<author>fooslacker</author>
	<datestamp>1260717420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My argument would be that your premise is wrong you don't have to know what to believe.  If it is important enough then you should spend the time and effort to inform yourself and understand the issues and the data that is available.  Just listening to what others tells you is true is a good way to get an erroneous understanding anyway, especially if they don't understand it fully or have an agenda of which you are unaware.
<br> <br>
Now to be clear I think that if you don't spend the time to understand it then you should refrain from actions which you know may have consequences based on that lack of understanding (alla voting for someone because they have a certain position on an issue you know you don't really understand).
<br> <br>
Unfortunately, my system would in the extreme lead to an oligarchy of the informed so I would hope more people would take it upon themselves to educate themselves but even so I believe an oligarchy of the informed is better than an oligarchy of the persuasive which is what you get with a system that doesn't rely on education, and in my opinion this is much more dangerous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My argument would be that your premise is wrong you do n't have to know what to believe .
If it is important enough then you should spend the time and effort to inform yourself and understand the issues and the data that is available .
Just listening to what others tells you is true is a good way to get an erroneous understanding anyway , especially if they do n't understand it fully or have an agenda of which you are unaware .
Now to be clear I think that if you do n't spend the time to understand it then you should refrain from actions which you know may have consequences based on that lack of understanding ( alla voting for someone because they have a certain position on an issue you know you do n't really understand ) .
Unfortunately , my system would in the extreme lead to an oligarchy of the informed so I would hope more people would take it upon themselves to educate themselves but even so I believe an oligarchy of the informed is better than an oligarchy of the persuasive which is what you get with a system that does n't rely on education , and in my opinion this is much more dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My argument would be that your premise is wrong you don't have to know what to believe.
If it is important enough then you should spend the time and effort to inform yourself and understand the issues and the data that is available.
Just listening to what others tells you is true is a good way to get an erroneous understanding anyway, especially if they don't understand it fully or have an agenda of which you are unaware.
Now to be clear I think that if you don't spend the time to understand it then you should refrain from actions which you know may have consequences based on that lack of understanding (alla voting for someone because they have a certain position on an issue you know you don't really understand).
Unfortunately, my system would in the extreme lead to an oligarchy of the informed so I would hope more people would take it upon themselves to educate themselves but even so I believe an oligarchy of the informed is better than an oligarchy of the persuasive which is what you get with a system that doesn't rely on education, and in my opinion this is much more dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419912</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260638880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"if you are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door, then you aren't fit to be argueing the science."</i>
<br> <br>
Unfortunately there are very few Vulcan's living on Earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" if you are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door , then you are n't fit to be argueing the science .
" Unfortunately there are very few Vulcan 's living on Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"if you are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door, then you aren't fit to be argueing the science.
"
 
Unfortunately there are very few Vulcan's living on Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419226</id>
	<title>You Don't Need a PhD to Know When a Chart's Bogus</title>
	<author>thepainguy</author>
	<datestamp>1260633180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my <a href="http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/NeitherThisNorThat/AnInconvenientTruthAnalysis.html" title="chrisoleary.com" rel="nofollow">Inconvenient Truth Analysis</a> [chrisoleary.com], I point out how Al Gore and/or his graphic designers use a set of information design tricks to try to increase the visual impact of their money slide. For instance, on the right side of the chart you can see where they overlaid one set of data (the red peaks) over another (the blue peaks).</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my Inconvenient Truth Analysis [ chrisoleary.com ] , I point out how Al Gore and/or his graphic designers use a set of information design tricks to try to increase the visual impact of their money slide .
For instance , on the right side of the chart you can see where they overlaid one set of data ( the red peaks ) over another ( the blue peaks ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my Inconvenient Truth Analysis [chrisoleary.com], I point out how Al Gore and/or his graphic designers use a set of information design tricks to try to increase the visual impact of their money slide.
For instance, on the right side of the chart you can see where they overlaid one set of data (the red peaks) over another (the blue peaks).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421482</id>
	<title>Re:If you Need a PHD to understand it - its a Secr</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1260701520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, if an 8 year old can't understand it, we know it's elitist nonsense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , if an 8 year old ca n't understand it , we know it 's elitist nonsense : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, if an 8 year old can't understand it, we know it's elitist nonsense :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419386</id>
	<title>Gravity: teach the CONTROVERSY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who says that fellow Newton was right? Why are the so-called "scientists" believing his "theories" (they're just theories, people, wake up!) blindly? Just yesterday I saw an apple floating UP instead of down as Mr Newton claims. Surely if one apple does not move down, why should we believe him as far as the movement of heavenly bodies are concerned?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who says that fellow Newton was right ?
Why are the so-called " scientists " believing his " theories " ( they 're just theories , people , wake up !
) blindly ?
Just yesterday I saw an apple floating UP instead of down as Mr Newton claims .
Surely if one apple does not move down , why should we believe him as far as the movement of heavenly bodies are concerned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who says that fellow Newton was right?
Why are the so-called "scientists" believing his "theories" (they're just theories, people, wake up!
) blindly?
Just yesterday I saw an apple floating UP instead of down as Mr Newton claims.
Surely if one apple does not move down, why should we believe him as far as the movement of heavenly bodies are concerned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419682</id>
	<title>The 1990s called, they want their complaint back</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1260636840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was once the rallying cry of the AGW "consensus" -- that skeptics didn't publish in peer reviewed journals.  The skeptics, however, managed to do so.  The response of the "consensus"?  As seen in the leaked emails, they attempted to prevent the studies from being published and to boycott the journals which published them.   So enough about the "peer review" stuff.  Number one, it's been done.  And number two, it's quite disingenuous to demand peer reviewed articles while working behind the scenes to prevent them from being published.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was once the rallying cry of the AGW " consensus " -- that skeptics did n't publish in peer reviewed journals .
The skeptics , however , managed to do so .
The response of the " consensus " ?
As seen in the leaked emails , they attempted to prevent the studies from being published and to boycott the journals which published them .
So enough about the " peer review " stuff .
Number one , it 's been done .
And number two , it 's quite disingenuous to demand peer reviewed articles while working behind the scenes to prevent them from being published .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was once the rallying cry of the AGW "consensus" -- that skeptics didn't publish in peer reviewed journals.
The skeptics, however, managed to do so.
The response of the "consensus"?
As seen in the leaked emails, they attempted to prevent the studies from being published and to boycott the journals which published them.
So enough about the "peer review" stuff.
Number one, it's been done.
And number two, it's quite disingenuous to demand peer reviewed articles while working behind the scenes to prevent them from being published.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421946</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260710040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are bad reviewers out there, the same as there are bad scientists, and that can be a problem if you feel your paper <i>has</i> to be published in one, specific journal.  Get the rare reviewer who can't distinguish his personal beliefs from objective science, and he can block that submission.</p><p>If you're honestly believe that there's a cabala surrounding some large group to make sure they're first to print on every idea, you can ask that they be excluded from reviewing.  If you know someone who will reject non-aligned ideas, you can ask that he be excluded from reviewing.  And there are <i>tons</i> of relevant journals to which a rejected manuscript can be resubmitted.  The problem of reviewer bias is well known, and there are well known counters to it.</p><p>It's just possible, if your manuscript gets rejected from four or five journals, that it doesn't communicate its idea and its validation quite as well as you think it does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are bad reviewers out there , the same as there are bad scientists , and that can be a problem if you feel your paper has to be published in one , specific journal .
Get the rare reviewer who ca n't distinguish his personal beliefs from objective science , and he can block that submission.If you 're honestly believe that there 's a cabala surrounding some large group to make sure they 're first to print on every idea , you can ask that they be excluded from reviewing .
If you know someone who will reject non-aligned ideas , you can ask that he be excluded from reviewing .
And there are tons of relevant journals to which a rejected manuscript can be resubmitted .
The problem of reviewer bias is well known , and there are well known counters to it.It 's just possible , if your manuscript gets rejected from four or five journals , that it does n't communicate its idea and its validation quite as well as you think it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are bad reviewers out there, the same as there are bad scientists, and that can be a problem if you feel your paper has to be published in one, specific journal.
Get the rare reviewer who can't distinguish his personal beliefs from objective science, and he can block that submission.If you're honestly believe that there's a cabala surrounding some large group to make sure they're first to print on every idea, you can ask that they be excluded from reviewing.
If you know someone who will reject non-aligned ideas, you can ask that he be excluded from reviewing.
And there are tons of relevant journals to which a rejected manuscript can be resubmitted.
The problem of reviewer bias is well known, and there are well known counters to it.It's just possible, if your manuscript gets rejected from four or five journals, that it doesn't communicate its idea and its validation quite as well as you think it does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420794</id>
	<title>Scientific Research</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1260646980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very simple.</p><p>Scientific Research should be published and available freely to the public, and transparent.</p><p>This is not what is happening with the Climate Research.</p><p>Why is this not a simple thing?</p><p>The reason why is because these people are not interested in Climate Research, that is why.</p><p>They want to set a precedent to tax all nations on earth, they don't care what the topic is....if it is to make believe we can control the climate on Earth, so be it.</p><p>Science always goes wrong when people close it.   I know they come up with all sorts of excuses....Well, we cannot have THEM looking at our research, they aren't qualified!</p><p>Oh, we can't have the public look at it, they are too stupid to understand the papers WE write.</p><p>Oh, our data is PROPRIETARY, we are sorry, you can't look at it.</p><p>I have read and seen every single line and its CRAP.</p><p>Give you another example how insidious this is.  I got a Email from a prof, here at UW-Madison soliciting work on a cool wireless project, with new cutting edge hardware.   I wrote back and said I am interested to learn about the hardware as long as I don't have to sign a non disclosure agreement and it wasn't a broadcom device which if it was no need to reply.</p><p>Haven't heard anything.</p><p>Wireless is a sticking point with me.  Everyone knows what goes on with wireless stuff.  Especially when dealing with Broadcom devices on linux.   Closure of the hardware gets me very angry, and I started shouting about the crap that happens behind the scenes between Microsoft's licensing of wireless and companies that provide or even hint at opening their drivers.  Essentially Microsoft will threaten or imply the drivers API may or may not change and arbitrarily not including them in the installation process for Windows out of the box.</p><p>The second thing I do not like about not sharing information, whether it is to lock in markets like broadcom and microsoft alliance tries to do, or why wireless N took 5 years to approve, or JUST PLAIN F'IN GOOD OLE AMERICAN CORPORATE GREED, you basically end up with bad products.</p><p>So is it not anyones surprise, that just like trying to use a closed wireless hardware device and be all secretive and crap, you get crappy working devices, likewise you close climate research or research in general, you get crappy research.</p><p>In this case, research with a purpose to keep scientists busy by buying their silence, while you use the results of the work to establish a nefarious world wide governmental bureaucracy, to make trillions.</p><p>Meanwhile, people will die by the millions, which I sometimes wonder if Copenhagen meetings real issue they discuss is population control.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very simple.Scientific Research should be published and available freely to the public , and transparent.This is not what is happening with the Climate Research.Why is this not a simple thing ? The reason why is because these people are not interested in Climate Research , that is why.They want to set a precedent to tax all nations on earth , they do n't care what the topic is....if it is to make believe we can control the climate on Earth , so be it.Science always goes wrong when people close it .
I know they come up with all sorts of excuses....Well , we can not have THEM looking at our research , they are n't qualified ! Oh , we ca n't have the public look at it , they are too stupid to understand the papers WE write.Oh , our data is PROPRIETARY , we are sorry , you ca n't look at it.I have read and seen every single line and its CRAP.Give you another example how insidious this is .
I got a Email from a prof , here at UW-Madison soliciting work on a cool wireless project , with new cutting edge hardware .
I wrote back and said I am interested to learn about the hardware as long as I do n't have to sign a non disclosure agreement and it was n't a broadcom device which if it was no need to reply.Have n't heard anything.Wireless is a sticking point with me .
Everyone knows what goes on with wireless stuff .
Especially when dealing with Broadcom devices on linux .
Closure of the hardware gets me very angry , and I started shouting about the crap that happens behind the scenes between Microsoft 's licensing of wireless and companies that provide or even hint at opening their drivers .
Essentially Microsoft will threaten or imply the drivers API may or may not change and arbitrarily not including them in the installation process for Windows out of the box.The second thing I do not like about not sharing information , whether it is to lock in markets like broadcom and microsoft alliance tries to do , or why wireless N took 5 years to approve , or JUST PLAIN F'IN GOOD OLE AMERICAN CORPORATE GREED , you basically end up with bad products.So is it not anyones surprise , that just like trying to use a closed wireless hardware device and be all secretive and crap , you get crappy working devices , likewise you close climate research or research in general , you get crappy research.In this case , research with a purpose to keep scientists busy by buying their silence , while you use the results of the work to establish a nefarious world wide governmental bureaucracy , to make trillions.Meanwhile , people will die by the millions , which I sometimes wonder if Copenhagen meetings real issue they discuss is population control.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very simple.Scientific Research should be published and available freely to the public, and transparent.This is not what is happening with the Climate Research.Why is this not a simple thing?The reason why is because these people are not interested in Climate Research, that is why.They want to set a precedent to tax all nations on earth, they don't care what the topic is....if it is to make believe we can control the climate on Earth, so be it.Science always goes wrong when people close it.
I know they come up with all sorts of excuses....Well, we cannot have THEM looking at our research, they aren't qualified!Oh, we can't have the public look at it, they are too stupid to understand the papers WE write.Oh, our data is PROPRIETARY, we are sorry, you can't look at it.I have read and seen every single line and its CRAP.Give you another example how insidious this is.
I got a Email from a prof, here at UW-Madison soliciting work on a cool wireless project, with new cutting edge hardware.
I wrote back and said I am interested to learn about the hardware as long as I don't have to sign a non disclosure agreement and it wasn't a broadcom device which if it was no need to reply.Haven't heard anything.Wireless is a sticking point with me.
Everyone knows what goes on with wireless stuff.
Especially when dealing with Broadcom devices on linux.
Closure of the hardware gets me very angry, and I started shouting about the crap that happens behind the scenes between Microsoft's licensing of wireless and companies that provide or even hint at opening their drivers.
Essentially Microsoft will threaten or imply the drivers API may or may not change and arbitrarily not including them in the installation process for Windows out of the box.The second thing I do not like about not sharing information, whether it is to lock in markets like broadcom and microsoft alliance tries to do, or why wireless N took 5 years to approve, or JUST PLAIN F'IN GOOD OLE AMERICAN CORPORATE GREED, you basically end up with bad products.So is it not anyones surprise, that just like trying to use a closed wireless hardware device and be all secretive and crap, you get crappy working devices, likewise you close climate research or research in general, you get crappy research.In this case, research with a purpose to keep scientists busy by buying their silence, while you use the results of the work to establish a nefarious world wide governmental bureaucracy, to make trillions.Meanwhile, people will die by the millions, which I sometimes wonder if Copenhagen meetings real issue they discuss is population control.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419726</id>
	<title>Not expecting much from "Peers"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260637200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all due respect, the peer review system in every professional discipline I have been exposed to is flawed.<br>The real troubling fact about this is the people in the professions know it, complain internally about it, but never dissolve it because of the lack of a real alternative.</p><p>Face the facts, the guys at the IOCC are busted, no peer review is going to change that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all due respect , the peer review system in every professional discipline I have been exposed to is flawed.The real troubling fact about this is the people in the professions know it , complain internally about it , but never dissolve it because of the lack of a real alternative.Face the facts , the guys at the IOCC are busted , no peer review is going to change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all due respect, the peer review system in every professional discipline I have been exposed to is flawed.The real troubling fact about this is the people in the professions know it, complain internally about it, but never dissolve it because of the lack of a real alternative.Face the facts, the guys at the IOCC are busted, no peer review is going to change that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419302</id>
	<title>Re:I am very sceptical...</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1260633780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am very sceptical with regards to a "not named" author claims...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div><p>Before everyone starts putting down the author for being anonymous, please observe that this is <i>The Economist.</i> For those of you not familiar with that particular publication, one of its distinguishing traits is that it does not publish bylines. Ever. Editorials in <i>The Economist</i> are backed by the reputation of the editorial staff of <i>The Economist,</i> not of any individual writer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am very sceptical with regards to a " not named " author claims... ; - ) Before everyone starts putting down the author for being anonymous , please observe that this is The Economist .
For those of you not familiar with that particular publication , one of its distinguishing traits is that it does not publish bylines .
Ever. Editorials in The Economist are backed by the reputation of the editorial staff of The Economist , not of any individual writer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am very sceptical with regards to a "not named" author claims... ;-)Before everyone starts putting down the author for being anonymous, please observe that this is The Economist.
For those of you not familiar with that particular publication, one of its distinguishing traits is that it does not publish bylines.
Ever. Editorials in The Economist are backed by the reputation of the editorial staff of The Economist, not of any individual writer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421788</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260707580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One of the authors doesn't even believe that CFCs affect the ozone layer</i></p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which is true. The ozone hole (discovered when we first looked) is affected by changes in the sun, and follows a natural cycle.</p><p>1) we found it. AND IT'S GETTING BIGGER! must be our fault. Nature is static you know!!11<br>2) let's do something!<br>3) It's getting smaller! IT MUST BE THANKS TO US! (let's forget that it should've taken another 10-15 years for our changes to have any effect)<br>4) uh-oh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. it's getting bigger again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. let's keep quiet about that.</p><p>Yes, heard much about number 4 lately?</p><p><a href="http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081809-18171-2.html" title="sciencealert.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081809-18171-2.html</a> [sciencealert.com.au]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the authors does n't even believe that CFCs affect the ozone layer ... which is true .
The ozone hole ( discovered when we first looked ) is affected by changes in the sun , and follows a natural cycle.1 ) we found it .
AND IT 'S GETTING BIGGER !
must be our fault .
Nature is static you know !
! 112 ) let 's do something ! 3 ) It 's getting smaller !
IT MUST BE THANKS TO US !
( let 's forget that it should 've taken another 10-15 years for our changes to have any effect ) 4 ) uh-oh .. it 's getting bigger again .. let 's keep quiet about that.Yes , heard much about number 4 lately ? http : //www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081809-18171-2.html [ sciencealert.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the authors doesn't even believe that CFCs affect the ozone layer ... which is true.
The ozone hole (discovered when we first looked) is affected by changes in the sun, and follows a natural cycle.1) we found it.
AND IT'S GETTING BIGGER!
must be our fault.
Nature is static you know!
!112) let's do something!3) It's getting smaller!
IT MUST BE THANKS TO US!
(let's forget that it should've taken another 10-15 years for our changes to have any effect)4) uh-oh .. it's getting bigger again .. let's keep quiet about that.Yes, heard much about number 4 lately?http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081809-18171-2.html [sciencealert.com.au]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419326</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>evil-merodach</author>
	<datestamp>1260634020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we need the hoi polloi to discuss global warming; we need to teach the controversy in our schools. We can't let the experts spend all those years out of their lives doing all that sciencey stuff without the rest of us putting in our uninformed two cents and deciding the matter.</p><p>
While weather is a chaotic system and can't be predicted with precision, the trend in climate change can be discerned. Sure, we don't know how bad things are but we do know that if things continue as they have been, we can expect unpleasantness at the very least.</p><p>
And 10-11K years ago? That's when humans invented agriculture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we need the hoi polloi to discuss global warming ; we need to teach the controversy in our schools .
We ca n't let the experts spend all those years out of their lives doing all that sciencey stuff without the rest of us putting in our uninformed two cents and deciding the matter .
While weather is a chaotic system and ca n't be predicted with precision , the trend in climate change can be discerned .
Sure , we do n't know how bad things are but we do know that if things continue as they have been , we can expect unpleasantness at the very least .
And 10-11K years ago ?
That 's when humans invented agriculture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we need the hoi polloi to discuss global warming; we need to teach the controversy in our schools.
We can't let the experts spend all those years out of their lives doing all that sciencey stuff without the rest of us putting in our uninformed two cents and deciding the matter.
While weather is a chaotic system and can't be predicted with precision, the trend in climate change can be discerned.
Sure, we don't know how bad things are but we do know that if things continue as they have been, we can expect unpleasantness at the very least.
And 10-11K years ago?
That's when humans invented agriculture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419156</id>
	<title>Simple Explanation: Darwin was bombed in 1941</title>
	<author>highways</author>
	<datestamp>1260632460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A little history. Darwin was bombed and mostly flattened in 1941 by the Japanese during WWII.  And, most likely, the weather station with it.</p><p>Hence, it was probably re-built at a different site with different local effects.</p><p>Next?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A little history .
Darwin was bombed and mostly flattened in 1941 by the Japanese during WWII .
And , most likely , the weather station with it.Hence , it was probably re-built at a different site with different local effects.Next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little history.
Darwin was bombed and mostly flattened in 1941 by the Japanese during WWII.
And, most likely, the weather station with it.Hence, it was probably re-built at a different site with different local effects.Next?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1260635760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because", it stops being science. global warming is a perfect example of something with questionable science reaching the point it's being treated as a religion, and anyone questioning it is a heretic.</p></div><p>If you *know* it's questionable, then send your explanation to a peer-reviewed journal for all of us to see.</p><p>You can't? pity, but chances are then you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backing, as the guy analyzed in TFA. And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time, which we'd rather they spent doing their actual job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe " just because " , it stops being science .
global warming is a perfect example of something with questionable science reaching the point it 's being treated as a religion , and anyone questioning it is a heretic.If you * know * it 's questionable , then send your explanation to a peer-reviewed journal for all of us to see.You ca n't ?
pity , but chances are then you 're no different from the thousands of other " armchair scientists " making outrageous claims with no actual backing , as the guy analyzed in TFA .
And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time , which we 'd rather they spent doing their actual job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because", it stops being science.
global warming is a perfect example of something with questionable science reaching the point it's being treated as a religion, and anyone questioning it is a heretic.If you *know* it's questionable, then send your explanation to a peer-reviewed journal for all of us to see.You can't?
pity, but chances are then you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backing, as the guy analyzed in TFA.
And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time, which we'd rather they spent doing their actual job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419402</id>
	<title>They never thought of that</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1260634680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An amazing number of poorly educated Fox News watchers like yourself stunned scientists worldwide by coming up with such an objection. They never thought about it, them fancy pansy learned people! That'll learn them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An amazing number of poorly educated Fox News watchers like yourself stunned scientists worldwide by coming up with such an objection .
They never thought about it , them fancy pansy learned people !
That 'll learn them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An amazing number of poorly educated Fox News watchers like yourself stunned scientists worldwide by coming up with such an objection.
They never thought about it, them fancy pansy learned people!
That'll learn them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420720</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>calidoscope</author>
	<datestamp>1260646260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Einstein's theories of relativity give easily testable predictions, many of which have measured to great precision. AGW models rely on a water vapor feedback mechanism with an uncertainty close to the same magnitude as the predicted effect. This is more like the factor of ignorance used in civil engineering analysis rather than relativistic physics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Einstein 's theories of relativity give easily testable predictions , many of which have measured to great precision .
AGW models rely on a water vapor feedback mechanism with an uncertainty close to the same magnitude as the predicted effect .
This is more like the factor of ignorance used in civil engineering analysis rather than relativistic physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Einstein's theories of relativity give easily testable predictions, many of which have measured to great precision.
AGW models rely on a water vapor feedback mechanism with an uncertainty close to the same magnitude as the predicted effect.
This is more like the factor of ignorance used in civil engineering analysis rather than relativistic physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419566</id>
	<title>Re:If it requires a PHD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260635940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who get out of the way and let smart people figure things out? Or do you try to tell doctors how to make vaccines better too thanks to the news article you read?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who get out of the way and let smart people figure things out ?
Or do you try to tell doctors how to make vaccines better too thanks to the news article you read ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who get out of the way and let smart people figure things out?
Or do you try to tell doctors how to make vaccines better too thanks to the news article you read?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419426</id>
	<title>Re:Is this an issue outside the US?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"anyone with a thermometer can verify it,"</p><p>That same thermometer (a satellite really) has shown a decrease and leveling off of global temperatures over the past 10 years which disagrees with all global warming climate models.  But I guess that FACT is only part of the American Psychology. It is people like you with attitudes like yours that ushers in fascism.  The mass murder of people and the rejection of facts based on emotional appeal is part of the European/Asian psyche.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" anyone with a thermometer can verify it , " That same thermometer ( a satellite really ) has shown a decrease and leveling off of global temperatures over the past 10 years which disagrees with all global warming climate models .
But I guess that FACT is only part of the American Psychology .
It is people like you with attitudes like yours that ushers in fascism .
The mass murder of people and the rejection of facts based on emotional appeal is part of the European/Asian psyche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"anyone with a thermometer can verify it,"That same thermometer (a satellite really) has shown a decrease and leveling off of global temperatures over the past 10 years which disagrees with all global warming climate models.
But I guess that FACT is only part of the American Psychology.
It is people like you with attitudes like yours that ushers in fascism.
The mass murder of people and the rejection of facts based on emotional appeal is part of the European/Asian psyche.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30427028</id>
	<title>Re:Solving GW for $100M a year...</title>
	<author>jordandeamattson</author>
	<datestamp>1260715440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A extremely detailed overview on this topic is available at the Intellectual Ventures web site (see <a href="http://intellectualventureslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Stratoshield-white-paper-300dpi.pdf" title="intellectu...reslab.com">http://intellectualventureslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Stratoshield-white-paper-300dpi.pdf</a> [intellectu...reslab.com]).</p><p>But to answer some of the questions, raised below, the necessary SO2 ranges - depending on scenario - from 200K (enough to offset Arctic Warming and establish a positive albedo feedback loop for cooling) to 2M tons per year (for a full on global cooling process.</p><p>This works out to from 2/10s of one percent to 2 percent of current SO2 emissions world wide (half of which come from man made sources). Current SO2 emissions are well below those we saw during the worse of acid rain.</p><p>To put it in perspective, Mt. Pinatubo kicked 20M tons of sulfur into the atmosphere in the course of a few days.</p><p>There have been studies on the impact of an additional 2M tons of SO2 in the atmosphere and they show miniscule impact.</p><p>It should be noted that any geo-engineering scheme is short term and designed to buy us the time to make the switch to more efficient and lower foot print energy systems.</p><p>The folks proposing these plans accept that AGW is real, but believe the measures being proposed are Too Little, Too Late, and Too Expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A extremely detailed overview on this topic is available at the Intellectual Ventures web site ( see http : //intellectualventureslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Stratoshield-white-paper-300dpi.pdf [ intellectu...reslab.com ] ) .But to answer some of the questions , raised below , the necessary SO2 ranges - depending on scenario - from 200K ( enough to offset Arctic Warming and establish a positive albedo feedback loop for cooling ) to 2M tons per year ( for a full on global cooling process.This works out to from 2/10s of one percent to 2 percent of current SO2 emissions world wide ( half of which come from man made sources ) .
Current SO2 emissions are well below those we saw during the worse of acid rain.To put it in perspective , Mt .
Pinatubo kicked 20M tons of sulfur into the atmosphere in the course of a few days.There have been studies on the impact of an additional 2M tons of SO2 in the atmosphere and they show miniscule impact.It should be noted that any geo-engineering scheme is short term and designed to buy us the time to make the switch to more efficient and lower foot print energy systems.The folks proposing these plans accept that AGW is real , but believe the measures being proposed are Too Little , Too Late , and Too Expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A extremely detailed overview on this topic is available at the Intellectual Ventures web site (see http://intellectualventureslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Stratoshield-white-paper-300dpi.pdf [intellectu...reslab.com]).But to answer some of the questions, raised below, the necessary SO2 ranges - depending on scenario - from 200K (enough to offset Arctic Warming and establish a positive albedo feedback loop for cooling) to 2M tons per year (for a full on global cooling process.This works out to from 2/10s of one percent to 2 percent of current SO2 emissions world wide (half of which come from man made sources).
Current SO2 emissions are well below those we saw during the worse of acid rain.To put it in perspective, Mt.
Pinatubo kicked 20M tons of sulfur into the atmosphere in the course of a few days.There have been studies on the impact of an additional 2M tons of SO2 in the atmosphere and they show miniscule impact.It should be noted that any geo-engineering scheme is short term and designed to buy us the time to make the switch to more efficient and lower foot print energy systems.The folks proposing these plans accept that AGW is real, but believe the measures being proposed are Too Little, Too Late, and Too Expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419162</id>
	<title>Requires a PHD .... HAHAHAH</title>
	<author>brainchill</author>
	<datestamp>1260632520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Climate science is nothing but voodoo/interpretation of existing data. The truth is that we only have 50 years of semi-reliable data that proves that the climate changes over time. It gets warmer, it gets colder, but none, not one of these people has been able to reliably prove that humans have anything to do with climate change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate science is nothing but voodoo/interpretation of existing data .
The truth is that we only have 50 years of semi-reliable data that proves that the climate changes over time .
It gets warmer , it gets colder , but none , not one of these people has been able to reliably prove that humans have anything to do with climate change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate science is nothing but voodoo/interpretation of existing data.
The truth is that we only have 50 years of semi-reliable data that proves that the climate changes over time.
It gets warmer, it gets colder, but none, not one of these people has been able to reliably prove that humans have anything to do with climate change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420666</id>
	<title>Re:reply by Willis</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1260645780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's now at <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's now at http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ [ wattsupwiththat.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's now at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ [wattsupwiththat.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423040</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260724320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the difference between a blog and a peer reviewed journal?  Blogs are reviewed as well, usually by far larger numbers of people.  Maybe you don't want to stake your life on a blog post the second it comes out.  But if someone posts something worthwhile, it will attract attention, review, criticism, validation, etc. as much or more so than any journal article.  Different medium, but the end result is the same.  The problem with most peer reviewed journal articles is that they are reviewed once for publication, then get squirreled away in subscription only locations, where only very few people ever seem them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the difference between a blog and a peer reviewed journal ?
Blogs are reviewed as well , usually by far larger numbers of people .
Maybe you do n't want to stake your life on a blog post the second it comes out .
But if someone posts something worthwhile , it will attract attention , review , criticism , validation , etc .
as much or more so than any journal article .
Different medium , but the end result is the same .
The problem with most peer reviewed journal articles is that they are reviewed once for publication , then get squirreled away in subscription only locations , where only very few people ever seem them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the difference between a blog and a peer reviewed journal?
Blogs are reviewed as well, usually by far larger numbers of people.
Maybe you don't want to stake your life on a blog post the second it comes out.
But if someone posts something worthwhile, it will attract attention, review, criticism, validation, etc.
as much or more so than any journal article.
Different medium, but the end result is the same.
The problem with most peer reviewed journal articles is that they are reviewed once for publication, then get squirreled away in subscription only locations, where only very few people ever seem them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421556</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260703140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most "skeptics" are nothing more than contrarians</p></div><p>I love it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most " skeptics " are nothing more than contrariansI love it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most "skeptics" are nothing more than contrariansI love it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421636</id>
	<title>Re:Hottest month in Darwin...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260704460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story in the link is in error. Last October was NOT the hottest on record... it's the hottest on record (mean monthly max of 34.8) at the DARWIN AIRPORT. Earlier, the weather station was at the post office, and recorded several higher MMMs for October.</p><p>1882 35.3<br>1883 34.9<br>1886 35.2<br>1888 35.3<br>1889 35.7<br>1891 35.2<br>1892 35.5<br>1893 35.3<br>1901 34.9</p><p>http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p\_nccObsCode=36&amp;p\_display\_type=dataFile&amp;p\_startYear=&amp;p\_stn\_num=14016</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story in the link is in error .
Last October was NOT the hottest on record... it 's the hottest on record ( mean monthly max of 34.8 ) at the DARWIN AIRPORT .
Earlier , the weather station was at the post office , and recorded several higher MMMs for October.1882 35.31883 34.91886 35.21888 35.31889 35.71891 35.21892 35.51893 35.31901 34.9http : //www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av ? p \ _nccObsCode = 36&amp;p \ _display \ _type = dataFile&amp;p \ _startYear = &amp;p \ _stn \ _num = 14016</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story in the link is in error.
Last October was NOT the hottest on record... it's the hottest on record (mean monthly max of 34.8) at the DARWIN AIRPORT.
Earlier, the weather station was at the post office, and recorded several higher MMMs for October.1882 35.31883 34.91886 35.21888 35.31889 35.71891 35.21892 35.51893 35.31901 34.9http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p\_nccObsCode=36&amp;p\_display\_type=dataFile&amp;p\_startYear=&amp;p\_stn\_num=14016</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421132</id>
	<title>Re:If it requires a PHD</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1260695400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the dissenters are morons who don't understand it, what does that make the believers? Blind-faith followers?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, they're morons who don't understand it, too*.  The difference is, believers are willing to admit that fact, while dissenters like to pretend they know better and should be the ones dictating reality.</p><p>*This obviously excludes the PhDs who are qualified.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the dissenters are morons who do n't understand it , what does that make the believers ?
Blind-faith followers ? No , they 're morons who do n't understand it , too * .
The difference is , believers are willing to admit that fact , while dissenters like to pretend they know better and should be the ones dictating reality .
* This obviously excludes the PhDs who are qualified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the dissenters are morons who don't understand it, what does that make the believers?
Blind-faith followers?No, they're morons who don't understand it, too*.
The difference is, believers are willing to admit that fact, while dissenters like to pretend they know better and should be the ones dictating reality.
*This obviously excludes the PhDs who are qualified.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422062</id>
	<title>Well, I'm convinced...</title>
	<author>slicerwizard</author>
	<datestamp>1260712860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia".  Yeah, and it's been what, -40 to -50 in parts of western Canada - in early December?  So what's his point?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" October was the hottest month on record in Darwin , Australia " .
Yeah , and it 's been what , -40 to -50 in parts of western Canada - in early December ?
So what 's his point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia".
Yeah, and it's been what, -40 to -50 in parts of western Canada - in early December?
So what's his point?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.</p><p>The main paper in question was a literature review paper (funded by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_C.\_Marshall\_Institute" title="wikipedia.org">the Marshall Institute</a> [wikipedia.org] and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Petroleum\_Institute" title="wikipedia.org">American Petroleum Institute</a> [wikipedia.org]) full of bad science, where the actual authors of the papers cited claim to have been profoundly misintepreted, and in which severe methodological flaws have since been found. One of the authors doesn't even believe that CFCs affect the ozone layer. It should have stood as a textbook example of why we have the peer review process to begin with - it's not a platform for anyone to publish scientific nonsense.</p><p>Scientists actually are pretty skeptical people by nature, those who seem to be saying "I'm a skeptic! I don't know the science, but I'm absolutely certain it's a liberal hoax and we're all being lied to"... not so much. Most "skeptics" are nothing more than contrarians; skepticism to me implies a willingness to investigate the issue for one's self, but most of the denial movement shows such a poor grasp of the science that they clearly haven't done so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were n't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process was n't doing its job : weeding out bad science.The main paper in question was a literature review paper ( funded by the Marshall Institute [ wikipedia.org ] and the American Petroleum Institute [ wikipedia.org ] ) full of bad science , where the actual authors of the papers cited claim to have been profoundly misintepreted , and in which severe methodological flaws have since been found .
One of the authors does n't even believe that CFCs affect the ozone layer .
It should have stood as a textbook example of why we have the peer review process to begin with - it 's not a platform for anyone to publish scientific nonsense.Scientists actually are pretty skeptical people by nature , those who seem to be saying " I 'm a skeptic !
I do n't know the science , but I 'm absolutely certain it 's a liberal hoax and we 're all being lied to " ... not so much .
Most " skeptics " are nothing more than contrarians ; skepticism to me implies a willingness to investigate the issue for one 's self , but most of the denial movement shows such a poor grasp of the science that they clearly have n't done so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.The main paper in question was a literature review paper (funded by the Marshall Institute [wikipedia.org] and the American Petroleum Institute [wikipedia.org]) full of bad science, where the actual authors of the papers cited claim to have been profoundly misintepreted, and in which severe methodological flaws have since been found.
One of the authors doesn't even believe that CFCs affect the ozone layer.
It should have stood as a textbook example of why we have the peer review process to begin with - it's not a platform for anyone to publish scientific nonsense.Scientists actually are pretty skeptical people by nature, those who seem to be saying "I'm a skeptic!
I don't know the science, but I'm absolutely certain it's a liberal hoax and we're all being lied to"... not so much.
Most "skeptics" are nothing more than contrarians; skepticism to me implies a willingness to investigate the issue for one's self, but most of the denial movement shows such a poor grasp of the science that they clearly haven't done so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420404</id>
	<title>There is one simple reason that I...</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1260643260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. remain skeptical of AGW... or at the very least skeptical of the concerns by most proponents of AGW.
</p><p>
We have been collecting climate data for what now... a hundred years in detail?  And perhaps a few hundred in total in a more general sense.
</p><p>
And just how long has the earth been around?   Compare those numbers in terms of order of magnitude.  We don't know diddly.
</p><p>
An AGW proponent is often quick to point out "how quickly" it's all happening the warming is happening these days and how it couldn't have happened before the industrial revolution, except that sort of statement can only be verifiably backed by the data that we've actually collected, not by climate data from before we started recording it, let alone before humans walked the face of this earth... and we *KNOW* that when dinosaurs were around, the earth was considerably warmer than it is today.  This planet, and the life upon it, survived it before... it will do so again... even if we somehow actually were the cause of it (which as I said, I doubt).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. remain skeptical of AGW... or at the very least skeptical of the concerns by most proponents of AGW .
We have been collecting climate data for what now... a hundred years in detail ?
And perhaps a few hundred in total in a more general sense .
And just how long has the earth been around ?
Compare those numbers in terms of order of magnitude .
We do n't know diddly .
An AGW proponent is often quick to point out " how quickly " it 's all happening the warming is happening these days and how it could n't have happened before the industrial revolution , except that sort of statement can only be verifiably backed by the data that we 've actually collected , not by climate data from before we started recording it , let alone before humans walked the face of this earth... and we * KNOW * that when dinosaurs were around , the earth was considerably warmer than it is today .
This planet , and the life upon it , survived it before... it will do so again... even if we somehow actually were the cause of it ( which as I said , I doubt ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .. remain skeptical of AGW... or at the very least skeptical of the concerns by most proponents of AGW.
We have been collecting climate data for what now... a hundred years in detail?
And perhaps a few hundred in total in a more general sense.
And just how long has the earth been around?
Compare those numbers in terms of order of magnitude.
We don't know diddly.
An AGW proponent is often quick to point out "how quickly" it's all happening the warming is happening these days and how it couldn't have happened before the industrial revolution, except that sort of statement can only be verifiably backed by the data that we've actually collected, not by climate data from before we started recording it, let alone before humans walked the face of this earth... and we *KNOW* that when dinosaurs were around, the earth was considerably warmer than it is today.
This planet, and the life upon it, survived it before... it will do so again... even if we somehow actually were the cause of it (which as I said, I doubt).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420528</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260644400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah so therefore when Christy, SInger Lindzen, Soon and Baliunas (ALL MAJOR GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS) regularly publish in peer-reviewed journal their opinions are being suppressed? You cann't have both ways. Either the journal prevent dissenting opinions or deniers publish. Since all of these deniers have a long history of publications you are full of bovine excrement. The only people not getting published are those, like Tim Ball, who lie about their credentials</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah so therefore when Christy , SInger Lindzen , Soon and Baliunas ( ALL MAJOR GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS ) regularly publish in peer-reviewed journal their opinions are being suppressed ?
You can n't have both ways .
Either the journal prevent dissenting opinions or deniers publish .
Since all of these deniers have a long history of publications you are full of bovine excrement .
The only people not getting published are those , like Tim Ball , who lie about their credentials</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah so therefore when Christy, SInger Lindzen, Soon and Baliunas (ALL MAJOR GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS) regularly publish in peer-reviewed journal their opinions are being suppressed?
You cann't have both ways.
Either the journal prevent dissenting opinions or deniers publish.
Since all of these deniers have a long history of publications you are full of bovine excrement.
The only people not getting published are those, like Tim Ball, who lie about their credentials</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421904</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260709440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's that to say that some random blogger likely doesn't have the tools to correctly analyze the data</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

On the contrary, if the raw data is available and the method used to massage it, then the tools are readily available.  It's interesting to me that when Prof Mann produces a paper where he's fiddled with the data (as shown by Wegman, McIntyre/McIntrick and as verified by Dr North of the NAS in congressional testimony), the paper is not retracted, it's `defended' (mostly by use of blogs).  The same is true of Briffa's Yamal chronology and Steigs choice selection of PC's in his Antarctic Warming paper.  We aren't talking particle physics here; you don't need a billion dollar accelerator to reproduce this kind of analysis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's that to say that some random blogger likely does n't have the tools to correctly analyze the data On the contrary , if the raw data is available and the method used to massage it , then the tools are readily available .
It 's interesting to me that when Prof Mann produces a paper where he 's fiddled with the data ( as shown by Wegman , McIntyre/McIntrick and as verified by Dr North of the NAS in congressional testimony ) , the paper is not retracted , it 's ` defended ' ( mostly by use of blogs ) .
The same is true of Briffa 's Yamal chronology and Steigs choice selection of PC 's in his Antarctic Warming paper .
We are n't talking particle physics here ; you do n't need a billion dollar accelerator to reproduce this kind of analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's that to say that some random blogger likely doesn't have the tools to correctly analyze the data


On the contrary, if the raw data is available and the method used to massage it, then the tools are readily available.
It's interesting to me that when Prof Mann produces a paper where he's fiddled with the data (as shown by Wegman, McIntyre/McIntrick and as verified by Dr North of the NAS in congressional testimony), the paper is not retracted, it's `defended' (mostly by use of blogs).
The same is true of Briffa's Yamal chronology and Steigs choice selection of PC's in his Antarctic Warming paper.
We aren't talking particle physics here; you don't need a billion dollar accelerator to reproduce this kind of analysis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420348</id>
	<title>Skepticism never ends</title>
	<author>simonbp</author>
	<datestamp>1260642600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is never an end to skepticism, especially regarding extraordinary predictions about the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is never an end to skepticism , especially regarding extraordinary predictions about the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is never an end to skepticism, especially regarding extraordinary predictions about the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421722</id>
	<title>Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap? No</title>
	<author>Cwix</author>
	<datestamp>1260705900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If everyone who currently doesnt believe in global warming, believes so because they A)Want to stick with the status quo, B)Believe the government is out to get them or, C) Believe the liberal elitist secret organization is out to get them.  Is a denier.  If they believe the GW isn't happening due to mis-truths, lies, and blatant falsehoods that have been foisted onto them, then they are just sheep.  BUT we are all but sheep.  I just trust doctors, and scientists more then politicians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If everyone who currently doesnt believe in global warming , believes so because they A ) Want to stick with the status quo , B ) Believe the government is out to get them or , C ) Believe the liberal elitist secret organization is out to get them .
Is a denier .
If they believe the GW is n't happening due to mis-truths , lies , and blatant falsehoods that have been foisted onto them , then they are just sheep .
BUT we are all but sheep .
I just trust doctors , and scientists more then politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If everyone who currently doesnt believe in global warming, believes so because they A)Want to stick with the status quo, B)Believe the government is out to get them or, C) Believe the liberal elitist secret organization is out to get them.
Is a denier.
If they believe the GW isn't happening due to mis-truths, lies, and blatant falsehoods that have been foisted onto them, then they are just sheep.
BUT we are all but sheep.
I just trust doctors, and scientists more then politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420480</id>
	<title>Watts up with that rebuttal to Skepticsm article</title>
	<author>michaelwigle</author>
	<datestamp>1260643860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, the blogger replied to the response and addressed each point. He admitted to 2 minor mistakes that didn't affect his main point. Here's a link to his reply <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">here</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]. It's worth a read-through. He's a bit more than just a random blogger. He studies and focuses specifically on climate change. It's only unfortunate that so many folks seem to pick their side instead of reading both sides of the discussion. Depending on others to do your thinking for you is dangerous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the blogger replied to the response and addressed each point .
He admitted to 2 minor mistakes that did n't affect his main point .
Here 's a link to his reply here [ wattsupwiththat.com ] .
It 's worth a read-through .
He 's a bit more than just a random blogger .
He studies and focuses specifically on climate change .
It 's only unfortunate that so many folks seem to pick their side instead of reading both sides of the discussion .
Depending on others to do your thinking for you is dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the blogger replied to the response and addressed each point.
He admitted to 2 minor mistakes that didn't affect his main point.
Here's a link to his reply here [wattsupwiththat.com].
It's worth a read-through.
He's a bit more than just a random blogger.
He studies and focuses specifically on climate change.
It's only unfortunate that so many folks seem to pick their side instead of reading both sides of the discussion.
Depending on others to do your thinking for you is dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170</id>
	<title>The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260632520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because", it stops being science. global warming is a perfect example of something with questionable science reaching the point it's being treated as a religion, and anyone questioning it is a heretic.<p>
we are in serious trouble if someone can't question manual manipulation of dataset's which are the basis of spending trillions of dollars of tax payers money on carbon trading. it's even more disturbing is the fact they get labels such as "denialist" - if you are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door, then you aren't fit to be argueing the science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe " just because " , it stops being science .
global warming is a perfect example of something with questionable science reaching the point it 's being treated as a religion , and anyone questioning it is a heretic .
we are in serious trouble if someone ca n't question manual manipulation of dataset 's which are the basis of spending trillions of dollars of tax payers money on carbon trading .
it 's even more disturbing is the fact they get labels such as " denialist " - if you are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door , then you are n't fit to be argueing the science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The moment you demand all skeptics believe "just because", it stops being science.
global warming is a perfect example of something with questionable science reaching the point it's being treated as a religion, and anyone questioning it is a heretic.
we are in serious trouble if someone can't question manual manipulation of dataset's which are the basis of spending trillions of dollars of tax payers money on carbon trading.
it's even more disturbing is the fact they get labels such as "denialist" - if you are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door, then you aren't fit to be argueing the science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419218</id>
	<title>Peer Reviewed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, so we put a bunch of people in the same room that (usually) have the same opinion about the science their doing? Here is the problem I see: Right now Climate change is popular, if you do publish a paper that says "Wait guys, you might not be right..." you get it peer reviewed and it will get rejected 100\% of the time... If the board is all one sided like it is now, what is the point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , so we put a bunch of people in the same room that ( usually ) have the same opinion about the science their doing ?
Here is the problem I see : Right now Climate change is popular , if you do publish a paper that says " Wait guys , you might not be right... " you get it peer reviewed and it will get rejected 100 \ % of the time... If the board is all one sided like it is now , what is the point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, so we put a bunch of people in the same room that (usually) have the same opinion about the science their doing?
Here is the problem I see: Right now Climate change is popular, if you do publish a paper that says "Wait guys, you might not be right..." you get it peer reviewed and it will get rejected 100\% of the time... If the board is all one sided like it is now, what is the point?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420178</id>
	<title>impending American Cultural Revolution</title>
	<author>heli\_flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1260641160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is just one facet of a larger problem, which I call the "impeding American Cultural Revolution" aka "The rise of the idiocracy".  If you look at conditions today, they are similar to the start of the Chinese Cultural Revolution: disrespect for the science and facts (climate change deniers, creationists, birthers, teabaggers, health care death panelers, etc) and the glorification of the common man (Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Gretchen Carlson dumbing herself down, etc).  The scenario which scares me is: the idiots vote Sarah Palin into office, and she prevents control of greenhouse gases until a massive global catastrophe (where we lose a significant portion of the world's arable land) that makes the Three Years of Natural Disasters look like a minor problem...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is just one facet of a larger problem , which I call the " impeding American Cultural Revolution " aka " The rise of the idiocracy " .
If you look at conditions today , they are similar to the start of the Chinese Cultural Revolution : disrespect for the science and facts ( climate change deniers , creationists , birthers , teabaggers , health care death panelers , etc ) and the glorification of the common man ( Joe the Plumber , Sarah Palin , Glenn Beck , Michele Bachmann , Gretchen Carlson dumbing herself down , etc ) .
The scenario which scares me is : the idiots vote Sarah Palin into office , and she prevents control of greenhouse gases until a massive global catastrophe ( where we lose a significant portion of the world 's arable land ) that makes the Three Years of Natural Disasters look like a minor problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is just one facet of a larger problem, which I call the "impeding American Cultural Revolution" aka "The rise of the idiocracy".
If you look at conditions today, they are similar to the start of the Chinese Cultural Revolution: disrespect for the science and facts (climate change deniers, creationists, birthers, teabaggers, health care death panelers, etc) and the glorification of the common man (Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Gretchen Carlson dumbing herself down, etc).
The scenario which scares me is: the idiots vote Sarah Palin into office, and she prevents control of greenhouse gases until a massive global catastrophe (where we lose a significant portion of the world's arable land) that makes the Three Years of Natural Disasters look like a minor problem...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421404</id>
	<title>Re:reply by Willis</title>
	<author>Etcetera</author>
	<datestamp>1260700020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's replaced that sticky with a different, updated one:</p><p><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13888" title="wattsupwiththat.com" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13888</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's replaced that sticky with a different , updated one : http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ # more-13888 [ wattsupwiththat.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's replaced that sticky with a different, updated one:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13888 [wattsupwiththat.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426606</id>
	<title>criticism of Willis</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1260712140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis\_eschenbach\_caught\_lying.php<br>http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate\_fraudit.php</p><p>For just about every blog post you find being skeptical, anyone can find one countering it.  It really isn't a game anyone can win.</p><p>The best we can do is keep the scientific journals, method, and research as transparent as possible.  And then, since none of us has the expertise to evaluate the actual science, and for every "pro" blog there is a "con" blog, we have to trust the judgement of the actual scientists and the reviews of them by other independent scientists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis \ _eschenbach \ _caught \ _lying.phphttp : //scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate \ _fraudit.phpFor just about every blog post you find being skeptical , anyone can find one countering it .
It really is n't a game anyone can win.The best we can do is keep the scientific journals , method , and research as transparent as possible .
And then , since none of us has the expertise to evaluate the actual science , and for every " pro " blog there is a " con " blog , we have to trust the judgement of the actual scientists and the reviews of them by other independent scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis\_eschenbach\_caught\_lying.phphttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate\_fraudit.phpFor just about every blog post you find being skeptical, anyone can find one countering it.
It really isn't a game anyone can win.The best we can do is keep the scientific journals, method, and research as transparent as possible.
And then, since none of us has the expertise to evaluate the actual science, and for every "pro" blog there is a "con" blog, we have to trust the judgement of the actual scientists and the reviews of them by other independent scientists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423174</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Eunuchswear</author>
	<datestamp>1260725520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Of course, on of the issues revealed is that they were preventing dissenting opinions from being accepted in peer reviewed journals...</p></div></blockquote><p>This is a lie.  Stop repeating it.  You either know it's a lie or don't know how to use Google.</p><p>Hint - the papers Jones said needed a redefinition of peer review to get rid of <em>were cited in the chapter of the IPCC report that Jones's group edited.</em></p><p>Some censorship.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , on of the issues revealed is that they were preventing dissenting opinions from being accepted in peer reviewed journals...This is a lie .
Stop repeating it .
You either know it 's a lie or do n't know how to use Google.Hint - the papers Jones said needed a redefinition of peer review to get rid of were cited in the chapter of the IPCC report that Jones 's group edited.Some censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, on of the issues revealed is that they were preventing dissenting opinions from being accepted in peer reviewed journals...This is a lie.
Stop repeating it.
You either know it's a lie or don't know how to use Google.Hint - the papers Jones said needed a redefinition of peer review to get rid of were cited in the chapter of the IPCC report that Jones's group edited.Some censorship.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421880</id>
	<title>wake up &amp; smell the CO, this is what we wanted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260708960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the head in the sand approach to consideration for others/the future is definitely going to be costly.</p><p>water will be the next 'commodity' used to control our behaviours, as we suffocate ourselves.</p><p>meanwhile, go jump into your CO factory &amp; go for a spin. you may be right in that it may not matter anymore. we've heard though, that where there's life, there's hope.</p><p>the lights are coming up all over now. get ready to join the creators' wwwildly popular newclear powered planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's way user friendly (foolproof), &amp; there's never any liesense fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the head in the sand approach to consideration for others/the future is definitely going to be costly.water will be the next 'commodity ' used to control our behaviours , as we suffocate ourselves.meanwhile , go jump into your CO factory &amp; go for a spin .
you may be right in that it may not matter anymore .
we 've heard though , that where there 's life , there 's hope.the lights are coming up all over now .
get ready to join the creators ' wwwildly popular newclear powered planet/population rescue initiative/mandate .
it 's way user friendly ( foolproof ) , &amp; there 's never any liesense fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the head in the sand approach to consideration for others/the future is definitely going to be costly.water will be the next 'commodity' used to control our behaviours, as we suffocate ourselves.meanwhile, go jump into your CO factory &amp; go for a spin.
you may be right in that it may not matter anymore.
we've heard though, that where there's life, there's hope.the lights are coming up all over now.
get ready to join the creators' wwwildly popular newclear powered planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.
it's way user friendly (foolproof), &amp; there's never any liesense fees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421810</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260707940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as a research scientist in the field I never cease to be dumbfounded by the constant "they are making it all up to get more funding" theories.</p><p>do you have any idea how badly a university professor gets paid? do you really think we work on this stuff for the money? Are you mad? Does it not occur to you that top numerical modelers can quit the game and pretty much walk into any financial house they want and make wheelbarrow loads of cash at any time they want? (don't tell my wife)</p><p>and yet for some reason they do not. (well quite a few do just after finishing their phds, but they would have left anyway)</p><p>just because you are primarily driven by greed it is a mistake to believe that all others are as well, especially those with lots of lucrative options open to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as a research scientist in the field I never cease to be dumbfounded by the constant " they are making it all up to get more funding " theories.do you have any idea how badly a university professor gets paid ?
do you really think we work on this stuff for the money ?
Are you mad ?
Does it not occur to you that top numerical modelers can quit the game and pretty much walk into any financial house they want and make wheelbarrow loads of cash at any time they want ?
( do n't tell my wife ) and yet for some reason they do not .
( well quite a few do just after finishing their phds , but they would have left anyway ) just because you are primarily driven by greed it is a mistake to believe that all others are as well , especially those with lots of lucrative options open to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as a research scientist in the field I never cease to be dumbfounded by the constant "they are making it all up to get more funding" theories.do you have any idea how badly a university professor gets paid?
do you really think we work on this stuff for the money?
Are you mad?
Does it not occur to you that top numerical modelers can quit the game and pretty much walk into any financial house they want and make wheelbarrow loads of cash at any time they want?
(don't tell my wife)and yet for some reason they do not.
(well quite a few do just after finishing their phds, but they would have left anyway)just because you are primarily driven by greed it is a mistake to believe that all others are as well, especially those with lots of lucrative options open to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422000</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260711300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for bringing this up.  Peer reviewed papers are not equivalent to textbooks or to "dogma."</p><p>Peer-reviewed papers are more of a series of open letters among equals, where two or three of those peers take upon themselves to read closely the first draft &amp; make sure those communications waste as little time as possible.  Peer-reviewed papers amount to "This is what I saw, and there's nothing obviously wrong with it."</p><p>I think this is why the popular press and the public come away with the impression that science is fickle.  They read the latest in the series of observations, which may conflict with the previous observation, and because it's in a widely-cited journal like Science or Nature, interpret the conflict as debunking the old theory.  Meanwhile, the scientific community sits back and thinks about how to reconcile the conflicting observations into a unitary truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for bringing this up .
Peer reviewed papers are not equivalent to textbooks or to " dogma .
" Peer-reviewed papers are more of a series of open letters among equals , where two or three of those peers take upon themselves to read closely the first draft &amp; make sure those communications waste as little time as possible .
Peer-reviewed papers amount to " This is what I saw , and there 's nothing obviously wrong with it .
" I think this is why the popular press and the public come away with the impression that science is fickle .
They read the latest in the series of observations , which may conflict with the previous observation , and because it 's in a widely-cited journal like Science or Nature , interpret the conflict as debunking the old theory .
Meanwhile , the scientific community sits back and thinks about how to reconcile the conflicting observations into a unitary truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for bringing this up.
Peer reviewed papers are not equivalent to textbooks or to "dogma.
"Peer-reviewed papers are more of a series of open letters among equals, where two or three of those peers take upon themselves to read closely the first draft &amp; make sure those communications waste as little time as possible.
Peer-reviewed papers amount to "This is what I saw, and there's nothing obviously wrong with it.
"I think this is why the popular press and the public come away with the impression that science is fickle.
They read the latest in the series of observations, which may conflict with the previous observation, and because it's in a widely-cited journal like Science or Nature, interpret the conflict as debunking the old theory.
Meanwhile, the scientific community sits back and thinks about how to reconcile the conflicting observations into a unitary truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419864</id>
	<title>Re:Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260638580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the saying goes: hindsight is always 20/20.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the saying goes : hindsight is always 20/20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the saying goes: hindsight is always 20/20.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421344</id>
	<title>Re:Ignore the parent!!!!1!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260698820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Informative?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Informative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Informative?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421028</id>
	<title>Reminds me of this Jonova pic...</title>
	<author>evil9000</author>
	<datestamp>1260736860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The unknown author reminds me of this Jonova pic posted recently.</p><p><a href="http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/circular-journo-flat-web.gif" title="joannenova.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/circular-journo-flat-web.gif</a> [joannenova.com.au]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The unknown author reminds me of this Jonova pic posted recently.http : //joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/circular-journo-flat-web.gif [ joannenova.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The unknown author reminds me of this Jonova pic posted recently.http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/web-pics/circular-journo-flat-web.gif [joannenova.com.au]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420532</id>
	<title>Hottest month in Darwin..</title>
	<author>jnbszabo</author>
	<datestamp>1260644400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>" October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia." -it's always the hottest/coldest  week/day/month year somewhere, a more meaningful measure is the ratio of hottest-s yo coldest-s</htmltext>
<tokenext>" October was the hottest month on record in Darwin , Australia .
" -it 's always the hottest/coldest week/day/month year somewhere , a more meaningful measure is the ratio of hottest-s yo coldest-s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia.
" -it's always the hottest/coldest  week/day/month year somewhere, a more meaningful measure is the ratio of hottest-s yo coldest-s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419282</id>
	<title>Everything You Need To Know About AGW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is everything you need to know about global warming. Pay attention to the time scale.<br>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/#more-14034</p><p>The biggest problem facing humanity isn't unprecedented warming, it's unprecedented hubris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is everything you need to know about global warming .
Pay attention to the time scale.http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/ # more-14034The biggest problem facing humanity is n't unprecedented warming , it 's unprecedented hubris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is everything you need to know about global warming.
Pay attention to the time scale.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/#more-14034The biggest problem facing humanity isn't unprecedented warming, it's unprecedented hubris.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422024</id>
	<title>Disagree, but labelling betrays your intent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260712020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a person or group labels anther person or group with a moniker intended to undermine the opposition without addressing the issues they have raised, it betrays the true intent of the labeller: to push through their agenda without the bother of having to deal with the issues which have been raised.</p><p>Calling someone a "denialist" is just such a tactic.</p><p>We have a label for the people who use such tactics. They are mudslingers, and their views (whatever they are) are not worth a fig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a person or group labels anther person or group with a moniker intended to undermine the opposition without addressing the issues they have raised , it betrays the true intent of the labeller : to push through their agenda without the bother of having to deal with the issues which have been raised.Calling someone a " denialist " is just such a tactic.We have a label for the people who use such tactics .
They are mudslingers , and their views ( whatever they are ) are not worth a fig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a person or group labels anther person or group with a moniker intended to undermine the opposition without addressing the issues they have raised, it betrays the true intent of the labeller: to push through their agenda without the bother of having to deal with the issues which have been raised.Calling someone a "denialist" is just such a tactic.We have a label for the people who use such tactics.
They are mudslingers, and their views (whatever they are) are not worth a fig.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420026</id>
	<title>Re:Requires a PHD .... HAHAHAH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260639780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And why would that matter? If we believe the climate will change to reduce our living space thorough riding sea levels then we should do something about that, regardless of the root cause."  The illogic of you statement is staggering.  If the cause is not human what makes you think human behavior can stop a natural trend?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And why would that matter ?
If we believe the climate will change to reduce our living space thorough riding sea levels then we should do something about that , regardless of the root cause .
" The illogic of you statement is staggering .
If the cause is not human what makes you think human behavior can stop a natural trend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And why would that matter?
If we believe the climate will change to reduce our living space thorough riding sea levels then we should do something about that, regardless of the root cause.
"  The illogic of you statement is staggering.
If the cause is not human what makes you think human behavior can stop a natural trend?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419888</id>
	<title>Re:Hottest month in Darwin...</title>
	<author>Neon Aardvark</author>
	<datestamp>1260638700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And when you say, "tree rings!", I ask, "How precise are they?" A cool but sunny summer, or hot but dusty/cloudy/smoky summer could produce anomalous results.</p></div><p>Some carefully selected tree ring series are very, very accurate until 1st January 1960 (just after the calibration period) when they become massively inaccurate, and MUST NOT BE PLOTTED.</p><p>Also, "denialist" isn't a loaded, flamebait term.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when you say , " tree rings !
" , I ask , " How precise are they ?
" A cool but sunny summer , or hot but dusty/cloudy/smoky summer could produce anomalous results.Some carefully selected tree ring series are very , very accurate until 1st January 1960 ( just after the calibration period ) when they become massively inaccurate , and MUST NOT BE PLOTTED.Also , " denialist " is n't a loaded , flamebait term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when you say, "tree rings!
", I ask, "How precise are they?
" A cool but sunny summer, or hot but dusty/cloudy/smoky summer could produce anomalous results.Some carefully selected tree ring series are very, very accurate until 1st January 1960 (just after the calibration period) when they become massively inaccurate, and MUST NOT BE PLOTTED.Also, "denialist" isn't a loaded, flamebait term.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419994</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260639480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are people who think the earth is flat.</p><p>There are people who accept that the earth is round, but insist that the sun rotates around us. They're skeptical of this gravity law.</p><p>There are people who believe the earth circles the sun, but are sure that we've never put anything in orbit.</p><p>There are people who accept that we've put satellites in orbit, but think we've never been to the moon.</p><p>These people all fall under the category "Crazy". As do AGW denialists. 'Denialist' is actually the nice name for them. The correct name would be 'people whom I am amazed manage to remember to keep breathing, and probably think that oxygen is a conspiracy when they do'. They're loud. They demand to be heard. And their entire scientific understanding is less than that of a dead goat. If you claim that 'I once saw a helium balloon move upwards, so gravity can't possibly be pulling all objects together' you're about at the level of AGW denial. Don't expect to be taken seriously, or called anything other than a crackpot when you've got no peer reviewed articles, no evidence and you're claiming things that have been outright disproven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are people who think the earth is flat.There are people who accept that the earth is round , but insist that the sun rotates around us .
They 're skeptical of this gravity law.There are people who believe the earth circles the sun , but are sure that we 've never put anything in orbit.There are people who accept that we 've put satellites in orbit , but think we 've never been to the moon.These people all fall under the category " Crazy " .
As do AGW denialists .
'Denialist ' is actually the nice name for them .
The correct name would be 'people whom I am amazed manage to remember to keep breathing , and probably think that oxygen is a conspiracy when they do' .
They 're loud .
They demand to be heard .
And their entire scientific understanding is less than that of a dead goat .
If you claim that 'I once saw a helium balloon move upwards , so gravity ca n't possibly be pulling all objects together ' you 're about at the level of AGW denial .
Do n't expect to be taken seriously , or called anything other than a crackpot when you 've got no peer reviewed articles , no evidence and you 're claiming things that have been outright disproven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are people who think the earth is flat.There are people who accept that the earth is round, but insist that the sun rotates around us.
They're skeptical of this gravity law.There are people who believe the earth circles the sun, but are sure that we've never put anything in orbit.There are people who accept that we've put satellites in orbit, but think we've never been to the moon.These people all fall under the category "Crazy".
As do AGW denialists.
'Denialist' is actually the nice name for them.
The correct name would be 'people whom I am amazed manage to remember to keep breathing, and probably think that oxygen is a conspiracy when they do'.
They're loud.
They demand to be heard.
And their entire scientific understanding is less than that of a dead goat.
If you claim that 'I once saw a helium balloon move upwards, so gravity can't possibly be pulling all objects together' you're about at the level of AGW denial.
Don't expect to be taken seriously, or called anything other than a crackpot when you've got no peer reviewed articles, no evidence and you're claiming things that have been outright disproven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422020</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1260711900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.</p><p>What??</p><p>The emails were quite clear that they were not only going to boycott a journal because they allowed a skeptic on their editorial board, but they were conspiring to remove references to articles in the journal and do everything they could to blackball it unofficially. And we'd never have known about it if it wasn't for Climategate.</p><p>And how do you know if they're weeding out bad science when the scientists refuse to publish the data they drew their conclusions from?</p><p>While I agree a lot of the claims of Climategate were overstated, these two points show something fundamentally rotten at the heart of climate science.</p><p>Also, I find it amusing that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would have an article talking about "The Limits of Skepticism" when skepticism is "bad" (you know, like AGW), but you'd never see such a thing for, say, being skeptical about God - there's no limits on skepticism about God here, no matter what. It's really quite stupid, the bias.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; They were n't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process was n't doing its job : weeding out bad science.What ?
? The emails were quite clear that they were not only going to boycott a journal because they allowed a skeptic on their editorial board , but they were conspiring to remove references to articles in the journal and do everything they could to blackball it unofficially .
And we 'd never have known about it if it was n't for Climategate.And how do you know if they 're weeding out bad science when the scientists refuse to publish the data they drew their conclusions from ? While I agree a lot of the claims of Climategate were overstated , these two points show something fundamentally rotten at the heart of climate science.Also , I find it amusing that / .
would have an article talking about " The Limits of Skepticism " when skepticism is " bad " ( you know , like AGW ) , but you 'd never see such a thing for , say , being skeptical about God - there 's no limits on skepticism about God here , no matter what .
It 's really quite stupid , the bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.What?
?The emails were quite clear that they were not only going to boycott a journal because they allowed a skeptic on their editorial board, but they were conspiring to remove references to articles in the journal and do everything they could to blackball it unofficially.
And we'd never have known about it if it wasn't for Climategate.And how do you know if they're weeding out bad science when the scientists refuse to publish the data they drew their conclusions from?While I agree a lot of the claims of Climategate were overstated, these two points show something fundamentally rotten at the heart of climate science.Also, I find it amusing that /.
would have an article talking about "The Limits of Skepticism" when skepticism is "bad" (you know, like AGW), but you'd never see such a thing for, say, being skeptical about God - there's no limits on skepticism about God here, no matter what.
It's really quite stupid, the bias.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420036</id>
	<title>Re:Requires a PHD .... HAHAHAH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260639840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is unprecedented, then what evidence is there that the Earth's systems can't adapt to these changes quickly enough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is unprecedented , then what evidence is there that the Earth 's systems ca n't adapt to these changes quickly enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is unprecedented, then what evidence is there that the Earth's systems can't adapt to these changes quickly enough?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30428468</id>
	<title>something stinks, sort of</title>
	<author>gustavius</author>
	<datestamp>1260732480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"AGW denialist"? At least this PR droid has half a brain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" AGW denialist " ?
At least this PR droid has half a brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"AGW denialist"?
At least this PR droid has half a brain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30429664</id>
	<title>Re:Is this an issue outside the US?</title>
	<author>angel'o'sphere</author>
	<datestamp>1260795300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Aside from the unproven theory that the ocean levels would be significantly higher, why would a warmer Earth be bad?<br></i><br>What bullshit argument is this? When the ice is melting, where do you think the water is going to? To nowhere?<br>Oh my god.</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the unproven theory that the ocean levels would be significantly higher , why would a warmer Earth be bad ? What bullshit argument is this ?
When the ice is melting , where do you think the water is going to ?
To nowhere ? Oh my god.angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the unproven theory that the ocean levels would be significantly higher, why would a warmer Earth be bad?What bullshit argument is this?
When the ice is melting, where do you think the water is going to?
To nowhere?Oh my god.angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419462</id>
	<title>Re:Simple Explanation: Darwin was bombed in 1941</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1260635220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's probably worth mentioning the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">original author's response to that argument</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]:<p><div class="quote"><p>This might make sense if there were any "dramatic change in 1941. But as I clearly stated in my article, <b>there is no such dramatic change</b>. The drop in temperature was gradual and lasted from 1936 to 1940. The change from 1940 to 1941 was quite average. So that claim of yours is nonsense as well. In any case, the change in screening did not coincide with the 1941 move. In my article I cited a reference to a picture of a Stevenson Screen in use in Darwin at the turn of the century. Perhaps you didn't bother to read that.</p></div><p>Hard for me to know who is right without actually looking at the data, but honestly I would be surprised if there were any dataset as large as the global temperature dataset that didn't have some errors in it at least.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably worth mentioning the original author 's response to that argument [ wattsupwiththat.com ] : This might make sense if there were any " dramatic change in 1941 .
But as I clearly stated in my article , there is no such dramatic change .
The drop in temperature was gradual and lasted from 1936 to 1940 .
The change from 1940 to 1941 was quite average .
So that claim of yours is nonsense as well .
In any case , the change in screening did not coincide with the 1941 move .
In my article I cited a reference to a picture of a Stevenson Screen in use in Darwin at the turn of the century .
Perhaps you did n't bother to read that.Hard for me to know who is right without actually looking at the data , but honestly I would be surprised if there were any dataset as large as the global temperature dataset that did n't have some errors in it at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably worth mentioning the original author's response to that argument [wattsupwiththat.com]:This might make sense if there were any "dramatic change in 1941.
But as I clearly stated in my article, there is no such dramatic change.
The drop in temperature was gradual and lasted from 1936 to 1940.
The change from 1940 to 1941 was quite average.
So that claim of yours is nonsense as well.
In any case, the change in screening did not coincide with the 1941 move.
In my article I cited a reference to a picture of a Stevenson Screen in use in Darwin at the turn of the century.
Perhaps you didn't bother to read that.Hard for me to know who is right without actually looking at the data, but honestly I would be surprised if there were any dataset as large as the global temperature dataset that didn't have some errors in it at least.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30454380</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260903060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Calling someone a denialist is a lot kinder than calling them a fool or a liar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling someone a denialist is a lot kinder than calling them a fool or a liar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling someone a denialist is a lot kinder than calling them a fool or a liar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420566</id>
	<title>undo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260644760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Accidentally modded a good post bad (slip of fingers) posting here to undo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Accidentally modded a good post bad ( slip of fingers ) posting here to undo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Accidentally modded a good post bad (slip of fingers) posting here to undo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419644</id>
	<title>Re:Is this an issue outside the US?</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1260636600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the burning of gasoline produces carbon dioxide....</p><p>Indeed it does, but where was all this carbon dioxide, before it became fossil fuel? Was not the carbon from every bit of fossil fuel and coal that has already been burned and that is still underground in the atmosphere once upon a time? The earth was a lot warmer then, but that seems to be good, because living things not only survived, but thrived. Aside from the unproven theory that the ocean levels would be significantly higher, why would a warmer Earth be bad?</p><p>Why don't you stick to science, rather than bringing religion or politics into the discussion? The pilfered e-mails show that these supposedly neutral scientists have a political agenda. That is why they labeled it a "travesty" that the data doesn't support their socialistic political agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the burning of gasoline produces carbon dioxide....Indeed it does , but where was all this carbon dioxide , before it became fossil fuel ?
Was not the carbon from every bit of fossil fuel and coal that has already been burned and that is still underground in the atmosphere once upon a time ?
The earth was a lot warmer then , but that seems to be good , because living things not only survived , but thrived .
Aside from the unproven theory that the ocean levels would be significantly higher , why would a warmer Earth be bad ? Why do n't you stick to science , rather than bringing religion or politics into the discussion ?
The pilfered e-mails show that these supposedly neutral scientists have a political agenda .
That is why they labeled it a " travesty " that the data does n't support their socialistic political agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the burning of gasoline produces carbon dioxide....Indeed it does, but where was all this carbon dioxide, before it became fossil fuel?
Was not the carbon from every bit of fossil fuel and coal that has already been burned and that is still underground in the atmosphere once upon a time?
The earth was a lot warmer then, but that seems to be good, because living things not only survived, but thrived.
Aside from the unproven theory that the ocean levels would be significantly higher, why would a warmer Earth be bad?Why don't you stick to science, rather than bringing religion or politics into the discussion?
The pilfered e-mails show that these supposedly neutral scientists have a political agenda.
That is why they labeled it a "travesty" that the data doesn't support their socialistic political agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419312</id>
	<title>Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>ambrosen</author>
	<datestamp>1260633840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>BTW, if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past, known weather, please post a link.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's called hindcasting. It's done quite frequently. I point this out not because I know lots about climate science or anything, rather to show that you know even less than me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past , known weather , please post a link.It 's called hindcasting .
It 's done quite frequently .
I point this out not because I know lots about climate science or anything , rather to show that you know even less than me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past, known weather, please post a link.It's called hindcasting.
It's done quite frequently.
I point this out not because I know lots about climate science or anything, rather to show that you know even less than me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422158</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260715020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you *know* it's questionable, then send your explanation to a peer-reviewed journal for all of us to see.</p><p>AH!  So--anyone who can't get into "peer review"--isn't part of the Holy Brotherhood--you should have<br>explained that at the start!</p><p>You can't? pity, but chances are then you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backing, as the guy</p><p>Another AH!  Nobody enumerated that you have to have "Backing" to be one of the REAL Holy Brotherhood-<br>again--this should have been revealed long ago--and saved countless troubles!  You DO have YOUR Offical<br>Guild Membership and License from the Holy Brotherhood--yes?</p><p>analyzed in TFA. And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time, which we'd rather they spent doing their actual job.</p><p>Oh--ACTUAL scientists.  Oh dear!  To quote the person you were responding to? (Since you didn't post your Real Scientist Holy Brotherhood<br>OFFICIAL license(tm)?) "You are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door, and you aren't fit to be arguing the science", etc,<br>etc, etc.  Pity, but thank you for playing though!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you * know * it 's questionable , then send your explanation to a peer-reviewed journal for all of us to see.AH !
So--anyone who ca n't get into " peer review " --is n't part of the Holy Brotherhood--you should haveexplained that at the start ! You ca n't ?
pity , but chances are then you 're no different from the thousands of other " armchair scientists " making outrageous claims with no actual backing , as the guyAnother AH !
Nobody enumerated that you have to have " Backing " to be one of the REAL Holy Brotherhood-again--this should have been revealed long ago--and saved countless troubles !
You DO have YOUR OfficalGuild Membership and License from the Holy Brotherhood--yes ? analyzed in TFA .
And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time , which we 'd rather they spent doing their actual job.Oh--ACTUAL scientists .
Oh dear !
To quote the person you were responding to ?
( Since you did n't post your Real Scientist Holy BrotherhoodOFFICIAL license ( tm ) ?
) " You are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door , and you are n't fit to be arguing the science " , etc,etc , etc .
Pity , but thank you for playing though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you *know* it's questionable, then send your explanation to a peer-reviewed journal for all of us to see.AH!
So--anyone who can't get into "peer review"--isn't part of the Holy Brotherhood--you should haveexplained that at the start!You can't?
pity, but chances are then you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backing, as the guyAnother AH!
Nobody enumerated that you have to have "Backing" to be one of the REAL Holy Brotherhood-again--this should have been revealed long ago--and saved countless troubles!
You DO have YOUR OfficalGuild Membership and License from the Holy Brotherhood--yes?analyzed in TFA.
And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time, which we'd rather they spent doing their actual job.Oh--ACTUAL scientists.
Oh dear!
To quote the person you were responding to?
(Since you didn't post your Real Scientist Holy BrotherhoodOFFICIAL license(tm)?
) "You are incapable of leaving the emotional responses at the door, and you aren't fit to be arguing the science", etc,etc, etc.
Pity, but thank you for playing though!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30447274</id>
	<title>Portrait of a local climate skeptic</title>
	<author>bootz15</author>
	<datestamp>1260903720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Retired mining analyst Stephen McIntyre isn't a warming denier. He's merely a stickler

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/737357--portrait-of-a-local-climate-skeptic" title="thestar.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/737357--portrait-of-a-local-climate-skeptic</a> [thestar.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Retired mining analyst Stephen McIntyre is n't a warming denier .
He 's merely a stickler http : //www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/737357--portrait-of-a-local-climate-skeptic [ thestar.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Retired mining analyst Stephen McIntyre isn't a warming denier.
He's merely a stickler

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/737357--portrait-of-a-local-climate-skeptic [thestar.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420200</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>sheriff\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1260641280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome points; this is the kind of post that we need a "Best Of" flag for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome points ; this is the kind of post that we need a " Best Of " flag for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome points; this is the kind of post that we need a "Best Of" flag for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419746</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>jelizondo</author>
	<datestamp>1260637440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for your post.</p><p>It is my point of view as well. I don't deny global warming, I just don't think the proposed "solutions" will solve it and I don't think that reducing output will stop it.</p><p>We need to use more technology to find ways to capture CO2 faster than it is output, because the many millions, actually billions, of people living in poverty around the world will one day be outputting more CO2 as their standards of living rise.</p><p>I actually make a living raising organic, free-range cattle; so I feel very pissed when someone tells me I am a lackey of big oil or whatever, but I <i>know</i> free-range cattle does not scale, not to feed billions of humans; so it is more of a cool luxury rather than a true solution to hunger and it does contribute more CO2 (deforestation) than industrial raising of cattle, but ask anyone and it is very, very green thing to do, and actually very profitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for your post.It is my point of view as well .
I do n't deny global warming , I just do n't think the proposed " solutions " will solve it and I do n't think that reducing output will stop it.We need to use more technology to find ways to capture CO2 faster than it is output , because the many millions , actually billions , of people living in poverty around the world will one day be outputting more CO2 as their standards of living rise.I actually make a living raising organic , free-range cattle ; so I feel very pissed when someone tells me I am a lackey of big oil or whatever , but I know free-range cattle does not scale , not to feed billions of humans ; so it is more of a cool luxury rather than a true solution to hunger and it does contribute more CO2 ( deforestation ) than industrial raising of cattle , but ask anyone and it is very , very green thing to do , and actually very profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for your post.It is my point of view as well.
I don't deny global warming, I just don't think the proposed "solutions" will solve it and I don't think that reducing output will stop it.We need to use more technology to find ways to capture CO2 faster than it is output, because the many millions, actually billions, of people living in poverty around the world will one day be outputting more CO2 as their standards of living rise.I actually make a living raising organic, free-range cattle; so I feel very pissed when someone tells me I am a lackey of big oil or whatever, but I know free-range cattle does not scale, not to feed billions of humans; so it is more of a cool luxury rather than a true solution to hunger and it does contribute more CO2 (deforestation) than industrial raising of cattle, but ask anyone and it is very, very green thing to do, and actually very profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420132</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260640620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can't? pity, but chances are then you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backing, <b>as the guy analyzed in TFA</b>. </i></p><p><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/about/" title="wattsupwiththat.com" rel="nofollow">Not quite...</a> [wattsupwiththat.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>I&rsquo;m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.</p><p>Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty. I also provide weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions via www.weathershop.com (if you like my work, please consider buying a weather gadget there, StormPredator for example) and www.tempelert.com, and turn key weather channels with advertising at www.viziframe.com</p><p>The weather graphics you see in the lower right corner of the blog are produced by my company, IntelliWeather. As you can see most of my work is in weather technology such as weather stations,  weather data processing systems, and weather graphics creation and display.  While I&rsquo;m not a degreed climate scientist, I&rsquo;ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also. And that&rsquo;s part of what this blog is about: presentation of weather and climate data in a form the public can understand and discuss.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....<br>.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... While I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues, I consider myself &ldquo;green&rdquo; in many ways, and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation. Unlike many who just talk about it, I&rsquo;ve put a 10KW solar array on my home, plus a 125 KW solar array on one of our local schools when I was a school trustee. I&rsquo;ve retrofitted my home with CFL&rsquo;s and better insulation, as well as installed timer switches on many of our most commonly used lights.</p><p>I also drive an electric car for my daily around town routine.</p><p>I encourage others to do the same when it comes to efficient use of energy and energy conservation.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't ?
pity , but chances are then you 're no different from the thousands of other " armchair scientists " making outrageous claims with no actual backing , as the guy analyzed in TFA .
Not quite... [ wattsupwiththat.com ] I    m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business , as well as continues daily forecasting on radio , just for fun.Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty .
I also provide weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions via www.weathershop.com ( if you like my work , please consider buying a weather gadget there , StormPredator for example ) and www.tempelert.com , and turn key weather channels with advertising at www.viziframe.comThe weather graphics you see in the lower right corner of the blog are produced by my company , IntelliWeather .
As you can see most of my work is in weather technology such as weather stations , weather data processing systems , and weather graphics creation and display .
While I    m not a degreed climate scientist , I    ll point out that neither is Al Gore , and his specialty is presentation also .
And that    s part of what this blog is about : presentation of weather and climate data in a form the public can understand and discuss .
...... ..... While I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues , I consider myself    green    in many ways , and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation .
Unlike many who just talk about it , I    ve put a 10KW solar array on my home , plus a 125 KW solar array on one of our local schools when I was a school trustee .
I    ve retrofitted my home with CFL    s and better insulation , as well as installed timer switches on many of our most commonly used lights.I also drive an electric car for my daily around town routine.I encourage others to do the same when it comes to efficient use of energy and energy conservation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't?
pity, but chances are then you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backing, as the guy analyzed in TFA.
Not quite... [wattsupwiththat.com] I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty.
I also provide weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions via www.weathershop.com (if you like my work, please consider buying a weather gadget there, StormPredator for example) and www.tempelert.com, and turn key weather channels with advertising at www.viziframe.comThe weather graphics you see in the lower right corner of the blog are produced by my company, IntelliWeather.
As you can see most of my work is in weather technology such as weather stations,  weather data processing systems, and weather graphics creation and display.
While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also.
And that’s part of what this blog is about: presentation of weather and climate data in a form the public can understand and discuss.
...... ..... While I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues, I consider myself “green” in many ways, and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation.
Unlike many who just talk about it, I’ve put a 10KW solar array on my home, plus a 125 KW solar array on one of our local schools when I was a school trustee.
I’ve retrofitted my home with CFL’s and better insulation, as well as installed timer switches on many of our most commonly used lights.I also drive an electric car for my daily around town routine.I encourage others to do the same when it comes to efficient use of energy and energy conservation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424096</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260734160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backing</i></p><p>Yeah! You''re starting to sound just like Al Gore!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're no different from the thousands of other " armchair scientists " making outrageous claims with no actual backingYeah !
You ' 're starting to sound just like Al Gore !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext> you're no different from the thousands of other "armchair scientists" making outrageous claims with no actual backingYeah!
You''re starting to sound just like Al Gore!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419484</id>
	<title>Re:Simple Explanation: Darwin was bombed in 1941</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1260635280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Hence, it was probably re-built at a different site with different local effects.</i></p><p>And regardless, I'm sure I can find someplace that happens to have had the coldest year on record.  Which proves nothing, because we're talking about "climate change", not "global warming".</p><p>There's a lot of good science in climatology, but anyone who claims that AGW is a slam-dunk, rather than a highly plausible proposition, is not making the claim on scientific but rather political grounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hence , it was probably re-built at a different site with different local effects.And regardless , I 'm sure I can find someplace that happens to have had the coldest year on record .
Which proves nothing , because we 're talking about " climate change " , not " global warming " .There 's a lot of good science in climatology , but anyone who claims that AGW is a slam-dunk , rather than a highly plausible proposition , is not making the claim on scientific but rather political grounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hence, it was probably re-built at a different site with different local effects.And regardless, I'm sure I can find someplace that happens to have had the coldest year on record.
Which proves nothing, because we're talking about "climate change", not "global warming".There's a lot of good science in climatology, but anyone who claims that AGW is a slam-dunk, rather than a highly plausible proposition, is not making the claim on scientific but rather political grounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419422</id>
	<title>Re:Hottest month in Darwin...</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1260634800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's only anomalous if there's only one set of data points.  YOu can take samples from all over the planet if you wish and compare the various samples which significantly reduces any local effects that skew the data.  Isotope ratios can also be used to give an idea of the climate as well.  Just because we haven't been keeping direct temperature records does not mean that the data set just stops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only anomalous if there 's only one set of data points .
YOu can take samples from all over the planet if you wish and compare the various samples which significantly reduces any local effects that skew the data .
Isotope ratios can also be used to give an idea of the climate as well .
Just because we have n't been keeping direct temperature records does not mean that the data set just stops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only anomalous if there's only one set of data points.
YOu can take samples from all over the planet if you wish and compare the various samples which significantly reduces any local effects that skew the data.
Isotope ratios can also be used to give an idea of the climate as well.
Just because we haven't been keeping direct temperature records does not mean that the data set just stops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421542</id>
	<title>Can you say "hypocrite"? Sure. I knew you could.</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1260702960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since the author insists on peer review, an article in <i>The Economist</i>, by an unnamed author, should not have any credibility.
<br> <br>
The author him (her?) self is saying that we should not believe what he or she has written. Okay. I'll buy that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the author insists on peer review , an article in The Economist , by an unnamed author , should not have any credibility .
The author him ( her ?
) self is saying that we should not believe what he or she has written .
Okay. I 'll buy that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the author insists on peer review, an article in The Economist, by an unnamed author, should not have any credibility.
The author him (her?
) self is saying that we should not believe what he or she has written.
Okay. I'll buy that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422060</id>
	<title>Simple Test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260712860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay I have found a way we could settle this once and for all. Just do a double blind test.</p><p>Step1:<br>Person A gathers all the relevant climate data form 1950 till 2009.</p><p>Step2:<br>Person B now gathers a large goup of renowned climate experts(e.g. those that wrote the IPCC report) and locks them in a room without contact to the outside world, only providing them with everything they need in order to generate a wolrd climate model(e.g. Access to some supercomputers, while restricting internet access like china does all the time)</p><p>Step3:<br>Person A gives person B all the data from the year 1950 to 1999 teling person B that this is all the data from the past 49 years. Person B now forwards this data to the group in the room</p><p>Step 4:<br>Person C now compares the predictions for the next 10 years of the Climate model that was generatet by the group in the room to the actual data that was recorded from 1999 till 2009. He can now tell how reliable a climate modell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,generatet by this group, will most likely be in predicting the climate from 2009 onwards.</p><p>If the predictions of the model are within one standard deviation of the recorded data, AGW wins, if not the skeptics win.</p><p>Now I call this a James Randi like experiment really worth doing, even spending a million dollars in order to finance it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay I have found a way we could settle this once and for all .
Just do a double blind test.Step1 : Person A gathers all the relevant climate data form 1950 till 2009.Step2 : Person B now gathers a large goup of renowned climate experts ( e.g .
those that wrote the IPCC report ) and locks them in a room without contact to the outside world , only providing them with everything they need in order to generate a wolrd climate model ( e.g .
Access to some supercomputers , while restricting internet access like china does all the time ) Step3 : Person A gives person B all the data from the year 1950 to 1999 teling person B that this is all the data from the past 49 years .
Person B now forwards this data to the group in the roomStep 4 : Person C now compares the predictions for the next 10 years of the Climate model that was generatet by the group in the room to the actual data that was recorded from 1999 till 2009 .
He can now tell how reliable a climate modell ,generatet by this group , will most likely be in predicting the climate from 2009 onwards.If the predictions of the model are within one standard deviation of the recorded data , AGW wins , if not the skeptics win.Now I call this a James Randi like experiment really worth doing , even spending a million dollars in order to finance it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay I have found a way we could settle this once and for all.
Just do a double blind test.Step1:Person A gathers all the relevant climate data form 1950 till 2009.Step2:Person B now gathers a large goup of renowned climate experts(e.g.
those that wrote the IPCC report) and locks them in a room without contact to the outside world, only providing them with everything they need in order to generate a wolrd climate model(e.g.
Access to some supercomputers, while restricting internet access like china does all the time)Step3:Person A gives person B all the data from the year 1950 to 1999 teling person B that this is all the data from the past 49 years.
Person B now forwards this data to the group in the roomStep 4:Person C now compares the predictions for the next 10 years of the Climate model that was generatet by the group in the room to the actual data that was recorded from 1999 till 2009.
He can now tell how reliable a climate modell ,generatet by this group, will most likely be in predicting the climate from 2009 onwards.If the predictions of the model are within one standard deviation of the recorded data, AGW wins, if not the skeptics win.Now I call this a James Randi like experiment really worth doing, even spending a million dollars in order to finance it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419470</id>
	<title>Argument From Authority -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260635220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As long as I have a PhD, I can sit here safe and sound in my ivory tower where no criticism can possibly reach me!"</p><p>This is the real reason that nobody takes these smug fucks seriously anymore. Academia is a country club. Members of the unwashed masses need not apply - you can't afford it anyway.</p><p>That said, I understand that it's important to consider the source of information and criticism, but plainly scoffing at critics instead of making it your life's work to explain shit to them over and over again, endlessly if need be, is only going to marginalize our intellectual elite further and make them seem even less trustworthy to the people they should be reaching out to and trying to inform. They probably like it that way; the alienation reinforces their belief that they're members of a proud and essential few. It's too bad that this very same alienation and the dickish attitudes that cause it only make them even more irrelevant in a world that increasingly no longer cares about or respects them. (Save for the armchair intelligentsia, of course.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As long as I have a PhD , I can sit here safe and sound in my ivory tower where no criticism can possibly reach me !
" This is the real reason that nobody takes these smug fucks seriously anymore .
Academia is a country club .
Members of the unwashed masses need not apply - you ca n't afford it anyway.That said , I understand that it 's important to consider the source of information and criticism , but plainly scoffing at critics instead of making it your life 's work to explain shit to them over and over again , endlessly if need be , is only going to marginalize our intellectual elite further and make them seem even less trustworthy to the people they should be reaching out to and trying to inform .
They probably like it that way ; the alienation reinforces their belief that they 're members of a proud and essential few .
It 's too bad that this very same alienation and the dickish attitudes that cause it only make them even more irrelevant in a world that increasingly no longer cares about or respects them .
( Save for the armchair intelligentsia , of course .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As long as I have a PhD, I can sit here safe and sound in my ivory tower where no criticism can possibly reach me!
"This is the real reason that nobody takes these smug fucks seriously anymore.
Academia is a country club.
Members of the unwashed masses need not apply - you can't afford it anyway.That said, I understand that it's important to consider the source of information and criticism, but plainly scoffing at critics instead of making it your life's work to explain shit to them over and over again, endlessly if need be, is only going to marginalize our intellectual elite further and make them seem even less trustworthy to the people they should be reaching out to and trying to inform.
They probably like it that way; the alienation reinforces their belief that they're members of a proud and essential few.
It's too bad that this very same alienation and the dickish attitudes that cause it only make them even more irrelevant in a world that increasingly no longer cares about or respects them.
(Save for the armchair intelligentsia, of course.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419480</id>
	<title>Re:Gravity: teach the CONTROVERSY</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1260635280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you sir, fail very badly. <a href="http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einstein.html" title="utk.edu">http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einstein.html</a> [utk.edu] <p>
without einstein who was skeptical of some of newton's predictions, we wouldn't have relativity today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you sir , fail very badly .
http : //csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einstein.html [ utk.edu ] without einstein who was skeptical of some of newton 's predictions , we would n't have relativity today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you sir, fail very badly.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einstein.html [utk.edu] 
without einstein who was skeptical of some of newton's predictions, we wouldn't have relativity today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420514</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>iris-n</author>
	<datestamp>1260644280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you heard of arXiv, sir?</p><p>I know of no group that has enough power (and evilness) to taint their date records.</p><p>So, write down your scoop, put it on arXiv, and then submit to peer-review. I don't see how could you possibly lose it.</p><p>I'm aware that there are journals that don't publish things that are already on arXiv (like Nature [although I don't think they do CS]). Ignore these bastards. They'll have to change their mind or become irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you heard of arXiv , sir ? I know of no group that has enough power ( and evilness ) to taint their date records.So , write down your scoop , put it on arXiv , and then submit to peer-review .
I do n't see how could you possibly lose it.I 'm aware that there are journals that do n't publish things that are already on arXiv ( like Nature [ although I do n't think they do CS ] ) .
Ignore these bastards .
They 'll have to change their mind or become irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you heard of arXiv, sir?I know of no group that has enough power (and evilness) to taint their date records.So, write down your scoop, put it on arXiv, and then submit to peer-review.
I don't see how could you possibly lose it.I'm aware that there are journals that don't publish things that are already on arXiv (like Nature [although I don't think they do CS]).
Ignore these bastards.
They'll have to change their mind or become irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118</id>
	<title>Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260632100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here</i></p><p>Of course, on of the issues revealed is that they were preventing dissenting opinions from being accepted in peer reviewed journals...</p><p>You can prove anything when you're allowed to select the peers reviewing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error hereOf course , on of the issues revealed is that they were preventing dissenting opinions from being accepted in peer reviewed journals...You can prove anything when you 're allowed to select the peers reviewing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error hereOf course, on of the issues revealed is that they were preventing dissenting opinions from being accepted in peer reviewed journals...You can prove anything when you're allowed to select the peers reviewing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</id>
	<title>Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really does weaken the position of those who support the AGW theory. Why? Because it is name calling and over simplification. Pretending that everyone who doesn't agree with you is simply in denial of what is happening and then making up a cute little label is not the sort of thing that speaks to a rational debate. It is the kind of thing a con man would do, and thus makes people wonder, why would you use those tactics?</p><p>So as a start, you have to understand that there are some major differences in terms of what people believe who are skeptical of the AGW thing. These are just some examples:</p><p>1) There are people who believe the whole thing is a crock, there is no warming, it is all made up, etc, etc. These are the only people who could be called in denial, by any stretch of the imagination.</p><p>2) There are people who believe that there has been a warming trend recently, however the trend is entirely natural. It is right in line with the kind of trends seen historically, and thus there is no cause to believe this is anything but a natural occurrence. They are skeptical that humans are contributing in any significant fashion.</p><p>3) There are people who believe that there is warming, and indeed man is contributing to it, but that the result will not be problematic, and perhaps beneficial. They do not accept the conclusion that the warming will lead to catastrophe, even though they do accept that humans are at least partly causing it. They are skeptical that a warmer Earth will be bad for humans.</p><p>4) There are people who believe that people are causing the warming, and that it will lead to worse conditions, but that it would be even worse to attempt to stop it. They believe that the money spent on trying to stop such a thing could be better spent on other things to improve human life. The sort of thing that while warming might cause X additional deaths per year, spending money on that instead of other things would lead to 5X additional deaths per year. They are skeptical that the proposed solutions are the best.</p><p>5) There are people who believe that people are causing the arming and that it needs to be stopped, but that reducing output won't do that. We need a different solution like geoengineering or something. Reducing CO2 output wouldn't help, at least not enough to matter, so we've got to find another solution. They are skeptical that the proposed solutions would do anything.</p><p>6) There are people who believe that people are causing the warming, and that it will be bad, but there is fuck-all we can do about it. We are too far along, shit is going to happen anyhow, so we might as well apply our energies and money to surviving the change, not to trying to prevent it, since that it impossible. They are skeptical anything can be done at all, other than to try and survive the change.</p><p>So a big part of the problem with trying to frame everyone as a "denialist" is the simplification of the argument, to try and say "Oh they all just ignore everything that is said." No, in fact, many don't. They simply come to a different conclusion. Also they may well find enough evidence to sustain part of the argument, but not all of it. You find people who say "Sure, I'll buy the world is getting warmer. We've got pretty good instrumental data on that. However I'm not so sure about CO2 being the cause. The data on that is more shaky. Either way I'm really skeptical that a warmer Earth will be a bad thing, there's essentially no data to support that." They aren't just saying "La la la, I can't hear you!" They are just not convinced by all the arguments.</p><p>Well, when you simply dismiss them as a "denialist" and act as though they are a moron, that does nothing to convert them. In fact, it may do the opposite. They say "Hmmm, this is the kind of thing con men do. When someone questions them, they just attack and shout down their questioner. They are afraid of scrutiny. They want you to accept what they say, unquestioningly. Why are AGW proponents acting like this? Could they be con men?"</p><p>So seriously, knock it off with the label. You are doing nothing to help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really does weaken the position of those who support the AGW theory .
Why ? Because it is name calling and over simplification .
Pretending that everyone who does n't agree with you is simply in denial of what is happening and then making up a cute little label is not the sort of thing that speaks to a rational debate .
It is the kind of thing a con man would do , and thus makes people wonder , why would you use those tactics ? So as a start , you have to understand that there are some major differences in terms of what people believe who are skeptical of the AGW thing .
These are just some examples : 1 ) There are people who believe the whole thing is a crock , there is no warming , it is all made up , etc , etc .
These are the only people who could be called in denial , by any stretch of the imagination.2 ) There are people who believe that there has been a warming trend recently , however the trend is entirely natural .
It is right in line with the kind of trends seen historically , and thus there is no cause to believe this is anything but a natural occurrence .
They are skeptical that humans are contributing in any significant fashion.3 ) There are people who believe that there is warming , and indeed man is contributing to it , but that the result will not be problematic , and perhaps beneficial .
They do not accept the conclusion that the warming will lead to catastrophe , even though they do accept that humans are at least partly causing it .
They are skeptical that a warmer Earth will be bad for humans.4 ) There are people who believe that people are causing the warming , and that it will lead to worse conditions , but that it would be even worse to attempt to stop it .
They believe that the money spent on trying to stop such a thing could be better spent on other things to improve human life .
The sort of thing that while warming might cause X additional deaths per year , spending money on that instead of other things would lead to 5X additional deaths per year .
They are skeptical that the proposed solutions are the best.5 ) There are people who believe that people are causing the arming and that it needs to be stopped , but that reducing output wo n't do that .
We need a different solution like geoengineering or something .
Reducing CO2 output would n't help , at least not enough to matter , so we 've got to find another solution .
They are skeptical that the proposed solutions would do anything.6 ) There are people who believe that people are causing the warming , and that it will be bad , but there is fuck-all we can do about it .
We are too far along , shit is going to happen anyhow , so we might as well apply our energies and money to surviving the change , not to trying to prevent it , since that it impossible .
They are skeptical anything can be done at all , other than to try and survive the change.So a big part of the problem with trying to frame everyone as a " denialist " is the simplification of the argument , to try and say " Oh they all just ignore everything that is said .
" No , in fact , many do n't .
They simply come to a different conclusion .
Also they may well find enough evidence to sustain part of the argument , but not all of it .
You find people who say " Sure , I 'll buy the world is getting warmer .
We 've got pretty good instrumental data on that .
However I 'm not so sure about CO2 being the cause .
The data on that is more shaky .
Either way I 'm really skeptical that a warmer Earth will be a bad thing , there 's essentially no data to support that .
" They are n't just saying " La la la , I ca n't hear you !
" They are just not convinced by all the arguments.Well , when you simply dismiss them as a " denialist " and act as though they are a moron , that does nothing to convert them .
In fact , it may do the opposite .
They say " Hmmm , this is the kind of thing con men do .
When someone questions them , they just attack and shout down their questioner .
They are afraid of scrutiny .
They want you to accept what they say , unquestioningly .
Why are AGW proponents acting like this ?
Could they be con men ?
" So seriously , knock it off with the label .
You are doing nothing to help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really does weaken the position of those who support the AGW theory.
Why? Because it is name calling and over simplification.
Pretending that everyone who doesn't agree with you is simply in denial of what is happening and then making up a cute little label is not the sort of thing that speaks to a rational debate.
It is the kind of thing a con man would do, and thus makes people wonder, why would you use those tactics?So as a start, you have to understand that there are some major differences in terms of what people believe who are skeptical of the AGW thing.
These are just some examples:1) There are people who believe the whole thing is a crock, there is no warming, it is all made up, etc, etc.
These are the only people who could be called in denial, by any stretch of the imagination.2) There are people who believe that there has been a warming trend recently, however the trend is entirely natural.
It is right in line with the kind of trends seen historically, and thus there is no cause to believe this is anything but a natural occurrence.
They are skeptical that humans are contributing in any significant fashion.3) There are people who believe that there is warming, and indeed man is contributing to it, but that the result will not be problematic, and perhaps beneficial.
They do not accept the conclusion that the warming will lead to catastrophe, even though they do accept that humans are at least partly causing it.
They are skeptical that a warmer Earth will be bad for humans.4) There are people who believe that people are causing the warming, and that it will lead to worse conditions, but that it would be even worse to attempt to stop it.
They believe that the money spent on trying to stop such a thing could be better spent on other things to improve human life.
The sort of thing that while warming might cause X additional deaths per year, spending money on that instead of other things would lead to 5X additional deaths per year.
They are skeptical that the proposed solutions are the best.5) There are people who believe that people are causing the arming and that it needs to be stopped, but that reducing output won't do that.
We need a different solution like geoengineering or something.
Reducing CO2 output wouldn't help, at least not enough to matter, so we've got to find another solution.
They are skeptical that the proposed solutions would do anything.6) There are people who believe that people are causing the warming, and that it will be bad, but there is fuck-all we can do about it.
We are too far along, shit is going to happen anyhow, so we might as well apply our energies and money to surviving the change, not to trying to prevent it, since that it impossible.
They are skeptical anything can be done at all, other than to try and survive the change.So a big part of the problem with trying to frame everyone as a "denialist" is the simplification of the argument, to try and say "Oh they all just ignore everything that is said.
" No, in fact, many don't.
They simply come to a different conclusion.
Also they may well find enough evidence to sustain part of the argument, but not all of it.
You find people who say "Sure, I'll buy the world is getting warmer.
We've got pretty good instrumental data on that.
However I'm not so sure about CO2 being the cause.
The data on that is more shaky.
Either way I'm really skeptical that a warmer Earth will be a bad thing, there's essentially no data to support that.
" They aren't just saying "La la la, I can't hear you!
" They are just not convinced by all the arguments.Well, when you simply dismiss them as a "denialist" and act as though they are a moron, that does nothing to convert them.
In fact, it may do the opposite.
They say "Hmmm, this is the kind of thing con men do.
When someone questions them, they just attack and shout down their questioner.
They are afraid of scrutiny.
They want you to accept what they say, unquestioningly.
Why are AGW proponents acting like this?
Could they be con men?
"So seriously, knock it off with the label.
You are doing nothing to help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421566</id>
	<title>Not the Warmest Month in Darwin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260703260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>October is the hottest on record at the Darwin Airport (at a mean monthly max of 34.8). Earlier, the local weather station was at the post office, and recorded several higher mean monthly maxes.</p><p>http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p\_nccObsCode=36&amp;p\_display\_type=dataFile&amp;p\_startYear=&amp;p\_stn\_num=14016</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>October is the hottest on record at the Darwin Airport ( at a mean monthly max of 34.8 ) .
Earlier , the local weather station was at the post office , and recorded several higher mean monthly maxes.http : //www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av ? p \ _nccObsCode = 36&amp;p \ _display \ _type = dataFile&amp;p \ _startYear = &amp;p \ _stn \ _num = 14016</tokentext>
<sentencetext>October is the hottest on record at the Darwin Airport (at a mean monthly max of 34.8).
Earlier, the local weather station was at the post office, and recorded several higher mean monthly maxes.http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p\_nccObsCode=36&amp;p\_display\_type=dataFile&amp;p\_startYear=&amp;p\_stn\_num=14016</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419976</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>RightwingNutjob</author>
	<datestamp>1260639300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Peer-review journals cost money to publish in. The average arm-chair CITIZEN can't be expected to spend money to ask questions, especially about how his taxes are being spent. Enter the greatest force for democracy in recorded history: the internet, which gives everyone a soap box and puts teeth into the First Amendment, or its equivalent in any of the civilized democracies, or barring that, the free speech portion of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
<br> <br>
This is a case of freedom. Period.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peer-review journals cost money to publish in .
The average arm-chair CITIZEN ca n't be expected to spend money to ask questions , especially about how his taxes are being spent .
Enter the greatest force for democracy in recorded history : the internet , which gives everyone a soap box and puts teeth into the First Amendment , or its equivalent in any of the civilized democracies , or barring that , the free speech portion of the UN Declaration of Human Rights .
This is a case of freedom .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peer-review journals cost money to publish in.
The average arm-chair CITIZEN can't be expected to spend money to ask questions, especially about how his taxes are being spent.
Enter the greatest force for democracy in recorded history: the internet, which gives everyone a soap box and puts teeth into the First Amendment, or its equivalent in any of the civilized democracies, or barring that, the free speech portion of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
This is a case of freedom.
Period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420570</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260644760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The hottest day on record! screams the summary.</p></div><p> I think the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">hyperlink</a> [wikipedia.org] might have confused you. They are underlined and stand out by default. You can click on it and it will take you to another page.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hottest day on record !
screams the summary .
I think the hyperlink [ wikipedia.org ] might have confused you .
They are underlined and stand out by default .
You can click on it and it will take you to another page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hottest day on record!
screams the summary.
I think the hyperlink [wikipedia.org] might have confused you.
They are underlined and stand out by default.
You can click on it and it will take you to another page.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420064</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1260640080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My problem isn't so much what's in the peer reviewed journals (maybe there are problems with the data, if so I assume we will eventually see that), most of the stuff I've seen in peer reviewed journals seems ok.<br> <br>
It's the dramatic hysteria and propaganda that you hear outside of the peer reviewed journals that really gets to me. The idea that if we don't stop emitting CO2 the oceans will rise, flooding out ocean front cities.  There is no peer reviewed article proving that, quite the opposite, actually.<br> <br>
When you read peer reviewed articles, scientists are careful to put in qualifications and caveats, as they should. What I object to is the propaganda that comes after that fact, ie: "CO2 is a positive radiative forcing component (verified fact)..........therefore if we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere the results will be disastrous (wild conjecture)."  Carefully watch what politicians say when they start talking.  Very often they will start with something that is verified in a scientific way, then extrapolate in ways that no good scientist would dare to do. The fact is, global warming as presented in scientific journals is not nearly as disastrous as the event presented in the news.<br> <br>
In a way it reminds me of Y2K. At the time I would read articles in journals like Communications of the ACM, studying how much it would cost to fix various things, and estimating the number of computers that might have issues.  Then I would look at the news and hear predictions of power plants exploding and airplanes crashing and wild unrest.  At some point there was a disconnect between the science and the propaganda.<br> <br>
I object to the propaganda.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem is n't so much what 's in the peer reviewed journals ( maybe there are problems with the data , if so I assume we will eventually see that ) , most of the stuff I 've seen in peer reviewed journals seems ok . It 's the dramatic hysteria and propaganda that you hear outside of the peer reviewed journals that really gets to me .
The idea that if we do n't stop emitting CO2 the oceans will rise , flooding out ocean front cities .
There is no peer reviewed article proving that , quite the opposite , actually .
When you read peer reviewed articles , scientists are careful to put in qualifications and caveats , as they should .
What I object to is the propaganda that comes after that fact , ie : " CO2 is a positive radiative forcing component ( verified fact ) ..........therefore if we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere the results will be disastrous ( wild conjecture ) .
" Carefully watch what politicians say when they start talking .
Very often they will start with something that is verified in a scientific way , then extrapolate in ways that no good scientist would dare to do .
The fact is , global warming as presented in scientific journals is not nearly as disastrous as the event presented in the news .
In a way it reminds me of Y2K .
At the time I would read articles in journals like Communications of the ACM , studying how much it would cost to fix various things , and estimating the number of computers that might have issues .
Then I would look at the news and hear predictions of power plants exploding and airplanes crashing and wild unrest .
At some point there was a disconnect between the science and the propaganda .
I object to the propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem isn't so much what's in the peer reviewed journals (maybe there are problems with the data, if so I assume we will eventually see that), most of the stuff I've seen in peer reviewed journals seems ok. 
It's the dramatic hysteria and propaganda that you hear outside of the peer reviewed journals that really gets to me.
The idea that if we don't stop emitting CO2 the oceans will rise, flooding out ocean front cities.
There is no peer reviewed article proving that, quite the opposite, actually.
When you read peer reviewed articles, scientists are careful to put in qualifications and caveats, as they should.
What I object to is the propaganda that comes after that fact, ie: "CO2 is a positive radiative forcing component (verified fact)..........therefore if we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere the results will be disastrous (wild conjecture).
"  Carefully watch what politicians say when they start talking.
Very often they will start with something that is verified in a scientific way, then extrapolate in ways that no good scientist would dare to do.
The fact is, global warming as presented in scientific journals is not nearly as disastrous as the event presented in the news.
In a way it reminds me of Y2K.
At the time I would read articles in journals like Communications of the ACM, studying how much it would cost to fix various things, and estimating the number of computers that might have issues.
Then I would look at the news and hear predictions of power plants exploding and airplanes crashing and wild unrest.
At some point there was a disconnect between the science and the propaganda.
I object to the propaganda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419502</id>
	<title>Re:If it requires a PHD</title>
	<author>Sygnus</author>
	<datestamp>1260635520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't have your cake and eat it too.</p></div><p>Then what's the point of having cake?!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't have your cake and eat it too.Then what 's the point of having cake ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't have your cake and eat it too.Then what's the point of having cake?!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421220</id>
	<title>Re:PhD required?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260696780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think those facts overturn the author's conclusion.  His point is that, although some guy with a website might really have a point that casts doubt on AGW, it takes a lot of time to investigate and find out if this is the case - and since the odds are so low in the first place, it's just not worthwhile.  If the guy with the website is actually competent, then that raises the odds - but how are you going to find that out, except by spending hours investigating in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think those facts overturn the author 's conclusion .
His point is that , although some guy with a website might really have a point that casts doubt on AGW , it takes a lot of time to investigate and find out if this is the case - and since the odds are so low in the first place , it 's just not worthwhile .
If the guy with the website is actually competent , then that raises the odds - but how are you going to find that out , except by spending hours investigating in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think those facts overturn the author's conclusion.
His point is that, although some guy with a website might really have a point that casts doubt on AGW, it takes a lot of time to investigate and find out if this is the case - and since the odds are so low in the first place, it's just not worthwhile.
If the guy with the website is actually competent, then that raises the odds - but how are you going to find that out, except by spending hours investigating in the first place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420400</id>
	<title>Manfred</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260643260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mathematical skills of many of those scientists responsible for historic data records have already been assessed indepedently by a high profile team of statisticians (the Wegman commission) a few years ago:</p><p>http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/</p><p>Referring to the criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick of hockey-stick reconstructions, those professional scientists "tended to dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs".</p><p>The Wegman commission, however, concluded differently:</p><p>"While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid."</p><p>Their judgement about the quality of the professional scientist's work was quite revealing:</p><p>"The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.<br>It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper."</p><p>"I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn&rsquo;t matter because the answer is correct anyway.<br>Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."</p><p>"It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community."</p><p>"A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data. The rules and strategy of analysis cannot be changed in order to obtain the desired result. Such a strategy carries no statistical integrity and cannot be used as a basis for drawing sound inferential conclusions."</p><p>If you still think, that was just an "exception", but at least their algorithms to compute the global temperature data have somehow been elaborated and implemented much more skillful and careful, have a look at their computer code and particularly the inline commments:</p><p>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/</p><p>"OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm<br>hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform<br>data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."</p><p>"Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet<br>the WMO codes and station names<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/locations are identical (or close). What the hell is<br>supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)"</p><p>"getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been<br>introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented. Every time a<br>cloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with<br>references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with<br>one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have<br>it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too."</p><p>"I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as<br>Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO<br>and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I<br>know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh!<br>There truly is no end in sight."</p><p>"Wrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not<br>being kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt<br>to get the CRU databases in working order?!!"</p><p>and many more...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mathematical skills of many of those scientists responsible for historic data records have already been assessed indepedently by a high profile team of statisticians ( the Wegman commission ) a few years ago : http : //climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/Referring to the criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick of hockey-stick reconstructions , those professional scientists " tended to dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs " .The Wegman commission , however , concluded differently : " While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change , the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick , as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid .
" Their judgement about the quality of the professional scientist 's work was quite revealing : " The papers of Mann et al .
in themselves are written in a confusing manner , making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [ Mann ] paper .
" " I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn    t matter because the answer is correct anyway.Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science .
" " It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community ; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community .
" " A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data .
The rules and strategy of analysis can not be changed in order to obtain the desired result .
Such a strategy carries no statistical integrity and can not be used as a basis for drawing sound inferential conclusions .
" If you still think , that was just an " exception " , but at least their algorithms to compute the global temperature data have somehow been elaborated and implemented much more skillful and careful , have a look at their computer code and particularly the inline commments : http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/ " OH FUCK THIS .
It 's Sunday evening , I 've worked all weekend , and just when I thought it was done I'mhitting yet another problem that 's based on the hopeless state of our databases .
There is no uniformdata integrity , it 's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they 're found .
" " Here , the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations are n't so hot !
Yetthe WMO codes and station names /locations are identical ( or close ) .
What the hell issupposed to happen here ?
Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed ' , I can make it up .
So I have : - ) " " getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data .
so many new stations have beenintroduced , so many false references.. so many changes that are n't documented .
Every time acloud forms I 'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites , some withreferences , some with WMO codes , and some with both .
And if I look up the station metadata withone of the local references , chances are the WMO code will be wrong ( another station will haveit ) and the lat/lon will be wrong too .
" " I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state asAustralia was .
There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations , one with no WMOand one with , usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates .
Iknow it could be old and new stations , but why such large overlaps if that 's the case ?
Aarrggghhh ! There truly is no end in sight .
" " Wrote 'makedtr.for ' to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases notbeing kept in step .
Sounds familiar , if worrying .
am I the first person to attemptto get the CRU databases in working order ? ! !
" and many more.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mathematical skills of many of those scientists responsible for historic data records have already been assessed indepedently by a high profile team of statisticians (the Wegman commission) a few years ago:http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/Referring to the criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick of hockey-stick reconstructions, those professional scientists "tended to dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs".The Wegman commission, however, concluded differently:"While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
"Their judgement about the quality of the professional scientist's work was quite revealing:"The papers of Mann et al.
in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
""I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway.Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
""It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.
""A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data.
The rules and strategy of analysis cannot be changed in order to obtain the desired result.
Such a strategy carries no statistical integrity and cannot be used as a basis for drawing sound inferential conclusions.
"If you still think, that was just an "exception", but at least their algorithms to compute the global temperature data have somehow been elaborated and implemented much more skillful and careful, have a look at their computer code and particularly the inline commments:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/"OH FUCK THIS.
It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'mhitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases.
There is no uniformdata integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
""Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot!
Yetthe WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
What the hell issupposed to happen here?
Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up.
So I have :-)""getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data.
so many new stations have beenintroduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.
Every time acloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some withreferences, some with WMO codes, and some with both.
And if I look up the station metadata withone of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will haveit) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
""I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state asAustralia was.
There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMOand one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates.
Iknow it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case?
Aarrggghhh!There truly is no end in sight.
""Wrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases notbeing kept in step.
Sounds familiar, if worrying.
am I the first person to attemptto get the CRU databases in working order?!!
"and many more...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420088</id>
	<title>And how do you get a peer reviewed AGW article?</title>
	<author>jordandeamattson</author>
	<datestamp>1260640260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, this article would have a lot more credibility, if the "Climate Gate" issue had not just hit the press. If you didn't read them, their were these emails promising to block any skeptical papers from appearing and to not cite papers in journals that accepted skeptical papers.</p><p>Unfortunately, no matter how you feel about Global Warming, the folks in "Climate Gate" have stuck a grievous blow to the credibility of the scientific method, the peer review process, and positions like this.</p><p>That said, if peer review was truly working in the field of Global Warming and skeptical papers which were backed up with legitimate data and arguments were able to get into peer reviewed journals, then this article would have a lot more weight and creditability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , this article would have a lot more credibility , if the " Climate Gate " issue had not just hit the press .
If you did n't read them , their were these emails promising to block any skeptical papers from appearing and to not cite papers in journals that accepted skeptical papers.Unfortunately , no matter how you feel about Global Warming , the folks in " Climate Gate " have stuck a grievous blow to the credibility of the scientific method , the peer review process , and positions like this.That said , if peer review was truly working in the field of Global Warming and skeptical papers which were backed up with legitimate data and arguments were able to get into peer reviewed journals , then this article would have a lot more weight and creditability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, this article would have a lot more credibility, if the "Climate Gate" issue had not just hit the press.
If you didn't read them, their were these emails promising to block any skeptical papers from appearing and to not cite papers in journals that accepted skeptical papers.Unfortunately, no matter how you feel about Global Warming, the folks in "Climate Gate" have stuck a grievous blow to the credibility of the scientific method, the peer review process, and positions like this.That said, if peer review was truly working in the field of Global Warming and skeptical papers which were backed up with legitimate data and arguments were able to get into peer reviewed journals, then this article would have a lot more weight and creditability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420672</id>
	<title>Denialist != Skeptic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260645840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really agree that the labeling here is problematic.  A skeptic is one who does not believe for lack of evidence, a denialist is one who refuses to believe even with the evidence.  There are true believers on both sides of this issue politicized by assholes on the left and right.<br>
&nbsp; <br>I know that the earth goes through cycles, that we're pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the air, but I don't know how much we are actually affecting things, nor do I believe GW is teh end of the world, nor do I know if it is worth it destroy the economy,  turn the reigns over to Al Gore ect, or throw technological life into the can.  I think we should instead focus keep society modern, something we should do anyway.  Use clear power like nuclear.  Develop an efficient biofuel creation process, like with algae.  Improve our agriculture with GMO crops to reduce how much input we need to feed ourselves.  If AGW is real, this helps fight it.  If it is not, so what, we just make civilization better.<br>
&nbsp; <br>So, does this make me a denialist or a skeptic?  I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, I used to be a young earth creationist for crying out loud, but I still haven't seen the evidence to convince me that the end is neigh unless we hand the world over to the greenies.  With that evidence I'll change my tune, but until then, I largely don't buy into all this global warming, or climate change, or whatever it's called now stuff, and you're right, calling me an ignorant denialist isn't going to change my mind.<br>
&nbsp; <br>I'm posting AC because I've got modding to do here, but this is a tough one to know who to mod up because there is so much bullshit in the water around this topic, but it is pretty easy to tell who needs knocked down a peg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really agree that the labeling here is problematic .
A skeptic is one who does not believe for lack of evidence , a denialist is one who refuses to believe even with the evidence .
There are true believers on both sides of this issue politicized by assholes on the left and right .
  I know that the earth goes through cycles , that we 're pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the air , but I do n't know how much we are actually affecting things , nor do I believe GW is teh end of the world , nor do I know if it is worth it destroy the economy , turn the reigns over to Al Gore ect , or throw technological life into the can .
I think we should instead focus keep society modern , something we should do anyway .
Use clear power like nuclear .
Develop an efficient biofuel creation process , like with algae .
Improve our agriculture with GMO crops to reduce how much input we need to feed ourselves .
If AGW is real , this helps fight it .
If it is not , so what , we just make civilization better .
  So , does this make me a denialist or a skeptic ?
I 'm perfectly willing to change my mind , I used to be a young earth creationist for crying out loud , but I still have n't seen the evidence to convince me that the end is neigh unless we hand the world over to the greenies .
With that evidence I 'll change my tune , but until then , I largely do n't buy into all this global warming , or climate change , or whatever it 's called now stuff , and you 're right , calling me an ignorant denialist is n't going to change my mind .
  I 'm posting AC because I 've got modding to do here , but this is a tough one to know who to mod up because there is so much bullshit in the water around this topic , but it is pretty easy to tell who needs knocked down a peg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really agree that the labeling here is problematic.
A skeptic is one who does not believe for lack of evidence, a denialist is one who refuses to believe even with the evidence.
There are true believers on both sides of this issue politicized by assholes on the left and right.
  I know that the earth goes through cycles, that we're pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the air, but I don't know how much we are actually affecting things, nor do I believe GW is teh end of the world, nor do I know if it is worth it destroy the economy,  turn the reigns over to Al Gore ect, or throw technological life into the can.
I think we should instead focus keep society modern, something we should do anyway.
Use clear power like nuclear.
Develop an efficient biofuel creation process, like with algae.
Improve our agriculture with GMO crops to reduce how much input we need to feed ourselves.
If AGW is real, this helps fight it.
If it is not, so what, we just make civilization better.
  So, does this make me a denialist or a skeptic?
I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, I used to be a young earth creationist for crying out loud, but I still haven't seen the evidence to convince me that the end is neigh unless we hand the world over to the greenies.
With that evidence I'll change my tune, but until then, I largely don't buy into all this global warming, or climate change, or whatever it's called now stuff, and you're right, calling me an ignorant denialist isn't going to change my mind.
  I'm posting AC because I've got modding to do here, but this is a tough one to know who to mod up because there is so much bullshit in the water around this topic, but it is pretty easy to tell who needs knocked down a peg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426280</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260708660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The weather exhibits chaotic behavior<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."<br>And climate doesn't <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission\_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate\_weather.html" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>"The Earth has been getting warmer [wikipedia.org] since about 10,000 years ago....."<br>Let's take a look at the <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene\_Temperature\_Variations.png" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">Holocene Temperature Variations</a> [wikimedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The weather exhibits chaotic behavior ... " And climate does n't What 's the Difference Between Weather and Climate ?
[ nasa.gov ] " The Earth has been getting warmer [ wikipedia.org ] since about 10,000 years ago..... " Let 's take a look at the Holocene Temperature Variations [ wikimedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The weather exhibits chaotic behavior ..."And climate doesn't What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
[nasa.gov]"The Earth has been getting warmer [wikipedia.org] since about 10,000 years ago....."Let's take a look at the Holocene Temperature Variations [wikimedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30430000</id>
	<title>Re:I am very sceptical...</title>
	<author>josephcmiller2</author>
	<datestamp>1260799680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about an acknowledgement from NASA that a so-called non-credentialed person fixed some of their averaging problems that improperly biased temperatures for years after 2000.  There are few more qualified from NASA, and one man corrected their math!</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an acknowledgement from NASA that a so-called non-credentialed person fixed some of their averaging problems that improperly biased temperatures for years after 2000 .
There are few more qualified from NASA , and one man corrected their math !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an acknowledgement from NASA that a so-called non-credentialed person fixed some of their averaging problems that improperly biased temperatures for years after 2000.
There are few more qualified from NASA, and one man corrected their math!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419602</id>
	<title>Re:Is this an issue outside the US?</title>
	<author>Chris Oz</author>
	<datestamp>1260636300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately is in not just happening in the land of the brave.  In Australia we have our own crack pots and looney politicians that just don't "want to believe".  Fortunately they are not in power but they still do damage.  This blind faith that it will be OK seems to be pretty locked up with fundamentalism and self interest.  The vocal opponents either have some link to coal (our major CO2 pollution source) or are part of the vocal religious minority.  While they are very much in the minority they are noisy and do receive media attention.</p><p>I do have sympathy with scientists on this issue.  At some point it isn't worth wasting time arguing with someone who is so intellectually impaired by their "beliefs" that they aren't actually capable of having a rational discussion about the issue.  It is like arguing with fundamentalist christians about evolution.  At least on this point we are well advanced of the US, Australian is pretty secular by world standards and extremely secular by US standards, acceptance of evolution is high.  Event the religious establishment generally accepts that the science is in.</p><p>Normally I would say just give them a couple of years and the loons will come around, but in this case we don't have a couple of years to waste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately is in not just happening in the land of the brave .
In Australia we have our own crack pots and looney politicians that just do n't " want to believe " .
Fortunately they are not in power but they still do damage .
This blind faith that it will be OK seems to be pretty locked up with fundamentalism and self interest .
The vocal opponents either have some link to coal ( our major CO2 pollution source ) or are part of the vocal religious minority .
While they are very much in the minority they are noisy and do receive media attention.I do have sympathy with scientists on this issue .
At some point it is n't worth wasting time arguing with someone who is so intellectually impaired by their " beliefs " that they are n't actually capable of having a rational discussion about the issue .
It is like arguing with fundamentalist christians about evolution .
At least on this point we are well advanced of the US , Australian is pretty secular by world standards and extremely secular by US standards , acceptance of evolution is high .
Event the religious establishment generally accepts that the science is in.Normally I would say just give them a couple of years and the loons will come around , but in this case we do n't have a couple of years to waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately is in not just happening in the land of the brave.
In Australia we have our own crack pots and looney politicians that just don't "want to believe".
Fortunately they are not in power but they still do damage.
This blind faith that it will be OK seems to be pretty locked up with fundamentalism and self interest.
The vocal opponents either have some link to coal (our major CO2 pollution source) or are part of the vocal religious minority.
While they are very much in the minority they are noisy and do receive media attention.I do have sympathy with scientists on this issue.
At some point it isn't worth wasting time arguing with someone who is so intellectually impaired by their "beliefs" that they aren't actually capable of having a rational discussion about the issue.
It is like arguing with fundamentalist christians about evolution.
At least on this point we are well advanced of the US, Australian is pretty secular by world standards and extremely secular by US standards, acceptance of evolution is high.
Event the religious establishment generally accepts that the science is in.Normally I would say just give them a couple of years and the loons will come around, but in this case we don't have a couple of years to waste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419228</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260633240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But your opinion doesn't matter, because people who don't want to looose their funding won't let your perspective through peer review.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But your opinion does n't matter , because people who do n't want to looose their funding wo n't let your perspective through peer review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But your opinion doesn't matter, because people who don't want to looose their funding won't let your perspective through peer review.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30428490</id>
	<title>Expert and Government Review</title>
	<author>Sumtingwong</author>
	<datestamp>1260732720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a bit confused as to the "Expert and Government Review" as shown by the IPCC here:</p><p><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/publications\_and\_data.htm" title="www.ipcc.ch" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/publications\_and\_data.htm</a> [www.ipcc.ch]</p><p>Can anybody please explain what the government has to do with this?  Is this a valid peer review process?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a bit confused as to the " Expert and Government Review " as shown by the IPCC here : http : //www.ipcc.ch/publications \ _and \ _data/publications \ _and \ _data.htm [ www.ipcc.ch ] Can anybody please explain what the government has to do with this ?
Is this a valid peer review process ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a bit confused as to the "Expert and Government Review" as shown by the IPCC here:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/publications\_and\_data.htm [www.ipcc.ch]Can anybody please explain what the government has to do with this?
Is this a valid peer review process?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423852</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>cvd6262</author>
	<datestamp>1260731760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the social sciences, we see a different angle on this.</p><p>There is "research" under the umbrella "critical methods" which rather than control for bias, the authors state their bias and make no efforts to gather any evidence to refute their own a priori conclusions. Part of their justification is that opponents have the same opportunity: They can gather evidence to support their viewpoint, and then it will all get worked out in the literature.</p><p>The problem is that for many pressing issues, political correctness will not allow the other side to voice their opinion. So one end becomes more and more "founded" in "research" while the other - which may be more correct (from a positivist POV) - gets less and less credible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the social sciences , we see a different angle on this.There is " research " under the umbrella " critical methods " which rather than control for bias , the authors state their bias and make no efforts to gather any evidence to refute their own a priori conclusions .
Part of their justification is that opponents have the same opportunity : They can gather evidence to support their viewpoint , and then it will all get worked out in the literature.The problem is that for many pressing issues , political correctness will not allow the other side to voice their opinion .
So one end becomes more and more " founded " in " research " while the other - which may be more correct ( from a positivist POV ) - gets less and less credible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the social sciences, we see a different angle on this.There is "research" under the umbrella "critical methods" which rather than control for bias, the authors state their bias and make no efforts to gather any evidence to refute their own a priori conclusions.
Part of their justification is that opponents have the same opportunity: They can gather evidence to support their viewpoint, and then it will all get worked out in the literature.The problem is that for many pressing issues, political correctness will not allow the other side to voice their opinion.
So one end becomes more and more "founded" in "research" while the other - which may be more correct (from a positivist POV) - gets less and less credible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421920</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1260709620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423000</id>
	<title>Red Herring</title>
	<author>quadelirus</author>
	<datestamp>1260723720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just a side note, and I'm not arguing about wether or not global warming is happening here, I just don't like the methods of the poster:<br> <br>

The point that October was the hottest month on record for Australia is a red herring. October was also the third coldest month on record for the US. A single month tells us nothing about global climate change even when it falls on an extreme. The slashdot mods should have removed this extraneous comment before posting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a side note , and I 'm not arguing about wether or not global warming is happening here , I just do n't like the methods of the poster : The point that October was the hottest month on record for Australia is a red herring .
October was also the third coldest month on record for the US .
A single month tells us nothing about global climate change even when it falls on an extreme .
The slashdot mods should have removed this extraneous comment before posting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a side note, and I'm not arguing about wether or not global warming is happening here, I just don't like the methods of the poster: 

The point that October was the hottest month on record for Australia is a red herring.
October was also the third coldest month on record for the US.
A single month tells us nothing about global climate change even when it falls on an extreme.
The slashdot mods should have removed this extraneous comment before posting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214</id>
	<title>If it requires a PHD</title>
	<author>Norsefire</author>
	<datestamp>1260632940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the dissenters are morons who don't understand it, what does that make the believers? Blind-faith followers? You can't have your cake and eat it too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the dissenters are morons who do n't understand it , what does that make the believers ?
Blind-faith followers ?
You ca n't have your cake and eat it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the dissenters are morons who don't understand it, what does that make the believers?
Blind-faith followers?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419924</id>
	<title>one month does not a pattern make...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260638880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..."Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia."</p><p>Yeah? So? In July of 2001, I bed 6 different women and was having sex like crazy, almost every day. Does that make me a studly playboy? It does if you focus on JUST that month.</p><p>Once you factor in the rest of my life prior to (and since then) I am a far cry from a stud/sex machine. In fact you could almost classify me as a loser sexually. (before and since are pitiful numbers). That month was a fluke and should not be used to judge my overall sexual prowess, unless you want to skew the results in my favor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... " Oh , and by the way : October was the hottest month on record in Darwin , Australia. " Yeah ?
So ? In July of 2001 , I bed 6 different women and was having sex like crazy , almost every day .
Does that make me a studly playboy ?
It does if you focus on JUST that month.Once you factor in the rest of my life prior to ( and since then ) I am a far cry from a stud/sex machine .
In fact you could almost classify me as a loser sexually .
( before and since are pitiful numbers ) .
That month was a fluke and should not be used to judge my overall sexual prowess , unless you want to skew the results in my favor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..."Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia."Yeah?
So? In July of 2001, I bed 6 different women and was having sex like crazy, almost every day.
Does that make me a studly playboy?
It does if you focus on JUST that month.Once you factor in the rest of my life prior to (and since then) I am a far cry from a stud/sex machine.
In fact you could almost classify me as a loser sexually.
(before and since are pitiful numbers).
That month was a fluke and should not be used to judge my overall sexual prowess, unless you want to skew the results in my favor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420198</id>
	<title>Re:Peer review is not everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260641280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The quotes cited below are taken from the "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report" (dated Nov. 2007).<br>Needless to say, it's unclear what report the original poster was quoting.</p><p><div class="quote"><ul><li> It isn't entirely certain that the net effect of human pollution is warming, it could also be cooling (see chapter 2).</li></ul></div><p>"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is <i>very likely</i> due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that 'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations' (Fig- ure 2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It is <i>likely</i> that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure 2.5). {WGI 3.2, 9.4, SPM}" (p. 39; emphasis in original).</p><p>Nothing, ever, is entirely certain in science. Even "laws" are constantly tested and retested.</p><p><div class="quote"><ul><li> Despite some sensationalistic propaganda floating around, sea level rises are happening slower than geological processes (plate tectonics etc) on any given coast (see chapter 5).</li></ul></div><p>"Sea level rise under warming is inevitable. Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries after GHG concentrations have stabilised, for any of the stabilisation levels assessed, causing an eventual sea level rise much larger than projected for the 21st century (Table 5.1). If GHG and aerosol concentrations had been stabilised at year 2000 levels, thermal expansion alone would be expected to lead to further sea level rise of 0.3 to 0.8m. The eventual contributions from Greenland ice sheet loss could be several metres, and larger than from thermal expansion, should warming in excess of 1.9 to 4.6C above pre-industrial be sustained over many centuries" (p. 67).</p><p><div class="quote"><ul><li> There is no reliable knowledge of how much CO2 has affected the current warming trend. The report says 'most of it' based on the logic that they can't think of another explanation.(see chapter 9)</li><li> The writers of the IPCC report aren't very confident of their main conclusion, which is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is human caused. In the report, they are very careful to qualify that statement; although they are not so careful in press conferences (see the synthesis report).</li></ul></div><p>Yes, not very confident:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level. {WGI 3.9, SPM}<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes. Observed changes in many physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. As a result of the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 since 1750, the acidity of the surface ocean has increased. {WGI 5.4, WGII 1.3}<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Global total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions, weighted by their 100-year GWPs, have grown by 70\% between 1970 and 2004. As a result of anthropogenic emissions, atmospheric concentrations of N2O now far exceed pre-industrial values spanning many thousands of years, and those of CH4 and CO2 now far exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years. {WGI SPM; WGIII 1.3}<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent (except Antarctica). {WGI 9.4, SPM}<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems. {WGII 1.4, SPM}" (p. 72)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Every self-respecting geek who is willing to opine on the subject of global warming should read that report. Otherwise they are leaving themselves uninformed.</p></div><p>Yes, every self-respecting geek should. Because you can never trust another "self-respecting geek" lurking Slashdot to tell the truth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The quotes cited below are taken from the " Climate Change 2007 : Synthesis Report " ( dated Nov. 2007 ) .Needless to say , it 's unclear what report the original poster was quoting .
It is n't entirely certain that the net effect of human pollution is warming , it could also be cooling ( see chapter 2 ) .
" Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations .
This is an advance since the TAR 's conclusion that 'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations ' ( Fig- ure 2.5 ) .
{ WGI 9.4 , SPM } ... It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent ( except Antarctica ) ( Figure 2.5 ) .
{ WGI 3.2 , 9.4 , SPM } " ( p. 39 ; emphasis in original ) .Nothing , ever , is entirely certain in science .
Even " laws " are constantly tested and retested .
Despite some sensationalistic propaganda floating around , sea level rises are happening slower than geological processes ( plate tectonics etc ) on any given coast ( see chapter 5 ) .
" Sea level rise under warming is inevitable .
Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries after GHG concentrations have stabilised , for any of the stabilisation levels assessed , causing an eventual sea level rise much larger than projected for the 21st century ( Table 5.1 ) .
If GHG and aerosol concentrations had been stabilised at year 2000 levels , thermal expansion alone would be expected to lead to further sea level rise of 0.3 to 0.8m .
The eventual contributions from Greenland ice sheet loss could be several metres , and larger than from thermal expansion , should warming in excess of 1.9 to 4.6C above pre-industrial be sustained over many centuries " ( p. 67 ) . There is no reliable knowledge of how much CO2 has affected the current warming trend .
The report says 'most of it ' based on the logic that they ca n't think of another explanation .
( see chapter 9 ) The writers of the IPCC report are n't very confident of their main conclusion , which is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is human caused .
In the report , they are very careful to qualify that statement ; although they are not so careful in press conferences ( see the synthesis report ) .Yes , not very confident :           " Warming of the climate system is unequivocal , as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures , widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level .
{ WGI 3.9 , SPM }           Many natural systems , on all continents and in some oceans , are being affected by regional climate changes .
Observed changes in many physical and biological systems are consistent with warming .
As a result of the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 since 1750 , the acidity of the surface ocean has increased .
{ WGI 5.4 , WGII 1.3 }           Global total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions , weighted by their 100-year GWPs , have grown by 70 \ % between 1970 and 2004 .
As a result of anthropogenic emissions , atmospheric concentrations of N2O now far exceed pre-industrial values spanning many thousands of years , and those of CH4 and CO2 now far exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years .
{ WGI SPM ; WGIII 1.3 }           Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent ( except Antarctica ) .
{ WGI 9.4 , SPM }           Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems .
{ WGII 1.4 , SPM } " ( p. 72 ) Every self-respecting geek who is willing to opine on the subject of global warming should read that report .
Otherwise they are leaving themselves uninformed.Yes , every self-respecting geek should .
Because you can never trust another " self-respecting geek " lurking Slashdot to tell the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quotes cited below are taken from the "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report" (dated Nov. 2007).Needless to say, it's unclear what report the original poster was quoting.
It isn't entirely certain that the net effect of human pollution is warming, it could also be cooling (see chapter 2).
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that 'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations' (Fig- ure 2.5).
{WGI 9.4, SPM} ... It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure 2.5).
{WGI 3.2, 9.4, SPM}" (p. 39; emphasis in original).Nothing, ever, is entirely certain in science.
Even "laws" are constantly tested and retested.
Despite some sensationalistic propaganda floating around, sea level rises are happening slower than geological processes (plate tectonics etc) on any given coast (see chapter 5).
"Sea level rise under warming is inevitable.
Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries after GHG concentrations have stabilised, for any of the stabilisation levels assessed, causing an eventual sea level rise much larger than projected for the 21st century (Table 5.1).
If GHG and aerosol concentrations had been stabilised at year 2000 levels, thermal expansion alone would be expected to lead to further sea level rise of 0.3 to 0.8m.
The eventual contributions from Greenland ice sheet loss could be several metres, and larger than from thermal expansion, should warming in excess of 1.9 to 4.6C above pre-industrial be sustained over many centuries" (p. 67). There is no reliable knowledge of how much CO2 has affected the current warming trend.
The report says 'most of it' based on the logic that they can't think of another explanation.
(see chapter 9) The writers of the IPCC report aren't very confident of their main conclusion, which is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is human caused.
In the report, they are very careful to qualify that statement; although they are not so careful in press conferences (see the synthesis report).Yes, not very confident:
          "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
{WGI 3.9, SPM}
          Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes.
Observed changes in many physical and biological systems are consistent with warming.
As a result of the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 since 1750, the acidity of the surface ocean has increased.
{WGI 5.4, WGII 1.3}
          Global total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions, weighted by their 100-year GWPs, have grown by 70\% between 1970 and 2004.
As a result of anthropogenic emissions, atmospheric concentrations of N2O now far exceed pre-industrial values spanning many thousands of years, and those of CH4 and CO2 now far exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years.
{WGI SPM; WGIII 1.3}
          Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).
{WGI 9.4, SPM}
          Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems.
{WGII 1.4, SPM}" (p. 72)Every self-respecting geek who is willing to opine on the subject of global warming should read that report.
Otherwise they are leaving themselves uninformed.Yes, every self-respecting geek should.
Because you can never trust another "self-respecting geek" lurking Slashdot to tell the truth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419636</id>
	<title>The AGW crowd rediscovers the science of anecdotes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260636540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember back in the days, when skeptics were posting anecdotes and depictions of local events and local temperature readings, and the AGW crowd said:</p><p>* Anecdotal and local evidence is irrelevant and unscientific</p><p>* Posting such is a populist appeal to ignorance and emotional response intended to manipulate the debate</p><p>* Posting such detracts from the discussion because the relevant (global statistics) is tainted by the irrelevant (local anecdotes)</p><p>Suddenly - NONE OF THIS IS THE CASE ANY LONGER! ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE LIVES! HALLELUJAH!</p><p>Or in other words: As in every other field of life, the art of manipulation is to postulate general rules and laws which you defeat your opponent with - once those general laws and rules are no longer useful you invent new ones. This is law 1 to 100 of reality creation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember back in the days , when skeptics were posting anecdotes and depictions of local events and local temperature readings , and the AGW crowd said : * Anecdotal and local evidence is irrelevant and unscientific * Posting such is a populist appeal to ignorance and emotional response intended to manipulate the debate * Posting such detracts from the discussion because the relevant ( global statistics ) is tainted by the irrelevant ( local anecdotes ) Suddenly - NONE OF THIS IS THE CASE ANY LONGER !
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE LIVES !
HALLELUJAH ! Or in other words : As in every other field of life , the art of manipulation is to postulate general rules and laws which you defeat your opponent with - once those general laws and rules are no longer useful you invent new ones .
This is law 1 to 100 of reality creation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember back in the days, when skeptics were posting anecdotes and depictions of local events and local temperature readings, and the AGW crowd said:* Anecdotal and local evidence is irrelevant and unscientific* Posting such is a populist appeal to ignorance and emotional response intended to manipulate the debate* Posting such detracts from the discussion because the relevant (global statistics) is tainted by the irrelevant (local anecdotes)Suddenly - NONE OF THIS IS THE CASE ANY LONGER!
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE LIVES!
HALLELUJAH!Or in other words: As in every other field of life, the art of manipulation is to postulate general rules and laws which you defeat your opponent with - once those general laws and rules are no longer useful you invent new ones.
This is law 1 to 100 of reality creation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419694</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is yes.</title>
	<author>Dantoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260637020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure that I cannot be alone in being sceptical of the claims made by the loudest communicators on both (I concede there may be more than two) sides of the debate.</p><p>"Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong?</p><p>My answer to this has to be:</p><p>"I am equally sceptical of denialist and non-denialist humbug until it's shown to be not wrong".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that I can not be alone in being sceptical of the claims made by the loudest communicators on both ( I concede there may be more than two ) sides of the debate .
" Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it 's shown to be wrong ? My answer to this has to be : " I am equally sceptical of denialist and non-denialist humbug until it 's shown to be not wrong " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that I cannot be alone in being sceptical of the claims made by the loudest communicators on both (I concede there may be more than two) sides of the debate.
"Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong?My answer to this has to be:"I am equally sceptical of denialist and non-denialist humbug until it's shown to be not wrong".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422904</id>
	<title>Funny to find this here!</title>
	<author>Whitemice</author>
	<datestamp>1260722700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If average-totally-unqualified guy felt some restraint about commenting on topics he knows nothing about.... that would end something like 90\% of the comments posted on Slashdot?</p><p>I know this is the first time I pulled up Slashdot it awhile - the troll factor makes in not work reading and who picks the stories these days? - and seeing this story right there.... Funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If average-totally-unqualified guy felt some restraint about commenting on topics he knows nothing about.... that would end something like 90 \ % of the comments posted on Slashdot ? I know this is the first time I pulled up Slashdot it awhile - the troll factor makes in not work reading and who picks the stories these days ?
- and seeing this story right there.... Funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If average-totally-unqualified guy felt some restraint about commenting on topics he knows nothing about.... that would end something like 90\% of the comments posted on Slashdot?I know this is the first time I pulled up Slashdot it awhile - the troll factor makes in not work reading and who picks the stories these days?
- and seeing this story right there.... Funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120</id>
	<title>reply by Willis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260632100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423206</id>
	<title>Re:PhD required?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260725820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about years of study required? If you have spent at least a decade of your life seriously studying in depth a very specific field of science, chances are you have something to show for it, like a PhD in a closely related field, or a position in a related department in some institution, or publications in the topic, etc.</p><p>Modern science is too specialized to enable you to analyze climatology papers, for example, just because you know something about statistics. Although I have no doubt there are self-taught prodigies around capable of giving good arguments in topics they are not experts, I don't think they are more than a few, and certainly not a bunch of random bloggers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about years of study required ?
If you have spent at least a decade of your life seriously studying in depth a very specific field of science , chances are you have something to show for it , like a PhD in a closely related field , or a position in a related department in some institution , or publications in the topic , etc.Modern science is too specialized to enable you to analyze climatology papers , for example , just because you know something about statistics .
Although I have no doubt there are self-taught prodigies around capable of giving good arguments in topics they are not experts , I do n't think they are more than a few , and certainly not a bunch of random bloggers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about years of study required?
If you have spent at least a decade of your life seriously studying in depth a very specific field of science, chances are you have something to show for it, like a PhD in a closely related field, or a position in a related department in some institution, or publications in the topic, etc.Modern science is too specialized to enable you to analyze climatology papers, for example, just because you know something about statistics.
Although I have no doubt there are self-taught prodigies around capable of giving good arguments in topics they are not experts, I don't think they are more than a few, and certainly not a bunch of random bloggers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421968</id>
	<title>well yeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260710820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep an open mind , but not so open that your brain falls out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30428116</id>
	<title>What limits are those?</title>
	<author>REALMAN</author>
	<datestamp>1260727200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real point is being overlooked here. The unnamed author puts forth 2 claims.</p><p>1. Those without PhD's cannot prove to him/her that the data was manipulated. The "I'm smarter than you argument".</p><p>2. If it's not "peer reviewed" then I'm not listening. The "Convince my friends first argument".</p><p>We'll start with number 2.</p><p>Peer review is meaningless when the emails SHOW that the peer review process is tainted by scientists eager to exclude those who do not share the same conclusions from reviewing their data.</p><p>The first argument can be dismissed entirely due to the fact that the knowledge of a subject is  irrelevant if the process of reviewing the data has been corrupted by Scientists eager to get the next grant for their research. Scientists live on grants. The Universities that employ scientists also live on those grants and your tenure with those schools is directly related to the amount of grant money you bring in. Those that follow the government line get grants. Those who don't are denied grants. Therefore any conclusion against AGW results in a lack of grants which results in a loss of work from the University. Scientists know how to cover their ass.</p><p>In closing, knowledge restrained by job security is not knowledge, it's propaganda. Fixed peer review is worthless.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real point is being overlooked here .
The unnamed author puts forth 2 claims.1 .
Those without PhD 's can not prove to him/her that the data was manipulated .
The " I 'm smarter than you argument " .2 .
If it 's not " peer reviewed " then I 'm not listening .
The " Convince my friends first argument " .We 'll start with number 2.Peer review is meaningless when the emails SHOW that the peer review process is tainted by scientists eager to exclude those who do not share the same conclusions from reviewing their data.The first argument can be dismissed entirely due to the fact that the knowledge of a subject is irrelevant if the process of reviewing the data has been corrupted by Scientists eager to get the next grant for their research .
Scientists live on grants .
The Universities that employ scientists also live on those grants and your tenure with those schools is directly related to the amount of grant money you bring in .
Those that follow the government line get grants .
Those who do n't are denied grants .
Therefore any conclusion against AGW results in a lack of grants which results in a loss of work from the University .
Scientists know how to cover their ass.In closing , knowledge restrained by job security is not knowledge , it 's propaganda .
Fixed peer review is worthless .
                                       </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real point is being overlooked here.
The unnamed author puts forth 2 claims.1.
Those without PhD's cannot prove to him/her that the data was manipulated.
The "I'm smarter than you argument".2.
If it's not "peer reviewed" then I'm not listening.
The "Convince my friends first argument".We'll start with number 2.Peer review is meaningless when the emails SHOW that the peer review process is tainted by scientists eager to exclude those who do not share the same conclusions from reviewing their data.The first argument can be dismissed entirely due to the fact that the knowledge of a subject is  irrelevant if the process of reviewing the data has been corrupted by Scientists eager to get the next grant for their research.
Scientists live on grants.
The Universities that employ scientists also live on those grants and your tenure with those schools is directly related to the amount of grant money you bring in.
Those that follow the government line get grants.
Those who don't are denied grants.
Therefore any conclusion against AGW results in a lack of grants which results in a loss of work from the University.
Scientists know how to cover their ass.In closing, knowledge restrained by job security is not knowledge, it's propaganda.
Fixed peer review is worthless.
                                       </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420942</id>
	<title>Re:re Time for open discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260735600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, the Economist claiming blogs are not trustworthy. No conflict of interest there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the Economist claiming blogs are not trustworthy .
No conflict of interest there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the Economist claiming blogs are not trustworthy.
No conflict of interest there!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30427220</id>
	<title>A visual response to aggressive skepticism</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1260717060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Skepticism is good.  However, when fundamentalist or conspiracy theory nuts who start with a predetermined answer and even go so far as to distort what you say to make it seem the opposite, then <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU" title="youtube.com">this</a> [youtube.com] is the only valid response.  It is one thing to be skeptical.  It is another to have an agenda, cherry pick details that fit that agenda, and even outright lie and distort the science/facts behind, say, AGW, the Apollo moon landings, evolution, and so on.<p>
I wish I could remember the source, but I remember reading about how creationist groups will take the words of someone like Steph(v?)en J. Gould out of context and basically make them say the exact opposite of what they actually say in context.  The writer concluded that there are "liars, damn liars, and creationists".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skepticism is good .
However , when fundamentalist or conspiracy theory nuts who start with a predetermined answer and even go so far as to distort what you say to make it seem the opposite , then this [ youtube.com ] is the only valid response .
It is one thing to be skeptical .
It is another to have an agenda , cherry pick details that fit that agenda , and even outright lie and distort the science/facts behind , say , AGW , the Apollo moon landings , evolution , and so on .
I wish I could remember the source , but I remember reading about how creationist groups will take the words of someone like Steph ( v ?
) en J. Gould out of context and basically make them say the exact opposite of what they actually say in context .
The writer concluded that there are " liars , damn liars , and creationists " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skepticism is good.
However, when fundamentalist or conspiracy theory nuts who start with a predetermined answer and even go so far as to distort what you say to make it seem the opposite, then this [youtube.com] is the only valid response.
It is one thing to be skeptical.
It is another to have an agenda, cherry pick details that fit that agenda, and even outright lie and distort the science/facts behind, say, AGW, the Apollo moon landings, evolution, and so on.
I wish I could remember the source, but I remember reading about how creationist groups will take the words of someone like Steph(v?
)en J. Gould out of context and basically make them say the exact opposite of what they actually say in context.
The writer concluded that there are "liars, damn liars, and creationists".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419328</id>
	<title>Wake up, sheeple, Global Warming is a commie hoax!</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1260634020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've lived in the Soviet Union, but I must say that the communist brainwashing is now much worse than ever before!  The alarmists' claims are completely baseless and unscientific!  (Click my name to see my previous posts on this issue.)</p><p>The assertion isn't just that the "climate change" is significant and anthropogenic, but that their proposed socialist agenda is the ideal cure, even though it clearly has tremendous economic and social side-effects.  This has been entirely lost in the government-licensed media's coverage of the issue - any problem the government alleges is guaranteed fatal if treated by anyone else, and any cure the government is pushing is a guaranteed panacea.  How does that compare to real scientific traditions, like the Hippocratic Oath / primum non nocere?</p><p>It is perfectly clear that free market advancements are improving efficiency and reversing out-of-control population growth (in fact higher first-world fertility rates would be a good thing now).  The only problem of the free market system is the part that government took it upon itself to monopolize: the attribution of liability for pollution and other negative externalities.  (Not to mention retarding nuclear energy and trillion-dollar wars for cheaper oil.)  This is yet another case of the government imposing its "solutions" by force, screwing up, and then using that as an excuse to impose even more tyrannical "solutions".  How scientific is that?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've lived in the Soviet Union , but I must say that the communist brainwashing is now much worse than ever before !
The alarmists ' claims are completely baseless and unscientific !
( Click my name to see my previous posts on this issue .
) The assertion is n't just that the " climate change " is significant and anthropogenic , but that their proposed socialist agenda is the ideal cure , even though it clearly has tremendous economic and social side-effects .
This has been entirely lost in the government-licensed media 's coverage of the issue - any problem the government alleges is guaranteed fatal if treated by anyone else , and any cure the government is pushing is a guaranteed panacea .
How does that compare to real scientific traditions , like the Hippocratic Oath / primum non nocere ? It is perfectly clear that free market advancements are improving efficiency and reversing out-of-control population growth ( in fact higher first-world fertility rates would be a good thing now ) .
The only problem of the free market system is the part that government took it upon itself to monopolize : the attribution of liability for pollution and other negative externalities .
( Not to mention retarding nuclear energy and trillion-dollar wars for cheaper oil .
) This is yet another case of the government imposing its " solutions " by force , screwing up , and then using that as an excuse to impose even more tyrannical " solutions " .
How scientific is that ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've lived in the Soviet Union, but I must say that the communist brainwashing is now much worse than ever before!
The alarmists' claims are completely baseless and unscientific!
(Click my name to see my previous posts on this issue.
)The assertion isn't just that the "climate change" is significant and anthropogenic, but that their proposed socialist agenda is the ideal cure, even though it clearly has tremendous economic and social side-effects.
This has been entirely lost in the government-licensed media's coverage of the issue - any problem the government alleges is guaranteed fatal if treated by anyone else, and any cure the government is pushing is a guaranteed panacea.
How does that compare to real scientific traditions, like the Hippocratic Oath / primum non nocere?It is perfectly clear that free market advancements are improving efficiency and reversing out-of-control population growth (in fact higher first-world fertility rates would be a good thing now).
The only problem of the free market system is the part that government took it upon itself to monopolize: the attribution of liability for pollution and other negative externalities.
(Not to mention retarding nuclear energy and trillion-dollar wars for cheaper oil.
)  This is yet another case of the government imposing its "solutions" by force, screwing up, and then using that as an excuse to impose even more tyrannical "solutions".
How scientific is that?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421192</id>
	<title>Debate?  What debate?</title>
	<author>emmenjay</author>
	<datestamp>1260696240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether you agree or disagree with AGW, there seems to be little debate, just name-calling.  From my own (probably biased) view, I'd say the pro-AGW crowd have done a rotten job at explaining their side of the argument.  At least the anti-AGW crowd seem to be prepared for a bit of transparency.  The pro-AGW might well turn out to be right, but when issues are raised they tend to take offence rather than defending their position.</p><p>Problem one is that we are talking about data gathered in various ways from various sources.  There must, of course, be some numerical filtering to try to compare data from different sources.  However much of the filtering appears (from the outside) to be poorly explained.  We are estimating temperature from tree-rings, ice cores and antique thermometers and making decisions on variations of a couple of degrees or sometimes much less.  In a day when it might be 50 degrees Celsius in outback Australia 20C in Tasmania and -120C in Canada, we try to produce an average.</p><p>Now this data may be accurate enough to support the analysis, but it doesn't look that way to the uninitiated.  Somebody needs to convince us.</p><p>Second, much of the (mass-media) published information derives from Drs Jones and Mann and their colleagues.  The recent revelations have raised *serious* doubts about their data integrity.  Never mind the emails, the widely discussed "harry-readme" file chronicles the efforts of a researcher to identify correct data and understand the filtering source code.  It tells a tale of confusion and some suspected sharp practises.  Perhaps "Harry" is out of his depth and Dr Jones et. al. have immaculate data and source code.  However Dr Jones' refusal to honour Freedom of Information requests leave us all with great suspicions.  If we cannot trust Dr Jones and Dr Mann, can we trust any of the IPCC and related material?  Maybe, but it has not been well explained.</p><p>Third and perhaps worst is the number of morons who trumpet AGW concerns without any understanding what they mean.  Mr Gore, for example, consistently makes impossible claims.  It is too easy to look at these stumbling fools and think that their silly words represent the "scientific" view.  When they are shown to lack credibility, by association the science seems to lose credibility.  Why have serious scientists never told the buffoons to "sit down and be quiet"?  Or have they?  The media have seldom reported such.</p><p>I don't know if AGW is real.  I do know that most of what I hear about is gobbledegook.  I'd like to be treated like a "grown up" and have the science explained in clear terms, without the black magic and the "oh, you couldn't understand this".  I'd particularly like this before we destroy the world economy implementing schemes that probably won't even fix the problem, if AGW is real.</p><p>OK, flame away.</p><p>Michael J Smith</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether you agree or disagree with AGW , there seems to be little debate , just name-calling .
From my own ( probably biased ) view , I 'd say the pro-AGW crowd have done a rotten job at explaining their side of the argument .
At least the anti-AGW crowd seem to be prepared for a bit of transparency .
The pro-AGW might well turn out to be right , but when issues are raised they tend to take offence rather than defending their position.Problem one is that we are talking about data gathered in various ways from various sources .
There must , of course , be some numerical filtering to try to compare data from different sources .
However much of the filtering appears ( from the outside ) to be poorly explained .
We are estimating temperature from tree-rings , ice cores and antique thermometers and making decisions on variations of a couple of degrees or sometimes much less .
In a day when it might be 50 degrees Celsius in outback Australia 20C in Tasmania and -120C in Canada , we try to produce an average.Now this data may be accurate enough to support the analysis , but it does n't look that way to the uninitiated .
Somebody needs to convince us.Second , much of the ( mass-media ) published information derives from Drs Jones and Mann and their colleagues .
The recent revelations have raised * serious * doubts about their data integrity .
Never mind the emails , the widely discussed " harry-readme " file chronicles the efforts of a researcher to identify correct data and understand the filtering source code .
It tells a tale of confusion and some suspected sharp practises .
Perhaps " Harry " is out of his depth and Dr Jones et .
al. have immaculate data and source code .
However Dr Jones ' refusal to honour Freedom of Information requests leave us all with great suspicions .
If we can not trust Dr Jones and Dr Mann , can we trust any of the IPCC and related material ?
Maybe , but it has not been well explained.Third and perhaps worst is the number of morons who trumpet AGW concerns without any understanding what they mean .
Mr Gore , for example , consistently makes impossible claims .
It is too easy to look at these stumbling fools and think that their silly words represent the " scientific " view .
When they are shown to lack credibility , by association the science seems to lose credibility .
Why have serious scientists never told the buffoons to " sit down and be quiet " ?
Or have they ?
The media have seldom reported such.I do n't know if AGW is real .
I do know that most of what I hear about is gobbledegook .
I 'd like to be treated like a " grown up " and have the science explained in clear terms , without the black magic and the " oh , you could n't understand this " .
I 'd particularly like this before we destroy the world economy implementing schemes that probably wo n't even fix the problem , if AGW is real.OK , flame away.Michael J Smith</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether you agree or disagree with AGW, there seems to be little debate, just name-calling.
From my own (probably biased) view, I'd say the pro-AGW crowd have done a rotten job at explaining their side of the argument.
At least the anti-AGW crowd seem to be prepared for a bit of transparency.
The pro-AGW might well turn out to be right, but when issues are raised they tend to take offence rather than defending their position.Problem one is that we are talking about data gathered in various ways from various sources.
There must, of course, be some numerical filtering to try to compare data from different sources.
However much of the filtering appears (from the outside) to be poorly explained.
We are estimating temperature from tree-rings, ice cores and antique thermometers and making decisions on variations of a couple of degrees or sometimes much less.
In a day when it might be 50 degrees Celsius in outback Australia 20C in Tasmania and -120C in Canada, we try to produce an average.Now this data may be accurate enough to support the analysis, but it doesn't look that way to the uninitiated.
Somebody needs to convince us.Second, much of the (mass-media) published information derives from Drs Jones and Mann and their colleagues.
The recent revelations have raised *serious* doubts about their data integrity.
Never mind the emails, the widely discussed "harry-readme" file chronicles the efforts of a researcher to identify correct data and understand the filtering source code.
It tells a tale of confusion and some suspected sharp practises.
Perhaps "Harry" is out of his depth and Dr Jones et.
al. have immaculate data and source code.
However Dr Jones' refusal to honour Freedom of Information requests leave us all with great suspicions.
If we cannot trust Dr Jones and Dr Mann, can we trust any of the IPCC and related material?
Maybe, but it has not been well explained.Third and perhaps worst is the number of morons who trumpet AGW concerns without any understanding what they mean.
Mr Gore, for example, consistently makes impossible claims.
It is too easy to look at these stumbling fools and think that their silly words represent the "scientific" view.
When they are shown to lack credibility, by association the science seems to lose credibility.
Why have serious scientists never told the buffoons to "sit down and be quiet"?
Or have they?
The media have seldom reported such.I don't know if AGW is real.
I do know that most of what I hear about is gobbledegook.
I'd like to be treated like a "grown up" and have the science explained in clear terms, without the black magic and the "oh, you couldn't understand this".
I'd particularly like this before we destroy the world economy implementing schemes that probably won't even fix the problem, if AGW is real.OK, flame away.Michael J Smith</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419428</id>
	<title>Fucktard:  Weather is *NOT* climate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260634800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the thought police arrived and modded me troll</p></div><p>You have been labeled a troll not because of some "thought police", but because you're a fucking moron <i>who doesn't even understand the basic terminology</i>.  (And unfortunately there is no "fucktard" moderation to accurately moderate you.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The weather exhibits chaotic behavior</p></div><p>Weather <b>IS NOT</b> CLIMATE.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the thought police arrived and modded me trollYou have been labeled a troll not because of some " thought police " , but because you 're a fucking moron who does n't even understand the basic terminology .
( And unfortunately there is no " fucktard " moderation to accurately moderate you .
) The weather exhibits chaotic behaviorWeather IS NOT CLIMATE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the thought police arrived and modded me trollYou have been labeled a troll not because of some "thought police", but because you're a fucking moron who doesn't even understand the basic terminology.
(And unfortunately there is no "fucktard" moderation to accurately moderate you.
)The weather exhibits chaotic behaviorWeather IS NOT CLIMATE.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420032</id>
	<title>Re:Hottest month in Darwin...</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1260639840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This catastrophic global warming claim just doesn't pass the bullshit detector test that we in science/tech fields develop.
</p><p>
It's one thing to theorize the origin of the universe with Big Bang theory.  Wholly another to set trillion-dollar policies based on tenuous model of poorly understood climate of Earth based on the data available that is, given the timescale involved, less than inadequate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This catastrophic global warming claim just does n't pass the bullshit detector test that we in science/tech fields develop .
It 's one thing to theorize the origin of the universe with Big Bang theory .
Wholly another to set trillion-dollar policies based on tenuous model of poorly understood climate of Earth based on the data available that is , given the timescale involved , less than inadequate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This catastrophic global warming claim just doesn't pass the bullshit detector test that we in science/tech fields develop.
It's one thing to theorize the origin of the universe with Big Bang theory.
Wholly another to set trillion-dollar policies based on tenuous model of poorly understood climate of Earth based on the data available that is, given the timescale involved, less than inadequate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419894</id>
	<title>Wrong conclusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260638700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After wading through the article, I'm skeptical about the conclusion: There is no evidence that "peer review" significantly increases the validity of a scientist's conclusion; only that it will test the methods that led to that conclusion.</p><p>There are many historical instances of "peer review" either bolstering false conclusions because the reviewers were inclined in the same direction, or denying the conclusion because it didn't fit in with the orthodox view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After wading through the article , I 'm skeptical about the conclusion : There is no evidence that " peer review " significantly increases the validity of a scientist 's conclusion ; only that it will test the methods that led to that conclusion.There are many historical instances of " peer review " either bolstering false conclusions because the reviewers were inclined in the same direction , or denying the conclusion because it did n't fit in with the orthodox view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After wading through the article, I'm skeptical about the conclusion: There is no evidence that "peer review" significantly increases the validity of a scientist's conclusion; only that it will test the methods that led to that conclusion.There are many historical instances of "peer review" either bolstering false conclusions because the reviewers were inclined in the same direction, or denying the conclusion because it didn't fit in with the orthodox view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420894</id>
	<title>Global warming != everyplace will get hotter</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1260734820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>global warming means 1 to 3 degrees celsius rise in AVERAGE world temperature. it does NOT mean that every single place will get warmer. the AVERAGE temperature will rise.</p><p>what global warming means for us is that, for this average temperature rise to happen, there will be a lot of temperature changes in innumerable places around the world. some places will get extremely hotter, some will get extremely colder. in some places, temperature will hardly change, or in some places it wont change at all.</p><p>the thing is that, ALL of these extreme and minimal changes all around the world is going to get averaged into a 1 to 3 degrees rise in AVERAGE world temperature.</p><p>in layman's terms it will be disaster. because we cant know and calculate which place will get what kind of temperature change. greenland can get noticeably hotter. japan may get extremely colder. or ocean currents can dampen japan's extreme cold and make it a mild place, but carry the cold to some other place. mega floods may hit some places, droughts may hit others. actually some of these are already happening.</p><p>world climate is chaotic. we cant calculate what will happen where, when and how. this is the point here. not your average temperature getting hotter so its a good thing (TM).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>global warming means 1 to 3 degrees celsius rise in AVERAGE world temperature .
it does NOT mean that every single place will get warmer .
the AVERAGE temperature will rise.what global warming means for us is that , for this average temperature rise to happen , there will be a lot of temperature changes in innumerable places around the world .
some places will get extremely hotter , some will get extremely colder .
in some places , temperature will hardly change , or in some places it wont change at all.the thing is that , ALL of these extreme and minimal changes all around the world is going to get averaged into a 1 to 3 degrees rise in AVERAGE world temperature.in layman 's terms it will be disaster .
because we cant know and calculate which place will get what kind of temperature change .
greenland can get noticeably hotter .
japan may get extremely colder .
or ocean currents can dampen japan 's extreme cold and make it a mild place , but carry the cold to some other place .
mega floods may hit some places , droughts may hit others .
actually some of these are already happening.world climate is chaotic .
we cant calculate what will happen where , when and how .
this is the point here .
not your average temperature getting hotter so its a good thing ( TM ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>global warming means 1 to 3 degrees celsius rise in AVERAGE world temperature.
it does NOT mean that every single place will get warmer.
the AVERAGE temperature will rise.what global warming means for us is that, for this average temperature rise to happen, there will be a lot of temperature changes in innumerable places around the world.
some places will get extremely hotter, some will get extremely colder.
in some places, temperature will hardly change, or in some places it wont change at all.the thing is that, ALL of these extreme and minimal changes all around the world is going to get averaged into a 1 to 3 degrees rise in AVERAGE world temperature.in layman's terms it will be disaster.
because we cant know and calculate which place will get what kind of temperature change.
greenland can get noticeably hotter.
japan may get extremely colder.
or ocean currents can dampen japan's extreme cold and make it a mild place, but carry the cold to some other place.
mega floods may hit some places, droughts may hit others.
actually some of these are already happening.world climate is chaotic.
we cant calculate what will happen where, when and how.
this is the point here.
not your average temperature getting hotter so its a good thing (TM).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419438</id>
	<title>Re:Enter the closed loop you cannot enter.</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1260634920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But similarly, you can prove anything when you're allowed to use anything anyone's ever published on the internet.</p><p>Trying to put some sense in the head of the guy from the Time Cube is nothing but a waste of time for all those involved. And since peer-reviewed journals are the best way we've found yet to determine who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't, that's the method they're gonna use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But similarly , you can prove anything when you 're allowed to use anything anyone 's ever published on the internet.Trying to put some sense in the head of the guy from the Time Cube is nothing but a waste of time for all those involved .
And since peer-reviewed journals are the best way we 've found yet to determine who knows what they 're talking about and who does n't , that 's the method they 're gon na use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But similarly, you can prove anything when you're allowed to use anything anyone's ever published on the internet.Trying to put some sense in the head of the guy from the Time Cube is nothing but a waste of time for all those involved.
And since peer-reviewed journals are the best way we've found yet to determine who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't, that's the method they're gonna use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421226</id>
	<title>Open</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1260696840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you should ALWAYS remain open about everything.</p><p>That doesn't mean you have to give the same value to everything.</p><p>You can "take sides" if you want, but if you're no longer open to the other side, it becomes like a religion. When something becomes like a religion, it usually ends up in a lot of people dying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you should ALWAYS remain open about everything.That does n't mean you have to give the same value to everything.You can " take sides " if you want , but if you 're no longer open to the other side , it becomes like a religion .
When something becomes like a religion , it usually ends up in a lot of people dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you should ALWAYS remain open about everything.That doesn't mean you have to give the same value to everything.You can "take sides" if you want, but if you're no longer open to the other side, it becomes like a religion.
When something becomes like a religion, it usually ends up in a lot of people dying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420654</id>
	<title>Re:Can we please stop with the "denialist" crap?</title>
	<author>bnenning</author>
	<datestamp>1260645600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The thing is, most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it isn't convenient for them.</p></div></blockquote><p>And a lot of pro-AGW proponents come off as activists whose primary goal is to impose their preferred lifestyle globally, regardless of whether it makes sense economically. Drastically reducing our energy consumption is just one possible solution, but it's the only one most environmentalists are interested in. Look at their decades of FUD against nuclear power, which has arguably resulted in more environmental damage than every squadron of Big Oil lobbyists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it is n't convenient for them.And a lot of pro-AGW proponents come off as activists whose primary goal is to impose their preferred lifestyle globally , regardless of whether it makes sense economically .
Drastically reducing our energy consumption is just one possible solution , but it 's the only one most environmentalists are interested in .
Look at their decades of FUD against nuclear power , which has arguably resulted in more environmental damage than every squadron of Big Oil lobbyists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, most anti-AGW proponents come off as people not wanting to change anything because it isn't convenient for them.And a lot of pro-AGW proponents come off as activists whose primary goal is to impose their preferred lifestyle globally, regardless of whether it makes sense economically.
Drastically reducing our energy consumption is just one possible solution, but it's the only one most environmentalists are interested in.
Look at their decades of FUD against nuclear power, which has arguably resulted in more environmental damage than every squadron of Big Oil lobbyists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30432010</id>
	<title>Re:PhD required?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260810840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really ? What percentage of global warming deniers are they ? Honestly, if they are that familiar with chaos theory, nonlinear PDEs, CFD/FEA maybe they should get their 'observations' published in peer reviewed journals ?</p><p>Why is it that the 'website guy' only keeps writing opinions in his own blog and expects that to be respected ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
What percentage of global warming deniers are they ?
Honestly , if they are that familiar with chaos theory , nonlinear PDEs , CFD/FEA maybe they should get their 'observations ' published in peer reviewed journals ? Why is it that the 'website guy ' only keeps writing opinions in his own blog and expects that to be respected ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really ?
What percentage of global warming deniers are they ?
Honestly, if they are that familiar with chaos theory, nonlinear PDEs, CFD/FEA maybe they should get their 'observations' published in peer reviewed journals ?Why is it that the 'website guy' only keeps writing opinions in his own blog and expects that to be respected ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420586</id>
	<title>Re:Requires a PHD .... HAHAHAH</title>
	<author>calidoscope</author>
	<datestamp>1260644940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you're saying is that there is a correlation between CO2/Methane levels and temperature. Question is: did the temperature rise in the past because of rising CO2/methane or did the CO2/methane rise because of rising temperatures. <p>

Yeah, I know that increasing levels of CO2 and methane will increase the sky temperature (all else being equal). My contention is that climate change (precipitation as well as temperature) is affected by far more than CO2/methane (think other GHG's, particulates, land use, etc.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're saying is that there is a correlation between CO2/Methane levels and temperature .
Question is : did the temperature rise in the past because of rising CO2/methane or did the CO2/methane rise because of rising temperatures .
Yeah , I know that increasing levels of CO2 and methane will increase the sky temperature ( all else being equal ) .
My contention is that climate change ( precipitation as well as temperature ) is affected by far more than CO2/methane ( think other GHG 's , particulates , land use , etc .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're saying is that there is a correlation between CO2/Methane levels and temperature.
Question is: did the temperature rise in the past because of rising CO2/methane or did the CO2/methane rise because of rising temperatures.
Yeah, I know that increasing levels of CO2 and methane will increase the sky temperature (all else being equal).
My contention is that climate change (precipitation as well as temperature) is affected by far more than CO2/methane (think other GHG's, particulates, land use, etc.
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419264</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30434064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30427314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30427028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30430000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30496498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30428712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30433776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30425976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30454380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30425330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30432010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30440478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30429664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_12_2246208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30428712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30427314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422642
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30425976
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30429664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30454380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419656
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30496498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30434064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419562
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419614
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419776
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30430000
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30422020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30424598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30427028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30432010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30426280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30433776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30423040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30425330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30440478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30419326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_12_2246208.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30420598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_12_2246208.30421482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
