<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_23_2211222</id>
	<title>Claims of Himalayan Glacier Disaster Melt Away</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264249740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"VOA News reports that leaders of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have apologized for <a href="http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/environment/UN-Report-Himalayan-Glaciers-Will-Melt-by-Year-2035-was-a-Mistake-82510372.html">making a 'poorly substantiated' claim</a> that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Scientists who identified the mistake say the IPCC report relied on news accounts that appear to have misquoted a scientific paper &mdash; which estimated that the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/21/21climatewire-climate-science-panel-apologizes-for-himalay-25267.html">glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035</a>. Jeffrey Kargel, an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona who helped expose the IPCC's errors, said the botched projections were extremely embarrassing and damaging. 'The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority &mdash; as indeed they should &mdash; and so they see a bullet that says Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and they take that as a fact.' Experts who follow climate science and policy say they believe the IPCC should re-examine how it vets information when compiling its reports. 'These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected,' write the researchers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " VOA News reports that leaders of the United Nations ' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have apologized for making a 'poorly substantiated ' claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 .
Scientists who identified the mistake say the IPCC report relied on news accounts that appear to have misquoted a scientific paper    which estimated that the glaciers could disappear by 2350 , not 2035 .
Jeffrey Kargel , an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona who helped expose the IPCC 's errors , said the botched projections were extremely embarrassing and damaging .
'The damage was that IPCC had , or I think still has , such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority    as indeed they should    and so they see a bullet that says Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and they take that as a fact .
' Experts who follow climate science and policy say they believe the IPCC should re-examine how it vets information when compiling its reports .
'These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work , been respected, ' write the researchers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "VOA News reports that leaders of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have apologized for making a 'poorly substantiated' claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
Scientists who identified the mistake say the IPCC report relied on news accounts that appear to have misquoted a scientific paper — which estimated that the glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035.
Jeffrey Kargel, an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona who helped expose the IPCC's errors, said the botched projections were extremely embarrassing and damaging.
'The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority — as indeed they should — and so they see a bullet that says Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and they take that as a fact.
' Experts who follow climate science and policy say they believe the IPCC should re-examine how it vets information when compiling its reports.
'These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected,' write the researchers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874284</id>
	<title>How about the conomy? Any prediction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264255380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Predicting the weather (or climate) 340 years from now, nobody can do that. It's like telling about the economy in 100 years from now. Who can believe someone claiming such thing? Not me at least.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Predicting the weather ( or climate ) 340 years from now , nobody can do that .
It 's like telling about the economy in 100 years from now .
Who can believe someone claiming such thing ?
Not me at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Predicting the weather (or climate) 340 years from now, nobody can do that.
It's like telling about the economy in 100 years from now.
Who can believe someone claiming such thing?
Not me at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874908</id>
	<title>I've been telling you faggots man-made global</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264261200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>warming is bullshit for years now.  Glad to see more and more stories vindicating me with each passing day.  Nice scientific method you guys have over there at East Anglia University and the IPCC.  I'll say it again: man-made global warming is the worst hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, because it seeks to return mankind to the dark ages of serfdom.  You will be forced (economically encouraged) to move into densely-packed cities to live like rats, while your overlords enjoy the newly-vacated lands they now own.  You will be told what car to drive, if you can afford a car at all.  You will be told what kinds of food you may eat (goodbye red meat), and how many children you may have.  You have all been sold a bill of goods.  The UN is a parasite organization run by petty banana republic dictators hell-bent on sapping the economic power of the west, especially America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>warming is bullshit for years now .
Glad to see more and more stories vindicating me with each passing day .
Nice scientific method you guys have over there at East Anglia University and the IPCC .
I 'll say it again : man-made global warming is the worst hoax ever perpetrated on mankind , because it seeks to return mankind to the dark ages of serfdom .
You will be forced ( economically encouraged ) to move into densely-packed cities to live like rats , while your overlords enjoy the newly-vacated lands they now own .
You will be told what car to drive , if you can afford a car at all .
You will be told what kinds of food you may eat ( goodbye red meat ) , and how many children you may have .
You have all been sold a bill of goods .
The UN is a parasite organization run by petty banana republic dictators hell-bent on sapping the economic power of the west , especially America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>warming is bullshit for years now.
Glad to see more and more stories vindicating me with each passing day.
Nice scientific method you guys have over there at East Anglia University and the IPCC.
I'll say it again: man-made global warming is the worst hoax ever perpetrated on mankind, because it seeks to return mankind to the dark ages of serfdom.
You will be forced (economically encouraged) to move into densely-packed cities to live like rats, while your overlords enjoy the newly-vacated lands they now own.
You will be told what car to drive, if you can afford a car at all.
You will be told what kinds of food you may eat (goodbye red meat), and how many children you may have.
You have all been sold a bill of goods.
The UN is a parasite organization run by petty banana republic dictators hell-bent on sapping the economic power of the west, especially America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876116</id>
	<title>Just a thought experiment</title>
	<author>SpaceToast</author>
	<datestamp>1264272660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is for the Libertarians who make up such a substantial portion of both Slashdot readers and climate change denialist/skeptics.</p><p>Just assuming for a moment that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is correct, how could Libertarianism -- as a philosophy -- actually deal with the problem? Likewise, how would a theoretical Libertarian government have dealt differently with issues of DDT, dioxins and CFCs? Obviously I am posing a leading question, but the best answers I've been able to find amount to a lukewarm defense of cap and trade schemes (treating the right to pollute as a tradeable form of "property").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is for the Libertarians who make up such a substantial portion of both Slashdot readers and climate change denialist/skeptics.Just assuming for a moment that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is correct , how could Libertarianism -- as a philosophy -- actually deal with the problem ?
Likewise , how would a theoretical Libertarian government have dealt differently with issues of DDT , dioxins and CFCs ?
Obviously I am posing a leading question , but the best answers I 've been able to find amount to a lukewarm defense of cap and trade schemes ( treating the right to pollute as a tradeable form of " property " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is for the Libertarians who make up such a substantial portion of both Slashdot readers and climate change denialist/skeptics.Just assuming for a moment that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is correct, how could Libertarianism -- as a philosophy -- actually deal with the problem?
Likewise, how would a theoretical Libertarian government have dealt differently with issues of DDT, dioxins and CFCs?
Obviously I am posing a leading question, but the best answers I've been able to find amount to a lukewarm defense of cap and trade schemes (treating the right to pollute as a tradeable form of "property").</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30885410</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>greg30808</author>
	<datestamp>1264349760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any science I have done is all about questioning and trying to find answers.  If "science" is going unquestioned then it isn't science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any science I have done is all about questioning and trying to find answers .
If " science " is going unquestioned then it is n't science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any science I have done is all about questioning and trying to find answers.
If "science" is going unquestioned then it isn't science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875306</id>
	<title>Re:Has anyone looked at the most recent photograph</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1264264740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't want your opinion. It's worthless. Sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't want your opinion .
It 's worthless .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't want your opinion.
It's worthless.
Sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30880954</id>
	<title>IPCC self-correcting? NOT!</title>
	<author>bartwol</author>
	<datestamp>1264364100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Per <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers" title="guardian.co.uk">this article</a> [guardian.co.uk], here's how IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri responded in November to an Indian minister who challenged the Himalayan glacier changes:<blockquote><div><p>Pachauri [...] told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."<br>
[...]<br>
Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".<br>

"With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."<br>
[...] Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

I am a person who believes in anthropogenic global warming. I am often called a "denier" even though the people who call me that are unable to specify what it is that I deny. I understand very well the common meaning of the term "denier": it is one who dares to challenge the propriety of ANYTHING that supports AGW theory; it has nothing to do with denial. It is a term used as such by the uninformed throngs, and by IPCC Chairman Pachauri. It is a despicable method by which to vilify critical thinkers, to dismiss their critical questions, and to thereby erode the scientific basis of the public debate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Per this article [ guardian.co.uk ] , here 's how IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri responded in November to an Indian minister who challenged the Himalayan glacier changes : Pachauri [ ... ] told the Guardian : " We have a very clear idea of what is happening .
I do n't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research .
It is an extremely arrogant statement .
" [ ... ] Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not " peer reviewed " and had few " scientific citations " .
" With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago .
" [ ... ] Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of " climate change deniers and school boy science " .
I am a person who believes in anthropogenic global warming .
I am often called a " denier " even though the people who call me that are unable to specify what it is that I deny .
I understand very well the common meaning of the term " denier " : it is one who dares to challenge the propriety of ANYTHING that supports AGW theory ; it has nothing to do with denial .
It is a term used as such by the uninformed throngs , and by IPCC Chairman Pachauri .
It is a despicable method by which to vilify critical thinkers , to dismiss their critical questions , and to thereby erode the scientific basis of the public debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Per this article [guardian.co.uk], here's how IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri responded in November to an Indian minister who challenged the Himalayan glacier changes:Pachauri [...] told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening.
I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research.
It is an extremely arrogant statement.
"
[...]
Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".
"With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.
"
[...] Pachauri said that such statements were reminiscent of "climate change deniers and school boy science".
I am a person who believes in anthropogenic global warming.
I am often called a "denier" even though the people who call me that are unable to specify what it is that I deny.
I understand very well the common meaning of the term "denier": it is one who dares to challenge the propriety of ANYTHING that supports AGW theory; it has nothing to do with denial.
It is a term used as such by the uninformed throngs, and by IPCC Chairman Pachauri.
It is a despicable method by which to vilify critical thinkers, to dismiss their critical questions, and to thereby erode the scientific basis of the public debate.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874110</id>
	<title>Four YEARS?</title>
	<author>rah1420</author>
	<datestamp>1264253880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the NY Times article, a scientist (Georg Kaser) warned the working group in <strong>2006</strong> that the findings were erroneous.  How did it take four years to bubble up?</p><p>I'd call that a pretty glacial response time.   (rimshot)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the NY Times article , a scientist ( Georg Kaser ) warned the working group in 2006 that the findings were erroneous .
How did it take four years to bubble up ? I 'd call that a pretty glacial response time .
( rimshot )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the NY Times article, a scientist (Georg Kaser) warned the working group in 2006 that the findings were erroneous.
How did it take four years to bubble up?I'd call that a pretty glacial response time.
(rimshot)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878030</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264346700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Cities and islands are not flooding. The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since. Tuvalu's sea levels have remained stable during that time."</p><p>Yes, there are plenty of places where sea level is falling.  Want something more dramatic?  The area around Hudson's Bay is experiencing quite rapid sea level fall, and that has been the case for thousands of years (you can see the stranded beaches along the coast for many kilometres inland).  Why?  Because the land is rising faster than the global sea level is, and the mechanism in this case is the removal of the weight of the glaciers that used to exist around Hudson's Bay.  This sort of effect is true of all sorts of places in the world: the land moves up and down due to local and regional tectonics.  All you've discovered is that if you cherry pick appropriate places, you can find contrary examples to the global trend.  It's the same thing for glacier advance and retreat.  But if you look at the average trend, it's flagrantly obvious which way sea level is going: up.</p><p>Measuring global sea level change is <a href="http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PuzzleOf.pdf" title="fgcu.edu" rel="nofollow">very tricky</a> [fgcu.edu] because of the land changing elevation too, and as a result there are arguments about exactly what rate the rise is (1-2mm/yr), but it is very clear that it is rising, and there are plenty of places in the world where the rise since the 19th century has had a significant effect on human habitation, and where the continued rise at that rate is expected to make a greater impact in the future.</p><p>"What will it take? Perhaps you should spend time cracking a book on science instead of believing every alarmist prediction of the end of the world."</p><p>It's not the end of the world.  But I'm sure that's not much consolation to people living in, say, Holland.</p><p>It would be nice to have some citations to your other claims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cities and islands are not flooding .
The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since .
Tuvalu 's sea levels have remained stable during that time .
" Yes , there are plenty of places where sea level is falling .
Want something more dramatic ?
The area around Hudson 's Bay is experiencing quite rapid sea level fall , and that has been the case for thousands of years ( you can see the stranded beaches along the coast for many kilometres inland ) .
Why ? Because the land is rising faster than the global sea level is , and the mechanism in this case is the removal of the weight of the glaciers that used to exist around Hudson 's Bay .
This sort of effect is true of all sorts of places in the world : the land moves up and down due to local and regional tectonics .
All you 've discovered is that if you cherry pick appropriate places , you can find contrary examples to the global trend .
It 's the same thing for glacier advance and retreat .
But if you look at the average trend , it 's flagrantly obvious which way sea level is going : up.Measuring global sea level change is very tricky [ fgcu.edu ] because of the land changing elevation too , and as a result there are arguments about exactly what rate the rise is ( 1-2mm/yr ) , but it is very clear that it is rising , and there are plenty of places in the world where the rise since the 19th century has had a significant effect on human habitation , and where the continued rise at that rate is expected to make a greater impact in the future .
" What will it take ?
Perhaps you should spend time cracking a book on science instead of believing every alarmist prediction of the end of the world .
" It 's not the end of the world .
But I 'm sure that 's not much consolation to people living in , say , Holland.It would be nice to have some citations to your other claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cities and islands are not flooding.
The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since.
Tuvalu's sea levels have remained stable during that time.
"Yes, there are plenty of places where sea level is falling.
Want something more dramatic?
The area around Hudson's Bay is experiencing quite rapid sea level fall, and that has been the case for thousands of years (you can see the stranded beaches along the coast for many kilometres inland).
Why?  Because the land is rising faster than the global sea level is, and the mechanism in this case is the removal of the weight of the glaciers that used to exist around Hudson's Bay.
This sort of effect is true of all sorts of places in the world: the land moves up and down due to local and regional tectonics.
All you've discovered is that if you cherry pick appropriate places, you can find contrary examples to the global trend.
It's the same thing for glacier advance and retreat.
But if you look at the average trend, it's flagrantly obvious which way sea level is going: up.Measuring global sea level change is very tricky [fgcu.edu] because of the land changing elevation too, and as a result there are arguments about exactly what rate the rise is (1-2mm/yr), but it is very clear that it is rising, and there are plenty of places in the world where the rise since the 19th century has had a significant effect on human habitation, and where the continued rise at that rate is expected to make a greater impact in the future.
"What will it take?
Perhaps you should spend time cracking a book on science instead of believing every alarmist prediction of the end of the world.
"It's not the end of the world.
But I'm sure that's not much consolation to people living in, say, Holland.It would be nice to have some citations to your other claims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874368</id>
	<title>to all the eco-fascists:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAH</p><p>YOU LIE!</p><p>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.<br>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.<br>Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHYOU LIE ! Filter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING.Filter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING.Filter error : Do n't use so many caps .
It 's like YELLING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHYOU LIE!Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.Filter error: Don't use so many caps.
It's like YELLING.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877020</id>
	<title>Re:Discovered by "crackpots", initially</title>
	<author>Tycho</author>
	<datestamp>1264330680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there may be an idea or two that are currently considered "crackpot" that will eventually become mainstream, however, there are a a million other ideas that will never leave the "crackpot" category.  The small number of ideas that end up making this transition still requires evidence to make that move.  In the case of global warming, one or two isolated mistakes or revisions out of a million pieces of supporting evidence does not invalidate global warming and certainly does not indicate that either nothing is happening or that the world is cooling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there may be an idea or two that are currently considered " crackpot " that will eventually become mainstream , however , there are a a million other ideas that will never leave the " crackpot " category .
The small number of ideas that end up making this transition still requires evidence to make that move .
In the case of global warming , one or two isolated mistakes or revisions out of a million pieces of supporting evidence does not invalidate global warming and certainly does not indicate that either nothing is happening or that the world is cooling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there may be an idea or two that are currently considered "crackpot" that will eventually become mainstream, however, there are a a million other ideas that will never leave the "crackpot" category.
The small number of ideas that end up making this transition still requires evidence to make that move.
In the case of global warming, one or two isolated mistakes or revisions out of a million pieces of supporting evidence does not invalidate global warming and certainly does not indicate that either nothing is happening or that the world is cooling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875902</id>
	<title>Re:"Authority"?</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1264270260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone name one specific, numerically-quantified prediction made by IPCC researchers that has actually come to pass, by means other than obvious coincidence or luck?</p></div><p>Yes but we'll need to wait fifty years for that answer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone name one specific , numerically-quantified prediction made by IPCC researchers that has actually come to pass , by means other than obvious coincidence or luck ? Yes but we 'll need to wait fifty years for that answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone name one specific, numerically-quantified prediction made by IPCC researchers that has actually come to pass, by means other than obvious coincidence or luck?Yes but we'll need to wait fifty years for that answer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30879296</id>
	<title>IPCC Climate Gate Emails</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the IPCC climate gate emails, most Americans see the IPCC as a corrupt extreme left ideological organization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the IPCC climate gate emails , most Americans see the IPCC as a corrupt extreme left ideological organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the IPCC climate gate emails, most Americans see the IPCC as a corrupt extreme left ideological organization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874202</id>
	<title>Haha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264254660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Global warming doesn't exist you fucking morons grow some ball</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global warming does n't exist you fucking morons grow some ball</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global warming doesn't exist you fucking morons grow some ball</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875888</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1264270140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered, then the public <i>*should*</i> lose faith in the claims of science.</p><p>Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned, anyway?</p></div><p>But science is still the best we've got. Considering we live in a society where people still forward chain letters, and avoid walking under ladders; I'd take slightly questionable science over the lay persons so-called 'common sense' in a heart beat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered , then the public * should * lose faith in the claims of science.Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned , anyway ? But science is still the best we 've got .
Considering we live in a society where people still forward chain letters , and avoid walking under ladders ; I 'd take slightly questionable science over the lay persons so-called 'common sense ' in a heart beat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered, then the public *should* lose faith in the claims of science.Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned, anyway?But science is still the best we've got.
Considering we live in a society where people still forward chain letters, and avoid walking under ladders; I'd take slightly questionable science over the lay persons so-called 'common sense' in a heart beat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874692</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1264259640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> <b>faith</b> in the claims of <b>science</b> </i></p><p>That word you keep using...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>faith in the claims of science That word you keep using.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> faith in the claims of science That word you keep using...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874216</id>
	<title>IT WAS NOT A TYPO</title>
	<author>Coolhand2120</author>
	<datestamp>1264254780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the URL at the bottom:<blockquote><div><p>"But he [Rajenda Pachauri (Head of the IPCC)] admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br> <br>
"A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m -- a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br> <br>
"I [Professor Hasnain] was keeping quiet as I was working here," he said. "My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?"</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
My opinion:
This is the only section of the IPCC under critical review right now.  Do you really think are not "other errors" elsewhere in the report that make "innocent mistakes" that mischaracterize actual observations to the tune of x10-x100 the actual observations that always seem to error on the side of promoting AGW?  Billions of dollars of funding are awarded to scientists substantiate the theories that their political check writers want, this is the poison in the science! After all, this error was not until recently 'pointed out' by Prof. Hasnain because he was afraid of the "might of the IPCC".  Still think it's not a house of cards?  Just wait until public opinion shifts enough for scientists to speak critically of the report without the threat of losing their job and/or funding.

<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece</a> [timesonline.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the URL at the bottom : " But he [ Rajenda Pachauri ( Head of the IPCC ) ] admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report , and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible .
" .. . " A table below says that between 1845 and 1965 , the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m -- a rate of 135.2m a year .
The actual rate is only 23.5m a year .
" .. . " I [ Professor Hasnain ] was keeping quiet as I was working here , " he said .
" My job is not to point out mistakes .
And you know the might of the IPCC .
What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out ?
" My opinion : This is the only section of the IPCC under critical review right now .
Do you really think are not " other errors " elsewhere in the report that make " innocent mistakes " that mischaracterize actual observations to the tune of x10-x100 the actual observations that always seem to error on the side of promoting AGW ?
Billions of dollars of funding are awarded to scientists substantiate the theories that their political check writers want , this is the poison in the science !
After all , this error was not until recently 'pointed out ' by Prof. Hasnain because he was afraid of the " might of the IPCC " .
Still think it 's not a house of cards ?
Just wait until public opinion shifts enough for scientists to speak critically of the report without the threat of losing their job and/or funding .
http : //www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece [ timesonline.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the URL at the bottom:"But he [Rajenda Pachauri (Head of the IPCC)] admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.
" ... 
"A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m -- a rate of 135.2m a year.
The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.
" ... 
"I [Professor Hasnain] was keeping quiet as I was working here," he said.
"My job is not to point out mistakes.
And you know the might of the IPCC.
What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?
"

My opinion:
This is the only section of the IPCC under critical review right now.
Do you really think are not "other errors" elsewhere in the report that make "innocent mistakes" that mischaracterize actual observations to the tune of x10-x100 the actual observations that always seem to error on the side of promoting AGW?
Billions of dollars of funding are awarded to scientists substantiate the theories that their political check writers want, this is the poison in the science!
After all, this error was not until recently 'pointed out' by Prof. Hasnain because he was afraid of the "might of the IPCC".
Still think it's not a house of cards?
Just wait until public opinion shifts enough for scientists to speak critically of the report without the threat of losing their job and/or funding.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874282</id>
	<title>Mind the deniers</title>
	<author>diretalk</author>
	<datestamp>1264255380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the story at
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/</a> [realclimate.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the story at http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/ [ realclimate.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the story at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/ [realclimate.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876974</id>
	<title>Scientist caught the error, not Franklin Graham</title>
	<author>leftie</author>
	<datestamp>1264329600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one thing, it was a scientist using the scientific method that found the error, not a minister praying for wisdom</p><p>That's part of the Scientific Method</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Ask a Question<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Do Background Research<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Construct a Hypothesis<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Communicate Your Results</p><p>Test and verify is science, not religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one thing , it was a scientist using the scientific method that found the error , not a minister praying for wisdomThat 's part of the Scientific Method         * Ask a Question         * Do Background Research         * Construct a Hypothesis         * Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment         * Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion         * Communicate Your ResultsTest and verify is science , not religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one thing, it was a scientist using the scientific method that found the error, not a minister praying for wisdomThat's part of the Scientific Method
        * Ask a Question
        * Do Background Research
        * Construct a Hypothesis
        * Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
        * Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
        * Communicate Your ResultsTest and verify is science, not religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874098</id>
	<title>Overstated issue by deniers</title>
	<author>diretalk</author>
	<datestamp>1264253760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The deniers are again at it to overstate this issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The deniers are again at it to overstate this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The deniers are again at it to overstate this issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874984</id>
	<title>Re:"Authority"?</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1264261920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like this:<br><a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year" title="climateprogress.org">http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year</a> [climateprogress.org]</p><p>Completely in agreement with climate models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like this : http : //climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year [ climateprogress.org ] Completely in agreement with climate models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like this:http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year [climateprogress.org]Completely in agreement with climate models.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874436</id>
	<title>obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems the spectacular Himalayan glacier scientific expedition just vanished Into Thin Air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems the spectacular Himalayan glacier scientific expedition just vanished Into Thin Air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems the spectacular Himalayan glacier scientific expedition just vanished Into Thin Air.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30886074</id>
	<title>I guess it's what they're saying....</title>
	<author>rickshaf</author>
	<datestamp>1264355340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It used to be that the big error of many scientists was to make studies of studies.  Now, it appears that studies of news reports of studies are becoming acceptable.  Are climate scientists the mysterious "they" that they're always talkiing about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It used to be that the big error of many scientists was to make studies of studies .
Now , it appears that studies of news reports of studies are becoming acceptable .
Are climate scientists the mysterious " they " that they 're always talkiing about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It used to be that the big error of many scientists was to make studies of studies.
Now, it appears that studies of news reports of studies are becoming acceptable.
Are climate scientists the mysterious "they" that they're always talkiing about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874408</id>
	<title>Graphs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went off <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=global+temperature+trends&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.com">looking for charts of global temperature</a> [google.com] and I <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif" title="nasa.gov">found this</a> [nasa.gov] but along the way I <a href="http://www.longrangeweather.com/global\_temperatures.htm" title="longrangeweather.com">discovered a meteorologist called Randy Mann</a> [longrangeweather.com].</p><p>So if you trust NASA there has been a steady increase in global temperature from 1900 accelerating in 1920 and about 1965. Must be my fault. I was born in 1965.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went off looking for charts of global temperature [ google.com ] and I found this [ nasa.gov ] but along the way I discovered a meteorologist called Randy Mann [ longrangeweather.com ] .So if you trust NASA there has been a steady increase in global temperature from 1900 accelerating in 1920 and about 1965 .
Must be my fault .
I was born in 1965 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went off looking for charts of global temperature [google.com] and I found this [nasa.gov] but along the way I discovered a meteorologist called Randy Mann [longrangeweather.com].So if you trust NASA there has been a steady increase in global temperature from 1900 accelerating in 1920 and about 1965.
Must be my fault.
I was born in 1965.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878264</id>
	<title>Peer review is an important part of science</title>
	<author>heidaro</author>
	<datestamp>1264348800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as the IPCC are not having their research peer reviewed I would be careful to call it science at all. Peer review is an important part of science and any scientist will tell you this, including the many names who quit IPCC because of this very issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the IPCC are not having their research peer reviewed I would be careful to call it science at all .
Peer review is an important part of science and any scientist will tell you this , including the many names who quit IPCC because of this very issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the IPCC are not having their research peer reviewed I would be careful to call it science at all.
Peer review is an important part of science and any scientist will tell you this, including the many names who quit IPCC because of this very issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</id>
	<title>There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>Dasher42</author>
	<datestamp>1264254180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is something absolutely wrong with the kind of media coverage.  You're telling me that a transposition of digits within a report full of otherwise solid information is "highly damaging"?  This is a false sense of even-handedness at best.</p><p>How is solid evidence of <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp" title="nrdc.org" rel="nofollow">shrinking polar caps</a> [nrdc.org] not highly damaging?  The hard empirical fact that we've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~280 parts per million to over 370?  The increasing ocean acidity from absorbing this increased CO2?  The fact that widespread deforestation in the midst of de-sequestering carbon locked in oil and carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere on this level has a significant impact?</p><p>The question that will matter to all of us in coming years is not whether the IPCC had, in the midst of a large report of substance, accidentally transposed numbers when discussing a real and dangerous trend.  It's not about whether or not you like Al Gore.  It's not about the way scientists chattered in their emails while creating and testing computer simulations.  This coverage of personality cult or anti-cult, the minor gaffes in an overwhelming body of documented evidence being treated even-handedly as if it thwarts all the rest, it is responsible for promoting complacency or belligerency in the face of a severe environmental threat.</p><p>Will we come to our senses already, or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is something absolutely wrong with the kind of media coverage .
You 're telling me that a transposition of digits within a report full of otherwise solid information is " highly damaging " ?
This is a false sense of even-handedness at best.How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps [ nrdc.org ] not highly damaging ?
The hard empirical fact that we 've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~ 280 parts per million to over 370 ?
The increasing ocean acidity from absorbing this increased CO2 ?
The fact that widespread deforestation in the midst of de-sequestering carbon locked in oil and carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere on this level has a significant impact ? The question that will matter to all of us in coming years is not whether the IPCC had , in the midst of a large report of substance , accidentally transposed numbers when discussing a real and dangerous trend .
It 's not about whether or not you like Al Gore .
It 's not about the way scientists chattered in their emails while creating and testing computer simulations .
This coverage of personality cult or anti-cult , the minor gaffes in an overwhelming body of documented evidence being treated even-handedly as if it thwarts all the rest , it is responsible for promoting complacency or belligerency in the face of a severe environmental threat.Will we come to our senses already , or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is something absolutely wrong with the kind of media coverage.
You're telling me that a transposition of digits within a report full of otherwise solid information is "highly damaging"?
This is a false sense of even-handedness at best.How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps [nrdc.org] not highly damaging?
The hard empirical fact that we've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~280 parts per million to over 370?
The increasing ocean acidity from absorbing this increased CO2?
The fact that widespread deforestation in the midst of de-sequestering carbon locked in oil and carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere on this level has a significant impact?The question that will matter to all of us in coming years is not whether the IPCC had, in the midst of a large report of substance, accidentally transposed numbers when discussing a real and dangerous trend.
It's not about whether or not you like Al Gore.
It's not about the way scientists chattered in their emails while creating and testing computer simulations.
This coverage of personality cult or anti-cult, the minor gaffes in an overwhelming body of documented evidence being treated even-handedly as if it thwarts all the rest, it is responsible for promoting complacency or belligerency in the face of a severe environmental threat.Will we come to our senses already, or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874376</id>
	<title>Re:Global warming hoax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the future most politicians will be replaced by the following bash script (no need for Python due to the extremely simple nature of functionality).<blockquote><div><p> <tt>#!/bin/bash<br># Generate a crisis in order to gain political power, and implement<br># all the things I want to implement anyway on the pretext of saving<br># the nation from the crisis. Muhahaha.<br> <br>for manbearpig in "terrorists" "poverty" "drugs" \<br>"Communism" "pro-lifers" "liberals" "child molesters" \<br>"Islamists" "heart disease" "conservatives" \<br>"Fox News" "man-made climate change"<br>do<br>  cat &lt;&lt;EOF<br>We must all work together to end the threat of ${manbearpig}. The Government has consulted top scientists and determined a plan that will significantly reduce the risk to the nation posed by ${manbearpig}. All you need to do is believe everything we say, do everything we ask, and viciously attack anyone who isn't cooperating, because those guys are part of the problem, not the solution. Only by working together can we be saved from ${manbearpig}, which will otherwise surely destroy us all. Won't somebody please think of the children?<br>EOF<br>done<br> <br># TODO: add more crises to convince those not taken in<br># by the lies listed above.</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future most politicians will be replaced by the following bash script ( no need for Python due to the extremely simple nature of functionality ) .
# ! /bin/bash # Generate a crisis in order to gain political power , and implement # all the things I want to implement anyway on the pretext of saving # the nation from the crisis .
Muhahaha. for manbearpig in " terrorists " " poverty " " drugs " \ " Communism " " pro-lifers " " liberals " " child molesters " \ " Islamists " " heart disease " " conservatives " \ " Fox News " " man-made climate change " do cat We must all work together to end the threat of $ { manbearpig } .
The Government has consulted top scientists and determined a plan that will significantly reduce the risk to the nation posed by $ { manbearpig } .
All you need to do is believe everything we say , do everything we ask , and viciously attack anyone who is n't cooperating , because those guys are part of the problem , not the solution .
Only by working together can we be saved from $ { manbearpig } , which will otherwise surely destroy us all .
Wo n't somebody please think of the children ? EOFdone # TODO : add more crises to convince those not taken in # by the lies listed above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future most politicians will be replaced by the following bash script (no need for Python due to the extremely simple nature of functionality).
#!/bin/bash# Generate a crisis in order to gain political power, and implement# all the things I want to implement anyway on the pretext of saving# the nation from the crisis.
Muhahaha. for manbearpig in "terrorists" "poverty" "drugs" \"Communism" "pro-lifers" "liberals" "child molesters" \"Islamists" "heart disease" "conservatives" \"Fox News" "man-made climate change"do  cat We must all work together to end the threat of ${manbearpig}.
The Government has consulted top scientists and determined a plan that will significantly reduce the risk to the nation posed by ${manbearpig}.
All you need to do is believe everything we say, do everything we ask, and viciously attack anyone who isn't cooperating, because those guys are part of the problem, not the solution.
Only by working together can we be saved from ${manbearpig}, which will otherwise surely destroy us all.
Won't somebody please think of the children?EOFdone # TODO: add more crises to convince those not taken in# by the lies listed above. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875002</id>
	<title>Re:Has anyone looked at the most recent photograph</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1264262040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any reason we should want your opinion more than that of the scientists studying them, who say that there is no way they will disappear by 2035?  I mean, if you have some real evidence, a real reason to think that those scientists are wrong, bring your evidence.  But saying "wow, that picture changed!" isn't enough.  The scientists know how much the glaciers have retreated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any reason we should want your opinion more than that of the scientists studying them , who say that there is no way they will disappear by 2035 ?
I mean , if you have some real evidence , a real reason to think that those scientists are wrong , bring your evidence .
But saying " wow , that picture changed !
" is n't enough .
The scientists know how much the glaciers have retreated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any reason we should want your opinion more than that of the scientists studying them, who say that there is no way they will disappear by 2035?
I mean, if you have some real evidence, a real reason to think that those scientists are wrong, bring your evidence.
But saying "wow, that picture changed!
" isn't enough.
The scientists know how much the glaciers have retreated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876194</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't even an error, it was INTENTIONAL!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264273500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now find a reputable source making the same claim, and we'll talk.  When the National Enquirer / Daily Mail / Fox News says something, it's a pretty good idea to vet it with facts from a less biased or less fantasy-based source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now find a reputable source making the same claim , and we 'll talk .
When the National Enquirer / Daily Mail / Fox News says something , it 's a pretty good idea to vet it with facts from a less biased or less fantasy-based source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now find a reputable source making the same claim, and we'll talk.
When the National Enquirer / Daily Mail / Fox News says something, it's a pretty good idea to vet it with facts from a less biased or less fantasy-based source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878254</id>
	<title>Deniers</title>
	<author>jmkrtyuio</author>
	<datestamp>1264348740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One cannot appeal to scientific authority and utilize the label of denier for their opponents simultaneously. To label as a denier your opponent casts yourself as a believer. Belief is religion and it is not science.</p><p>As all the shrill AGW voices have managed to use that term in one way or another, I categorically cast them as believers, and their claimed science is tainted beyond recovery by their religion and its biases.</p><p>What is left is the logic of the rational mind which considers the great ball of fire in the sky and wonders what all the fuss about a degree or two global change in a enormously huge and complex system that nobody comes even close to understanding. The logical conclusion lies in the old saw. "Follow the money".</p><p>The science is not science and the claimed scientist are all frauds and scamsters along with the global voices championing life style changes for the masses while living high on the hog. Let them move into a cave first.</p><p>Richard Stallman is my model for the modern prophet in the wilderness. He talked the talk AND he walked the walk. Which of the AGW prophets is doing that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can not appeal to scientific authority and utilize the label of denier for their opponents simultaneously .
To label as a denier your opponent casts yourself as a believer .
Belief is religion and it is not science.As all the shrill AGW voices have managed to use that term in one way or another , I categorically cast them as believers , and their claimed science is tainted beyond recovery by their religion and its biases.What is left is the logic of the rational mind which considers the great ball of fire in the sky and wonders what all the fuss about a degree or two global change in a enormously huge and complex system that nobody comes even close to understanding .
The logical conclusion lies in the old saw .
" Follow the money " .The science is not science and the claimed scientist are all frauds and scamsters along with the global voices championing life style changes for the masses while living high on the hog .
Let them move into a cave first.Richard Stallman is my model for the modern prophet in the wilderness .
He talked the talk AND he walked the walk .
Which of the AGW prophets is doing that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One cannot appeal to scientific authority and utilize the label of denier for their opponents simultaneously.
To label as a denier your opponent casts yourself as a believer.
Belief is religion and it is not science.As all the shrill AGW voices have managed to use that term in one way or another, I categorically cast them as believers, and their claimed science is tainted beyond recovery by their religion and its biases.What is left is the logic of the rational mind which considers the great ball of fire in the sky and wonders what all the fuss about a degree or two global change in a enormously huge and complex system that nobody comes even close to understanding.
The logical conclusion lies in the old saw.
"Follow the money".The science is not science and the claimed scientist are all frauds and scamsters along with the global voices championing life style changes for the masses while living high on the hog.
Let them move into a cave first.Richard Stallman is my model for the modern prophet in the wilderness.
He talked the talk AND he walked the walk.
Which of the AGW prophets is doing that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875696</id>
	<title>Re:Peer review?</title>
	<author>smidget2k4</author>
	<datestamp>1264268580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was unaware of any scientific "bashing" of Behe, just that he had been throughly debunked by scientists in the field, but yet never updated his evidence, provided insight into the design process, or did anything except to pose some interesting (and later properly debunked in peer reviewed literature) thought problems and write books/tour the country/give talks that said "Ok, so, God did it because biology can't explain all of this crap yet."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was unaware of any scientific " bashing " of Behe , just that he had been throughly debunked by scientists in the field , but yet never updated his evidence , provided insight into the design process , or did anything except to pose some interesting ( and later properly debunked in peer reviewed literature ) thought problems and write books/tour the country/give talks that said " Ok , so , God did it because biology ca n't explain all of this crap yet .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was unaware of any scientific "bashing" of Behe, just that he had been throughly debunked by scientists in the field, but yet never updated his evidence, provided insight into the design process, or did anything except to pose some interesting (and later properly debunked in peer reviewed literature) thought problems and write books/tour the country/give talks that said "Ok, so, God did it because biology can't explain all of this crap yet.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30879294</id>
	<title>they mixed it up with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the year of Linux on the desktop</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the year of Linux on the desktop</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the year of Linux on the desktop</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30884132</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1264340160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Will we come to our senses already, or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first?"</p><p>What I find most ironic is that the measures taken by the "sensible" have ALREADY caused the prices of food to go up.  From that viewpoint, why NOT delay the pain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Will we come to our senses already , or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first ?
" What I find most ironic is that the measures taken by the " sensible " have ALREADY caused the prices of food to go up .
From that viewpoint , why NOT delay the pain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Will we come to our senses already, or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first?
"What I find most ironic is that the measures taken by the "sensible" have ALREADY caused the prices of food to go up.
From that viewpoint, why NOT delay the pain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874332</id>
	<title>It wasn't even an error, it was INTENTIONAL!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264255800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.<br> <br>
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.<br> <br>
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
'It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.'</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html" title="dailymail.co.uk">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html</a> [dailymail.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders .
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement , in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) , did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research .
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday , Dr Lal , the co-ordinating lead author of the report 's chapter on Asia , said : 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources .
We thought that if we can highlight it , it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action .
'It had importance for the region , so we thought we should put it in .
' http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html [ dailymail.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources.
We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
'It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.
'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html [dailymail.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877630</id>
	<title>Scientific method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264341240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that we need to take a step back and take a good look at one of the fundamental properties of science: that it's based on the fact that humans make mistakes. Think about it:</p><p>1. Observe something.</p><p>2. Formulate a hypothesis that explains what you observe.</p><p>3. Conduct an experiment to test your hypothesis.</p><p>4. Observe your experiment.</p><p>5. Modify your hypothesis to match your observations (and not the other way around).</p><p>6. Go back to step 3.</p><p>For those of you that are scientifically challenged, this is known as the scientific method. It is based on the fact that we don't know everything and that we will make mistakes in our observations. Yes, there are controls in place to minimize mistakes, but it's still based on our tendency to make mistakes. It's an endless process that continually perfects our knowledge.</p><p>Now, this is a moot issue if, indeed, it was something like the Ferris Beuller quote: "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with this girl who saw<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>That's not too scientific.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that we need to take a step back and take a good look at one of the fundamental properties of science : that it 's based on the fact that humans make mistakes .
Think about it : 1 .
Observe something.2 .
Formulate a hypothesis that explains what you observe.3 .
Conduct an experiment to test your hypothesis.4 .
Observe your experiment.5 .
Modify your hypothesis to match your observations ( and not the other way around ) .6 .
Go back to step 3.For those of you that are scientifically challenged , this is known as the scientific method .
It is based on the fact that we do n't know everything and that we will make mistakes in our observations .
Yes , there are controls in place to minimize mistakes , but it 's still based on our tendency to make mistakes .
It 's an endless process that continually perfects our knowledge.Now , this is a moot issue if , indeed , it was something like the Ferris Beuller quote : " My best friend 's sister 's boyfriend 's brother 's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who 's going with this girl who saw ... " That 's not too scientific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that we need to take a step back and take a good look at one of the fundamental properties of science: that it's based on the fact that humans make mistakes.
Think about it:1.
Observe something.2.
Formulate a hypothesis that explains what you observe.3.
Conduct an experiment to test your hypothesis.4.
Observe your experiment.5.
Modify your hypothesis to match your observations (and not the other way around).6.
Go back to step 3.For those of you that are scientifically challenged, this is known as the scientific method.
It is based on the fact that we don't know everything and that we will make mistakes in our observations.
Yes, there are controls in place to minimize mistakes, but it's still based on our tendency to make mistakes.
It's an endless process that continually perfects our knowledge.Now, this is a moot issue if, indeed, it was something like the Ferris Beuller quote: "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with this girl who saw ..."That's not too scientific.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092</id>
	<title>Shhhh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264253700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think that's bad, for each of these errors that gets publicized, vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever, including support for man-made global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think that 's bad , for each of these errors that gets publicized , vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever , including support for man-made global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think that's bad, for each of these errors that gets publicized, vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever, including support for man-made global warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874200</id>
	<title>Again, the deniers post on Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264254660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the real story, read RealClimate,<br><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/</a> [realclimate.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the real story , read RealClimate,http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/ [ realclimate.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the real story, read RealClimate,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/ [realclimate.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30882024</id>
	<title>all this warms an old skeptics heart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264327080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not but a few years ago i was arguing simple skepticisms against the believed infallibility of the IPCC report. even simple things like if the report's short term predictions turn out wrong, as they were (significantly overshot or under, regardless), what does this say of the scientists' understanding of the data, or even the integrity of the data itself?</p><p>shouldnt take much imagination to guess what i was met with. im not looking for pity, im just glad things are more balanced these days. men agreeing is but men agreeing, and science has little worth for that. it shouldnt matter if youre a climatologist expert or a 7 yr old. finding an error is finding an error. it shouldnt matter the title of who found it.</p><p>which brings me to my last point. when i was arguing skepticisms regarding the IPCC report, i purposely made myself sound quasi-retarded while properly making legitimate arguments (to greater fuel the then mega-anti-denier mentality...for fun), and what was the result?</p><p>PEOPLE CARED MORE ABOUT HOW I WAS SAYING THINGS RATHER THAN WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY SAYING. id misspell words, use run-on sentences and ridiculous metaphors, usually involving various degrees of racism and sexism. and, under it all, were legitimate points.</p><p>less than 1\% of people sided with me in my skepticism, and over 75\% of those people sided with me only because my style of writing was complementary to their own.</p><p>so, if anything, if youre an insecure cunt criticizing someone for their grammar or spelling rather than what theyre actually saying (or trying to say), stop failing at life.</p><p>now im just glad to see the IPCC doesnt go unquestioned, and skepticism has found itself some proper footing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not but a few years ago i was arguing simple skepticisms against the believed infallibility of the IPCC report .
even simple things like if the report 's short term predictions turn out wrong , as they were ( significantly overshot or under , regardless ) , what does this say of the scientists ' understanding of the data , or even the integrity of the data itself ? shouldnt take much imagination to guess what i was met with .
im not looking for pity , im just glad things are more balanced these days .
men agreeing is but men agreeing , and science has little worth for that .
it shouldnt matter if youre a climatologist expert or a 7 yr old .
finding an error is finding an error .
it shouldnt matter the title of who found it.which brings me to my last point .
when i was arguing skepticisms regarding the IPCC report , i purposely made myself sound quasi-retarded while properly making legitimate arguments ( to greater fuel the then mega-anti-denier mentality...for fun ) , and what was the result ? PEOPLE CARED MORE ABOUT HOW I WAS SAYING THINGS RATHER THAN WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY SAYING .
id misspell words , use run-on sentences and ridiculous metaphors , usually involving various degrees of racism and sexism .
and , under it all , were legitimate points.less than 1 \ % of people sided with me in my skepticism , and over 75 \ % of those people sided with me only because my style of writing was complementary to their own.so , if anything , if youre an insecure cunt criticizing someone for their grammar or spelling rather than what theyre actually saying ( or trying to say ) , stop failing at life.now im just glad to see the IPCC doesnt go unquestioned , and skepticism has found itself some proper footing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not but a few years ago i was arguing simple skepticisms against the believed infallibility of the IPCC report.
even simple things like if the report's short term predictions turn out wrong, as they were (significantly overshot or under, regardless), what does this say of the scientists' understanding of the data, or even the integrity of the data itself?shouldnt take much imagination to guess what i was met with.
im not looking for pity, im just glad things are more balanced these days.
men agreeing is but men agreeing, and science has little worth for that.
it shouldnt matter if youre a climatologist expert or a 7 yr old.
finding an error is finding an error.
it shouldnt matter the title of who found it.which brings me to my last point.
when i was arguing skepticisms regarding the IPCC report, i purposely made myself sound quasi-retarded while properly making legitimate arguments (to greater fuel the then mega-anti-denier mentality...for fun), and what was the result?PEOPLE CARED MORE ABOUT HOW I WAS SAYING THINGS RATHER THAN WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY SAYING.
id misspell words, use run-on sentences and ridiculous metaphors, usually involving various degrees of racism and sexism.
and, under it all, were legitimate points.less than 1\% of people sided with me in my skepticism, and over 75\% of those people sided with me only because my style of writing was complementary to their own.so, if anything, if youre an insecure cunt criticizing someone for their grammar or spelling rather than what theyre actually saying (or trying to say), stop failing at life.now im just glad to see the IPCC doesnt go unquestioned, and skepticism has found itself some proper footing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874214</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1264254720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any correction of error, whether by you or anyone else, is a good thing.  It gets you closer to an accurate picture of reality.</p><p>I've managed to internalize this viewpoint.  It wasn't easy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  But now, when I make a coding mistake and it's pointed out to me, I actually feel good about it.  Getting that way took a lot of practice.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any correction of error , whether by you or anyone else , is a good thing .
It gets you closer to an accurate picture of reality.I 've managed to internalize this viewpoint .
It was n't easy .
: ) But now , when I make a coding mistake and it 's pointed out to me , I actually feel good about it .
Getting that way took a lot of practice .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any correction of error, whether by you or anyone else, is a good thing.
It gets you closer to an accurate picture of reality.I've managed to internalize this viewpoint.
It wasn't easy.
:)  But now, when I make a coding mistake and it's pointed out to me, I actually feel good about it.
Getting that way took a lot of practice.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30884754</id>
	<title>Re:Global warming hoax</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264344720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unfortunately Slashdot is overrun by
morons these days.</p></div></blockquote><p>

By moron, I assume you mean anti-intelectuals who use thought-terminating clich&#233;'s instead of actual evidence. In that case you are quite correct and part of the problem.<br> <br>

The OP was modded down because he is wrong, further more doesn't actually provide evidence.</p><blockquote><div><p>Keep it up. They're losing the argument.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Here in lies the problem with your argument (and the OP's), instead of attacking science, which you cant you attack the scientists. Ad Hominem attacks and thought-terminating clich&#233;'s are not evidence.<br> <br>

Just like when the church locked up Galileo for suggesting people go against the groupthink that the sun revolved around the earth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately Slashdot is overrun by morons these days .
By moron , I assume you mean anti-intelectuals who use thought-terminating clich   's instead of actual evidence .
In that case you are quite correct and part of the problem .
The OP was modded down because he is wrong , further more does n't actually provide evidence.Keep it up .
They 're losing the argument .
Here in lies the problem with your argument ( and the OP 's ) , instead of attacking science , which you cant you attack the scientists .
Ad Hominem attacks and thought-terminating clich   's are not evidence .
Just like when the church locked up Galileo for suggesting people go against the groupthink that the sun revolved around the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately Slashdot is overrun by
morons these days.
By moron, I assume you mean anti-intelectuals who use thought-terminating cliché's instead of actual evidence.
In that case you are quite correct and part of the problem.
The OP was modded down because he is wrong, further more doesn't actually provide evidence.Keep it up.
They're losing the argument.
Here in lies the problem with your argument (and the OP's), instead of attacking science, which you cant you attack the scientists.
Ad Hominem attacks and thought-terminating cliché's are not evidence.
Just like when the church locked up Galileo for suggesting people go against the groupthink that the sun revolved around the earth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875958</id>
	<title>Can glaciers actually vanish?</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1264270800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chacaltaya glacier in La Paz, Bolivia is <b>gone</b>:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/must-31/" title="nytimes.com">http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/must-31/</a> [nytimes.com]
<br> <br>
"100s of feet thick" they say. 2035 may be a made up number, but I really don't see how it isn't plausible speculation, even thought it'd be the ultimate worst case scenario.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chacaltaya glacier in La Paz , Bolivia is gone : http : //lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/must-31/ [ nytimes.com ] " 100s of feet thick " they say .
2035 may be a made up number , but I really do n't see how it is n't plausible speculation , even thought it 'd be the ultimate worst case scenario .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chacaltaya glacier in La Paz, Bolivia is gone:
 
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/must-31/ [nytimes.com]
 
"100s of feet thick" they say.
2035 may be a made up number, but I really don't see how it isn't plausible speculation, even thought it'd be the ultimate worst case scenario.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874154</id>
	<title>Traceability</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264254240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is how it works in the specifications I deal with. You start with a set of customer requirements and they go into <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/doors/productline/" title="ibm.com">DOORS</a> [ibm.com] which is a crap tool, its just better than all the alternatives. Then from that you generate system specifications which describe your system at a high level and technical specifications which pretty much how it is going to work. At any point you can point and click to trace back to the source of a particular requirement.</p><p>Now all of that has nothing to do with climate change (apart from the horrible overhead of those big binary doors files we keep copying around) but the concept is pretty straightforward.</p><p><b>When you write your intermediate and final documents you somehow retain traceability back to the source of the information, so that if one of your conclusions is based on crap assumptions then you can easily identify the problem.</b> </p><p>Its not hard. Just takes some experience in fairly professional technical writing. You don't have to use the craptastic tools. I have written doors like functionality into xslt, for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how it works in the specifications I deal with .
You start with a set of customer requirements and they go into DOORS [ ibm.com ] which is a crap tool , its just better than all the alternatives .
Then from that you generate system specifications which describe your system at a high level and technical specifications which pretty much how it is going to work .
At any point you can point and click to trace back to the source of a particular requirement.Now all of that has nothing to do with climate change ( apart from the horrible overhead of those big binary doors files we keep copying around ) but the concept is pretty straightforward.When you write your intermediate and final documents you somehow retain traceability back to the source of the information , so that if one of your conclusions is based on crap assumptions then you can easily identify the problem .
Its not hard .
Just takes some experience in fairly professional technical writing .
You do n't have to use the craptastic tools .
I have written doors like functionality into xslt , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how it works in the specifications I deal with.
You start with a set of customer requirements and they go into DOORS [ibm.com] which is a crap tool, its just better than all the alternatives.
Then from that you generate system specifications which describe your system at a high level and technical specifications which pretty much how it is going to work.
At any point you can point and click to trace back to the source of a particular requirement.Now all of that has nothing to do with climate change (apart from the horrible overhead of those big binary doors files we keep copying around) but the concept is pretty straightforward.When you write your intermediate and final documents you somehow retain traceability back to the source of the information, so that if one of your conclusions is based on crap assumptions then you can easily identify the problem.
Its not hard.
Just takes some experience in fairly professional technical writing.
You don't have to use the craptastic tools.
I have written doors like functionality into xslt, for example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875048</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1264262460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sorry, but I see the same thing happening with this whole Environmental and Global Warming thing. Are there real problems out there? Should be trying not to pollute? Yes. But the tactics these people are using remind me too much of what I saw from the Defense industry.</p></div><p>And if people with money were pushing this, you'd have a point, but they're not.  They're denying it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty. What happens if there is a massive Krakatoa type eruption in the next 50 years? Or in this case, the next 350 years? What if there continues to be a lack of sun spot activity for the next 350 years.</p></div><p>And Jesus can come, or an astroid can hit us, or aliens nuke us from orbit.  You're right.  As Joe Strummer said, "The future is unwritten."   So let's all raise a big middle finger to Al Roker and his "prediction" of "snow" and go outside wearing our bathing suits because, hey a massive solar flare might happen!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's happened before. Oh wait, the Little Ice Age was just a fluke right? We'd better adjust our data and pretend that it and the Medieval warm period never happened according to our models.</p></div><p>Or recognize a highly localized event for exactly what it was, and ignore the fact that during this anomaly, that the global temperature was actually 0.03 degrees Celsius <strong>cooler</strong> than average.</p><p>So in conclusion:  Fuck science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but I see the same thing happening with this whole Environmental and Global Warming thing .
Are there real problems out there ?
Should be trying not to pollute ?
Yes. But the tactics these people are using remind me too much of what I saw from the Defense industry.And if people with money were pushing this , you 'd have a point , but they 're not .
They 're denying it.None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty .
What happens if there is a massive Krakatoa type eruption in the next 50 years ?
Or in this case , the next 350 years ?
What if there continues to be a lack of sun spot activity for the next 350 years.And Jesus can come , or an astroid can hit us , or aliens nuke us from orbit .
You 're right .
As Joe Strummer said , " The future is unwritten .
" So let 's all raise a big middle finger to Al Roker and his " prediction " of " snow " and go outside wearing our bathing suits because , hey a massive solar flare might happen ! It 's happened before .
Oh wait , the Little Ice Age was just a fluke right ?
We 'd better adjust our data and pretend that it and the Medieval warm period never happened according to our models.Or recognize a highly localized event for exactly what it was , and ignore the fact that during this anomaly , that the global temperature was actually 0.03 degrees Celsius cooler than average.So in conclusion : Fuck science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but I see the same thing happening with this whole Environmental and Global Warming thing.
Are there real problems out there?
Should be trying not to pollute?
Yes. But the tactics these people are using remind me too much of what I saw from the Defense industry.And if people with money were pushing this, you'd have a point, but they're not.
They're denying it.None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty.
What happens if there is a massive Krakatoa type eruption in the next 50 years?
Or in this case, the next 350 years?
What if there continues to be a lack of sun spot activity for the next 350 years.And Jesus can come, or an astroid can hit us, or aliens nuke us from orbit.
You're right.
As Joe Strummer said, "The future is unwritten.
"   So let's all raise a big middle finger to Al Roker and his "prediction" of "snow" and go outside wearing our bathing suits because, hey a massive solar flare might happen!It's happened before.
Oh wait, the Little Ice Age was just a fluke right?
We'd better adjust our data and pretend that it and the Medieval warm period never happened according to our models.Or recognize a highly localized event for exactly what it was, and ignore the fact that during this anomaly, that the global temperature was actually 0.03 degrees Celsius cooler than average.So in conclusion:  Fuck science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877116</id>
	<title>Re:Has anyone looked at the most recent photograph</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1264332360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're tired of people's opinions, so no, we don't want yours. But thanks for asking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're tired of people 's opinions , so no , we do n't want yours .
But thanks for asking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're tired of people's opinions, so no, we don't want yours.
But thanks for asking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876566</id>
	<title>Re:Has anyone looked at the most recent photograph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264365240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my Science!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my Science !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my Science!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30879808</id>
	<title>Who needs facts?</title>
	<author>GottliebPins</author>
	<datestamp>1264358820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree we should continue to trust the reports from the IPCC, regardless of whether the data they use is made up or not. It's not the facts that matter but their intent. As long as we believe it's all man made is all that matters. It doesn't matter that their climate models can't even predict the weather accurately a week in advance, we need to give them the benefit of the doubt. I mean we all know the climate is changing, today it is raining, yesterday it wasn't, today it is cold, yesterday it wasn't. It's all our fault. If humans weren't on the earth then every day would be perfect, no hot, no cold, no droughts, no floods, no ice ages, no warm periods. The weather is all our fault! We must stop the weather or we will all die! So pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Listen to what the IPCC says. I mean when has the U.N. ever been wrong?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree we should continue to trust the reports from the IPCC , regardless of whether the data they use is made up or not .
It 's not the facts that matter but their intent .
As long as we believe it 's all man made is all that matters .
It does n't matter that their climate models ca n't even predict the weather accurately a week in advance , we need to give them the benefit of the doubt .
I mean we all know the climate is changing , today it is raining , yesterday it was n't , today it is cold , yesterday it was n't .
It 's all our fault .
If humans were n't on the earth then every day would be perfect , no hot , no cold , no droughts , no floods , no ice ages , no warm periods .
The weather is all our fault !
We must stop the weather or we will all die !
So pay no attention to the man behind the curtain .
Listen to what the IPCC says .
I mean when has the U.N. ever been wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree we should continue to trust the reports from the IPCC, regardless of whether the data they use is made up or not.
It's not the facts that matter but their intent.
As long as we believe it's all man made is all that matters.
It doesn't matter that their climate models can't even predict the weather accurately a week in advance, we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I mean we all know the climate is changing, today it is raining, yesterday it wasn't, today it is cold, yesterday it wasn't.
It's all our fault.
If humans weren't on the earth then every day would be perfect, no hot, no cold, no droughts, no floods, no ice ages, no warm periods.
The weather is all our fault!
We must stop the weather or we will all die!
So pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Listen to what the IPCC says.
I mean when has the U.N. ever been wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874108</id>
	<title>Dislexyia?</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1264253820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>which estimated that the glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035.</p> </div><p>Dislexyia... that would be my excuse if I were them...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>which estimated that the glaciers could disappear by 2350 , not 2035 .
Dislexyia... that would be my excuse if I were them... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which estimated that the glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035.
Dislexyia... that would be my excuse if I were them... :-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875384</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1264265520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Testable yes.  Fixable....not by the scientists it isn't.</p><p>They're not just presenting a theory.  They're presenting a course of action which will result in worldwide suffering and decreased standard of living, because they're asking us to "make due with less <em>energy</em>."</p><p>Not just carbon-spewing energy either, or the focus on shutting things down would be coal before oil before natural gas, and on bring things online like nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric power, as well as increased grid capacity because we'd be using electricity for ever increasing percentages of things.</p><p>But that's not what we're being asked to do.  We're being asked to replace all of our lights with mercury-filled, uv-leaking arc-lamps, even in places where they really aren't better than conventional incandescents.  We're being asked to take shorter showers, and they better not be hot showers.  And a whole host of other retail-level measures that will save maybe one plant in aggregate.</p><p>We're being asked to switch to lower yield farming techniques.  And to mingle our food supply with our transportation fuel supply.</p><p>And we're being asked this by <b>people who can't find parking for their private jets that they flew to the conference in</b>.  And we're being asked this because if we only just don't enjoy life, we'll save enough energy to be able to skip putting in a nuclear power plant or wind farm near a rich person's view of the nantucket shoals.</p><p>If the proponents believed in the problem (and I'm not saying there isn't one, only that the proponents are doing a terrible job of communicating it.  It's almost as if they <em>want</em> to shed doubt....) then they would be working to replace current levels of energy use with cleaner sources, not proselytizing the ascetic lifestyle that is every Calvinist's wet dream.</p><p>And after we go down that road, suppose the evidence suggests we didn't need to.  What will we do about the people who wasted time doing things the eco way that they could have spent doing things they enjoy?  What about the people who will have to use the 3kW medical machine that replaced the 5kW model that only worked 10\% more effectively?  What about the people who simply can't get food because there isn't enough energy somewhere in the chain to deliver it to them?  Or the coastal nation that must weather severe drought because they are prevented from building (energy intensive) desalination plants?</p><p>How will the scientists fix "monkeying with the economy" if they turn out to have made grave errors in the calculation?  It isn't a matter of publishing some errata and having work for another dozen grad students to write papers about.  There are real lives that will be affected if we base policy on this, so they better the f put some effort into keeping mistakes out of policy recommendations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Testable yes .
Fixable....not by the scientists it is n't.They 're not just presenting a theory .
They 're presenting a course of action which will result in worldwide suffering and decreased standard of living , because they 're asking us to " make due with less energy .
" Not just carbon-spewing energy either , or the focus on shutting things down would be coal before oil before natural gas , and on bring things online like nuclear , geothermal , and hydroelectric power , as well as increased grid capacity because we 'd be using electricity for ever increasing percentages of things.But that 's not what we 're being asked to do .
We 're being asked to replace all of our lights with mercury-filled , uv-leaking arc-lamps , even in places where they really are n't better than conventional incandescents .
We 're being asked to take shorter showers , and they better not be hot showers .
And a whole host of other retail-level measures that will save maybe one plant in aggregate.We 're being asked to switch to lower yield farming techniques .
And to mingle our food supply with our transportation fuel supply.And we 're being asked this by people who ca n't find parking for their private jets that they flew to the conference in .
And we 're being asked this because if we only just do n't enjoy life , we 'll save enough energy to be able to skip putting in a nuclear power plant or wind farm near a rich person 's view of the nantucket shoals.If the proponents believed in the problem ( and I 'm not saying there is n't one , only that the proponents are doing a terrible job of communicating it .
It 's almost as if they want to shed doubt.... ) then they would be working to replace current levels of energy use with cleaner sources , not proselytizing the ascetic lifestyle that is every Calvinist 's wet dream.And after we go down that road , suppose the evidence suggests we did n't need to .
What will we do about the people who wasted time doing things the eco way that they could have spent doing things they enjoy ?
What about the people who will have to use the 3kW medical machine that replaced the 5kW model that only worked 10 \ % more effectively ?
What about the people who simply ca n't get food because there is n't enough energy somewhere in the chain to deliver it to them ?
Or the coastal nation that must weather severe drought because they are prevented from building ( energy intensive ) desalination plants ? How will the scientists fix " monkeying with the economy " if they turn out to have made grave errors in the calculation ?
It is n't a matter of publishing some errata and having work for another dozen grad students to write papers about .
There are real lives that will be affected if we base policy on this , so they better the f put some effort into keeping mistakes out of policy recommendations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Testable yes.
Fixable....not by the scientists it isn't.They're not just presenting a theory.
They're presenting a course of action which will result in worldwide suffering and decreased standard of living, because they're asking us to "make due with less energy.
"Not just carbon-spewing energy either, or the focus on shutting things down would be coal before oil before natural gas, and on bring things online like nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric power, as well as increased grid capacity because we'd be using electricity for ever increasing percentages of things.But that's not what we're being asked to do.
We're being asked to replace all of our lights with mercury-filled, uv-leaking arc-lamps, even in places where they really aren't better than conventional incandescents.
We're being asked to take shorter showers, and they better not be hot showers.
And a whole host of other retail-level measures that will save maybe one plant in aggregate.We're being asked to switch to lower yield farming techniques.
And to mingle our food supply with our transportation fuel supply.And we're being asked this by people who can't find parking for their private jets that they flew to the conference in.
And we're being asked this because if we only just don't enjoy life, we'll save enough energy to be able to skip putting in a nuclear power plant or wind farm near a rich person's view of the nantucket shoals.If the proponents believed in the problem (and I'm not saying there isn't one, only that the proponents are doing a terrible job of communicating it.
It's almost as if they want to shed doubt....) then they would be working to replace current levels of energy use with cleaner sources, not proselytizing the ascetic lifestyle that is every Calvinist's wet dream.And after we go down that road, suppose the evidence suggests we didn't need to.
What will we do about the people who wasted time doing things the eco way that they could have spent doing things they enjoy?
What about the people who will have to use the 3kW medical machine that replaced the 5kW model that only worked 10\% more effectively?
What about the people who simply can't get food because there isn't enough energy somewhere in the chain to deliver it to them?
Or the coastal nation that must weather severe drought because they are prevented from building (energy intensive) desalination plants?How will the scientists fix "monkeying with the economy" if they turn out to have made grave errors in the calculation?
It isn't a matter of publishing some errata and having work for another dozen grad students to write papers about.
There are real lives that will be affected if we base policy on this, so they better the f put some effort into keeping mistakes out of policy recommendations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874410</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take the flooded cities and islands first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take the flooded cities and islands first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take the flooded cities and islands first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30882216</id>
	<title>Re:IT WAS NOT A TYPO</title>
	<author>21mhz</author>
	<datestamp>1264328160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it turns out that in the case of prof. Hasnain, the scientist was at rest while the more ordinary human, concerned about his employment and possible repercussions out of challenging the politically-charged establishment, prevailed *. And maybe, that a bunch of Asian scientists had been making shit up (knowing how pitiful the Russian scientific community is, and having heard some stories about job interviews with computer science "PhDs" from India, I have my doubts that every society's metric of scientific rigor is the same). This does not mean that the general scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change has been undermined. <em>That</em> will have to come out by solid data-backed arguments that withstand a peer review.</p><p>* In hindsight, it wasn't even a street-smart move for Hasnain. Had he spoken up, his reputation would have been boosted by this correction. Instead, he's been exposed as incompetent and the media is now hounding him for possible conflict of interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it turns out that in the case of prof. Hasnain , the scientist was at rest while the more ordinary human , concerned about his employment and possible repercussions out of challenging the politically-charged establishment , prevailed * .
And maybe , that a bunch of Asian scientists had been making shit up ( knowing how pitiful the Russian scientific community is , and having heard some stories about job interviews with computer science " PhDs " from India , I have my doubts that every society 's metric of scientific rigor is the same ) .
This does not mean that the general scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change has been undermined .
That will have to come out by solid data-backed arguments that withstand a peer review .
* In hindsight , it was n't even a street-smart move for Hasnain .
Had he spoken up , his reputation would have been boosted by this correction .
Instead , he 's been exposed as incompetent and the media is now hounding him for possible conflict of interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it turns out that in the case of prof. Hasnain, the scientist was at rest while the more ordinary human, concerned about his employment and possible repercussions out of challenging the politically-charged establishment, prevailed *.
And maybe, that a bunch of Asian scientists had been making shit up (knowing how pitiful the Russian scientific community is, and having heard some stories about job interviews with computer science "PhDs" from India, I have my doubts that every society's metric of scientific rigor is the same).
This does not mean that the general scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change has been undermined.
That will have to come out by solid data-backed arguments that withstand a peer review.
* In hindsight, it wasn't even a street-smart move for Hasnain.
Had he spoken up, his reputation would have been boosted by this correction.
Instead, he's been exposed as incompetent and the media is now hounding him for possible conflict of interests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874506</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1264257360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh, you sound sensible, but i note the gold standard was supposed to be the thermometers.  this helped produce the hockey stick supposedly.  now the thermometers have been showing a distinct north american cooling.  so nobody talks about the thermometers anymore. funny about that.</p><p>people try to call economy a science, but the standard macro theories are not predictive.  It is pretty much something for lackeys.  so the big awgers are pretty much scientists in the same sense. this is not to say there cannot be an honest and careful fool awger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh , you sound sensible , but i note the gold standard was supposed to be the thermometers .
this helped produce the hockey stick supposedly .
now the thermometers have been showing a distinct north american cooling .
so nobody talks about the thermometers anymore .
funny about that.people try to call economy a science , but the standard macro theories are not predictive .
It is pretty much something for lackeys .
so the big awgers are pretty much scientists in the same sense .
this is not to say there can not be an honest and careful fool awger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh, you sound sensible, but i note the gold standard was supposed to be the thermometers.
this helped produce the hockey stick supposedly.
now the thermometers have been showing a distinct north american cooling.
so nobody talks about the thermometers anymore.
funny about that.people try to call economy a science, but the standard macro theories are not predictive.
It is pretty much something for lackeys.
so the big awgers are pretty much scientists in the same sense.
this is not to say there cannot be an honest and careful fool awger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30879536</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1264357260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These predictions reminds me of an article around 1900 that claimed that <b>if trends continue</b>, the horse manure on the streets of chicago would be 6 ft. deep by 1930. It never happened, the automobile came along and replaced horses.</p></div><p>So? If the automobile <i>hadn't</i> come along, and the Chicago city authorities had delayed tacking the manure problem because someone else had a model which only predicted 18 inches by 1935 and skeptics claimed that this debunked the "controversial" theory that horses make shit...   Chicago probably <i>would</i> have been knee-deep by 1930.
</p><p>Unless they had a hotline to the future and knew how the automobile would pan out, it sounds like they dodged a bullet there.
</p><p>In other news, if someone harnesses zero point energy or cracks cold fusion in the next few years, then CO2 levels won't "follow current trends" and we'll be OK.
</p><p>If.
</p><p>Meanwhile, digging up and burning vast quantities of fossil fuel will continue to put more CO2 into the atmosphere, and that CO2 will continue to obey the laws of physics and trap the sun's heat. But don't worry, it won't cause dangerous warming because <i>that would be bad for business</i> and the morons at the IPCC can't even reliably predict to the nearest degree what the temperature will be in Chicago on Jan 24th 2050.

</p><p>Even if the AGW predictions are wrong, it might be nice to leave the great-great grandchildren some oil to make drugs and plastics and stuff from. Oh, I forgot - because someone once wrongly predicted that the oil would run out by 1981 then it must be an infinite resource.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These predictions reminds me of an article around 1900 that claimed that if trends continue , the horse manure on the streets of chicago would be 6 ft. deep by 1930 .
It never happened , the automobile came along and replaced horses.So ?
If the automobile had n't come along , and the Chicago city authorities had delayed tacking the manure problem because someone else had a model which only predicted 18 inches by 1935 and skeptics claimed that this debunked the " controversial " theory that horses make shit... Chicago probably would have been knee-deep by 1930 .
Unless they had a hotline to the future and knew how the automobile would pan out , it sounds like they dodged a bullet there .
In other news , if someone harnesses zero point energy or cracks cold fusion in the next few years , then CO2 levels wo n't " follow current trends " and we 'll be OK . If . Meanwhile , digging up and burning vast quantities of fossil fuel will continue to put more CO2 into the atmosphere , and that CO2 will continue to obey the laws of physics and trap the sun 's heat .
But do n't worry , it wo n't cause dangerous warming because that would be bad for business and the morons at the IPCC ca n't even reliably predict to the nearest degree what the temperature will be in Chicago on Jan 24th 2050 .
Even if the AGW predictions are wrong , it might be nice to leave the great-great grandchildren some oil to make drugs and plastics and stuff from .
Oh , I forgot - because someone once wrongly predicted that the oil would run out by 1981 then it must be an infinite resource .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These predictions reminds me of an article around 1900 that claimed that if trends continue, the horse manure on the streets of chicago would be 6 ft. deep by 1930.
It never happened, the automobile came along and replaced horses.So?
If the automobile hadn't come along, and the Chicago city authorities had delayed tacking the manure problem because someone else had a model which only predicted 18 inches by 1935 and skeptics claimed that this debunked the "controversial" theory that horses make shit...   Chicago probably would have been knee-deep by 1930.
Unless they had a hotline to the future and knew how the automobile would pan out, it sounds like they dodged a bullet there.
In other news, if someone harnesses zero point energy or cracks cold fusion in the next few years, then CO2 levels won't "follow current trends" and we'll be OK.
If.
Meanwhile, digging up and burning vast quantities of fossil fuel will continue to put more CO2 into the atmosphere, and that CO2 will continue to obey the laws of physics and trap the sun's heat.
But don't worry, it won't cause dangerous warming because that would be bad for business and the morons at the IPCC can't even reliably predict to the nearest degree what the temperature will be in Chicago on Jan 24th 2050.
Even if the AGW predictions are wrong, it might be nice to leave the great-great grandchildren some oil to make drugs and plastics and stuff from.
Oh, I forgot - because someone once wrongly predicted that the oil would run out by 1981 then it must be an infinite resource.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874550</id>
	<title>Nice apology</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1264257780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFS is a nice apology for politicaly and economically motivated bureaucrats who are keen to exagerate to sew fear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS is a nice apology for politicaly and economically motivated bureaucrats who are keen to exagerate to sew fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS is a nice apology for politicaly and economically motivated bureaucrats who are keen to exagerate to sew fear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30884688</id>
	<title>Parent needs modding up</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264344300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NT</htmltext>
<tokenext>NT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875664</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264268280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered, then the public *should* lose faith in the claims of science.</p></div><p>I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims.</p></div><p>Presumably someone that had no faith in the claims and so decided to test them.</p><p>We certainly should not have <b>faith</b> in claims made simply because those claims are made by scientists. If we do, we give validity to those who claim that global climate change, evolution etc are essentially religious.</p><p>Any claims made are either scientifically verified or not. If faith is required, they are not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered , then the public * should * lose faith in the claims of science.I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC 's claims.Presumably someone that had no faith in the claims and so decided to test them.We certainly should not have faith in claims made simply because those claims are made by scientists .
If we do , we give validity to those who claim that global climate change , evolution etc are essentially religious.Any claims made are either scientifically verified or not .
If faith is required , they are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered, then the public *should* lose faith in the claims of science.I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims.Presumably someone that had no faith in the claims and so decided to test them.We certainly should not have faith in claims made simply because those claims are made by scientists.
If we do, we give validity to those who claim that global climate change, evolution etc are essentially religious.Any claims made are either scientifically verified or not.
If faith is required, they are not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876936</id>
	<title>Complete melt is very unrealistic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264328700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sources of some of the glaciers are around 6500m high. So to get the melting point from currently around 3500m to 6500m the temperature should increase at least 15C (0.5C/100m at least). Sure the glaciers will get a lot smaller, but completely melt? no way. And if the temperature rises by 15C, we have other problems than some glaciers, like where to grow food and what to drink.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sources of some of the glaciers are around 6500m high .
So to get the melting point from currently around 3500m to 6500m the temperature should increase at least 15C ( 0.5C/100m at least ) .
Sure the glaciers will get a lot smaller , but completely melt ?
no way .
And if the temperature rises by 15C , we have other problems than some glaciers , like where to grow food and what to drink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sources of some of the glaciers are around 6500m high.
So to get the melting point from currently around 3500m to 6500m the temperature should increase at least 15C (0.5C/100m at least).
Sure the glaciers will get a lot smaller, but completely melt?
no way.
And if the temperature rises by 15C, we have other problems than some glaciers, like where to grow food and what to drink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875440</id>
	<title>Kinda like...</title>
	<author>Bodhammer</author>
	<datestamp>1264266120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kinda like the claims of "Hope" and "Change" and "New Climate in Washington" and "Bipartisanship" and "No Lobbyists" and "Transparency" and..<br>
<br>

"It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. I move for a mistrial."
-Bananas - Woody Allen</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda like the claims of " Hope " and " Change " and " New Climate in Washington " and " Bipartisanship " and " No Lobbyists " and " Transparency " and. . " It 's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham .
I move for a mistrial .
" -Bananas - Woody Allen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda like the claims of "Hope" and "Change" and "New Climate in Washington" and "Bipartisanship" and "No Lobbyists" and "Transparency" and..


"It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
I move for a mistrial.
"
-Bananas - Woody Allen</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878144</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264347780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you forgot to attach the footnote to your post:</p><ul> <li>except of course if you take into account the laws of chemistry, physics, and the wealth of actual recorded data. other than that these points are all valid.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>you forgot to attach the footnote to your post : except of course if you take into account the laws of chemistry , physics , and the wealth of actual recorded data .
other than that these points are all valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you forgot to attach the footnote to your post: except of course if you take into account the laws of chemistry, physics, and the wealth of actual recorded data.
other than that these points are all valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874266</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1264255260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting article.  They mention a 3 foot rise in sea level by 2100.  I read the report by the IPCC and they state a rise somewhere between 7 and 82 centimeters.  That's part of the problem with credibility right there.  The IPCC report is solid science but the NRDC report you linked to takes those facts and picks through them to accentuate the points they want to make.  I'm not a scientist but I know that global warming appears to be real.  How great and how sudden the effect will be seems to be the question.  Al Gore and others using it as a political agenda have caused the skepticism by trying to shock people with the most extreme possible cases.  This, when people discover the facts for themselves, can't help but have a backlash effect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting article .
They mention a 3 foot rise in sea level by 2100 .
I read the report by the IPCC and they state a rise somewhere between 7 and 82 centimeters .
That 's part of the problem with credibility right there .
The IPCC report is solid science but the NRDC report you linked to takes those facts and picks through them to accentuate the points they want to make .
I 'm not a scientist but I know that global warming appears to be real .
How great and how sudden the effect will be seems to be the question .
Al Gore and others using it as a political agenda have caused the skepticism by trying to shock people with the most extreme possible cases .
This , when people discover the facts for themselves , ca n't help but have a backlash effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting article.
They mention a 3 foot rise in sea level by 2100.
I read the report by the IPCC and they state a rise somewhere between 7 and 82 centimeters.
That's part of the problem with credibility right there.
The IPCC report is solid science but the NRDC report you linked to takes those facts and picks through them to accentuate the points they want to make.
I'm not a scientist but I know that global warming appears to be real.
How great and how sudden the effect will be seems to be the question.
Al Gore and others using it as a political agenda have caused the skepticism by trying to shock people with the most extreme possible cases.
This, when people discover the facts for themselves, can't help but have a backlash effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875916</id>
	<title>Re:Has anyone looked at the most recent photograph</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1264270380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nevermind there are numerous smaller glaciers and icefields around the world that are just completely <b>gone</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nevermind there are numerous smaller glaciers and icefields around the world that are just completely gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nevermind there are numerous smaller glaciers and icefields around the world that are just completely gone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874344</id>
	<title>Global warming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264255860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Total con. Invented by the Yanks to try to unify the World to distract everyone from the Vietnam that is Iraq. Pipesmokers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Total con .
Invented by the Yanks to try to unify the World to distract everyone from the Vietnam that is Iraq .
Pipesmokers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total con.
Invented by the Yanks to try to unify the World to distract everyone from the Vietnam that is Iraq.
Pipesmokers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877358</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who lives in the area...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264336620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought in Nepal you were supposed to follow the parrot, and keep your thoughts as pure as the water?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought in Nepal you were supposed to follow the parrot , and keep your thoughts as pure as the water ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought in Nepal you were supposed to follow the parrot, and keep your thoughts as pure as the water?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877992</id>
	<title>Re:Discovered by "crackpots", initially</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1264346400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims.</i> </p><p>Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called "crackpot" by the IPCC.</p> </div><p>Care to back that up?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC 's claims .
Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called " crackpot " by the IPCC .
Care to back that up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims.
Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called "crackpot" by the IPCC.
Care to back that up?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874802</id>
	<title>There's a problem with melting polar cap hysteria</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is solid evidence of <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp" title="nrdc.org" rel="nofollow">shrinking polar caps</a> [nrdc.org] not highly damaging?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p> <a href="http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg" title="uiuc.edu" rel="nofollow">It's rather cyclical</a> [uiuc.edu] and more likely <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023429.shtml" title="agu.org" rel="nofollow">caused by the sun</a> [agu.org] than by humans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps [ nrdc.org ] not highly damaging ?
... It 's rather cyclical [ uiuc.edu ] and more likely caused by the sun [ agu.org ] than by humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps [nrdc.org] not highly damaging?
... It's rather cyclical [uiuc.edu] and more likely caused by the sun [agu.org] than by humans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877306</id>
	<title>Re:Discovered by "crackpots", initially</title>
	<author>21mhz</author>
	<datestamp>1264335720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called "crackpot" by the IPCC.</p></div><p>Care to offer some references?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called " crackpot " by the IPCC.Care to offer some references ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called "crackpot" by the IPCC.Care to offer some references?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874770</id>
	<title>Classis pseudo scientist response.</title>
	<author>s-whs</author>
	<datestamp>1264260300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Predicting the weather (or climate) 340 years from now, nobody can do that. It's like telling about the economy in 100 years from now. Who can believe someone claiming such thing? Not me at least.</p></div><p>Well, this is the sort of thing the manmade global warming deniers say. And it's a very stupid argument.
It's very well possible to say what will happen on a larger scale/timeframe. More energy in the atmosphere means it's getting hotter on average and the weather will become more extreme.
<br> <br>
Here's an example to give you an idea of why this is possible to predict, for those of you who are not too well trained in scientific thought: If someone rides his car with 300 km/h (almost 200 mph for no-SI lovers) into a solid wall, I will predict he's dead after that crash. What I cannot predict however, is precisely what damage is sustained to what parts of his body and/or in how many parts his body lies scattered around!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Predicting the weather ( or climate ) 340 years from now , nobody can do that .
It 's like telling about the economy in 100 years from now .
Who can believe someone claiming such thing ?
Not me at least.Well , this is the sort of thing the manmade global warming deniers say .
And it 's a very stupid argument .
It 's very well possible to say what will happen on a larger scale/timeframe .
More energy in the atmosphere means it 's getting hotter on average and the weather will become more extreme .
Here 's an example to give you an idea of why this is possible to predict , for those of you who are not too well trained in scientific thought : If someone rides his car with 300 km/h ( almost 200 mph for no-SI lovers ) into a solid wall , I will predict he 's dead after that crash .
What I can not predict however , is precisely what damage is sustained to what parts of his body and/or in how many parts his body lies scattered around !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Predicting the weather (or climate) 340 years from now, nobody can do that.
It's like telling about the economy in 100 years from now.
Who can believe someone claiming such thing?
Not me at least.Well, this is the sort of thing the manmade global warming deniers say.
And it's a very stupid argument.
It's very well possible to say what will happen on a larger scale/timeframe.
More energy in the atmosphere means it's getting hotter on average and the weather will become more extreme.
Here's an example to give you an idea of why this is possible to predict, for those of you who are not too well trained in scientific thought: If someone rides his car with 300 km/h (almost 200 mph for no-SI lovers) into a solid wall, I will predict he's dead after that crash.
What I cannot predict however, is precisely what damage is sustained to what parts of his body and/or in how many parts his body lies scattered around!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875570</id>
	<title>Re:"Authority"?</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1264267560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The down side of working in climate change is that the only time you ultimately get to see if you are right or wrong is when we become extinct or not. If you have predicted the latter, you have a hard time collecting on those bets (or the free pizza).</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The down side of working in climate change is that the only time you ultimately get to see if you are right or wrong is when we become extinct or not .
If you have predicted the latter , you have a hard time collecting on those bets ( or the free pizza ) .Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The down side of working in climate change is that the only time you ultimately get to see if you are right or wrong is when we become extinct or not.
If you have predicted the latter, you have a hard time collecting on those bets (or the free pizza).Phillip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874596</id>
	<title>Re:How about the conomy? Any prediction?</title>
	<author>Dalambertian</author>
	<datestamp>1264258440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would venture to say that climate science is harder to model than the world's economy. And no I don't participate in the stock market either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would venture to say that climate science is harder to model than the world 's economy .
And no I do n't participate in the stock market either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would venture to say that climate science is harder to model than the world's economy.
And no I don't participate in the stock market either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874528</id>
	<title>NASA says: not CO2 causing glaciers to melt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264257540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA says it's not C02 causing the Himalayan glaciers to melt:</p><p>Stolen from a comment at real climate:</p><p>"In fact, the new research, by NASA's William Lau and collaborators, reinforces with detailed numerical analysis what earlier studies suggest: that soot and dust contribute as much (or more) to atmospheric warming in the Himalayas as greenhouse gases."<br><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>"Based on the differences it's not difficult to conclude that greenhouse gases are not the sole agents of change in this region. There's a localized phenomenon at play."<br><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-soot.html" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-soot.html</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>"But some scientists claim that glaciers in the Himalayas are not retreating as fast as was believed. Others who have observed nearby mountain ranges even found that glaciers there were advancing."<br><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8355837.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8355837.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>"The report, by senior glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, seeks to correct a widely held misimpression based on measurements of a handful of glaciers: that India's 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate change. That's not so, Raina says."<br><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5955/924" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5955/924</a> [sciencemag.org]</p><p>"The most recent studies by researchers at ETH Zurich show that in the 1940s Swiss glaciers were melting at an even-faster pace than at present."<br><a href="http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive\_articles/091214\_gletscherschwund\_su/index\_EN" title="ethlife.ethz.ch" rel="nofollow">http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive\_articles/091214\_gletscherschwund\_su/index\_EN</a> [ethlife.ethz.ch]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA says it 's not C02 causing the Himalayan glaciers to melt : Stolen from a comment at real climate : " In fact , the new research , by NASA 's William Lau and collaborators , reinforces with detailed numerical analysis what earlier studies suggest : that soot and dust contribute as much ( or more ) to atmospheric warming in the Himalayas as greenhouse gases .
" http : //www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html [ nasa.gov ] " Based on the differences it 's not difficult to conclude that greenhouse gases are not the sole agents of change in this region .
There 's a localized phenomenon at play .
" http : //www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-soot.html [ nasa.gov ] " But some scientists claim that glaciers in the Himalayas are not retreating as fast as was believed .
Others who have observed nearby mountain ranges even found that glaciers there were advancing .
" http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8355837.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] " The report , by senior glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina , formerly of the Geological Survey of India , seeks to correct a widely held misimpression based on measurements of a handful of glaciers : that India 's 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate change .
That 's not so , Raina says .
" http : //www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5955/924 [ sciencemag.org ] " The most recent studies by researchers at ETH Zurich show that in the 1940s Swiss glaciers were melting at an even-faster pace than at present .
" http : //www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive \ _articles/091214 \ _gletscherschwund \ _su/index \ _EN [ ethlife.ethz.ch ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA says it's not C02 causing the Himalayan glaciers to melt:Stolen from a comment at real climate:"In fact, the new research, by NASA's William Lau and collaborators, reinforces with detailed numerical analysis what earlier studies suggest: that soot and dust contribute as much (or more) to atmospheric warming in the Himalayas as greenhouse gases.
"http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html [nasa.gov]"Based on the differences it's not difficult to conclude that greenhouse gases are not the sole agents of change in this region.
There's a localized phenomenon at play.
"http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-soot.html [nasa.gov]"But some scientists claim that glaciers in the Himalayas are not retreating as fast as was believed.
Others who have observed nearby mountain ranges even found that glaciers there were advancing.
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8355837.stm [bbc.co.uk]"The report, by senior glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, seeks to correct a widely held misimpression based on measurements of a handful of glaciers: that India's 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate change.
That's not so, Raina says.
"http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/326/5955/924 [sciencemag.org]"The most recent studies by researchers at ETH Zurich show that in the 1940s Swiss glaciers were melting at an even-faster pace than at present.
"http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive\_articles/091214\_gletscherschwund\_su/index\_EN [ethlife.ethz.ch]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874724</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264259820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is something absolutely wrong with the kind of media coverage.  You're telling me that a transposition of digits within a report full of otherwise solid information is "highly damaging"?</p></div><p>If it materially changes the data,then yes.  There is a huge difference between 2035 and 2350.  315 years.  1,260\%  That <i>is</i> a big deal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is something absolutely wrong with the kind of media coverage .
You 're telling me that a transposition of digits within a report full of otherwise solid information is " highly damaging " ? If it materially changes the data,then yes .
There is a huge difference between 2035 and 2350 .
315 years .
1,260 \ % That is a big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is something absolutely wrong with the kind of media coverage.
You're telling me that a transposition of digits within a report full of otherwise solid information is "highly damaging"?If it materially changes the data,then yes.
There is a huge difference between 2035 and 2350.
315 years.
1,260\%  That is a big deal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874188</id>
	<title>But the Himalayan glaciers *are* still retreating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264254480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are the Himalayan glaciers retreating/losing ice volume?  Yes<br>Is this what the scientific studies on the issue says?  Very clearly, yes</p><p>What's wrong is the projection quoted in the IPCC report: the exaggerated claim that the rate of retreat means the glaciers could disappear by 2035.  Instead the expectation is "only" that they will continue to shrink between now and then, and that their eventual disappearance would only occur if the trend were maintained for a few centuries, which is an awfully long projection.</p><p>It's a big mistake, but mistakes happen.  There is nothing here that calls the evidence for global warming into question, or even calls into question the evidence that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating.  At most, it means the IPCC reports need to be more carefully vetted, and they shouldn't quote questionable sources like newspaper articles rather than the original scientific studies.</p><p>I'm sure this won't stop some people from claiming the mistake undermines everything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the Himalayan glaciers retreating/losing ice volume ?
YesIs this what the scientific studies on the issue says ?
Very clearly , yesWhat 's wrong is the projection quoted in the IPCC report : the exaggerated claim that the rate of retreat means the glaciers could disappear by 2035 .
Instead the expectation is " only " that they will continue to shrink between now and then , and that their eventual disappearance would only occur if the trend were maintained for a few centuries , which is an awfully long projection.It 's a big mistake , but mistakes happen .
There is nothing here that calls the evidence for global warming into question , or even calls into question the evidence that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating .
At most , it means the IPCC reports need to be more carefully vetted , and they should n't quote questionable sources like newspaper articles rather than the original scientific studies.I 'm sure this wo n't stop some people from claiming the mistake undermines everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the Himalayan glaciers retreating/losing ice volume?
YesIs this what the scientific studies on the issue says?
Very clearly, yesWhat's wrong is the projection quoted in the IPCC report: the exaggerated claim that the rate of retreat means the glaciers could disappear by 2035.
Instead the expectation is "only" that they will continue to shrink between now and then, and that their eventual disappearance would only occur if the trend were maintained for a few centuries, which is an awfully long projection.It's a big mistake, but mistakes happen.
There is nothing here that calls the evidence for global warming into question, or even calls into question the evidence that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating.
At most, it means the IPCC reports need to be more carefully vetted, and they shouldn't quote questionable sources like newspaper articles rather than the original scientific studies.I'm sure this won't stop some people from claiming the mistake undermines everything.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877236</id>
	<title>Re:Has anyone looked at the most recent photograph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264334520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some of those glaciers have retreated more than 16 miles! If you want my opinion, it's very possible some of those glaciers could disappear by 2035.</p></div><p>The Baltic Sea level has gone down 1 meter in four months where I live. It's very possible the Baltic Sea could dry completely by 2028.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of those glaciers have retreated more than 16 miles !
If you want my opinion , it 's very possible some of those glaciers could disappear by 2035.The Baltic Sea level has gone down 1 meter in four months where I live .
It 's very possible the Baltic Sea could dry completely by 2028 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of those glaciers have retreated more than 16 miles!
If you want my opinion, it's very possible some of those glaciers could disappear by 2035.The Baltic Sea level has gone down 1 meter in four months where I live.
It's very possible the Baltic Sea could dry completely by 2028.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875314</id>
	<title>Discovered by "crackpots", initially</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1264264800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims.</i></p><p>Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called "crackpot" by the IPCC.  So in fact there were other groups that pointed it out, but as is par for the course with AGW any questioning, no matter how scientific, is treated as heresy and ridiculed.  Which leads to to wonder what other views currently being labeled as "crackpot" are actually just as valid.</p><p>Just  how and why do you think the IPCC admitted to this error?  It's not because they did any research into the claim themselves beyond the initial production, they had to be shown the door and then led through it.  It was only when the embarrassment could not be contained further they were forced to make a statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC 's claims.Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called " crackpot " by the IPCC .
So in fact there were other groups that pointed it out , but as is par for the course with AGW any questioning , no matter how scientific , is treated as heresy and ridiculed .
Which leads to to wonder what other views currently being labeled as " crackpot " are actually just as valid.Just how and why do you think the IPCC admitted to this error ?
It 's not because they did any research into the claim themselves beyond the initial production , they had to be shown the door and then led through it .
It was only when the embarrassment could not be contained further they were forced to make a statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims.Well actually anyone questioning these claims when first produced were called "crackpot" by the IPCC.
So in fact there were other groups that pointed it out, but as is par for the course with AGW any questioning, no matter how scientific, is treated as heresy and ridiculed.
Which leads to to wonder what other views currently being labeled as "crackpot" are actually just as valid.Just  how and why do you think the IPCC admitted to this error?
It's not because they did any research into the claim themselves beyond the initial production, they had to be shown the door and then led through it.
It was only when the embarrassment could not be contained further they were forced to make a statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875550</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't even an error, it was INTENTIONAL!</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1264267320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, quoting Daily Mail as a source and getting +5 Informative. A new all-time low for Slashdot, Coolhand2120.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , quoting Daily Mail as a source and getting + 5 Informative .
A new all-time low for Slashdot , Coolhand2120.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, quoting Daily Mail as a source and getting +5 Informative.
A new all-time low for Slashdot, Coolhand2120.Phillip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30903046</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1264516020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Measurement of pH of standard distilled water shows variances of + or - 0.1 all of the time.</p></div><p>Perfectly distilled H20 does have a pH of 7.0. Actual measured values will vary due both to the resolution of measuring instruments, and contamination of the sample - principally absorption of CO2. With expensive equipment and a pure sample (e.g. from nuclear grade resin purification) the sample variance should be lower than &#177;0.1</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract\_54486.htm" title="confex.com">http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract\_54486.htm</a> [confex.com]</p> </div><p>You realise that this isn't a peer-reviewed paper, right? It's just a poster presentation at a conference. Calls for posters go out to everyone, even PhD students who have barely started their research, it's just a presentation of what you're doing, and is not supposed to be taken as finished, published, reviewed research.</p><p>Here's <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/11/the\_australians\_war\_on\_science\_24.php" title="scienceblogs.com">something to consider</a> [scienceblogs.com]:</p><p><i>Morner used "coring, levelling, sampling and carbon dating". Conspicuously absent from this list is any direct measure of sea level from tide gauges or satellites." Sea level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands by Church, White and Hunter published in 2006 in the journal Global and Planetary Change looked at data from tide gauges and satellites and found:<br>"In the Indian Ocean, the tide-gauge records at the Maldives indicate large rates of relative sea-level rise in agreement with Singh et al. (2001) and Woodworth (2005), and in disagreement with Morner et al. (2004).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Measurement of pH of standard distilled water shows variances of + or - 0.1 all of the time.Perfectly distilled H20 does have a pH of 7.0 .
Actual measured values will vary due both to the resolution of measuring instruments , and contamination of the sample - principally absorption of CO2 .
With expensive equipment and a pure sample ( e.g .
from nuclear grade resin purification ) the sample variance should be lower than   0.1 http : //gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract \ _54486.htm [ confex.com ] You realise that this is n't a peer-reviewed paper , right ?
It 's just a poster presentation at a conference .
Calls for posters go out to everyone , even PhD students who have barely started their research , it 's just a presentation of what you 're doing , and is not supposed to be taken as finished , published , reviewed research.Here 's something to consider [ scienceblogs.com ] : Morner used " coring , levelling , sampling and carbon dating " .
Conspicuously absent from this list is any direct measure of sea level from tide gauges or satellites .
" Sea level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands by Church , White and Hunter published in 2006 in the journal Global and Planetary Change looked at data from tide gauges and satellites and found : " In the Indian Ocean , the tide-gauge records at the Maldives indicate large rates of relative sea-level rise in agreement with Singh et al .
( 2001 ) and Woodworth ( 2005 ) , and in disagreement with Morner et al .
( 2004 ) . ... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Measurement of pH of standard distilled water shows variances of + or - 0.1 all of the time.Perfectly distilled H20 does have a pH of 7.0.
Actual measured values will vary due both to the resolution of measuring instruments, and contamination of the sample - principally absorption of CO2.
With expensive equipment and a pure sample (e.g.
from nuclear grade resin purification) the sample variance should be lower than ±0.1 http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract\_54486.htm [confex.com] You realise that this isn't a peer-reviewed paper, right?
It's just a poster presentation at a conference.
Calls for posters go out to everyone, even PhD students who have barely started their research, it's just a presentation of what you're doing, and is not supposed to be taken as finished, published, reviewed research.Here's something to consider [scienceblogs.com]:Morner used "coring, levelling, sampling and carbon dating".
Conspicuously absent from this list is any direct measure of sea level from tide gauges or satellites.
" Sea level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands by Church, White and Hunter published in 2006 in the journal Global and Planetary Change looked at data from tide gauges and satellites and found:"In the Indian Ocean, the tide-gauge records at the Maldives indicate large rates of relative sea-level rise in agreement with Singh et al.
(2001) and Woodworth (2005), and in disagreement with Morner et al.
(2004). ..."
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30898964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874714</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>nadaou</author>
	<datestamp>1264259820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered, then the public *should* lose faith in the claims of science.</p></div></blockquote><p>dude, it's a simple typo in a document thousands of pages long which was voluntarily fixed and announced by the authors once someone noticed it.</p><p>shit happens, get over it.</p><blockquote><div><p>Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned, anyway?</p></div></blockquote><p>because unlike issues of culture, politics, or religion, it is both testable and fixable. "Perception dictates reality" doesn't cut it long-term in the scientific arena.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered , then the public * should * lose faith in the claims of science.dude , it 's a simple typo in a document thousands of pages long which was voluntarily fixed and announced by the authors once someone noticed it.shit happens , get over it.Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned , anyway ? because unlike issues of culture , politics , or religion , it is both testable and fixable .
" Perception dictates reality " does n't cut it long-term in the scientific arena .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered, then the public *should* lose faith in the claims of science.dude, it's a simple typo in a document thousands of pages long which was voluntarily fixed and announced by the authors once someone noticed it.shit happens, get over it.Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned, anyway?because unlike issues of culture, politics, or religion, it is both testable and fixable.
"Perception dictates reality" doesn't cut it long-term in the scientific arena.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875948</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>Reservoir Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1264270680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't find it at the moment, but there was a report on BBC that found at least 5 different mistakes in one paragraph of IPCC report on Himalayan glaciers, and on top of it the data came from WWF, a lobbyist group, not a peer-reviews source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't find it at the moment , but there was a report on BBC that found at least 5 different mistakes in one paragraph of IPCC report on Himalayan glaciers , and on top of it the data came from WWF , a lobbyist group , not a peer-reviews source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't find it at the moment, but there was a report on BBC that found at least 5 different mistakes in one paragraph of IPCC report on Himalayan glaciers, and on top of it the data came from WWF, a lobbyist group, not a peer-reviews source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877226</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264334340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"They created this big boogy man."</i></p><p>Doesn't mean in reality nothing bad ever happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They created this big boogy man .
" Does n't mean in reality nothing bad ever happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They created this big boogy man.
"Doesn't mean in reality nothing bad ever happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875462</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>rainsford</author>
	<datestamp>1264266360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because these kinds of errors AREN'T indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered.  That's the whole point.  This is ONE example of bad scientific process among thousands of good examples, but people who are either stupid or have an agenda (or both) will view this as the normal way things are done.  As for your second question, science should be placed on a pedestal as long as it's good science.  Pedestal placement is all relative, and the reason good science should be given way more credence than the alternative is that the alternative is a bunch of ideas being pushed by people with NO evidence and biased political motivation.  Does the IPCC make mistakes?  Yup.  But as long as the alternative is Bill O'Reilly and not other scientists with better data and methods, I think I'm still going to listen to the IPCC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because these kinds of errors ARE N'T indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered .
That 's the whole point .
This is ONE example of bad scientific process among thousands of good examples , but people who are either stupid or have an agenda ( or both ) will view this as the normal way things are done .
As for your second question , science should be placed on a pedestal as long as it 's good science .
Pedestal placement is all relative , and the reason good science should be given way more credence than the alternative is that the alternative is a bunch of ideas being pushed by people with NO evidence and biased political motivation .
Does the IPCC make mistakes ?
Yup. But as long as the alternative is Bill O'Reilly and not other scientists with better data and methods , I think I 'm still going to listen to the IPCC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because these kinds of errors AREN'T indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered.
That's the whole point.
This is ONE example of bad scientific process among thousands of good examples, but people who are either stupid or have an agenda (or both) will view this as the normal way things are done.
As for your second question, science should be placed on a pedestal as long as it's good science.
Pedestal placement is all relative, and the reason good science should be given way more credence than the alternative is that the alternative is a bunch of ideas being pushed by people with NO evidence and biased political motivation.
Does the IPCC make mistakes?
Yup.  But as long as the alternative is Bill O'Reilly and not other scientists with better data and methods, I think I'm still going to listen to the IPCC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874352</id>
	<title>Yes indeed, wrong coverage!</title>
	<author>GPLHost-Thomas</author>
	<datestamp>1264255920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please write polar CAP (without S). The south pole ice has been EXPANDING (appart 2 small isolated parts of it).<br>
<br>
What's the trend that you are talking about here? The trend for the last decade is a global cooling, and even the IPCC said it. There's no "minor gaffes" but major cover-ups! FACE IT, YOU'VE BEEN FOOLED !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please write polar CAP ( without S ) .
The south pole ice has been EXPANDING ( appart 2 small isolated parts of it ) .
What 's the trend that you are talking about here ?
The trend for the last decade is a global cooling , and even the IPCC said it .
There 's no " minor gaffes " but major cover-ups !
FACE IT , YOU 'VE BEEN FOOLED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please write polar CAP (without S).
The south pole ice has been EXPANDING (appart 2 small isolated parts of it).
What's the trend that you are talking about here?
The trend for the last decade is a global cooling, and even the IPCC said it.
There's no "minor gaffes" but major cover-ups!
FACE IT, YOU'VE BEEN FOOLED !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874498</id>
	<title>"Authority"?</title>
	<author>Man On Pink Corner</author>
	<datestamp>1264257300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority -- as indeed they should</i></p><p>Um, no.  You get to be viewed as an "authority" when at least some of your predictions <b>come true</b>.</p><p>Can anyone name one specific, numerically-quantified prediction made by IPCC researchers that has actually come to pass, by means other than obvious coincidence or luck?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The damage was that IPCC had , or I think still has , such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority -- as indeed they shouldUm , no .
You get to be viewed as an " authority " when at least some of your predictions come true.Can anyone name one specific , numerically-quantified prediction made by IPCC researchers that has actually come to pass , by means other than obvious coincidence or luck ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority -- as indeed they shouldUm, no.
You get to be viewed as an "authority" when at least some of your predictions come true.Can anyone name one specific, numerically-quantified prediction made by IPCC researchers that has actually come to pass, by means other than obvious coincidence or luck?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875406</id>
	<title>Peer review?</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1264265700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
While peer review is better than unquestioned authority, it does have a remarkable blind side.  The adage of mutual back-scratching and the fox guarding the hen house is all too appropriate.
</p><p>
The problem is that genuinely independent review of science is hard to come by.  Consider for example how science treats dissenters such as Michael Behe.  When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution, he's villified as a creationist.  And the interesting part is that his objections are entirely scientific, which incenses the Darwinists even more.  Instead of pointing out that his critical analysis makes evolutionary biology a better, more rigorous discipline, his university publishes a disclaimer against him.
</p><p>
The IPCC scandal and Behe controversies have illustrated quite clearly that modern science is more about consensus than critical thought.  While I agree that science *can* provide us with solutions to environmental problems of today and tomorrow, I'm wise enough to realize that it *often* fails to do so for reasons which have nothing to do with science.
</p><p>
People are starting to realize that calling something "science" doesn't make it true, nor does it make it science.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While peer review is better than unquestioned authority , it does have a remarkable blind side .
The adage of mutual back-scratching and the fox guarding the hen house is all too appropriate .
The problem is that genuinely independent review of science is hard to come by .
Consider for example how science treats dissenters such as Michael Behe .
When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution , he 's villified as a creationist .
And the interesting part is that his objections are entirely scientific , which incenses the Darwinists even more .
Instead of pointing out that his critical analysis makes evolutionary biology a better , more rigorous discipline , his university publishes a disclaimer against him .
The IPCC scandal and Behe controversies have illustrated quite clearly that modern science is more about consensus than critical thought .
While I agree that science * can * provide us with solutions to environmental problems of today and tomorrow , I 'm wise enough to realize that it * often * fails to do so for reasons which have nothing to do with science .
People are starting to realize that calling something " science " does n't make it true , nor does it make it science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
While peer review is better than unquestioned authority, it does have a remarkable blind side.
The adage of mutual back-scratching and the fox guarding the hen house is all too appropriate.
The problem is that genuinely independent review of science is hard to come by.
Consider for example how science treats dissenters such as Michael Behe.
When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution, he's villified as a creationist.
And the interesting part is that his objections are entirely scientific, which incenses the Darwinists even more.
Instead of pointing out that his critical analysis makes evolutionary biology a better, more rigorous discipline, his university publishes a disclaimer against him.
The IPCC scandal and Behe controversies have illustrated quite clearly that modern science is more about consensus than critical thought.
While I agree that science *can* provide us with solutions to environmental problems of today and tomorrow, I'm wise enough to realize that it *often* fails to do so for reasons which have nothing to do with science.
People are starting to realize that calling something "science" doesn't make it true, nor does it make it science.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30898964</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>DiamondGeezer</author>
	<datestamp>1264429080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Fail. New Scientist Climate Myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming [newscientist.com] </em> <br> <br>

Epic fail. New Scientist does not dispute that carbon dioxide rise follows temperature rise EVERY SINGLE TIME. It offers a pathetic analogy instead of an explanation. Calling it a myth when its entirely correct shows how out of touch Nature is with actual science.<br> <br>

<em>Fail. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of 0.075). [wikipedia.org] </em> <br> <br>

Epic fail. The pH of the oceans is in constant flux and cannot be absolutely constant.<br> <br>

<em>Fail. The very best (very expensive!) meters have an accuracy of &#177;0.002 pH units. [cornell.edu] (and besides, multiple replicates and statistical analysis is used to increase accuracy and reduce individual variance - or did you seriously think that scientists only sample a single point in the sea with a single meter to determine temperature change?!)</em> <br> <br>

Epic fail. Measurement of pH of standard distilled water shows variances of + or - 0.1 all of the time. The problem is not that the meters can masure to this accuracy its the fact that sea water's pH varies by at least 0.1 pH on very short timescales. YOU'VE CONFUSED NOISE WITH SIGNAL DUMBASS.<br> <br>

<em>The CIA disagree with you: "Maldives: Environment - current issues: depletion of freshwater aquifers threatens water supplies; global warming and sea level rise; coral reef bleaching" [cia.gov] How sea level rise has affected the Maldives [bbc.co.uk] Tuvalu is concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels, which threaten the country's underground water table [cia.gov]</em> <br> <br>

Unfortunately for the CIA, actual measurements ON THE GROUND at the Maldives show a fall in sea level of 20 cm in the 1970s and stasis since: see <a href="http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract\_54486.htm" title="confex.com">http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract\_54486.htm</a> [confex.com] and <a href="http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf" title="climatechangefacts.info">http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf</a> [climatechangefacts.info] <br> <br>

So you can't crack a book on science and you have no clue how climate parameters are measured and collated. Go to the back of the class.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail .
New Scientist Climate Myths : Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises , disproving the link to global warming [ newscientist.com ] Epic fail .
New Scientist does not dispute that carbon dioxide rise follows temperature rise EVERY SINGLE TIME .
It offers a pathetic analogy instead of an explanation .
Calling it a myth when its entirely correct shows how out of touch Nature is with actual science .
Fail. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 ( a change of 0.075 ) .
[ wikipedia.org ] Epic fail .
The pH of the oceans is in constant flux and can not be absolutely constant .
Fail. The very best ( very expensive !
) meters have an accuracy of   0.002 pH units .
[ cornell.edu ] ( and besides , multiple replicates and statistical analysis is used to increase accuracy and reduce individual variance - or did you seriously think that scientists only sample a single point in the sea with a single meter to determine temperature change ? !
) Epic fail .
Measurement of pH of standard distilled water shows variances of + or - 0.1 all of the time .
The problem is not that the meters can masure to this accuracy its the fact that sea water 's pH varies by at least 0.1 pH on very short timescales .
YOU 'VE CONFUSED NOISE WITH SIGNAL DUMBASS .
The CIA disagree with you : " Maldives : Environment - current issues : depletion of freshwater aquifers threatens water supplies ; global warming and sea level rise ; coral reef bleaching " [ cia.gov ] How sea level rise has affected the Maldives [ bbc.co.uk ] Tuvalu is concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels , which threaten the country 's underground water table [ cia.gov ] Unfortunately for the CIA , actual measurements ON THE GROUND at the Maldives show a fall in sea level of 20 cm in the 1970s and stasis since : see http : //gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract \ _54486.htm [ confex.com ] and http : //www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf [ climatechangefacts.info ] So you ca n't crack a book on science and you have no clue how climate parameters are measured and collated .
Go to the back of the class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fail.
New Scientist Climate Myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming [newscientist.com]   

Epic fail.
New Scientist does not dispute that carbon dioxide rise follows temperature rise EVERY SINGLE TIME.
It offers a pathetic analogy instead of an explanation.
Calling it a myth when its entirely correct shows how out of touch Nature is with actual science.
Fail. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of 0.075).
[wikipedia.org]   

Epic fail.
The pH of the oceans is in constant flux and cannot be absolutely constant.
Fail. The very best (very expensive!
) meters have an accuracy of ±0.002 pH units.
[cornell.edu] (and besides, multiple replicates and statistical analysis is used to increase accuracy and reduce individual variance - or did you seriously think that scientists only sample a single point in the sea with a single meter to determine temperature change?!
)  

Epic fail.
Measurement of pH of standard distilled water shows variances of + or - 0.1 all of the time.
The problem is not that the meters can masure to this accuracy its the fact that sea water's pH varies by at least 0.1 pH on very short timescales.
YOU'VE CONFUSED NOISE WITH SIGNAL DUMBASS.
The CIA disagree with you: "Maldives: Environment - current issues: depletion of freshwater aquifers threatens water supplies; global warming and sea level rise; coral reef bleaching" [cia.gov] How sea level rise has affected the Maldives [bbc.co.uk] Tuvalu is concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels, which threaten the country's underground water table [cia.gov]  

Unfortunately for the CIA, actual measurements ON THE GROUND at the Maldives show a fall in sea level of 20 cm in the 1970s and stasis since: see http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract\_54486.htm [confex.com] and http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf [climatechangefacts.info]  

So you can't crack a book on science and you have no clue how climate parameters are measured and collated.
Go to the back of the class.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874756</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1264260180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree that pollution is bad, and that if we keep on burning up tons of fossil fuels with no regard to the environment something terrible is bound to happen... I still think scientist don't have a fucking clue when it comes to the climate and everything I've ever seen in regards to global warming has been complete bullshit when you even make a cursory review of what the supposed science is based on. It's just another excuse for hippies to try and stop progress because they think we'd all be better off living like little house on the prairie and dieing from cholera when you're 9 because vaccines might cause cancer when you're 90.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that pollution is bad , and that if we keep on burning up tons of fossil fuels with no regard to the environment something terrible is bound to happen... I still think scientist do n't have a fucking clue when it comes to the climate and everything I 've ever seen in regards to global warming has been complete bullshit when you even make a cursory review of what the supposed science is based on .
It 's just another excuse for hippies to try and stop progress because they think we 'd all be better off living like little house on the prairie and dieing from cholera when you 're 9 because vaccines might cause cancer when you 're 90 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that pollution is bad, and that if we keep on burning up tons of fossil fuels with no regard to the environment something terrible is bound to happen... I still think scientist don't have a fucking clue when it comes to the climate and everything I've ever seen in regards to global warming has been complete bullshit when you even make a cursory review of what the supposed science is based on.
It's just another excuse for hippies to try and stop progress because they think we'd all be better off living like little house on the prairie and dieing from cholera when you're 9 because vaccines might cause cancer when you're 90.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875054</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1264262520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Err... its only been 10 years, hockey stick graph covered 420,000 years... The stick is still growing w/e but the graph just doesn't look much different than it did 10 years ago. (The stick part is like 150 years old)... <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/" title="nasa.gov">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/</a> [nasa.gov] trends are generally continuing, unless you think the last 4ish years are particularly damning to a 150year trend.<br> <br>Also Its called global warming not american warming... But there is a graph for that towards the bottom. It shows a big drop the last 2 years, we'll see if that holds up... Again I think we need a few more years (not that AGW is affected if any particular country cools...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Err... its only been 10 years , hockey stick graph covered 420,000 years... The stick is still growing w/e but the graph just does n't look much different than it did 10 years ago .
( The stick part is like 150 years old ) ... http : //data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ [ nasa.gov ] trends are generally continuing , unless you think the last 4ish years are particularly damning to a 150year trend .
Also Its called global warming not american warming... But there is a graph for that towards the bottom .
It shows a big drop the last 2 years , we 'll see if that holds up... Again I think we need a few more years ( not that AGW is affected if any particular country cools... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err... its only been 10 years, hockey stick graph covered 420,000 years... The stick is still growing w/e but the graph just doesn't look much different than it did 10 years ago.
(The stick part is like 150 years old)... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ [nasa.gov] trends are generally continuing, unless you think the last 4ish years are particularly damning to a 150year trend.
Also Its called global warming not american warming... But there is a graph for that towards the bottom.
It shows a big drop the last 2 years, we'll see if that holds up... Again I think we need a few more years (not that AGW is affected if any particular country cools...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875040</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1264262400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You carbon-spewing denier fool!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You carbon-spewing denier fool !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You carbon-spewing denier fool!
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264257660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I grew up in the military industrial complex.  You know what the military did every time they wanted a shiny new toy?  They created this big boogy man.  Back then it was the "Soviets have this new Mig-25 that goes Mach 3+.  We must have something to counter it".  "The Soviets have this new T-80 tank, we need something to counter it".  And the thing of it was the Military damn well knew that the T-80 was a dressed up T-72 and that the F-15 would beat a MIG-25 any day of the week.  Yeah, the MIG-25 could go Mach 3....once before the engines had to be replaced.  And the people in the defense industry as well as the DOD knew this, but they played the boogey man to Congress and the American people.</p><p>I'm sorry, but I see the same thing happening with this whole Environmental and Global Warming thing.  Are there real problems out there?  Should be trying not to pollute?  Yes.  But the tactics these people are using remind me too much of what I saw from the Defense industry.</p><p>These predictions reminds me of an article around 1900 that claimed that if trends continue, the horse manure on the streets of chicago would be 6 ft. deep by 1930.    It never happened, the automobile came along and replaced horses.  And that, perhaps, is the biggest problem with these predictions.  The longer the predicted , the less likely the prediction is to be correct.  Things change and I don't believe we have a model yet that works.  I don't believe a working model can be created either.  Show me one of these ecological dire predictions that I remember hearing in the 1970's and 1980's that have come to pass.  I remember the presentations back then saying New York would be underwater by 2010!   What about global dimming back in the 1970's?  Whatever happened to that?</p><p>None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty.  What happens if there is a massive Krakatoa type eruption in the next 50 years?  Or in this case, the next 350 years?  What if there continues to be a lack of sun spot activity for the next 350 years.  It's happened before.  Oh wait, the Little Ice Age was just a fluke right?  We'd better adjust our data and pretend that it and the Medieval warm period never happened according to our models.</p><p>The problem is this has all become political.  It's more about power and money than science at this point.</p><p>There are real environmental problems out there.  Not only that, but they are problems affecting people's health and real steps we know work can be taken today to help clean them up and instead of spending the money and resources to help fix those problems, it looks as though we are going to spending a bunch of money world wide to fix a problem that is appearing to be more suspect everyday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew up in the military industrial complex .
You know what the military did every time they wanted a shiny new toy ?
They created this big boogy man .
Back then it was the " Soviets have this new Mig-25 that goes Mach 3 + .
We must have something to counter it " .
" The Soviets have this new T-80 tank , we need something to counter it " .
And the thing of it was the Military damn well knew that the T-80 was a dressed up T-72 and that the F-15 would beat a MIG-25 any day of the week .
Yeah , the MIG-25 could go Mach 3....once before the engines had to be replaced .
And the people in the defense industry as well as the DOD knew this , but they played the boogey man to Congress and the American people.I 'm sorry , but I see the same thing happening with this whole Environmental and Global Warming thing .
Are there real problems out there ?
Should be trying not to pollute ?
Yes. But the tactics these people are using remind me too much of what I saw from the Defense industry.These predictions reminds me of an article around 1900 that claimed that if trends continue , the horse manure on the streets of chicago would be 6 ft. deep by 1930 .
It never happened , the automobile came along and replaced horses .
And that , perhaps , is the biggest problem with these predictions .
The longer the predicted , the less likely the prediction is to be correct .
Things change and I do n't believe we have a model yet that works .
I do n't believe a working model can be created either .
Show me one of these ecological dire predictions that I remember hearing in the 1970 's and 1980 's that have come to pass .
I remember the presentations back then saying New York would be underwater by 2010 !
What about global dimming back in the 1970 's ?
Whatever happened to that ? None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty .
What happens if there is a massive Krakatoa type eruption in the next 50 years ?
Or in this case , the next 350 years ?
What if there continues to be a lack of sun spot activity for the next 350 years .
It 's happened before .
Oh wait , the Little Ice Age was just a fluke right ?
We 'd better adjust our data and pretend that it and the Medieval warm period never happened according to our models.The problem is this has all become political .
It 's more about power and money than science at this point.There are real environmental problems out there .
Not only that , but they are problems affecting people 's health and real steps we know work can be taken today to help clean them up and instead of spending the money and resources to help fix those problems , it looks as though we are going to spending a bunch of money world wide to fix a problem that is appearing to be more suspect everyday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew up in the military industrial complex.
You know what the military did every time they wanted a shiny new toy?
They created this big boogy man.
Back then it was the "Soviets have this new Mig-25 that goes Mach 3+.
We must have something to counter it".
"The Soviets have this new T-80 tank, we need something to counter it".
And the thing of it was the Military damn well knew that the T-80 was a dressed up T-72 and that the F-15 would beat a MIG-25 any day of the week.
Yeah, the MIG-25 could go Mach 3....once before the engines had to be replaced.
And the people in the defense industry as well as the DOD knew this, but they played the boogey man to Congress and the American people.I'm sorry, but I see the same thing happening with this whole Environmental and Global Warming thing.
Are there real problems out there?
Should be trying not to pollute?
Yes.  But the tactics these people are using remind me too much of what I saw from the Defense industry.These predictions reminds me of an article around 1900 that claimed that if trends continue, the horse manure on the streets of chicago would be 6 ft. deep by 1930.
It never happened, the automobile came along and replaced horses.
And that, perhaps, is the biggest problem with these predictions.
The longer the predicted , the less likely the prediction is to be correct.
Things change and I don't believe we have a model yet that works.
I don't believe a working model can be created either.
Show me one of these ecological dire predictions that I remember hearing in the 1970's and 1980's that have come to pass.
I remember the presentations back then saying New York would be underwater by 2010!
What about global dimming back in the 1970's?
Whatever happened to that?None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty.
What happens if there is a massive Krakatoa type eruption in the next 50 years?
Or in this case, the next 350 years?
What if there continues to be a lack of sun spot activity for the next 350 years.
It's happened before.
Oh wait, the Little Ice Age was just a fluke right?
We'd better adjust our data and pretend that it and the Medieval warm period never happened according to our models.The problem is this has all become political.
It's more about power and money than science at this point.There are real environmental problems out there.
Not only that, but they are problems affecting people's health and real steps we know work can be taken today to help clean them up and instead of spending the money and resources to help fix those problems, it looks as though we are going to spending a bunch of money world wide to fix a problem that is appearing to be more suspect everyday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876244</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1264274280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science should be put on a pedestal. <i>Scientists</i> should not be.  They need to base their ideas in fact and research, just like everyone else.  Not like what was done here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science should be put on a pedestal .
Scientists should not be .
They need to base their ideas in fact and research , just like everyone else .
Not like what was done here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science should be put on a pedestal.
Scientists should not be.
They need to base their ideas in fact and research, just like everyone else.
Not like what was done here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874196</id>
	<title>Erroneous</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1264254660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Five errors from what I've read. Makes one question it all. As one should.</p><p>Global Warming's a sham and does not matter. Pollution matters. Gore and his ilk hurt the issue because they are such big polluters and hypocrites. The biggest thing Gore could do to help is stop breathing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Five errors from what I 've read .
Makes one question it all .
As one should.Global Warming 's a sham and does not matter .
Pollution matters .
Gore and his ilk hurt the issue because they are such big polluters and hypocrites .
The biggest thing Gore could do to help is stop breathing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Five errors from what I've read.
Makes one question it all.
As one should.Global Warming's a sham and does not matter.
Pollution matters.
Gore and his ilk hurt the issue because they are such big polluters and hypocrites.
The biggest thing Gore could do to help is stop breathing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874964</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1264261680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty. What happens if there is a massive Krakatoa type eruption in the next 50 years? Or in this case, the next 350 years?</p></div><p>Oddly enough, this is one thing all the models do extremely well at predicting.  If there is a huge volcano, we will be able to predict what that eruption will do to the global climate, mainly because it is a frequent enough occurrence that we have a lot of datapoints indicating what happens in those cases.  It is something you can almost figure out by hand on paper.<br> <br>
The thing the computer models have trouble with are things we don't have experimental verification of (like until recently, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative\_forcing#Example\_calculations" title="wikipedia.org">constant in this equation</a> [wikipedia.org] was calculated 15\% too high until recent experimental evidence).  In a lot of these cases there just isn't the data available to make good predictions.<br> <br>
A lot of new data is coming in, for example, we now have satellites in space that measure the actual greenhouse effect, the amount of radiation that escapes the atmosphere.  Right now they are still new, but in the next few years we should have a lot of interesting data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty .
What happens if there is a massive Krakatoa type eruption in the next 50 years ?
Or in this case , the next 350 years ? Oddly enough , this is one thing all the models do extremely well at predicting .
If there is a huge volcano , we will be able to predict what that eruption will do to the global climate , mainly because it is a frequent enough occurrence that we have a lot of datapoints indicating what happens in those cases .
It is something you can almost figure out by hand on paper .
The thing the computer models have trouble with are things we do n't have experimental verification of ( like until recently , the constant in this equation [ wikipedia.org ] was calculated 15 \ % too high until recent experimental evidence ) .
In a lot of these cases there just is n't the data available to make good predictions .
A lot of new data is coming in , for example , we now have satellites in space that measure the actual greenhouse effect , the amount of radiation that escapes the atmosphere .
Right now they are still new , but in the next few years we should have a lot of interesting data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of these models can even begin to take into account uncertainty.
What happens if there is a massive Krakatoa type eruption in the next 50 years?
Or in this case, the next 350 years?Oddly enough, this is one thing all the models do extremely well at predicting.
If there is a huge volcano, we will be able to predict what that eruption will do to the global climate, mainly because it is a frequent enough occurrence that we have a lot of datapoints indicating what happens in those cases.
It is something you can almost figure out by hand on paper.
The thing the computer models have trouble with are things we don't have experimental verification of (like until recently, the constant in this equation [wikipedia.org] was calculated 15\% too high until recent experimental evidence).
In a lot of these cases there just isn't the data available to make good predictions.
A lot of new data is coming in, for example, we now have satellites in space that measure the actual greenhouse effect, the amount of radiation that escapes the atmosphere.
Right now they are still new, but in the next few years we should have a lot of interesting data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874512</id>
	<title>Re:Global warming hoax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264257420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I had mod points I'd mod you back up. Unfortunately Slashdot is overrun by<br>morons these days.<br><br>Keep it up. They're losing the argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had mod points I 'd mod you back up .
Unfortunately Slashdot is overrun bymorons these days.Keep it up .
They 're losing the argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had mod points I'd mod you back up.
Unfortunately Slashdot is overrun bymorons these days.Keep it up.
They're losing the argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876026</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1264271520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Someone want to remind me why I should trust the IPCC (or climate "science") again?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Because the IPCC's mandate is to prove the existence of global warming, which means they will only ever discover that it's happening, sounds very neutral and scientific, eh?
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental\_Panel\_on\_Climate\_Change" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental\_Panel\_on\_Climate\_Change</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><blockquote><div><p>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2]  tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone want to remind me why I should trust the IPCC ( or climate " science " ) again ?
Because the IPCC 's mandate is to prove the existence of global warming , which means they will only ever discover that it 's happening , sounds very neutral and scientific , eh ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental \ _Panel \ _on \ _Climate \ _Change [ wikipedia.org ] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) is a scientific intergovernmental body [ 1 ] [ 2 ] tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone want to remind me why I should trust the IPCC (or climate "science") again?
Because the IPCC's mandate is to prove the existence of global warming, which means they will only ever discover that it's happening, sounds very neutral and scientific, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental\_Panel\_on\_Climate\_Change [wikipedia.org]The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2]  tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874570</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps not highly damaging?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Yeah, obviously <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html" title="nationalgeographic.com">shrinking polar caps</a> [nationalgeographic.com] are evidence of anthropogenic global warming.  That darned Mars rover is just heating up the place.</p><blockquote><div><p> The question that will matter to all of us in coming years is not whether the IPCC had, in the midst of a large report of substance, accidentally transposed numbers when discussing a real and dangerous trend.</p></div> </blockquote><p>A better question is whether the IPCC, in a report full of nonsense and propaganda, accidentally told an easily-verifiable whopper.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps not highly damaging ?
Yeah , obviously shrinking polar caps [ nationalgeographic.com ] are evidence of anthropogenic global warming .
That darned Mars rover is just heating up the place .
The question that will matter to all of us in coming years is not whether the IPCC had , in the midst of a large report of substance , accidentally transposed numbers when discussing a real and dangerous trend .
A better question is whether the IPCC , in a report full of nonsense and propaganda , accidentally told an easily-verifiable whopper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps not highly damaging?
Yeah, obviously shrinking polar caps [nationalgeographic.com] are evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
That darned Mars rover is just heating up the place.
The question that will matter to all of us in coming years is not whether the IPCC had, in the midst of a large report of substance, accidentally transposed numbers when discussing a real and dangerous trend.
A better question is whether the IPCC, in a report full of nonsense and propaganda, accidentally told an easily-verifiable whopper.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878714</id>
	<title>Re:Has anyone looked at the most recent photograph</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1264352160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why it's important to actually do science.  Your opinion is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why it 's important to actually do science .
Your opinion is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why it's important to actually do science.
Your opinion is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874894</id>
	<title>As someone who lives in the area...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264261140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a resident of Nepal, I can tell you we don't believe these reports anyway. In a city where there are more NGOs per captia then people (a slight exaggeration), it's easy to see what the business is all about anyway. For example, why has WWF Nepal gone from protecting Rhinos and Dolphins to protecting the "climate"? Follow the money trail...</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a resident of Nepal , I can tell you we do n't believe these reports anyway .
In a city where there are more NGOs per captia then people ( a slight exaggeration ) , it 's easy to see what the business is all about anyway .
For example , why has WWF Nepal gone from protecting Rhinos and Dolphins to protecting the " climate " ?
Follow the money trail.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a resident of Nepal, I can tell you we don't believe these reports anyway.
In a city where there are more NGOs per captia then people (a slight exaggeration), it's easy to see what the business is all about anyway.
For example, why has WWF Nepal gone from protecting Rhinos and Dolphins to protecting the "climate"?
Follow the money trail...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875878</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>DiamondGeezer</author>
	<datestamp>1264270020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps [nrdc.org] not highly damaging? The hard empirical fact that we've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~280 parts per million to over 370? The increasing ocean acidity from absorbing this increased CO2? The fact that widespread deforestation in the midst of de-sequestering carbon locked in oil and carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere on this level has a significant impact?</em> <br> <br>

*sigh*<br> <br>

1. The Arctic polar cap has been shrinking since the satellite era began (1979) at the end of a period of cooling (1940-1978). The Antarctic Cap has been growing during that time.<br> <br>

2. The hard empirical fact is that atmospheric CO2 has risen from ~280 ppm to over 370ppm. But there is no link between rising CO2 and temperature rise except in the reverse sense: temperature rises and then 800-1000 years later, CO2 rises in delayed response.<br> <br>

3. The oceans are not acidifying. The reported change in the average pH of 0.1 is below the measurement error of even well calibrated instruments. <br> <br>

4. Widespread deforestation is a problem. Desequestering carbon might be a problem or a solution. It does not follow that desequestering carbon is a bad thing since human caused CO2 emissions are only 3\% of the natural flux.<br> <br>

<em>Will we come to our senses already, or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first?</em> <br> <br>

Soaring food prices were and are caused by ignorant assholes like you voting for people to grow corn for ethanol instead of for people. What did you fucking expect? Cheaper food?<br> <br>

Cities and islands are not flooding. The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since. Tuvalu's sea levels have remained stable during that time.<br> <br>

What will it take? Perhaps you should spend time cracking a book on science instead of believing every alarmist prediction of the end of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps [ nrdc.org ] not highly damaging ?
The hard empirical fact that we 've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~ 280 parts per million to over 370 ?
The increasing ocean acidity from absorbing this increased CO2 ?
The fact that widespread deforestation in the midst of de-sequestering carbon locked in oil and carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere on this level has a significant impact ?
* sigh * 1 .
The Arctic polar cap has been shrinking since the satellite era began ( 1979 ) at the end of a period of cooling ( 1940-1978 ) .
The Antarctic Cap has been growing during that time .
2. The hard empirical fact is that atmospheric CO2 has risen from ~ 280 ppm to over 370ppm .
But there is no link between rising CO2 and temperature rise except in the reverse sense : temperature rises and then 800-1000 years later , CO2 rises in delayed response .
3. The oceans are not acidifying .
The reported change in the average pH of 0.1 is below the measurement error of even well calibrated instruments .
4. Widespread deforestation is a problem .
Desequestering carbon might be a problem or a solution .
It does not follow that desequestering carbon is a bad thing since human caused CO2 emissions are only 3 \ % of the natural flux .
Will we come to our senses already , or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first ?
Soaring food prices were and are caused by ignorant assholes like you voting for people to grow corn for ethanol instead of for people .
What did you fucking expect ?
Cheaper food ?
Cities and islands are not flooding .
The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since .
Tuvalu 's sea levels have remained stable during that time .
What will it take ?
Perhaps you should spend time cracking a book on science instead of believing every alarmist prediction of the end of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is solid evidence of shrinking polar caps [nrdc.org] not highly damaging?
The hard empirical fact that we've taken the atmospheric CO2 level from ~280 parts per million to over 370?
The increasing ocean acidity from absorbing this increased CO2?
The fact that widespread deforestation in the midst of de-sequestering carbon locked in oil and carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere on this level has a significant impact?
*sigh* 

1.
The Arctic polar cap has been shrinking since the satellite era began (1979) at the end of a period of cooling (1940-1978).
The Antarctic Cap has been growing during that time.
2. The hard empirical fact is that atmospheric CO2 has risen from ~280 ppm to over 370ppm.
But there is no link between rising CO2 and temperature rise except in the reverse sense: temperature rises and then 800-1000 years later, CO2 rises in delayed response.
3. The oceans are not acidifying.
The reported change in the average pH of 0.1 is below the measurement error of even well calibrated instruments.
4. Widespread deforestation is a problem.
Desequestering carbon might be a problem or a solution.
It does not follow that desequestering carbon is a bad thing since human caused CO2 emissions are only 3\% of the natural flux.
Will we come to our senses already, or will it take soaring food prices and flooded cities and islands first?
Soaring food prices were and are caused by ignorant assholes like you voting for people to grow corn for ethanol instead of for people.
What did you fucking expect?
Cheaper food?
Cities and islands are not flooding.
The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since.
Tuvalu's sea levels have remained stable during that time.
What will it take?
Perhaps you should spend time cracking a book on science instead of believing every alarmist prediction of the end of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878900</id>
	<title>Re:Peer review?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Seriously Behe. Terrible example. Wait until you get to question this guy, live in front of a group of people. He completely falls apart. He's a creationist robot and he literally has no response to thousands of people (many, well reasoned amateurs) who have deconstructed his arguments and offered proof that he is incorrect in his biology. Nice try. FYI, I read his book, his papers, and attended two lectures. It is a hobby of mine. I am a climate scientist. I'm eagar for skeptics to dismantle global warming, but very few critics are interested in participating in legitimate science. Competing theories, uhh, withstand far less scrutiny than AGW.</p><p>No skeptic can be taken seriously without suggesting a different theory to explain the available evidence. Shooting holes in AGW shows that there is big trouble with the way we do this science. I'm waiting for credible alternatives, not political hacks trying to kick the can down the road. The US has already lost the energy war of the future because a bunch of foolish republicans think short-term fossil fuel costs are more important than the future of energy technology and production.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Seriously Behe .
Terrible example .
Wait until you get to question this guy , live in front of a group of people .
He completely falls apart .
He 's a creationist robot and he literally has no response to thousands of people ( many , well reasoned amateurs ) who have deconstructed his arguments and offered proof that he is incorrect in his biology .
Nice try .
FYI , I read his book , his papers , and attended two lectures .
It is a hobby of mine .
I am a climate scientist .
I 'm eagar for skeptics to dismantle global warming , but very few critics are interested in participating in legitimate science .
Competing theories , uhh , withstand far less scrutiny than AGW.No skeptic can be taken seriously without suggesting a different theory to explain the available evidence .
Shooting holes in AGW shows that there is big trouble with the way we do this science .
I 'm waiting for credible alternatives , not political hacks trying to kick the can down the road .
The US has already lost the energy war of the future because a bunch of foolish republicans think short-term fossil fuel costs are more important than the future of energy technology and production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Seriously Behe.
Terrible example.
Wait until you get to question this guy, live in front of a group of people.
He completely falls apart.
He's a creationist robot and he literally has no response to thousands of people (many, well reasoned amateurs) who have deconstructed his arguments and offered proof that he is incorrect in his biology.
Nice try.
FYI, I read his book, his papers, and attended two lectures.
It is a hobby of mine.
I am a climate scientist.
I'm eagar for skeptics to dismantle global warming, but very few critics are interested in participating in legitimate science.
Competing theories, uhh, withstand far less scrutiny than AGW.No skeptic can be taken seriously without suggesting a different theory to explain the available evidence.
Shooting holes in AGW shows that there is big trouble with the way we do this science.
I'm waiting for credible alternatives, not political hacks trying to kick the can down the road.
The US has already lost the energy war of the future because a bunch of foolish republicans think short-term fossil fuel costs are more important than the future of energy technology and production.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30883258</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who lives in the area...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264334700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Nepal had neither rhinos nor dolphins.  Given that, perhaps it would be wise for WWF Nepal not to worry about them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive me if I 'm wrong , but I thought that Nepal had neither rhinos nor dolphins .
Given that , perhaps it would be wise for WWF Nepal not to worry about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Nepal had neither rhinos nor dolphins.
Given that, perhaps it would be wise for WWF Nepal not to worry about them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877082</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1264331580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the Military damn well knew that the T-80 was a dressed up T-72</p></div></blockquote><p>It is not. About the only thing both tanks have in common are the machine guns. Pretty much everything else is different. T-80 is partly based on a T-64, not T-72.</p><p>And yes, before you ask, T-64 and T-72 are different. T-64 was a new design, T-72 was based on T-62 upgraded somewhat to the T-64 level.</p><blockquote><div><p>and that the F-15 would beat a MIG-25 any day of the week</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe now, but not back then. First, maximum speed of F-15 is Mach 2.5, which is typical intercept speed for a MiG-25. The machine can go Mach 2.83 continuously without destroying the engines. Second, the service ceiling of a MiG-25 is about 4500m higher which alone outranges the older Sidewinders (and the plane is also fast enough to outrun a Sidewinder without straining the engines too much). When reacting fast enough MiG-25 could also outrun a Sparrow (because a MiG-25 would have a headstart). Don't forget that AMRAAM was introduced much later. F-15 on the other hand would have some real difficulties to outrun an R-40.</p><p>But you are right in a way that MiG-25 was a boogeyman - it was a short range interceptor made against high altitude bombers (especially the Valkyrie) instead of being a longer range fighter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Military damn well knew that the T-80 was a dressed up T-72It is not .
About the only thing both tanks have in common are the machine guns .
Pretty much everything else is different .
T-80 is partly based on a T-64 , not T-72.And yes , before you ask , T-64 and T-72 are different .
T-64 was a new design , T-72 was based on T-62 upgraded somewhat to the T-64 level.and that the F-15 would beat a MIG-25 any day of the weekMaybe now , but not back then .
First , maximum speed of F-15 is Mach 2.5 , which is typical intercept speed for a MiG-25 .
The machine can go Mach 2.83 continuously without destroying the engines .
Second , the service ceiling of a MiG-25 is about 4500m higher which alone outranges the older Sidewinders ( and the plane is also fast enough to outrun a Sidewinder without straining the engines too much ) .
When reacting fast enough MiG-25 could also outrun a Sparrow ( because a MiG-25 would have a headstart ) .
Do n't forget that AMRAAM was introduced much later .
F-15 on the other hand would have some real difficulties to outrun an R-40.But you are right in a way that MiG-25 was a boogeyman - it was a short range interceptor made against high altitude bombers ( especially the Valkyrie ) instead of being a longer range fighter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Military damn well knew that the T-80 was a dressed up T-72It is not.
About the only thing both tanks have in common are the machine guns.
Pretty much everything else is different.
T-80 is partly based on a T-64, not T-72.And yes, before you ask, T-64 and T-72 are different.
T-64 was a new design, T-72 was based on T-62 upgraded somewhat to the T-64 level.and that the F-15 would beat a MIG-25 any day of the weekMaybe now, but not back then.
First, maximum speed of F-15 is Mach 2.5, which is typical intercept speed for a MiG-25.
The machine can go Mach 2.83 continuously without destroying the engines.
Second, the service ceiling of a MiG-25 is about 4500m higher which alone outranges the older Sidewinders (and the plane is also fast enough to outrun a Sidewinder without straining the engines too much).
When reacting fast enough MiG-25 could also outrun a Sparrow (because a MiG-25 would have a headstart).
Don't forget that AMRAAM was introduced much later.
F-15 on the other hand would have some real difficulties to outrun an R-40.But you are right in a way that MiG-25 was a boogeyman - it was a short range interceptor made against high altitude bombers (especially the Valkyrie) instead of being a longer range fighter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30881180</id>
	<title>Re:Dislexyia?</title>
	<author>zigmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1264365480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say little/big endianness, (I know then it should be 2350 vs 5023 but the public won't catch that) just as an excuse to start that holy war all over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say little/big endianness , ( I know then it should be 2350 vs 5023 but the public wo n't catch that ) just as an excuse to start that holy war all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say little/big endianness, (I know then it should be 2350 vs 5023 but the public won't catch that) just as an excuse to start that holy war all over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875072</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>daver00</author>
	<datestamp>1264262700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the head of the IPCC came out fighting, calling the claims 'voodoo science', when it was pointed out that the error had been made. I am ok with errors being made, but what upsets me hugely in the AGW debate is that both sides throw out anything to do with science in favour of simply attacking each other from a position of idealism.</p><p>It wasn't a typo, it was a poorly researched claim that they defended when the error was pointed out to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the head of the IPCC came out fighting , calling the claims 'voodoo science ' , when it was pointed out that the error had been made .
I am ok with errors being made , but what upsets me hugely in the AGW debate is that both sides throw out anything to do with science in favour of simply attacking each other from a position of idealism.It was n't a typo , it was a poorly researched claim that they defended when the error was pointed out to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the head of the IPCC came out fighting, calling the claims 'voodoo science', when it was pointed out that the error had been made.
I am ok with errors being made, but what upsets me hugely in the AGW debate is that both sides throw out anything to do with science in favour of simply attacking each other from a position of idealism.It wasn't a typo, it was a poorly researched claim that they defended when the error was pointed out to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874560</id>
	<title>An inconvenient typo</title>
	<author>lucm</author>
	<datestamp>1264257900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IPCC calling this FUD a "typo" is like Hillary Clinton saying that she "misspoke" when she made up a story about running from sniper fire in Bosnia.</p><p>Someone should take back the Nobel prize from Al Gore (he should not be difficult to track down, just look for a big SUV, for a private Jet or for a mansion that needs a dedicated power plant).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IPCC calling this FUD a " typo " is like Hillary Clinton saying that she " misspoke " when she made up a story about running from sniper fire in Bosnia.Someone should take back the Nobel prize from Al Gore ( he should not be difficult to track down , just look for a big SUV , for a private Jet or for a mansion that needs a dedicated power plant ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IPCC calling this FUD a "typo" is like Hillary Clinton saying that she "misspoke" when she made up a story about running from sniper fire in Bosnia.Someone should take back the Nobel prize from Al Gore (he should not be difficult to track down, just look for a big SUV, for a private Jet or for a mansion that needs a dedicated power plant).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874604</id>
	<title>Global warming verses Creationism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What most want to say is that since this one piece of data is flawed the whole theory of global warming is false and the ocean of other data is also false. The problem is it's exactly the same argument Creationist use to disprove Darwinism. One of the fundimental elements of Darwinism is slow gradual change. Darwin was wrong and the truth seems to be sudden changes with long stagnant periods between, thousands or tens of thousands of years instead of millions of years for major changes in species. According to the Creationist since this one part is wrong the whole theory is wrong so obviously God created everything and Darwin was completely wrong. Not true just one part of theory needs revision so you don't throw out the whole theory and go with the one with zero scientific evidence. Melting all the glaciers in 20 years never made sense because the obvious problem of mass. Take a block of ice and hit it with a blow torch. The block of ice doesn't vanish it takes a long time to melt where as an ice cube melts in seconds. Mass is the difference. 300 years is still scary fast. Global warming is based on hundreds of different observation not just glaciers so like Darwinism don't throw out the theory simply because one part of the data was flawed. The north pole is still melting almost completely during the summer and in 300 years most glaciers will be gone. That's less time than the US has been settled and only a little longer than it's been a country. In geological terms it's a sudden event we just don't live long enough to see it for what it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What most want to say is that since this one piece of data is flawed the whole theory of global warming is false and the ocean of other data is also false .
The problem is it 's exactly the same argument Creationist use to disprove Darwinism .
One of the fundimental elements of Darwinism is slow gradual change .
Darwin was wrong and the truth seems to be sudden changes with long stagnant periods between , thousands or tens of thousands of years instead of millions of years for major changes in species .
According to the Creationist since this one part is wrong the whole theory is wrong so obviously God created everything and Darwin was completely wrong .
Not true just one part of theory needs revision so you do n't throw out the whole theory and go with the one with zero scientific evidence .
Melting all the glaciers in 20 years never made sense because the obvious problem of mass .
Take a block of ice and hit it with a blow torch .
The block of ice does n't vanish it takes a long time to melt where as an ice cube melts in seconds .
Mass is the difference .
300 years is still scary fast .
Global warming is based on hundreds of different observation not just glaciers so like Darwinism do n't throw out the theory simply because one part of the data was flawed .
The north pole is still melting almost completely during the summer and in 300 years most glaciers will be gone .
That 's less time than the US has been settled and only a little longer than it 's been a country .
In geological terms it 's a sudden event we just do n't live long enough to see it for what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What most want to say is that since this one piece of data is flawed the whole theory of global warming is false and the ocean of other data is also false.
The problem is it's exactly the same argument Creationist use to disprove Darwinism.
One of the fundimental elements of Darwinism is slow gradual change.
Darwin was wrong and the truth seems to be sudden changes with long stagnant periods between, thousands or tens of thousands of years instead of millions of years for major changes in species.
According to the Creationist since this one part is wrong the whole theory is wrong so obviously God created everything and Darwin was completely wrong.
Not true just one part of theory needs revision so you don't throw out the whole theory and go with the one with zero scientific evidence.
Melting all the glaciers in 20 years never made sense because the obvious problem of mass.
Take a block of ice and hit it with a blow torch.
The block of ice doesn't vanish it takes a long time to melt where as an ice cube melts in seconds.
Mass is the difference.
300 years is still scary fast.
Global warming is based on hundreds of different observation not just glaciers so like Darwinism don't throw out the theory simply because one part of the data was flawed.
The north pole is still melting almost completely during the summer and in 300 years most glaciers will be gone.
That's less time than the US has been settled and only a little longer than it's been a country.
In geological terms it's a sudden event we just don't live long enough to see it for what it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874832</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't even an error, it was INTENTIONAL!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is outright mis-quoting, but more likely intentional pot-stirring by the reporter to fuel a scandal where really there isn't one.</p><p>The first editorial sentence makes it seem like they knew about the typo from the start and left it there in on purpose, which is a highly disingenuous representation of events.</p><p>I wonder what the other reputable tabliods such as The Sun had to say?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is outright mis-quoting , but more likely intentional pot-stirring by the reporter to fuel a scandal where really there is n't one.The first editorial sentence makes it seem like they knew about the typo from the start and left it there in on purpose , which is a highly disingenuous representation of events.I wonder what the other reputable tabliods such as The Sun had to say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is outright mis-quoting, but more likely intentional pot-stirring by the reporter to fuel a scandal where really there isn't one.The first editorial sentence makes it seem like they knew about the typo from the start and left it there in on purpose, which is a highly disingenuous representation of events.I wonder what the other reputable tabliods such as The Sun had to say?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878140</id>
	<title>Re:There's a problem with this coverage</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1264347780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> there is no link between rising CO2 and temperature rise except in the reverse sense: temperature rises and then 800-1000 years later, CO2 rises in delayed response.</p></div><p>Fail. <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html" title="newscientist.com">New Scientist Climate Myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming</a> [newscientist.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The oceans are not acidifying.</p></div><p>Fail. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean\_acidification" title="wikipedia.org">Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of 0.075).</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p> The reported change in the average pH of 0.1 is below the measurement error of even well calibrated instruments.</p> </div><p>Fail. <a href="http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/necfe/pubs/pdf/Venture/venture2\_ph.html" title="cornell.edu">The very best (very expensive!) meters have an accuracy of &#177;0.002 pH units.</a> [cornell.edu] (and besides, multiple replicates and statistical analysis is used to increase accuracy and reduce individual variance - or did you seriously think that scientists only sample a single point in the sea with a single meter to determine temperature change?!)</p><p><div class="quote"><p> The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since. Tuvalu's sea levels have remained stable during that time.</p></div><p>The CIA disagree with you: <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mv.html" title="cia.gov">"Maldives: Environment - current issues: depletion of freshwater aquifers threatens water supplies; global warming and sea level rise; coral reef bleaching"</a> [cia.gov] <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south\_asia/7945877.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">How sea level rise has affected the Maldives</a> [bbc.co.uk] <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tv.html" title="cia.gov">Tuvalu is concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels, which threaten the country's underground water table</a> [cia.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no link between rising CO2 and temperature rise except in the reverse sense : temperature rises and then 800-1000 years later , CO2 rises in delayed response.Fail .
New Scientist Climate Myths : Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises , disproving the link to global warming [ newscientist.com ] The oceans are not acidifying.Fail .
Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 ( a change of 0.075 ) .
[ wikipedia.org ] The reported change in the average pH of 0.1 is below the measurement error of even well calibrated instruments .
Fail. The very best ( very expensive !
) meters have an accuracy of   0.002 pH units .
[ cornell.edu ] ( and besides , multiple replicates and statistical analysis is used to increase accuracy and reduce individual variance - or did you seriously think that scientists only sample a single point in the sea with a single meter to determine temperature change ? !
) The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since .
Tuvalu 's sea levels have remained stable during that time.The CIA disagree with you : " Maldives : Environment - current issues : depletion of freshwater aquifers threatens water supplies ; global warming and sea level rise ; coral reef bleaching " [ cia.gov ] How sea level rise has affected the Maldives [ bbc.co.uk ] Tuvalu is concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels , which threaten the country 's underground water table [ cia.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> there is no link between rising CO2 and temperature rise except in the reverse sense: temperature rises and then 800-1000 years later, CO2 rises in delayed response.Fail.
New Scientist Climate Myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming [newscientist.com] The oceans are not acidifying.Fail.
Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104 (a change of 0.075).
[wikipedia.org]  The reported change in the average pH of 0.1 is below the measurement error of even well calibrated instruments.
Fail. The very best (very expensive!
) meters have an accuracy of ±0.002 pH units.
[cornell.edu] (and besides, multiple replicates and statistical analysis is used to increase accuracy and reduce individual variance - or did you seriously think that scientists only sample a single point in the sea with a single meter to determine temperature change?!
) The Maldives had a sea level fall in the 1970s followed by stasis since.
Tuvalu's sea levels have remained stable during that time.The CIA disagree with you: "Maldives: Environment - current issues: depletion of freshwater aquifers threatens water supplies; global warming and sea level rise; coral reef bleaching" [cia.gov] How sea level rise has affected the Maldives [bbc.co.uk] Tuvalu is concerned about global increases in greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on rising sea levels, which threaten the country's underground water table [cia.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876340</id>
	<title>Re:Has anyone looked at the most recent photograph</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1264275600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Whoooooooosh!</i></p><p>The glacier wind is <i>really</i> strong around here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoooooooosh ! The glacier wind is really strong around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoooooooosh!The glacier wind is really strong around here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30879678</id>
	<title>Political issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264358160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that as long as this sort of thing keeps happening, people are going to question global warming.  It's exactly like someone said about the Piltdown Man.  It turned out to be a hoax, so instead of helping the evolutionary theory, it hurt it.  Now, personally, I'm a creationist, but I don't think that the theory of evolution should be scrapped or discounted or anything like that.  It's a valuable theory that houses a lot of valuable archaelogical data, and the two points of view (at least, in my opinion) are not irreconcilable.  If you disagree, fine.  We'll agree to disagree.  Let's not turn this into an evolution versus creation debate.</p><p>My point is that problems like this cast a lot of skepticism on something that could be perfectly legitimate.  People try to "help out" by inventing "facts" that aren't there.</p><p>Truth doesn't need help.  Facts - <i>real</i> facts - speak for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that as long as this sort of thing keeps happening , people are going to question global warming .
It 's exactly like someone said about the Piltdown Man .
It turned out to be a hoax , so instead of helping the evolutionary theory , it hurt it .
Now , personally , I 'm a creationist , but I do n't think that the theory of evolution should be scrapped or discounted or anything like that .
It 's a valuable theory that houses a lot of valuable archaelogical data , and the two points of view ( at least , in my opinion ) are not irreconcilable .
If you disagree , fine .
We 'll agree to disagree .
Let 's not turn this into an evolution versus creation debate.My point is that problems like this cast a lot of skepticism on something that could be perfectly legitimate .
People try to " help out " by inventing " facts " that are n't there.Truth does n't need help .
Facts - real facts - speak for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that as long as this sort of thing keeps happening, people are going to question global warming.
It's exactly like someone said about the Piltdown Man.
It turned out to be a hoax, so instead of helping the evolutionary theory, it hurt it.
Now, personally, I'm a creationist, but I don't think that the theory of evolution should be scrapped or discounted or anything like that.
It's a valuable theory that houses a lot of valuable archaelogical data, and the two points of view (at least, in my opinion) are not irreconcilable.
If you disagree, fine.
We'll agree to disagree.
Let's not turn this into an evolution versus creation debate.My point is that problems like this cast a lot of skepticism on something that could be perfectly legitimate.
People try to "help out" by inventing "facts" that aren't there.Truth doesn't need help.
Facts - real facts - speak for themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878492</id>
	<title>Re:Peer review?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1264350840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution, he's villified as a creationist."</p><p>Are you kidding?  Scientific debates rage about the mechanics of evolution.  Theories like kin selection go in and out of favour.  If someone could come up with a good, scientific alternative to the whole theory of evolution that describes the data better, he or she most definitely would.  That would be your-name-gets-remembered-forever kind of stuff.</p><p>Behe is most famous for his argument that certain structures are irreducibly complex.  That objection has most certainly been taken seriously by evolutionary science.  A lot of work has been put into gathering evidence to show that the so-called irreducibly complex structures can be reduced.  There is also a nice body of genetic work actually showing how individual mutations control incremental developments of things like the eye.</p><p>Behe is marginalized not because he raised valid objections to evolution but because he continues to cling to them with no evidence and practices "science" by press release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution , he 's villified as a creationist .
" Are you kidding ?
Scientific debates rage about the mechanics of evolution .
Theories like kin selection go in and out of favour .
If someone could come up with a good , scientific alternative to the whole theory of evolution that describes the data better , he or she most definitely would .
That would be your-name-gets-remembered-forever kind of stuff.Behe is most famous for his argument that certain structures are irreducibly complex .
That objection has most certainly been taken seriously by evolutionary science .
A lot of work has been put into gathering evidence to show that the so-called irreducibly complex structures can be reduced .
There is also a nice body of genetic work actually showing how individual mutations control incremental developments of things like the eye.Behe is marginalized not because he raised valid objections to evolution but because he continues to cling to them with no evidence and practices " science " by press release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When a scientist points out valid problems in papers discussing evolution, he's villified as a creationist.
"Are you kidding?
Scientific debates rage about the mechanics of evolution.
Theories like kin selection go in and out of favour.
If someone could come up with a good, scientific alternative to the whole theory of evolution that describes the data better, he or she most definitely would.
That would be your-name-gets-remembered-forever kind of stuff.Behe is most famous for his argument that certain structures are irreducibly complex.
That objection has most certainly been taken seriously by evolutionary science.
A lot of work has been put into gathering evidence to show that the so-called irreducibly complex structures can be reduced.
There is also a nice body of genetic work actually showing how individual mutations control incremental developments of things like the eye.Behe is marginalized not because he raised valid objections to evolution but because he continues to cling to them with no evidence and practices "science" by press release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876534</id>
	<title>Re:Peer review?</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1264364880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I'm wise enough..."</i>
<br> <br>
I used to think self praise was worthless, after reading your defense of a well known creationist I now believe it to be a good indicator of gullibility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm wise enough... " I used to think self praise was worthless , after reading your defense of a well known creationist I now believe it to be a good indicator of gullibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm wise enough..."
 
I used to think self praise was worthless, after reading your defense of a well known creationist I now believe it to be a good indicator of gullibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877742</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who lives in the area...</title>
	<author>matt4077</author>
	<datestamp>1264343100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They were protecting dolphins in Nepal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They were protecting dolphins in Nepal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were protecting dolphins in Nepal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30898102</id>
	<title>All I know is Trail BC has less snow in JANUARY</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1264424220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that I know is, when they ran the Olympic Torch across Canada just recently, that Trail, BC, in Rocky Mountain chain, had no snow on the ground when I and all my high school classmates grew up with 6-10 feet of snow (2-3 metres) during the month of January.</p><p>Pretend global warming is not happening all you want, but the oscillating dramatic changes are happening worldwide faster and faster.</p><p>And no amount of revision will change that basic fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that I know is , when they ran the Olympic Torch across Canada just recently , that Trail , BC , in Rocky Mountain chain , had no snow on the ground when I and all my high school classmates grew up with 6-10 feet of snow ( 2-3 metres ) during the month of January.Pretend global warming is not happening all you want , but the oscillating dramatic changes are happening worldwide faster and faster.And no amount of revision will change that basic fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that I know is, when they ran the Olympic Torch across Canada just recently, that Trail, BC, in Rocky Mountain chain, had no snow on the ground when I and all my high school classmates grew up with 6-10 feet of snow (2-3 metres) during the month of January.Pretend global warming is not happening all you want, but the oscillating dramatic changes are happening worldwide faster and faster.And no amount of revision will change that basic fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874768</id>
	<title>Oh good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I'll be safely dead by the time the glaciers disappear then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'll be safely dead by the time the glaciers disappear then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'll be safely dead by the time the glaciers disappear then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you think that's bad, for each of these errors that gets publicized, vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever, including support for man-made global warming.</p></div></blockquote><p>If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered, then the public <i>*should*</i> lose faith in the claims of science.</p><p>Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned, anyway?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think that 's bad , for each of these errors that gets publicized , vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever , including support for man-made global warming.If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered , then the public * should * lose faith in the claims of science.Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned , anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think that's bad, for each of these errors that gets publicized, vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever, including support for man-made global warming.If these kind of errors are indicative of the standard by which scientific evidence is being gathered, then the public *should* lose faith in the claims of science.Exactly why does science deserve to be put upon a pedestal unquestioned, anyway?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592</id>
	<title>Re:Shhhh!</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1264258380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims.  Science requires that scientific work, claims, publications etc. undergo some degree of peer review which is exactly what happened.  The IPCC made a claim which was analyzed and corrected by a scientist.  Error correction is one of the most remarkable traits of science that is completely absent in its alternatives (pseudoscience, political infighting etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC 's claims .
Science requires that scientific work , claims , publications etc .
undergo some degree of peer review which is exactly what happened .
The IPCC made a claim which was analyzed and corrected by a scientist .
Error correction is one of the most remarkable traits of science that is completely absent in its alternatives ( pseudoscience , political infighting etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims.
Science requires that scientific work, claims, publications etc.
undergo some degree of peer review which is exactly what happened.
The IPCC made a claim which was analyzed and corrected by a scientist.
Error correction is one of the most remarkable traits of science that is completely absent in its alternatives (pseudoscience, political infighting etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875432</id>
	<title>Re:Has anyone looked at the most recent photograph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264266060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey everybody!  Some random guy on Slashdot looked at some pictures!  His opinion on this topic is of great importance!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey everybody !
Some random guy on Slashdot looked at some pictures !
His opinion on this topic is of great importance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey everybody!
Some random guy on Slashdot looked at some pictures!
His opinion on this topic is of great importance!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874184</id>
	<title>Global warming hoax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264254480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the UN lies to support global warming hoax?  That's strange almost like there is a conspiracy of scientists to trick the 1st world public.  Huh.  Go figure.</p><p>But, I'm sure some East Anglia "scientists" can "prove" that global warming is real.</p><p>Oh, what's that?  Temps are declining for the past 10 years?  INCONCEIVABLE!</p><p>But, mod me down you are the one denying the truth.</p><p>I would be shocked if this doesn't reach -2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the UN lies to support global warming hoax ?
That 's strange almost like there is a conspiracy of scientists to trick the 1st world public .
Huh. Go figure.But , I 'm sure some East Anglia " scientists " can " prove " that global warming is real.Oh , what 's that ?
Temps are declining for the past 10 years ?
INCONCEIVABLE ! But , mod me down you are the one denying the truth.I would be shocked if this does n't reach -2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the UN lies to support global warming hoax?
That's strange almost like there is a conspiracy of scientists to trick the 1st world public.
Huh.  Go figure.But, I'm sure some East Anglia "scientists" can "prove" that global warming is real.Oh, what's that?
Temps are declining for the past 10 years?
INCONCEIVABLE!But, mod me down you are the one denying the truth.I would be shocked if this doesn't reach -2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382</id>
	<title>Has anyone looked at the most recent photographs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264256220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of those glaciers have retreated more than 16 miles! If you want my opinion, it's very possible some of those glaciers could disappear by 2035.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of those glaciers have retreated more than 16 miles !
If you want my opinion , it 's very possible some of those glaciers could disappear by 2035 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of those glaciers have retreated more than 16 miles!
If you want my opinion, it's very possible some of those glaciers could disappear by 2035.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30886558</id>
	<title>Missing the Point</title>
	<author>gotermite</author>
	<datestamp>1264359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if half the glaciers which feed the seven great rivers of Asia are gone in 2030, who is to say which half of Asia's billions will be receiving half the water they once received or none? The trickle some might get in 2050 is irrelevant. Shortages are already apparent on the subcontinent. Asia is already facing an rolling disaster as the source is not replenished and each year experiences less flow from less ice until it's gone. The IPCC suffers from consensus building watering down its analysis which has put it behind the curve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if half the glaciers which feed the seven great rivers of Asia are gone in 2030 , who is to say which half of Asia 's billions will be receiving half the water they once received or none ?
The trickle some might get in 2050 is irrelevant .
Shortages are already apparent on the subcontinent .
Asia is already facing an rolling disaster as the source is not replenished and each year experiences less flow from less ice until it 's gone .
The IPCC suffers from consensus building watering down its analysis which has put it behind the curve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if half the glaciers which feed the seven great rivers of Asia are gone in 2030, who is to say which half of Asia's billions will be receiving half the water they once received or none?
The trickle some might get in 2050 is irrelevant.
Shortages are already apparent on the subcontinent.
Asia is already facing an rolling disaster as the source is not replenished and each year experiences less flow from less ice until it's gone.
The IPCC suffers from consensus building watering down its analysis which has put it behind the curve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30884132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30882216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30885410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30884688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30879536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30884754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30898964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30903046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30883258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30881180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_2211222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878140
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30898964
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30903046
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30884688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30884132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30879536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30883258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30882216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30881180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30884754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_2211222.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874592
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875314
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877306
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877992
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30877020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875664
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875406
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876534
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875696
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878492
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30878900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30885410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30874714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876244
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875948
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875072
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30875384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_2211222.30876974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
