<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_13_2349205</id>
	<title>Gov't Proposes "National Climate Service" For the US</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266062340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://peacecorpsonline.org/standingbear/" rel="nofollow">Standing Bear</a> writes <i>"NPR reports that 140 years after the creation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_weather\_service">National Weather Service</a>, the US government is proposing the creation of a <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123651132&amp;ft=1&amp;f=1007">similar service that will provide long-term projections</a> of how climate will change. 'We are actually getting millions of requests a year already about: How should coastal cities plan for sea-level rise? How should various other agencies in the federal government or in state governments make plans for everything from roads to managing water supplies?' says NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco.  'And a lot of that is going to be changing as the climate changes.' Under the plan, the new NOAA Climate Service <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/09/09climatewire-agency-will-create-national-climate-service-63603.html">would incorporate some of the agency's existing laboratories and research programs</a>, including the National Climatic Data Center, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and the National Weather Service's Historical Climate Network. Meanwhile, as plans for the new climate service shape up, NOAA launched a new Web site, <a href="http://www.climate.gov/">climate.gov</a>, designed to provide access to a wide range of climate information."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Standing Bear writes " NPR reports that 140 years after the creation of the National Weather Service , the US government is proposing the creation of a similar service that will provide long-term projections of how climate will change .
'We are actually getting millions of requests a year already about : How should coastal cities plan for sea-level rise ?
How should various other agencies in the federal government or in state governments make plans for everything from roads to managing water supplies ?
' says NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco .
'And a lot of that is going to be changing as the climate changes .
' Under the plan , the new NOAA Climate Service would incorporate some of the agency 's existing laboratories and research programs , including the National Climatic Data Center , the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and the National Weather Service 's Historical Climate Network .
Meanwhile , as plans for the new climate service shape up , NOAA launched a new Web site , climate.gov , designed to provide access to a wide range of climate information .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standing Bear writes "NPR reports that 140 years after the creation of the National Weather Service, the US government is proposing the creation of a similar service that will provide long-term projections of how climate will change.
'We are actually getting millions of requests a year already about: How should coastal cities plan for sea-level rise?
How should various other agencies in the federal government or in state governments make plans for everything from roads to managing water supplies?
' says NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco.
'And a lot of that is going to be changing as the climate changes.
' Under the plan, the new NOAA Climate Service would incorporate some of the agency's existing laboratories and research programs, including the National Climatic Data Center, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and the National Weather Service's Historical Climate Network.
Meanwhile, as plans for the new climate service shape up, NOAA launched a new Web site, climate.gov, designed to provide access to a wide range of climate information.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131154</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266066900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climate science is in its infancy. But climate politics are highly evolved. Ever wonder were all the commies went after 1990? Today's green is yesterday's red. It is hard to see programs like this going anywhere when a GOP congress comes to power in November.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate science is in its infancy .
But climate politics are highly evolved .
Ever wonder were all the commies went after 1990 ?
Today 's green is yesterday 's red .
It is hard to see programs like this going anywhere when a GOP congress comes to power in November .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate science is in its infancy.
But climate politics are highly evolved.
Ever wonder were all the commies went after 1990?
Today's green is yesterday's red.
It is hard to see programs like this going anywhere when a GOP congress comes to power in November.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31136134</id>
	<title>Re:If you haven't already, watch this video.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266179220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the observed differences in CO2 are related to the amount of vegitation present at time? Just because there is a correlation doesn't make it the cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the observed differences in CO2 are related to the amount of vegitation present at time ?
Just because there is a correlation does n't make it the cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the observed differences in CO2 are related to the amount of vegitation present at time?
Just because there is a correlation doesn't make it the cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133666</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266149340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"scientists who destroy data"<br>Like most of the stuff the climate change denies have said about the ClimateGate non-event, this is a flat out lie. How can you destroy data you do not own. Even if they hadn't lost their 'copy' of the data, they still couldn't make it publicly available themselves because they signed an NDA to receive it. The data has been made publicly available, though there is 5\% missing, that is probable the bit that shows there is a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists.</p><p>"snow piled up so high"<br>The reason why there is some much snow is because the lakes around the US are warmer than usual for this time of year, this means the air contains more moisture to become snow. Anyway the world is a big place, here is the southern hemisphere we are having heat waves.</p><p>Some other misinformation about ClimateGate;<br>- That it talks about a hiding a decline in temperature: The actually sentence people are referring to says nothing about what the decline is in, if you do a bit of research (like read the email) they are actually talking about a decline in tree ring growth which they hide by adding real temperature change, and it wasn't a secret that they did this.<br>- One of the scientist is having doubts about global warming: The scientist is actually expressing his frustration that he does not have enough data to explain short term fluctuations in global temperatures.<br>- The scientist threaten someone with violence: The email was a private email between two colleagues, they say nothing threatening to anybody. They are just expressing there frustrations among themselves.<br>- The scientist suppressed dissent opposing views: In the email they talk about not referencing a science journal because it has publish some poor quality papers. They never carried that out.</p><p>Consensus is an important part of the scientific process, it's like getting the same opinion from 10 doctors, if they all tell you that you have cancer, it a good chance you have cancer. You don't go shopping around until you find a doctor who says you don't have cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" scientists who destroy data " Like most of the stuff the climate change denies have said about the ClimateGate non-event , this is a flat out lie .
How can you destroy data you do not own .
Even if they had n't lost their 'copy ' of the data , they still could n't make it publicly available themselves because they signed an NDA to receive it .
The data has been made publicly available , though there is 5 \ % missing , that is probable the bit that shows there is a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists .
" snow piled up so high " The reason why there is some much snow is because the lakes around the US are warmer than usual for this time of year , this means the air contains more moisture to become snow .
Anyway the world is a big place , here is the southern hemisphere we are having heat waves.Some other misinformation about ClimateGate ; - That it talks about a hiding a decline in temperature : The actually sentence people are referring to says nothing about what the decline is in , if you do a bit of research ( like read the email ) they are actually talking about a decline in tree ring growth which they hide by adding real temperature change , and it was n't a secret that they did this.- One of the scientist is having doubts about global warming : The scientist is actually expressing his frustration that he does not have enough data to explain short term fluctuations in global temperatures.- The scientist threaten someone with violence : The email was a private email between two colleagues , they say nothing threatening to anybody .
They are just expressing there frustrations among themselves.- The scientist suppressed dissent opposing views : In the email they talk about not referencing a science journal because it has publish some poor quality papers .
They never carried that out.Consensus is an important part of the scientific process , it 's like getting the same opinion from 10 doctors , if they all tell you that you have cancer , it a good chance you have cancer .
You do n't go shopping around until you find a doctor who says you do n't have cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"scientists who destroy data"Like most of the stuff the climate change denies have said about the ClimateGate non-event, this is a flat out lie.
How can you destroy data you do not own.
Even if they hadn't lost their 'copy' of the data, they still couldn't make it publicly available themselves because they signed an NDA to receive it.
The data has been made publicly available, though there is 5\% missing, that is probable the bit that shows there is a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists.
"snow piled up so high"The reason why there is some much snow is because the lakes around the US are warmer than usual for this time of year, this means the air contains more moisture to become snow.
Anyway the world is a big place, here is the southern hemisphere we are having heat waves.Some other misinformation about ClimateGate;- That it talks about a hiding a decline in temperature: The actually sentence people are referring to says nothing about what the decline is in, if you do a bit of research (like read the email) they are actually talking about a decline in tree ring growth which they hide by adding real temperature change, and it wasn't a secret that they did this.- One of the scientist is having doubts about global warming: The scientist is actually expressing his frustration that he does not have enough data to explain short term fluctuations in global temperatures.- The scientist threaten someone with violence: The email was a private email between two colleagues, they say nothing threatening to anybody.
They are just expressing there frustrations among themselves.- The scientist suppressed dissent opposing views: In the email they talk about not referencing a science journal because it has publish some poor quality papers.
They never carried that out.Consensus is an important part of the scientific process, it's like getting the same opinion from 10 doctors, if they all tell you that you have cancer, it a good chance you have cancer.
You don't go shopping around until you find a doctor who says you don't have cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31136314</id>
	<title>Re:Letter to Dr. Jane</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1266180600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the hell is this insightful?</p><p>How about municipalities, just to start things off? Then there are the insurance companies. Then construction companies. Of course, there is the military as well. Farmers. Etc., etc. etc. .</p><p>A lot of people and money can be saved with knowledge about the climate and future climate. However, at this time getting specific information about a particular area can be difficult, if not impossible. The whole point of this service is to aggregate the information so that it can be available for access for people to make better decisions and better preparations.</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell is this insightful ? How about municipalities , just to start things off ?
Then there are the insurance companies .
Then construction companies .
Of course , there is the military as well .
Farmers. Etc. , etc .
etc. .A lot of people and money can be saved with knowledge about the climate and future climate .
However , at this time getting specific information about a particular area can be difficult , if not impossible .
The whole point of this service is to aggregate the information so that it can be available for access for people to make better decisions and better preparations. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell is this insightful?How about municipalities, just to start things off?
Then there are the insurance companies.
Then construction companies.
Of course, there is the military as well.
Farmers. Etc., etc.
etc. .A lot of people and money can be saved with knowledge about the climate and future climate.
However, at this time getting specific information about a particular area can be difficult, if not impossible.
The whole point of this service is to aggregate the information so that it can be available for access for people to make better decisions and better preparations.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131848</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1266074880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, did you just seriously imply that the broad scientific consensus in favor of AGW is a result of <i>threats of violence</i>? I've seen some pretty insane denialist conspiracy theories on Slashdot, but this is certainly one of the craziest. Tell me, where does the commie fascist UN plot for a world government fit into this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , did you just seriously imply that the broad scientific consensus in favor of AGW is a result of threats of violence ?
I 've seen some pretty insane denialist conspiracy theories on Slashdot , but this is certainly one of the craziest .
Tell me , where does the commie fascist UN plot for a world government fit into this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, did you just seriously imply that the broad scientific consensus in favor of AGW is a result of threats of violence?
I've seen some pretty insane denialist conspiracy theories on Slashdot, but this is certainly one of the craziest.
Tell me, where does the commie fascist UN plot for a world government fit into this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131346</id>
	<title>Phil Jones threw CO2 climate warming under the bus</title>
	<author>jvillain</author>
	<datestamp>1266069180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well Phil Jones just threw most of the man made climate warming story <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">under the bus</a> [bbc.co.uk].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Phil Jones just threw most of the man made climate warming story under the bus [ bbc.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Phil Jones just threw most of the man made climate warming story under the bus [bbc.co.uk].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31149904</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>anaesthetica</author>
	<datestamp>1266234660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please, we all know that podiatrists' "research" is funded by BigFoot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , we all know that podiatrists ' " research " is funded by BigFoot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, we all know that podiatrists' "research" is funded by BigFoot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132228</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266079860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice strawman - I didn't say "threats of violence", I said the burning hatred in your former colleagues' eyes. That burning hatred was very clearly displayed in the hacked e-mails - and the scientific community went out in crowds.to say that this was \_perfectly normal behaviour\_. Much like 'proving climate change' is a long process taking a number of papers, so would 'disproving climate change' be - and for that period of time, a skeptic would have to live with that hatred.</p><p>Your attempts to "refute" that phenomenon through ridicule and asshattery simply shows what a lowlife piece of shit you are. Nothing motivates ME as much as the "climate crowd" showing they are full of crap, lies, and willingness to act like clowns if it can "win" them an argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice strawman - I did n't say " threats of violence " , I said the burning hatred in your former colleagues ' eyes .
That burning hatred was very clearly displayed in the hacked e-mails - and the scientific community went out in crowds.to say that this was \ _perfectly normal behaviour \ _ .
Much like 'proving climate change ' is a long process taking a number of papers , so would 'disproving climate change ' be - and for that period of time , a skeptic would have to live with that hatred.Your attempts to " refute " that phenomenon through ridicule and asshattery simply shows what a lowlife piece of shit you are .
Nothing motivates ME as much as the " climate crowd " showing they are full of crap , lies , and willingness to act like clowns if it can " win " them an argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice strawman - I didn't say "threats of violence", I said the burning hatred in your former colleagues' eyes.
That burning hatred was very clearly displayed in the hacked e-mails - and the scientific community went out in crowds.to say that this was \_perfectly normal behaviour\_.
Much like 'proving climate change' is a long process taking a number of papers, so would 'disproving climate change' be - and for that period of time, a skeptic would have to live with that hatred.Your attempts to "refute" that phenomenon through ridicule and asshattery simply shows what a lowlife piece of shit you are.
Nothing motivates ME as much as the "climate crowd" showing they are full of crap, lies, and willingness to act like clowns if it can "win" them an argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131628</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266072300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you have any scientific organizations that agree with you that the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still up in the air?</p></div><p>Well, if the greenhouse gas aspect is not up in the air, problem solved, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have any scientific organizations that agree with you that the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still up in the air ? Well , if the greenhouse gas aspect is not up in the air , problem solved , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have any scientific organizations that agree with you that the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still up in the air?Well, if the greenhouse gas aspect is not up in the air, problem solved, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131822</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Zironic</author>
	<datestamp>1266074460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both Snow and Lack of Snow fit the model because the model predicts higher temperature variations.  The fact that you think that this is inconsistent is just because you haven't actually read their predictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both Snow and Lack of Snow fit the model because the model predicts higher temperature variations .
The fact that you think that this is inconsistent is just because you have n't actually read their predictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both Snow and Lack of Snow fit the model because the model predicts higher temperature variations.
The fact that you think that this is inconsistent is just because you haven't actually read their predictions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132448</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266082980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NO.</p><p>there are scientists in all those organizations that question validity of current "climate models", and the real scientists among them will tell you the dominant greenhouse gas on this planet is water vapor, next to that the effects of CO2 are negligible.  And it is beyond our ability to model the effects of water vapor.</p><p>There are 30,000 scientists who have signed paper saying the science behind AGW is questionable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO.there are scientists in all those organizations that question validity of current " climate models " , and the real scientists among them will tell you the dominant greenhouse gas on this planet is water vapor , next to that the effects of CO2 are negligible .
And it is beyond our ability to model the effects of water vapor.There are 30,000 scientists who have signed paper saying the science behind AGW is questionable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO.there are scientists in all those organizations that question validity of current "climate models", and the real scientists among them will tell you the dominant greenhouse gas on this planet is water vapor, next to that the effects of CO2 are negligible.
And it is beyond our ability to model the effects of water vapor.There are 30,000 scientists who have signed paper saying the science behind AGW is questionable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134006</id>
	<title>Snow and warming</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1266156540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Extra snow is pretty consistent with warming:  <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1427" title="wunderground.com">http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1427</a> [wunderground.com]  The atmosphere holds more moisture at the same relative humidity in a warmer world so precipitation events can end up stronger than usual.  Snow is just one form of precipitation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Extra snow is pretty consistent with warming : http : //www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html ? entrynum = 1427 [ wunderground.com ] The atmosphere holds more moisture at the same relative humidity in a warmer world so precipitation events can end up stronger than usual .
Snow is just one form of precipitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extra snow is pretty consistent with warming:  http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1427 [wunderground.com]  The atmosphere holds more moisture at the same relative humidity in a warmer world so precipitation events can end up stronger than usual.
Snow is just one form of precipitation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131362</id>
	<title>Seems like the trolls are out in force tonight</title>
	<author>GraZZ</author>
	<datestamp>1266069300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do all reasonable people have Saturday evening plans this weekend?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do all reasonable people have Saturday evening plans this weekend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do all reasonable people have Saturday evening plans this weekend?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131152</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>timbudtwo</author>
	<datestamp>1266066840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Greenhouse gas is up in the air.

Get it?
Hah.
ok.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenhouse gas is up in the air .
Get it ?
Hah . ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenhouse gas is up in the air.
Get it?
Hah.
ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131836</id>
	<title>How many deniers are also creationists?</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1266074640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Planetary Science:  Ask the people to say why Mercury is colder than Venus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Planetary Science : Ask the people to say why Mercury is colder than Venus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Planetary Science:  Ask the people to say why Mercury is colder than Venus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131586</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266071700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How free are those scientists to disagree when they know that 1) this will make many other scientists want to break their bones and crush their face with a baseball bat in a dark alley (quoting the UK climatologists' wet dreams) and 2) yet more scientists will say that this desire for face-crushing is actually very understandable and normal and nothing anyone should be upset by?</p><p>Would you want to say anything that would want your colleagues slobber at the thought of crushing your skull?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How free are those scientists to disagree when they know that 1 ) this will make many other scientists want to break their bones and crush their face with a baseball bat in a dark alley ( quoting the UK climatologists ' wet dreams ) and 2 ) yet more scientists will say that this desire for face-crushing is actually very understandable and normal and nothing anyone should be upset by ? Would you want to say anything that would want your colleagues slobber at the thought of crushing your skull ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How free are those scientists to disagree when they know that 1) this will make many other scientists want to break their bones and crush their face with a baseball bat in a dark alley (quoting the UK climatologists' wet dreams) and 2) yet more scientists will say that this desire for face-crushing is actually very understandable and normal and nothing anyone should be upset by?Would you want to say anything that would want your colleagues slobber at the thought of crushing your skull?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131416</id>
	<title>Sounds like a bad idea</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1266069900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the lab facilities, and possibly the employees, would be competed for by two separate bureaucracies?  I can't see how that would work smoothly.</p><p>Why can't they just throw some more money at the NOAA or NWS, telling them they need to take on some additional responsibilities?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the lab facilities , and possibly the employees , would be competed for by two separate bureaucracies ?
I ca n't see how that would work smoothly.Why ca n't they just throw some more money at the NOAA or NWS , telling them they need to take on some additional responsibilities ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the lab facilities, and possibly the employees, would be competed for by two separate bureaucracies?
I can't see how that would work smoothly.Why can't they just throw some more money at the NOAA or NWS, telling them they need to take on some additional responsibilities?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135012</id>
	<title>Re:Letter to Dr. Jane</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266168540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey Welfare Queen ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Taxpayer Maybe you should go to wattsupwiththat.com where Tony 'I haven't a clue' Watts has encourage his believers to send in at least five frivolous FOIA requests for weather data from five countries each. Tony and the rest of his idiots are bragging that they've sent in AT LEAST MILLION FOIA requests since he started his campaign. By the way since these idiots are demanding paper copies of all the data in each FOIA request it amounts  to a tractor-trailer load of paper for each FOIA. Care to complain about the waste of taxpayer money? Maybe you ought to take the time to learn a little high school science rather that being a ditto head</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Welfare Queen ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H Taxpayer Maybe you should go to wattsupwiththat.com where Tony 'I have n't a clue ' Watts has encourage his believers to send in at least five frivolous FOIA requests for weather data from five countries each .
Tony and the rest of his idiots are bragging that they 've sent in AT LEAST MILLION FOIA requests since he started his campaign .
By the way since these idiots are demanding paper copies of all the data in each FOIA request it amounts to a tractor-trailer load of paper for each FOIA .
Care to complain about the waste of taxpayer money ?
Maybe you ought to take the time to learn a little high school science rather that being a ditto head</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Welfare Queen ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Taxpayer Maybe you should go to wattsupwiththat.com where Tony 'I haven't a clue' Watts has encourage his believers to send in at least five frivolous FOIA requests for weather data from five countries each.
Tony and the rest of his idiots are bragging that they've sent in AT LEAST MILLION FOIA requests since he started his campaign.
By the way since these idiots are demanding paper copies of all the data in each FOIA request it amounts  to a tractor-trailer load of paper for each FOIA.
Care to complain about the waste of taxpayer money?
Maybe you ought to take the time to learn a little high school science rather that being a ditto head</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288</id>
	<title>The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266068460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science is repeatable, peer reviewable and changes as the truth becomes clearer. Science has never been about consensus, but has always been about pioneers seeking the truth. This leaves us with a quandary; Do we believe scientists who destroy data and refuse peer review, or do we attempt to gather our own data and find the truth. Currently the two barriers that will prevent us from finding the truth are those who believe that consensus is equivalent to scientific truth and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is repeatable , peer reviewable and changes as the truth becomes clearer .
Science has never been about consensus , but has always been about pioneers seeking the truth .
This leaves us with a quandary ; Do we believe scientists who destroy data and refuse peer review , or do we attempt to gather our own data and find the truth .
Currently the two barriers that will prevent us from finding the truth are those who believe that consensus is equivalent to scientific truth and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is repeatable, peer reviewable and changes as the truth becomes clearer.
Science has never been about consensus, but has always been about pioneers seeking the truth.
This leaves us with a quandary; Do we believe scientists who destroy data and refuse peer review, or do we attempt to gather our own data and find the truth.
Currently the two barriers that will prevent us from finding the truth are those who believe that consensus is equivalent to scientific truth and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131792</id>
	<title>More government bureaucracy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266074040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Creating a separate service for climate prediction is like saying we need a separate FBI to work on predicting future crimes. Just let the National Weather Service work on climate (hello, weather!) prediction. Come to think of it, why isn't the NWS working on this already??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Creating a separate service for climate prediction is like saying we need a separate FBI to work on predicting future crimes .
Just let the National Weather Service work on climate ( hello , weather !
) prediction .
Come to think of it , why is n't the NWS working on this already ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creating a separate service for climate prediction is like saying we need a separate FBI to work on predicting future crimes.
Just let the National Weather Service work on climate (hello, weather!
) prediction.
Come to think of it, why isn't the NWS working on this already?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131318</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266068880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Luckily, climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them. I say we let them.</i>
</p><p>
Sure, why not - let them put their predictions on record. After all, Nostradamus did the same.
</p><p>
But acting on those predictions by ruining the civilization - well, that's something I'd like to think for a moment or two. Perhaps I will even go as far as to ask for a second opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily , climate scientists disagree with you and ( unlike astrologers ) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them .
I say we let them .
Sure , why not - let them put their predictions on record .
After all , Nostradamus did the same .
But acting on those predictions by ruining the civilization - well , that 's something I 'd like to think for a moment or two .
Perhaps I will even go as far as to ask for a second opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Luckily, climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them.
I say we let them.
Sure, why not - let them put their predictions on record.
After all, Nostradamus did the same.
But acting on those predictions by ruining the civilization - well, that's something I'd like to think for a moment or two.
Perhaps I will even go as far as to ask for a second opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133262</id>
	<title>Re:*Facepalm*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266140940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's to *prove* GW and thus the need to increase taxation and spending. It's a power grab. Nothing more, nothing less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's to * prove * GW and thus the need to increase taxation and spending .
It 's a power grab .
Nothing more , nothing less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's to *prove* GW and thus the need to increase taxation and spending.
It's a power grab.
Nothing more, nothing less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31154358</id>
	<title>Re:Separation of powers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266330360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you could also separate church and science, that would be good too.</p><p>Eh, Kansas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you could also separate church and science , that would be good too.Eh , Kansas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you could also separate church and science, that would be good too.Eh, Kansas?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131430</id>
	<title>gay ninjas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266070020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are you a gay ninja?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are you a gay ninja ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are you a gay ninja?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131622</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1266072240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, let's think in terms of what the climate deniers want.  They don't care a fig about the scientific fight, what they want is a public policy that is favorable to fossil energy use.</p><p>It seems to me that the denialist position does its policy aims a disservice.  You can make policy arguments for unfettered fossil energy use without having to engage in a debate about science you don't understand or really care about.   It all comes down to different kinds of costs and risks.    If you don't do anything about AGW, you risk costs due to more rapid climate change.  If you do do something, you can't be sure of eliminating those costs, but you definitely take on the cost of not using the cheapest energy sources available.</p><p>I think you could make a credible argument on those terms.   Not unassailable of course, but not nutty either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , let 's think in terms of what the climate deniers want .
They do n't care a fig about the scientific fight , what they want is a public policy that is favorable to fossil energy use.It seems to me that the denialist position does its policy aims a disservice .
You can make policy arguments for unfettered fossil energy use without having to engage in a debate about science you do n't understand or really care about .
It all comes down to different kinds of costs and risks .
If you do n't do anything about AGW , you risk costs due to more rapid climate change .
If you do do something , you ca n't be sure of eliminating those costs , but you definitely take on the cost of not using the cheapest energy sources available.I think you could make a credible argument on those terms .
Not unassailable of course , but not nutty either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, let's think in terms of what the climate deniers want.
They don't care a fig about the scientific fight, what they want is a public policy that is favorable to fossil energy use.It seems to me that the denialist position does its policy aims a disservice.
You can make policy arguments for unfettered fossil energy use without having to engage in a debate about science you don't understand or really care about.
It all comes down to different kinds of costs and risks.
If you don't do anything about AGW, you risk costs due to more rapid climate change.
If you do do something, you can't be sure of eliminating those costs, but you definitely take on the cost of not using the cheapest energy sources available.I think you could make a credible argument on those terms.
Not unassailable of course, but not nutty either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131704</id>
	<title>Already done in Argentina</title>
	<author>rodox</author>
	<datestamp>1266073200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in Argentina and we've had the "Servicio Meteorol&#243;gico Nacional" (SMN) or National Meteorological Service since 1872, and if you check the forecast on TV or the radio, it most certainly comes from the SMN. Despite the blatant corruption in our country, the SMN is one of the most (if not the only) unbiased and trusted government source of information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Argentina and we 've had the " Servicio Meteorol   gico Nacional " ( SMN ) or National Meteorological Service since 1872 , and if you check the forecast on TV or the radio , it most certainly comes from the SMN .
Despite the blatant corruption in our country , the SMN is one of the most ( if not the only ) unbiased and trusted government source of information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Argentina and we've had the "Servicio Meteorológico Nacional" (SMN) or National Meteorological Service since 1872, and if you check the forecast on TV or the radio, it most certainly comes from the SMN.
Despite the blatant corruption in our country, the SMN is one of the most (if not the only) unbiased and trusted government source of information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31136850</id>
	<title>Re:If you haven't already, watch this video.</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1266140820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought that scientific studies had conclusively shown that CO2 rise *follows* temperature and not the other way around?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that scientific studies had conclusively shown that CO2 rise * follows * temperature and not the other way around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that scientific studies had conclusively shown that CO2 rise *follows* temperature and not the other way around?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131880</id>
	<title>Re:that sucking sound</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1266075300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't predict the movement of a thousand electrons, but I can predict their aggregate movement when they are combined in a baseball and hit with a baseball bat.  I can't tell you how to measure the stabilization time of a flip-flop but if you put a bunch of them together in a computer, I can write code to make them do amazing things.  It should be obvious that sometimes predictable order comes on top of apparent chaos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't predict the movement of a thousand electrons , but I can predict their aggregate movement when they are combined in a baseball and hit with a baseball bat .
I ca n't tell you how to measure the stabilization time of a flip-flop but if you put a bunch of them together in a computer , I can write code to make them do amazing things .
It should be obvious that sometimes predictable order comes on top of apparent chaos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't predict the movement of a thousand electrons, but I can predict their aggregate movement when they are combined in a baseball and hit with a baseball bat.
I can't tell you how to measure the stabilization time of a flip-flop but if you put a bunch of them together in a computer, I can write code to make them do amazing things.
It should be obvious that sometimes predictable order comes on top of apparent chaos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133106</id>
	<title>*Facepalm*</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1266180120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're going to take tax payer money to create a body that creates "long term projections".</p><p>Okay, we've had assorted loonies out on the corner for centuries preaching the end of the world.</p><p>Now we want to nationalize them?</p><p>Don't we have BETTER things to be spending our money on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're going to take tax payer money to create a body that creates " long term projections " .Okay , we 've had assorted loonies out on the corner for centuries preaching the end of the world.Now we want to nationalize them ? Do n't we have BETTER things to be spending our money on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're going to take tax payer money to create a body that creates "long term projections".Okay, we've had assorted loonies out on the corner for centuries preaching the end of the world.Now we want to nationalize them?Don't we have BETTER things to be spending our money on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135650</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266174540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>typical liberal elitist refusing to provide reason for their beliefs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>typical liberal elitist refusing to provide reason for their beliefs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>typical liberal elitist refusing to provide reason for their beliefs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132194</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266079320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>posting anon as I was moderating earlier, but I felt the need to point something out, as I was uncertain why this would be modded up.</p><p>"all issued statements that are non-committal. If they're still uncertain, why is is it so irrational for anyone else to be?"</p><p>I wouldn't describe someone being non-committal as ignorant, but if they used the list of organizations that you provided as evidence for their non-commitment, I rightly could say that they lack the ability to judge the bias of their sources.</p><p>Every organization you listed has serious conflicts of interests between AGW and oil exploration/oil businesses.  The state climatologists perhaps less so, but state climatologists are not quite as free as  true academic researchers, and are often influenced by politics and business (both for supporting or denying AGW).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>posting anon as I was moderating earlier , but I felt the need to point something out , as I was uncertain why this would be modded up .
" all issued statements that are non-committal .
If they 're still uncertain , why is is it so irrational for anyone else to be ?
" I would n't describe someone being non-committal as ignorant , but if they used the list of organizations that you provided as evidence for their non-commitment , I rightly could say that they lack the ability to judge the bias of their sources.Every organization you listed has serious conflicts of interests between AGW and oil exploration/oil businesses .
The state climatologists perhaps less so , but state climatologists are not quite as free as true academic researchers , and are often influenced by politics and business ( both for supporting or denying AGW ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>posting anon as I was moderating earlier, but I felt the need to point something out, as I was uncertain why this would be modded up.
"all issued statements that are non-committal.
If they're still uncertain, why is is it so irrational for anyone else to be?
"I wouldn't describe someone being non-committal as ignorant, but if they used the list of organizations that you provided as evidence for their non-commitment, I rightly could say that they lack the ability to judge the bias of their sources.Every organization you listed has serious conflicts of interests between AGW and oil exploration/oil businesses.
The state climatologists perhaps less so, but state climatologists are not quite as free as  true academic researchers, and are often influenced by politics and business (both for supporting or denying AGW).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132226</id>
	<title>Government Proposes More Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266079800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NOAA spokesperson on government funded NPR proposes the creation of NCS.  NOAA is 7,000 of DOCs 150,000 within the 2,500,000 civil employee Federal Government, almost 2\% of the entire US workforce.  Average wage of Federal employees climbs past $70k, plus bennies, plus pension, plus union immunities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NOAA spokesperson on government funded NPR proposes the creation of NCS .
NOAA is 7,000 of DOCs 150,000 within the 2,500,000 civil employee Federal Government , almost 2 \ % of the entire US workforce .
Average wage of Federal employees climbs past $ 70k , plus bennies , plus pension , plus union immunities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOAA spokesperson on government funded NPR proposes the creation of NCS.
NOAA is 7,000 of DOCs 150,000 within the 2,500,000 civil employee Federal Government, almost 2\% of the entire US workforce.
Average wage of Federal employees climbs past $70k, plus bennies, plus pension, plus union immunities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266072300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right that no major scientific organization is openly skeptical of climate change now.  But the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Association of State Climatologists, American Geological Institute, American Institute of Professional Geologists, and Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences have all issued statements that are non-committal.  If they're still uncertain, why is is it so irrational for anyone else to be?</p><p>I'm not saying that climate change isn't real, isn't caused by us, or isn't a net bad thing for humanity.  I don't know those things.  But I do have experience dealing with academics.  And when they fudge data, distort peer review to suppress dissent, and don't release the code they use in their all-important computer models, it's hardly unreasonable for someone to conclude that they're less than perfectly confident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right that no major scientific organization is openly skeptical of climate change now .
But the American Association of Petroleum Geologists , American Association of State Climatologists , American Geological Institute , American Institute of Professional Geologists , and Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences have all issued statements that are non-committal .
If they 're still uncertain , why is is it so irrational for anyone else to be ? I 'm not saying that climate change is n't real , is n't caused by us , or is n't a net bad thing for humanity .
I do n't know those things .
But I do have experience dealing with academics .
And when they fudge data , distort peer review to suppress dissent , and do n't release the code they use in their all-important computer models , it 's hardly unreasonable for someone to conclude that they 're less than perfectly confident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right that no major scientific organization is openly skeptical of climate change now.
But the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Association of State Climatologists, American Geological Institute, American Institute of Professional Geologists, and Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences have all issued statements that are non-committal.
If they're still uncertain, why is is it so irrational for anyone else to be?I'm not saying that climate change isn't real, isn't caused by us, or isn't a net bad thing for humanity.
I don't know those things.
But I do have experience dealing with academics.
And when they fudge data, distort peer review to suppress dissent, and don't release the code they use in their all-important computer models, it's hardly unreasonable for someone to conclude that they're less than perfectly confident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132324</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266081060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few years ago I heard an ad on the radio.  It was created by and paid for by the American Association of Podiatrists.  It very earnestly stressed how important feet are, and recommended that we each go to the podiatrist yearly, for a check up.<br> <br>

I have no doubt that podiatrists know more about feet than I do.  I also have no doubt that their recommendation was so biased and unrealistic it was laughable... despite their entirely sincere intentions.<br> <br>

I have no doubt that climatologists know more about the climate than I do...</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years ago I heard an ad on the radio .
It was created by and paid for by the American Association of Podiatrists .
It very earnestly stressed how important feet are , and recommended that we each go to the podiatrist yearly , for a check up .
I have no doubt that podiatrists know more about feet than I do .
I also have no doubt that their recommendation was so biased and unrealistic it was laughable... despite their entirely sincere intentions .
I have no doubt that climatologists know more about the climate than I do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years ago I heard an ad on the radio.
It was created by and paid for by the American Association of Podiatrists.
It very earnestly stressed how important feet are, and recommended that we each go to the podiatrist yearly, for a check up.
I have no doubt that podiatrists know more about feet than I do.
I also have no doubt that their recommendation was so biased and unrealistic it was laughable... despite their entirely sincere intentions.
I have no doubt that climatologists know more about the climate than I do...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134186</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266160200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the "climatologists all agree" argument ad populum is that the tribe of climatologists are a self selected group, who refuse to admit anyone who doesn't agree with their conclusions.  So naturally, they all agree with each other.</p><p>It makes even less sense to draw any conclusions about climate change by reading what all the nattering nabobs on Slashdot have to say.</p><p>If you have only a handful of independently generated data sets, the derivation of which are largely kept secret, you could have a millions climatologists all agree about what they mean, but you're really resorting to populism, not science.  All the noise on Slashdot, the MSM, and other ignorant venues may convict the ignorant, but does nothing to advance the science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the " climatologists all agree " argument ad populum is that the tribe of climatologists are a self selected group , who refuse to admit anyone who does n't agree with their conclusions .
So naturally , they all agree with each other.It makes even less sense to draw any conclusions about climate change by reading what all the nattering nabobs on Slashdot have to say.If you have only a handful of independently generated data sets , the derivation of which are largely kept secret , you could have a millions climatologists all agree about what they mean , but you 're really resorting to populism , not science .
All the noise on Slashdot , the MSM , and other ignorant venues may convict the ignorant , but does nothing to advance the science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the "climatologists all agree" argument ad populum is that the tribe of climatologists are a self selected group, who refuse to admit anyone who doesn't agree with their conclusions.
So naturally, they all agree with each other.It makes even less sense to draw any conclusions about climate change by reading what all the nattering nabobs on Slashdot have to say.If you have only a handful of independently generated data sets, the derivation of which are largely kept secret, you could have a millions climatologists all agree about what they mean, but you're really resorting to populism, not science.
All the noise on Slashdot, the MSM, and other ignorant venues may convict the ignorant, but does nothing to advance the science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131932</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266075780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Luckily, climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them.</p></div><p>Dude! Don't you read the papers? There's like horoscopes in <i>every one</i> of them!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily , climate scientists disagree with you and ( unlike astrologers ) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them.Dude !
Do n't you read the papers ?
There 's like horoscopes in every one of them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily, climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them.Dude!
Don't you read the papers?
There's like horoscopes in every one of them!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133164</id>
	<title>Separation of powers</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1266138720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We in the U.S. have decided that separation of church and state is a good idea.</p><p>I wonder how long until we decide that separation of science and state is also a good idea.</p><p>This sounds like it will be an office of propaganda, not a scientific establishment.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We in the U.S. have decided that separation of church and state is a good idea.I wonder how long until we decide that separation of science and state is also a good idea.This sounds like it will be an office of propaganda , not a scientific establishment.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We in the U.S. have decided that separation of church and state is a good idea.I wonder how long until we decide that separation of science and state is also a good idea.This sounds like it will be an office of propaganda, not a scientific establishment.--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131350</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>avtchillsboro</author>
	<datestamp>1266069240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are already paying for a National Weather Service / NOAA.<br> <br>

On long range predictions, the AGW alarmists are doing just fine now <b>voluntarily</b>--OTOH, it might be worth it to pay them to STFU...<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."I say we let them."<br> <br>

Agreed--let them do it on their own nickel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are already paying for a National Weather Service / NOAA .
On long range predictions , the AGW alarmists are doing just fine now voluntarily--OTOH , it might be worth it to pay them to STFU... ... " I say we let them .
" Agreed--let them do it on their own nickel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are already paying for a National Weather Service / NOAA.
On long range predictions, the AGW alarmists are doing just fine now voluntarily--OTOH, it might be worth it to pay them to STFU...  ..."I say we let them.
" 

Agreed--let them do it on their own nickel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131864</id>
	<title>Rediculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266075120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really could care who "feels" there data is correct or not. I have yet to see any real science in a lot of things for a lot of time. Seems like all science is adulterated by politics and groups who want the control anymore. This is why we no longer have much innovation any longer. Let treat this like the ant and the grasshopper. Let me be the grasshopper who could care less, and you can be the ant spending yourself into oblivion regarding knee jerk, "consensus driven" science. Let me be the one who starves to death and goes by the wayside if you are correct. But I want to contribute not one thin dime to this obvious power grab. Think the "oil cartel meanies" are putting out false data? So what - make money by investing in them instead of trying to jam down failed greenie weanie projects that are not money makers (See economics in Spain home of the economically failed greenie weanie industry). Then when the world comes to an end you can claim your spot in style.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really could care who " feels " there data is correct or not .
I have yet to see any real science in a lot of things for a lot of time .
Seems like all science is adulterated by politics and groups who want the control anymore .
This is why we no longer have much innovation any longer .
Let treat this like the ant and the grasshopper .
Let me be the grasshopper who could care less , and you can be the ant spending yourself into oblivion regarding knee jerk , " consensus driven " science .
Let me be the one who starves to death and goes by the wayside if you are correct .
But I want to contribute not one thin dime to this obvious power grab .
Think the " oil cartel meanies " are putting out false data ?
So what - make money by investing in them instead of trying to jam down failed greenie weanie projects that are not money makers ( See economics in Spain home of the economically failed greenie weanie industry ) .
Then when the world comes to an end you can claim your spot in style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really could care who "feels" there data is correct or not.
I have yet to see any real science in a lot of things for a lot of time.
Seems like all science is adulterated by politics and groups who want the control anymore.
This is why we no longer have much innovation any longer.
Let treat this like the ant and the grasshopper.
Let me be the grasshopper who could care less, and you can be the ant spending yourself into oblivion regarding knee jerk, "consensus driven" science.
Let me be the one who starves to death and goes by the wayside if you are correct.
But I want to contribute not one thin dime to this obvious power grab.
Think the "oil cartel meanies" are putting out false data?
So what - make money by investing in them instead of trying to jam down failed greenie weanie projects that are not money makers (See economics in Spain home of the economically failed greenie weanie industry).
Then when the world comes to an end you can claim your spot in style.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131462</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1266070500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I predict the saints will win the superbowl but I also predict the colts will win the superbowl, where's the confidence?  Last year the climatologists were touting their predictions that washington DC would never see snow again.  This year they dug up their predictions that winters will be more severe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I predict the saints will win the superbowl but I also predict the colts will win the superbowl , where 's the confidence ?
Last year the climatologists were touting their predictions that washington DC would never see snow again .
This year they dug up their predictions that winters will be more severe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I predict the saints will win the superbowl but I also predict the colts will win the superbowl, where's the confidence?
Last year the climatologists were touting their predictions that washington DC would never see snow again.
This year they dug up their predictions that winters will be more severe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134440</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1266163080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the climate but a combination of the weather all over the world? Every single time someone points out colder than normal weather in their part of the country it's dismissed as an isolated incident not indicative of anything. But then there's be some particular region where it happens to be warmer than normal, such as Vancouver, and the media, predictably jumps all over it as an example of climate change. I guess it only counts when it's warmer than normal, not when it's colder.</p><p>If the climate is shifting around so that some places get warmer, others colder, some get more precipitation and others less how exactly is this different from what has been happening for millions of years? I'd say that the problem isn't the climate but rather the fact that there are more humans around the world exposed to more climates and with far more invested in where they've chosen to live. What I'd like to know is how scientists and politicians reconcile the fact that there is archeological evidence that humanity has thrived in warmer periods when the seas were a lot higher than they are now.</p><p>The simple fact is whether or not humans are around the climate would be changing. That's an undeniable fact. Certainly we need to protect our environment but I feel this push is dictated more by politics and social engineering than any legitimate threat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the climate but a combination of the weather all over the world ?
Every single time someone points out colder than normal weather in their part of the country it 's dismissed as an isolated incident not indicative of anything .
But then there 's be some particular region where it happens to be warmer than normal , such as Vancouver , and the media , predictably jumps all over it as an example of climate change .
I guess it only counts when it 's warmer than normal , not when it 's colder.If the climate is shifting around so that some places get warmer , others colder , some get more precipitation and others less how exactly is this different from what has been happening for millions of years ?
I 'd say that the problem is n't the climate but rather the fact that there are more humans around the world exposed to more climates and with far more invested in where they 've chosen to live .
What I 'd like to know is how scientists and politicians reconcile the fact that there is archeological evidence that humanity has thrived in warmer periods when the seas were a lot higher than they are now.The simple fact is whether or not humans are around the climate would be changing .
That 's an undeniable fact .
Certainly we need to protect our environment but I feel this push is dictated more by politics and social engineering than any legitimate threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the climate but a combination of the weather all over the world?
Every single time someone points out colder than normal weather in their part of the country it's dismissed as an isolated incident not indicative of anything.
But then there's be some particular region where it happens to be warmer than normal, such as Vancouver, and the media, predictably jumps all over it as an example of climate change.
I guess it only counts when it's warmer than normal, not when it's colder.If the climate is shifting around so that some places get warmer, others colder, some get more precipitation and others less how exactly is this different from what has been happening for millions of years?
I'd say that the problem isn't the climate but rather the fact that there are more humans around the world exposed to more climates and with far more invested in where they've chosen to live.
What I'd like to know is how scientists and politicians reconcile the fact that there is archeological evidence that humanity has thrived in warmer periods when the seas were a lot higher than they are now.The simple fact is whether or not humans are around the climate would be changing.
That's an undeniable fact.
Certainly we need to protect our environment but I feel this push is dictated more by politics and social engineering than any legitimate threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132066</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1266077760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So a handful of guys are dodgy and fudged their data. That doesn't mean there's a worldwide conspiracy afoot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a handful of guys are dodgy and fudged their data .
That does n't mean there 's a worldwide conspiracy afoot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a handful of guys are dodgy and fudged their data.
That doesn't mean there's a worldwide conspiracy afoot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132334</id>
	<title>Let's see how they make this political</title>
	<author>ScottFree2600</author>
	<datestamp>1266081180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This smells like another attempt to get politicians or eco-opportunists into "the climate business".Remember, they almost pulled it off.
It was really disappointing and scary to me that there are some out there who wold pull any kind of stunt and use any tactic to support using allegedly "settled science" to achieve very questionable political goals.

Once again, don't get your science from Politicians, celebrities or lawyers. Examine why you believe what you do. Honest skepticism is healthy.

To those who call skeptics "deniers" (like holocaust deniers), please keep your religion to yourself.True scientists are skeptical, as they should be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This smells like another attempt to get politicians or eco-opportunists into " the climate business " .Remember , they almost pulled it off .
It was really disappointing and scary to me that there are some out there who wold pull any kind of stunt and use any tactic to support using allegedly " settled science " to achieve very questionable political goals .
Once again , do n't get your science from Politicians , celebrities or lawyers .
Examine why you believe what you do .
Honest skepticism is healthy .
To those who call skeptics " deniers " ( like holocaust deniers ) , please keep your religion to yourself.True scientists are skeptical , as they should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This smells like another attempt to get politicians or eco-opportunists into "the climate business".Remember, they almost pulled it off.
It was really disappointing and scary to me that there are some out there who wold pull any kind of stunt and use any tactic to support using allegedly "settled science" to achieve very questionable political goals.
Once again, don't get your science from Politicians, celebrities or lawyers.
Examine why you believe what you do.
Honest skepticism is healthy.
To those who call skeptics "deniers" (like holocaust deniers), please keep your religion to yourself.True scientists are skeptical, as they should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131780</id>
	<title>Did you know?</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1266073860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you know slashdot mod points are traded in real time in yahoo groups? It doesn't matter whether or not a comment is any good. It's a scratch my back mentality.  And I bet this comment remains without mod points.


Meanwhile,  a climate change agency would be a fantastic idea, but the majority of americans (the dumb ones) believe global warming to be a liberal lie. So.... good luck getting it going.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you know slashdot mod points are traded in real time in yahoo groups ?
It does n't matter whether or not a comment is any good .
It 's a scratch my back mentality .
And I bet this comment remains without mod points .
Meanwhile , a climate change agency would be a fantastic idea , but the majority of americans ( the dumb ones ) believe global warming to be a liberal lie .
So.... good luck getting it going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you know slashdot mod points are traded in real time in yahoo groups?
It doesn't matter whether or not a comment is any good.
It's a scratch my back mentality.
And I bet this comment remains without mod points.
Meanwhile,  a climate change agency would be a fantastic idea, but the majority of americans (the dumb ones) believe global warming to be a liberal lie.
So.... good luck getting it going.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132478</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1266083280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disagrees with <b>who</b>?
<br> <br>
Certainly not me. Did you read my comment properly? Why do you call me a "climate denier"? Because there is some disagreement among the scientists? There is, you know. Denying that is what is denying reality.
<br> <br>
<i>"They can talk a good talk, but fail in the actual doing of the science."</i>
<br> <br>
Okay. Here is an exercise for you. Read <a href="http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/5\_53/\_article" title="jst.go.jp">this paper</a> [jst.go.jp] (there is a link to the whole article on the abstract page), and tell me what significance it has for existing greenhouse models. This paper came from NOAA via NASA instruments.
<br> <br>
Then tell me with a straight face that it is all cut and dried.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disagrees with who ?
Certainly not me .
Did you read my comment properly ?
Why do you call me a " climate denier " ?
Because there is some disagreement among the scientists ?
There is , you know .
Denying that is what is denying reality .
" They can talk a good talk , but fail in the actual doing of the science .
" Okay .
Here is an exercise for you .
Read this paper [ jst.go.jp ] ( there is a link to the whole article on the abstract page ) , and tell me what significance it has for existing greenhouse models .
This paper came from NOAA via NASA instruments .
Then tell me with a straight face that it is all cut and dried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disagrees with who?
Certainly not me.
Did you read my comment properly?
Why do you call me a "climate denier"?
Because there is some disagreement among the scientists?
There is, you know.
Denying that is what is denying reality.
"They can talk a good talk, but fail in the actual doing of the science.
"
 
Okay.
Here is an exercise for you.
Read this paper [jst.go.jp] (there is a link to the whole article on the abstract page), and tell me what significance it has for existing greenhouse models.
This paper came from NOAA via NASA instruments.
Then tell me with a straight face that it is all cut and dried.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132310</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266080880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was a believer of climate change right up until I heard what they wanted to do about it. It is just a revitalization of the Pentecostal church where sin of man no longer angers God, but the planet. Same old apocalypse, but no Jesus, and nobody gets saved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a believer of climate change right up until I heard what they wanted to do about it .
It is just a revitalization of the Pentecostal church where sin of man no longer angers God , but the planet .
Same old apocalypse , but no Jesus , and nobody gets saved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a believer of climate change right up until I heard what they wanted to do about it.
It is just a revitalization of the Pentecostal church where sin of man no longer angers God, but the planet.
Same old apocalypse, but no Jesus, and nobody gets saved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132146</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266078780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main hypothesis of the global warming theory is one that has been borne out by evidence.  Sea levels are rising,<br>glaciers are melting and rainfall patterns are shifting.</p><p>So yes, some places will get less snow.  Other places will get more snow because the wind patterns in the upper atmosphere will have shifted to bring moisture to those parts.  In addition, there will be more variation in climate everywhere.  You'll have many more very wet years and very dry years - what will be missing are the moderate years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main hypothesis of the global warming theory is one that has been borne out by evidence .
Sea levels are rising,glaciers are melting and rainfall patterns are shifting.So yes , some places will get less snow .
Other places will get more snow because the wind patterns in the upper atmosphere will have shifted to bring moisture to those parts .
In addition , there will be more variation in climate everywhere .
You 'll have many more very wet years and very dry years - what will be missing are the moderate years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main hypothesis of the global warming theory is one that has been borne out by evidence.
Sea levels are rising,glaciers are melting and rainfall patterns are shifting.So yes, some places will get less snow.
Other places will get more snow because the wind patterns in the upper atmosphere will have shifted to bring moisture to those parts.
In addition, there will be more variation in climate everywhere.
You'll have many more very wet years and very dry years - what will be missing are the moderate years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31142252</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1266231060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are 30,000 scientists who have signed paper saying the science behind AGW is questionable.</p></div><p>Was it a scientific paper?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 30,000 scientists who have signed paper saying the science behind AGW is questionable.Was it a scientific paper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 30,000 scientists who have signed paper saying the science behind AGW is questionable.Was it a scientific paper?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132122</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1266078300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>American Association of Petroleum Geologists</i></p><p>Wow, really?  The oil industry is "non-committal"?  You realize that they switched from "opposed" to "non-committal" a couple years ago, right?</p><p>Plus, they're geologists.</p><p><i>American Association of State Climatologists</i></p><p>One, state climatologists are political appointees.  Two, the organization has no current statement.  Three, their last statement was from 2001, and barely counts as non-committal.</p><p><i>American Geological Institute</i></p><p>I have trouble seeing this as "non-committal": "The American Geological Institute (AGI) strongly supports education concerning the scientific evidence of past climate change, the potential for future climate change due to the current building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and the policy options available. Understanding the interactions between the solid Earth, the oceans, the biosphere, and the atmosphere both in the present and over time is critical for accurately analyzing and predicting global climate change due to natural processes and possible human influences."</p><p>Plus, they're geologists.</p><p><i>American Institute of Professional Geologists</i></p><p><i>A tiny organization of geologists (only 5,500 members -- compare to over 100k for the American Geological Institute).</i></p><p><i><i>Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences</i></i></p><p><i>They're not taking an official position, but the statement is pretty clear on where they stand: "We contribute to the global problem of changing climate by our emissions of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide - from industrial processes. A warming Earth has significant problems for Canada - instability in agricultural productivity, sinking of northern infrastructrure into melting permafrost, greater vulnerability of low-lying coastlines to storms.  While the Canadian Geoscience Council is not at this time taking a particular position specifically on the issue of global warming, the Council is establishing a position on the use of geological sinks to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2."</i></p><p><i>Plus, they're geologists.</i></p><p><i>Sorry, but if that's the best you can do, why even bother?  You clearly got those entries from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_opinion\_on\_climate\_change#Non-committal\_statements" title="wikipedia.org">here</a> [wikipedia.org], but didn't bother to mention how dwarfed they were by those who support AGW -- both in number and in scale of organizations and organizational prestige.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American Association of Petroleum GeologistsWow , really ?
The oil industry is " non-committal " ?
You realize that they switched from " opposed " to " non-committal " a couple years ago , right ? Plus , they 're geologists.American Association of State ClimatologistsOne , state climatologists are political appointees .
Two , the organization has no current statement .
Three , their last statement was from 2001 , and barely counts as non-committal.American Geological InstituteI have trouble seeing this as " non-committal " : " The American Geological Institute ( AGI ) strongly supports education concerning the scientific evidence of past climate change , the potential for future climate change due to the current building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases , and the policy options available .
Understanding the interactions between the solid Earth , the oceans , the biosphere , and the atmosphere both in the present and over time is critical for accurately analyzing and predicting global climate change due to natural processes and possible human influences .
" Plus , they 're geologists.American Institute of Professional GeologistsA tiny organization of geologists ( only 5,500 members -- compare to over 100k for the American Geological Institute ) .Canadian Federation of Earth SciencesThey 're not taking an official position , but the statement is pretty clear on where they stand : " We contribute to the global problem of changing climate by our emissions of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide - from industrial processes .
A warming Earth has significant problems for Canada - instability in agricultural productivity , sinking of northern infrastructrure into melting permafrost , greater vulnerability of low-lying coastlines to storms .
While the Canadian Geoscience Council is not at this time taking a particular position specifically on the issue of global warming , the Council is establishing a position on the use of geological sinks to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases , particularly CO2 .
" Plus , they 're geologists.Sorry , but if that 's the best you can do , why even bother ?
You clearly got those entries from here [ wikipedia.org ] , but did n't bother to mention how dwarfed they were by those who support AGW -- both in number and in scale of organizations and organizational prestige .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American Association of Petroleum GeologistsWow, really?
The oil industry is "non-committal"?
You realize that they switched from "opposed" to "non-committal" a couple years ago, right?Plus, they're geologists.American Association of State ClimatologistsOne, state climatologists are political appointees.
Two, the organization has no current statement.
Three, their last statement was from 2001, and barely counts as non-committal.American Geological InstituteI have trouble seeing this as "non-committal": "The American Geological Institute (AGI) strongly supports education concerning the scientific evidence of past climate change, the potential for future climate change due to the current building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and the policy options available.
Understanding the interactions between the solid Earth, the oceans, the biosphere, and the atmosphere both in the present and over time is critical for accurately analyzing and predicting global climate change due to natural processes and possible human influences.
"Plus, they're geologists.American Institute of Professional GeologistsA tiny organization of geologists (only 5,500 members -- compare to over 100k for the American Geological Institute).Canadian Federation of Earth SciencesThey're not taking an official position, but the statement is pretty clear on where they stand: "We contribute to the global problem of changing climate by our emissions of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide - from industrial processes.
A warming Earth has significant problems for Canada - instability in agricultural productivity, sinking of northern infrastructrure into melting permafrost, greater vulnerability of low-lying coastlines to storms.
While the Canadian Geoscience Council is not at this time taking a particular position specifically on the issue of global warming, the Council is establishing a position on the use of geological sinks to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2.
"Plus, they're geologists.Sorry, but if that's the best you can do, why even bother?
You clearly got those entries from here [wikipedia.org], but didn't bother to mention how dwarfed they were by those who support AGW -- both in number and in scale of organizations and organizational prestige.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134216</id>
	<title>Re:bad enough we have wasted billions on futility</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1266160620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"climate change will cause drought", then "climate change will cause stronger storms, then "climate change will cause flooding"...depending on what the global weather at the time seemed to be doing.</p></div><p>Actually it's often the media that say these things when they want to make some simplified link between the weather and "climate change". Scientists are well aware that <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641-climate-myths-chaotic-systems-are-not-predictable.html" title="newscientist.com">weather is not climate</a> [newscientist.com]. For example, with Hurricane Katrina you had some commentators saying that "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming". It's a nice, simplistic soundbite that the average American television viewer can understand. However, <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11661-climate-myths-hurricane-katrina-was-caused-by-global-warming.html" title="newscientist.com">scientists understand that the world is more complex than that</a> [newscientist.com], which is why they actually say <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/" title="realclimate.org">things like</a> [realclimate.org]:</p><p><i>The correct answer&ndash;the one we have indeed provided in previous posts (Storms &amp; Global Warming II, Some recent updates and Storms and Climate Change) &ndash;is that there is no way to prove that Katrina either was, or was not, affected by global warming. For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible. We only have one Earth, and it will follow only one of an infinite number of possible weather sequences. It is impossible to know whether or not this event would have taken place if we had not increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as much as we have. Weather events will always result from a combination of deterministic factors (including greenhouse gas forcing or slow natural climate cycles) and stochastic factors (pure chance).</i></p><p><i>Due to this semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming &ndash; and of course it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate.</i></p><p>Scientists are also smart enough to understand that there will be regional differences in climate change effects <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12817434.600-prudent-planning-for-a-warmer-planet.html?page=2" title="newscientist.com">("Prediction of the detailed regional distribution of climatic anomalies, where and when it will be wetter and drier, how many more floods might occur in the spring in California or forest fires in Siberia in August, is simply highly speculative.")</a> [newscientist.com], which is why <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11648-climate-myths-antarctica-is-getting-cooler-not-warmer-disproving-global-warming.html" title="newscientist.com">regional cooling does not disprove global warming.</a> [newscientist.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Thus exposing their basic methodology of cooking the books to conform to what answers they wanted, including taking a 25 year period and extrapolating into the future to get the "hockey stick". They when planet earth went off the hockey stick, "where is the heat going?" the "climatologists" were wailing, and now the public is awakened to their scam.</p></div><p>The "Hockey Stick" was endorsed by the U.S. National Academy of Science, after it was asked to investigate the issue by the U.S. Congress. So unless you think the U.S. National Academy of Science is part of a conspiracy of fraud, or is fundamentally incompetent, then you'd have to agree with their statement that: <i>"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".</i> <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html" title="newscientist.com">(Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong)</a> [newscientist.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>We don't need a government organ devoted to spewing unscientific nonsense to support the agenda of Al Gore and his ilk.</p></div><p>So basically, you disagree with the science because you don't like Al Gore?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We don't need to continue the funding of utterly useless and bogus "climate models" that have nothing to do with what the sun-driven climate of this planet</p></div><p>The Sun - I wonder why no scientists thought of investigating that! Oh, they already did -  <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html" title="newscientist.com">Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans.</a> [newscientist.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p> (and all the other planets, as real scientists have noted)</p></div><p>You mean like <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html" title="newscientist.com">Pluto and Mars</a> [newscientist.com], right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" climate change will cause drought " , then " climate change will cause stronger storms , then " climate change will cause flooding " ...depending on what the global weather at the time seemed to be doing.Actually it 's often the media that say these things when they want to make some simplified link between the weather and " climate change " .
Scientists are well aware that weather is not climate [ newscientist.com ] .
For example , with Hurricane Katrina you had some commentators saying that " Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming " .
It 's a nice , simplistic soundbite that the average American television viewer can understand .
However , scientists understand that the world is more complex than that [ newscientist.com ] , which is why they actually say things like [ realclimate.org ] : The correct answer    the one we have indeed provided in previous posts ( Storms &amp; Global Warming II , Some recent updates and Storms and Climate Change )    is that there is no way to prove that Katrina either was , or was not , affected by global warming .
For a single event , regardless of how extreme , such attribution is fundamentally impossible .
We only have one Earth , and it will follow only one of an infinite number of possible weather sequences .
It is impossible to know whether or not this event would have taken place if we had not increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as much as we have .
Weather events will always result from a combination of deterministic factors ( including greenhouse gas forcing or slow natural climate cycles ) and stochastic factors ( pure chance ) .Due to this semi-random nature of weather , it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming    and of course it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate.Scientists are also smart enough to understand that there will be regional differences in climate change effects ( " Prediction of the detailed regional distribution of climatic anomalies , where and when it will be wetter and drier , how many more floods might occur in the spring in California or forest fires in Siberia in August , is simply highly speculative .
" ) [ newscientist.com ] , which is why regional cooling does not disprove global warming .
[ newscientist.com ] Thus exposing their basic methodology of cooking the books to conform to what answers they wanted , including taking a 25 year period and extrapolating into the future to get the " hockey stick " .
They when planet earth went off the hockey stick , " where is the heat going ?
" the " climatologists " were wailing , and now the public is awakened to their scam.The " Hockey Stick " was endorsed by the U.S. National Academy of Science , after it was asked to investigate the issue by the U.S. Congress. So unless you think the U.S. National Academy of Science is part of a conspiracy of fraud , or is fundamentally incompetent , then you 'd have to agree with their statement that : " The basic conclusion of Mann et al .
( 1998 , 1999 ) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years .
This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators , such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world " .
( Climate myths : The 'hockey stick ' graph has been proven wrong ) [ newscientist.com ] We do n't need a government organ devoted to spewing unscientific nonsense to support the agenda of Al Gore and his ilk.So basically , you disagree with the science because you do n't like Al Gore ? We do n't need to continue the funding of utterly useless and bogus " climate models " that have nothing to do with what the sun-driven climate of this planetThe Sun - I wonder why no scientists thought of investigating that !
Oh , they already did - Climate myths : Global warming is down to the Sun , not humans .
[ newscientist.com ] ( and all the other planets , as real scientists have noted ) You mean like Pluto and Mars [ newscientist.com ] , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"climate change will cause drought", then "climate change will cause stronger storms, then "climate change will cause flooding"...depending on what the global weather at the time seemed to be doing.Actually it's often the media that say these things when they want to make some simplified link between the weather and "climate change".
Scientists are well aware that weather is not climate [newscientist.com].
For example, with Hurricane Katrina you had some commentators saying that "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming".
It's a nice, simplistic soundbite that the average American television viewer can understand.
However, scientists understand that the world is more complex than that [newscientist.com], which is why they actually say things like [realclimate.org]:The correct answer–the one we have indeed provided in previous posts (Storms &amp; Global Warming II, Some recent updates and Storms and Climate Change) –is that there is no way to prove that Katrina either was, or was not, affected by global warming.
For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible.
We only have one Earth, and it will follow only one of an infinite number of possible weather sequences.
It is impossible to know whether or not this event would have taken place if we had not increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as much as we have.
Weather events will always result from a combination of deterministic factors (including greenhouse gas forcing or slow natural climate cycles) and stochastic factors (pure chance).Due to this semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming – and of course it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate.Scientists are also smart enough to understand that there will be regional differences in climate change effects ("Prediction of the detailed regional distribution of climatic anomalies, where and when it will be wetter and drier, how many more floods might occur in the spring in California or forest fires in Siberia in August, is simply highly speculative.
") [newscientist.com], which is why regional cooling does not disprove global warming.
[newscientist.com] Thus exposing their basic methodology of cooking the books to conform to what answers they wanted, including taking a 25 year period and extrapolating into the future to get the "hockey stick".
They when planet earth went off the hockey stick, "where is the heat going?
" the "climatologists" were wailing, and now the public is awakened to their scam.The "Hockey Stick" was endorsed by the U.S. National Academy of Science, after it was asked to investigate the issue by the U.S. Congress. So unless you think the U.S. National Academy of Science is part of a conspiracy of fraud, or is fundamentally incompetent, then you'd have to agree with their statement that: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al.
(1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years.
This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
(Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong) [newscientist.com] We don't need a government organ devoted to spewing unscientific nonsense to support the agenda of Al Gore and his ilk.So basically, you disagree with the science because you don't like Al Gore?We don't need to continue the funding of utterly useless and bogus "climate models" that have nothing to do with what the sun-driven climate of this planetThe Sun - I wonder why no scientists thought of investigating that!
Oh, they already did -  Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans.
[newscientist.com]  (and all the other planets, as real scientists have noted)You mean like Pluto and Mars [newscientist.com], right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133284</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1266141480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can understand why the denial of this well established problem would make someone homicidally angry...Climate change could really ruin things for my kids</p></div><p>Humans are expected to adapt to dramatic and frequent changes in climate.  Climate change has wiped out civilizations.  In what stone tablet was it carved that your precious descendants should be immune?</p><p>The planet changes ceaselessly.  That means the climate WILL change and your fucking kids WILL suffer it.  See if you can't live out the rest of your self-centered existence without hurting anyone as a result.  Thanks so much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand why the denial of this well established problem would make someone homicidally angry...Climate change could really ruin things for my kidsHumans are expected to adapt to dramatic and frequent changes in climate .
Climate change has wiped out civilizations .
In what stone tablet was it carved that your precious descendants should be immune ? The planet changes ceaselessly .
That means the climate WILL change and your fucking kids WILL suffer it .
See if you ca n't live out the rest of your self-centered existence without hurting anyone as a result .
Thanks so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand why the denial of this well established problem would make someone homicidally angry...Climate change could really ruin things for my kidsHumans are expected to adapt to dramatic and frequent changes in climate.
Climate change has wiped out civilizations.
In what stone tablet was it carved that your precious descendants should be immune?The planet changes ceaselessly.
That means the climate WILL change and your fucking kids WILL suffer it.
See if you can't live out the rest of your self-centered existence without hurting anyone as a result.
Thanks so much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134152</id>
	<title>Another "wheather is not climate" statement</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1266159480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everytime the summer is hot or a storm hits the coast it is blamed on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). But when it gets cold, suddenly "wheather is not climate". When the satellites are showing no warming for the last 10 years we are told that "there is inter-decadal variability".</p><p>If we ignore the science (greenhouse fingerprint, solar forcing,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) and just have a look at popular beliefs: Just 40 years ago the "discussion" was tilted the other way and we were <a href="http://businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp" title="businessandmedia.org">anticipating the beginning of the next ice age</a> [businessandmedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everytime the summer is hot or a storm hits the coast it is blamed on anthropogenic global warming ( AGW ) .
But when it gets cold , suddenly " wheather is not climate " .
When the satellites are showing no warming for the last 10 years we are told that " there is inter-decadal variability " .If we ignore the science ( greenhouse fingerprint , solar forcing , ... ) and just have a look at popular beliefs : Just 40 years ago the " discussion " was tilted the other way and we were anticipating the beginning of the next ice age [ businessandmedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everytime the summer is hot or a storm hits the coast it is blamed on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
But when it gets cold, suddenly "wheather is not climate".
When the satellites are showing no warming for the last 10 years we are told that "there is inter-decadal variability".If we ignore the science (greenhouse fingerprint, solar forcing, ...) and just have a look at popular beliefs: Just 40 years ago the "discussion" was tilted the other way and we were anticipating the beginning of the next ice age [businessandmedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131502</id>
	<title>Don't they realize?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266071040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't they realize that this is a slippery slope to actually admitting that global warming could be true?</p><p>Just look at the snow in Texas.</p><p>I'm a liberal and I don't believe in global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't they realize that this is a slippery slope to actually admitting that global warming could be true ? Just look at the snow in Texas.I 'm a liberal and I do n't believe in global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't they realize that this is a slippery slope to actually admitting that global warming could be true?Just look at the snow in Texas.I'm a liberal and I don't believe in global warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131960</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that</i> </p><p>Interesting point.  But...  should we take the snow in D.C. as an indication that climate change is bunk?  Or should we take the desperate lack of snow in Vancouver as an indication that climate change is happening?  Or should we just agree that the weather in one particular location has nothing to do with global climate change?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that Interesting point .
But... should we take the snow in D.C. as an indication that climate change is bunk ?
Or should we take the desperate lack of snow in Vancouver as an indication that climate change is happening ?
Or should we just agree that the weather in one particular location has nothing to do with global climate change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that Interesting point.
But...  should we take the snow in D.C. as an indication that climate change is bunk?
Or should we take the desperate lack of snow in Vancouver as an indication that climate change is happening?
Or should we just agree that the weather in one particular location has nothing to do with global climate change?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132014</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1266076980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.</p></div><p>How does that have anything to do with climatology?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.How does that have anything to do with climatology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.How does that have anything to do with climatology?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131468</id>
	<title>Re:that sucking sound</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266070560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That idiots don't believe something is not a good reason to not do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That idiots do n't believe something is not a good reason to not do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That idiots don't believe something is not a good reason to not do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133180</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>mspohr</author>
	<datestamp>1266139080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Weather is not climate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Weather is not climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weather is not climate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134316</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a bad idea</title>
	<author>sehryan</author>
	<datestamp>1266161760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously missed the part where the Climate Service is going to be part of NOAA. What they are doing is taking the already existing, climate related offices in NOAA that are scattered about in different line offices, and putting them in to their own line office. The offices don't change what they are doing, or even where they are located. What happens is they can now more easily work with each other on a shared mission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously missed the part where the Climate Service is going to be part of NOAA .
What they are doing is taking the already existing , climate related offices in NOAA that are scattered about in different line offices , and putting them in to their own line office .
The offices do n't change what they are doing , or even where they are located .
What happens is they can now more easily work with each other on a shared mission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously missed the part where the Climate Service is going to be part of NOAA.
What they are doing is taking the already existing, climate related offices in NOAA that are scattered about in different line offices, and putting them in to their own line office.
The offices don't change what they are doing, or even where they are located.
What happens is they can now more easily work with each other on a shared mission.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132004</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1266076860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You're right that no major scientific organization is openly skeptical of climate change now. But the American Association of Petroleum Geologists<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... have all issued statements that are non-committal </i></p><p>Cite your references.  All of these statements can be found on this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_opinion\_on\_climate\_change" title="wikipedia.org">page</a> [wikipedia.org].  If you actually read them you'll basically see that every single one of those organizations acknowledges the science behind global warming.  None of them claim that the science is bad or made up or some kind of conspiracy --- they just note that there's considerable uncertainty (and for god's sake, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists????)</p><p>None of these groups subscribe to your paranoid view of academics.  That's all on you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right that no major scientific organization is openly skeptical of climate change now .
But the American Association of Petroleum Geologists .... have all issued statements that are non-committal Cite your references .
All of these statements can be found on this page [ wikipedia.org ] .
If you actually read them you 'll basically see that every single one of those organizations acknowledges the science behind global warming .
None of them claim that the science is bad or made up or some kind of conspiracy --- they just note that there 's considerable uncertainty ( and for god 's sake , the American Association of Petroleum Geologists ? ? ? ?
) None of these groups subscribe to your paranoid view of academics .
That 's all on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right that no major scientific organization is openly skeptical of climate change now.
But the American Association of Petroleum Geologists .... have all issued statements that are non-committal Cite your references.
All of these statements can be found on this page [wikipedia.org].
If you actually read them you'll basically see that every single one of those organizations acknowledges the science behind global warming.
None of them claim that the science is bad or made up or some kind of conspiracy --- they just note that there's considerable uncertainty (and for god's sake, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists????
)None of these groups subscribe to your paranoid view of academics.
That's all on you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135840</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1266176520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of thing is exactly why the people who want to "DO something to FIX it" notably by cooling down the Earth, frighten me FAR more than any possible effect of global warming (even assuming it exists and that its worst-case scenarios are true).</p><p>Cool the earth as little as one or two degrees, and they could precipitate a new ice age -- quite possibly one that we NEVER come out of, if they manage to disrupt the long-term climate cycles badly enough.</p><p>We just don't understand the long-term effects well enough to fuck with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of thing is exactly why the people who want to " DO something to FIX it " notably by cooling down the Earth , frighten me FAR more than any possible effect of global warming ( even assuming it exists and that its worst-case scenarios are true ) .Cool the earth as little as one or two degrees , and they could precipitate a new ice age -- quite possibly one that we NEVER come out of , if they manage to disrupt the long-term climate cycles badly enough.We just do n't understand the long-term effects well enough to fuck with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of thing is exactly why the people who want to "DO something to FIX it" notably by cooling down the Earth, frighten me FAR more than any possible effect of global warming (even assuming it exists and that its worst-case scenarios are true).Cool the earth as little as one or two degrees, and they could precipitate a new ice age -- quite possibly one that we NEVER come out of, if they manage to disrupt the long-term climate cycles badly enough.We just don't understand the long-term effects well enough to fuck with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131458</id>
	<title>The ONLY climate that NEVER changes....</title>
	<author>digitalcowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266070440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is government and it's arrogance.  No matter how many times they are wrong, they never give up the idea that they are automatically right because they were either elected or appointed by someone who was.</p><p>They're almost always wrong and they should never be embraced.  Every Federal employee should be looked upon with suspicion.  Always.</p><p>Government - at least in this country - was never meant to be a trough.</p><p>Anyone employed by the state is either ignorant or evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is government and it 's arrogance .
No matter how many times they are wrong , they never give up the idea that they are automatically right because they were either elected or appointed by someone who was.They 're almost always wrong and they should never be embraced .
Every Federal employee should be looked upon with suspicion .
Always.Government - at least in this country - was never meant to be a trough.Anyone employed by the state is either ignorant or evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is government and it's arrogance.
No matter how many times they are wrong, they never give up the idea that they are automatically right because they were either elected or appointed by someone who was.They're almost always wrong and they should never be embraced.
Every Federal employee should be looked upon with suspicion.
Always.Government - at least in this country - was never meant to be a trough.Anyone employed by the state is either ignorant or evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132358</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266081540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I can understand why the denial of this well established problem would make someone homicidally angry.  Imagine some idiot coming off the street and waving a loaded gun at your family, babbling something about his 2nd amendment rights and how guns are completely safe...  Wouldn't you be inclined to disable them?  Climate change could really ruin things for my kids --they'll inherit the messes we don't clean up today.  And goons who trust their "gut" more than science and perpetuate AGW FUD are not that far removed from the madman with a gun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I can understand why the denial of this well established problem would make someone homicidally angry .
Imagine some idiot coming off the street and waving a loaded gun at your family , babbling something about his 2nd amendment rights and how guns are completely safe... Would n't you be inclined to disable them ?
Climate change could really ruin things for my kids --they 'll inherit the messes we do n't clean up today .
And goons who trust their " gut " more than science and perpetuate AGW FUD are not that far removed from the madman with a gun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I can understand why the denial of this well established problem would make someone homicidally angry.
Imagine some idiot coming off the street and waving a loaded gun at your family, babbling something about his 2nd amendment rights and how guns are completely safe...  Wouldn't you be inclined to disable them?
Climate change could really ruin things for my kids --they'll inherit the messes we don't clean up today.
And goons who trust their "gut" more than science and perpetuate AGW FUD are not that far removed from the madman with a gun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131818</id>
	<title>I'm not a scientist</title>
	<author>meheler</author>
	<datestamp>1266074400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But these people are: <a href="http://www.realclimate.net/" title="realclimate.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.net/</a> [realclimate.net]</p><p>All this rhetoric and allegory is laughable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But these people are : http : //www.realclimate.net/ [ realclimate.net ] All this rhetoric and allegory is laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But these people are: http://www.realclimate.net/ [realclimate.net]All this rhetoric and allegory is laughable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131966</id>
	<title>Why government?</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1266076320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a company in Dublin, New Hampshire that's been doing this for over 100 years.</p><p>Figure it out for yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a company in Dublin , New Hampshire that 's been doing this for over 100 years.Figure it out for yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a company in Dublin, New Hampshire that's been doing this for over 100 years.Figure it out for yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132084</id>
	<title>Another dumping ground.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1266077940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time the federal government creates a new agency, it's an opportunity for other agencies to get rid of their dead wood by transferring them.  Happened with the department of education, the department of energy, and the department of homeland security.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time the federal government creates a new agency , it 's an opportunity for other agencies to get rid of their dead wood by transferring them .
Happened with the department of education , the department of energy , and the department of homeland security.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time the federal government creates a new agency, it's an opportunity for other agencies to get rid of their dead wood by transferring them.
Happened with the department of education, the department of energy, and the department of homeland security.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131510</id>
	<title>Letter to Dr. Jane</title>
	<author>Bodhammer</author>
	<datestamp>1266071040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Dr. Jane, <br>
<br>
Would you please produce a record of the millions of requests you have gotten.  As you may know, there is a LOT OF INFLATED CLAIMS in this area and I would like to independently verify your statements without having to hack your servers.<br>
<br>
Thank you for your prompt reply,<br>
<br>
The Public Taxpayers</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Dr. Jane , Would you please produce a record of the millions of requests you have gotten .
As you may know , there is a LOT OF INFLATED CLAIMS in this area and I would like to independently verify your statements without having to hack your servers .
Thank you for your prompt reply , The Public Taxpayers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Dr. Jane, 

Would you please produce a record of the millions of requests you have gotten.
As you may know, there is a LOT OF INFLATED CLAIMS in this area and I would like to independently verify your statements without having to hack your servers.
Thank you for your prompt reply,

The Public Taxpayers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134350</id>
	<title>Re:bad enough we have wasted billions on futility</title>
	<author>sehryan</author>
	<datestamp>1266162180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, man-made global warming may be in dispute, and may fit every thing that you are saying, but climate change does not. The climate on this planet has swung from massively hot to incredibly cold hundreds of times throughout the life of this planet. And it will continue to do so long after we are gone. This is what this office is about - understanding what is going to happen next to the world's climate, and giving that information to people and local governments so they can plan better.</p><p>We have an office that tries to tell people what the weather is going to be like in 10 days. Sometimes it gets it right, some times it doesn't. Should we get rid of the Weather Service because it misses the mark? No, because the more it predicts - even when it gets it wrong - the better the predictions will be the next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , man-made global warming may be in dispute , and may fit every thing that you are saying , but climate change does not .
The climate on this planet has swung from massively hot to incredibly cold hundreds of times throughout the life of this planet .
And it will continue to do so long after we are gone .
This is what this office is about - understanding what is going to happen next to the world 's climate , and giving that information to people and local governments so they can plan better.We have an office that tries to tell people what the weather is going to be like in 10 days .
Sometimes it gets it right , some times it does n't .
Should we get rid of the Weather Service because it misses the mark ?
No , because the more it predicts - even when it gets it wrong - the better the predictions will be the next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, man-made global warming may be in dispute, and may fit every thing that you are saying, but climate change does not.
The climate on this planet has swung from massively hot to incredibly cold hundreds of times throughout the life of this planet.
And it will continue to do so long after we are gone.
This is what this office is about - understanding what is going to happen next to the world's climate, and giving that information to people and local governments so they can plan better.We have an office that tries to tell people what the weather is going to be like in 10 days.
Sometimes it gets it right, some times it doesn't.
Should we get rid of the Weather Service because it misses the mark?
No, because the more it predicts - even when it gets it wrong - the better the predictions will be the next time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135110</id>
	<title>Re:that sucking sound</title>
	<author>Dolphinzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1266169560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK - I hear you all and agree that weather and climate are not the same - If I thought that it would be done without promoting the "holy crap" the sky is falling down agenda of Al Gore and the Democratic party I'd be all for it - hopefully if it does get paid for with my tax dollars it will be research that is unbiased and adheres to proven scientific methods and not statistical manipulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK - I hear you all and agree that weather and climate are not the same - If I thought that it would be done without promoting the " holy crap " the sky is falling down agenda of Al Gore and the Democratic party I 'd be all for it - hopefully if it does get paid for with my tax dollars it will be research that is unbiased and adheres to proven scientific methods and not statistical manipulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK - I hear you all and agree that weather and climate are not the same - If I thought that it would be done without promoting the "holy crap" the sky is falling down agenda of Al Gore and the Democratic party I'd be all for it - hopefully if it does get paid for with my tax dollars it will be research that is unbiased and adheres to proven scientific methods and not statistical manipulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131874</id>
	<title>Re:that sucking sound</title>
	<author>General Wesc</author>
	<datestamp>1266075240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not trying to predict how many inches of rain Titusville, Florida will receive on February 13, 2110. Typically, the broader the prediction, the easier. When you get to the climate scale, you can't really extrapolate that predictability from the predictability of daily variations in the local weather.</p><p>Even if that weren't the case, giving up on doing science because it's hard is a losing proposition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not trying to predict how many inches of rain Titusville , Florida will receive on February 13 , 2110 .
Typically , the broader the prediction , the easier .
When you get to the climate scale , you ca n't really extrapolate that predictability from the predictability of daily variations in the local weather.Even if that were n't the case , giving up on doing science because it 's hard is a losing proposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not trying to predict how many inches of rain Titusville, Florida will receive on February 13, 2110.
Typically, the broader the prediction, the easier.
When you get to the climate scale, you can't really extrapolate that predictability from the predictability of daily variations in the local weather.Even if that weren't the case, giving up on doing science because it's hard is a losing proposition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266067200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The U.S. <a href="http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/" title="nas.edu" rel="nofollow">National Academy of Sciences </a> [nas.edu] disagrees with you.  The <a href="http://www.aaas.org/news/press\_room/climate\_change/" title="aaas.org" rel="nofollow">American Association for the Advancement of Science </a> [aaas.org] disagrees with you.  The  <a href="http://www.agu.org/sci\_pol/positions/climate\_change2008.shtml" title="agu.org" rel="nofollow">American Geophysical Union</a> [agu.org] disagrees with you.  The <a href="http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html" title="noaa.gov" rel="nofollow">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration </a> [noaa.gov] disagrees with you.  There are many more, but the point is that the scientists actually studying it are generally convinced.  Do you have <b>any</b> scientific organizations that agree with you that the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still up in the air?
<br> <br>
At this point, I think that climate deniers are very close to creationists.  In both cases, there are people and organizations that disagree with the science.  They can talk a good talk, but fail in the actual doing of the science.  They can ask more questions than can be answered currently, can take quotes (and emails) out of context, they can use the human failures of people involved in the science against them, and any screw ups (and they certainly exist in both cases) are taken as evidence that the entire science is incorrect.  But, they are ignoring the basic science as a whole, discarding what we do understand, and blowing the uncertainties way out of proportion, in order to promote an unscientific point of view.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. National Academy of Sciences [ nas.edu ] disagrees with you .
The American Association for the Advancement of Science [ aaas.org ] disagrees with you .
The American Geophysical Union [ agu.org ] disagrees with you .
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [ noaa.gov ] disagrees with you .
There are many more , but the point is that the scientists actually studying it are generally convinced .
Do you have any scientific organizations that agree with you that the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still up in the air ?
At this point , I think that climate deniers are very close to creationists .
In both cases , there are people and organizations that disagree with the science .
They can talk a good talk , but fail in the actual doing of the science .
They can ask more questions than can be answered currently , can take quotes ( and emails ) out of context , they can use the human failures of people involved in the science against them , and any screw ups ( and they certainly exist in both cases ) are taken as evidence that the entire science is incorrect .
But , they are ignoring the basic science as a whole , discarding what we do understand , and blowing the uncertainties way out of proportion , in order to promote an unscientific point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. National Academy of Sciences  [nas.edu] disagrees with you.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science  [aaas.org] disagrees with you.
The  American Geophysical Union [agu.org] disagrees with you.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  [noaa.gov] disagrees with you.
There are many more, but the point is that the scientists actually studying it are generally convinced.
Do you have any scientific organizations that agree with you that the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still up in the air?
At this point, I think that climate deniers are very close to creationists.
In both cases, there are people and organizations that disagree with the science.
They can talk a good talk, but fail in the actual doing of the science.
They can ask more questions than can be answered currently, can take quotes (and emails) out of context, they can use the human failures of people involved in the science against them, and any screw ups (and they certainly exist in both cases) are taken as evidence that the entire science is incorrect.
But, they are ignoring the basic science as a whole, discarding what we do understand, and blowing the uncertainties way out of proportion, in order to promote an unscientific point of view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132418</id>
	<title>bad enough we have wasted billions on futility</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1266082680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>over the past ten years, the "climatologists" (not real scientists) have wasted billions of dollars saying "climate change will cause drought", then "climate change will cause stronger storms, then "climate change will cause flooding"...depending on what the global weather at the time seemed to be doing.  Thus exposing their basic methodology of cooking the books to conform to what answers they wanted, including taking a 25 year period and extrapolating into the future to get the "hockey stick".  They when planet earth went off the hockey stick, "where is the heat going?" the "climatologists" were wailing, and now the public is awakened to their scam.</p><p>We don't need a government organ devoted to spewing unscientific nonsense to support the agenda of Al Gore and his ilk.  We don't need to continue the funding of utterly useless and bogus "climate models" that have nothing to do with what the sun-driven climate of this planet (and all the other planets, as real scientists have noted).</p><p>The real purpose of climatology as practised has to do with channeling of trillions of dollars of wealth through the World Bank in "cap and trade" fraud, and the pumping up of carbon emission derivatives for the money cartels such as Goldman Sachs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>over the past ten years , the " climatologists " ( not real scientists ) have wasted billions of dollars saying " climate change will cause drought " , then " climate change will cause stronger storms , then " climate change will cause flooding " ...depending on what the global weather at the time seemed to be doing .
Thus exposing their basic methodology of cooking the books to conform to what answers they wanted , including taking a 25 year period and extrapolating into the future to get the " hockey stick " .
They when planet earth went off the hockey stick , " where is the heat going ?
" the " climatologists " were wailing , and now the public is awakened to their scam.We do n't need a government organ devoted to spewing unscientific nonsense to support the agenda of Al Gore and his ilk .
We do n't need to continue the funding of utterly useless and bogus " climate models " that have nothing to do with what the sun-driven climate of this planet ( and all the other planets , as real scientists have noted ) .The real purpose of climatology as practised has to do with channeling of trillions of dollars of wealth through the World Bank in " cap and trade " fraud , and the pumping up of carbon emission derivatives for the money cartels such as Goldman Sachs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>over the past ten years, the "climatologists" (not real scientists) have wasted billions of dollars saying "climate change will cause drought", then "climate change will cause stronger storms, then "climate change will cause flooding"...depending on what the global weather at the time seemed to be doing.
Thus exposing their basic methodology of cooking the books to conform to what answers they wanted, including taking a 25 year period and extrapolating into the future to get the "hockey stick".
They when planet earth went off the hockey stick, "where is the heat going?
" the "climatologists" were wailing, and now the public is awakened to their scam.We don't need a government organ devoted to spewing unscientific nonsense to support the agenda of Al Gore and his ilk.
We don't need to continue the funding of utterly useless and bogus "climate models" that have nothing to do with what the sun-driven climate of this planet (and all the other planets, as real scientists have noted).The real purpose of climatology as practised has to do with channeling of trillions of dollars of wealth through the World Bank in "cap and trade" fraud, and the pumping up of carbon emission derivatives for the money cartels such as Goldman Sachs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266076920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Currently the two barriers that will prevent us from finding the truth are those who believe that consensus is equivalent to scientific truth and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks the current amount of snow in DC disproves global warming has absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion.  At this point it's not even worth explaining why.  Some people just believe whatever they want to believe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently the two barriers that will prevent us from finding the truth are those who believe that consensus is equivalent to scientific truth and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared .
I 'm sorry , but anybody who thinks the current amount of snow in DC disproves global warming has absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion .
At this point it 's not even worth explaining why .
Some people just believe whatever they want to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently the two barriers that will prevent us from finding the truth are those who believe that consensus is equivalent to scientific truth and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.
I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks the current amount of snow in DC disproves global warming has absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion.
At this point it's not even worth explaining why.
Some people just believe whatever they want to believe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134106</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266158580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit. Climate change is a complete myth and anyone who believes otherwise is desperately grasping at straws. Open your eyes for god's sake: it snowed in Houston this year and the east coast just received the largest amount of snow in decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
Climate change is a complete myth and anyone who believes otherwise is desperately grasping at straws .
Open your eyes for god 's sake : it snowed in Houston this year and the east coast just received the largest amount of snow in decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
Climate change is a complete myth and anyone who believes otherwise is desperately grasping at straws.
Open your eyes for god's sake: it snowed in Houston this year and the east coast just received the largest amount of snow in decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131740</id>
	<title>The National Astrologer Commeth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266073440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What FOOLS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what folly.  Your tax-payer dollars down the drain!</p><p>Next, we will have Dir. of Homeland Security, Janet Planet, ridding the Air Force Boing Laser Aircraft to target citizen of Harlem for evaporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What FOOLS ... what folly .
Your tax-payer dollars down the drain ! Next , we will have Dir .
of Homeland Security , Janet Planet , ridding the Air Force Boing Laser Aircraft to target citizen of Harlem for evaporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What FOOLS ... what folly.
Your tax-payer dollars down the drain!Next, we will have Dir.
of Homeland Security, Janet Planet, ridding the Air Force Boing Laser Aircraft to target citizen of Harlem for evaporation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132208</id>
	<title>Alaska is already doing this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266079680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alaska convened several working groups to discuss the implications of climate change in their state. Why, because they have been experiencing problems that affect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state. The Alaska Climate Change Strategy (http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/) outlines some of the changes they are experiencing. The lack of sea ice has threatened nine villages because of shore erosion. The villages are in the process of being relocated.</p><p>They are also reviewing design standards for new roads and bridges in certain areas of the state because of the loss of permafrost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alaska convened several working groups to discuss the implications of climate change in their state .
Why , because they have been experiencing problems that affect the health , safety , and welfare of the citizens of the state .
The Alaska Climate Change Strategy ( http : //www.climatechange.alaska.gov/ ) outlines some of the changes they are experiencing .
The lack of sea ice has threatened nine villages because of shore erosion .
The villages are in the process of being relocated.They are also reviewing design standards for new roads and bridges in certain areas of the state because of the loss of permafrost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alaska convened several working groups to discuss the implications of climate change in their state.
Why, because they have been experiencing problems that affect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state.
The Alaska Climate Change Strategy (http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/) outlines some of the changes they are experiencing.
The lack of sea ice has threatened nine villages because of shore erosion.
The villages are in the process of being relocated.They are also reviewing design standards for new roads and bridges in certain areas of the state because of the loss of permafrost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133318</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266142440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like how you believe in the discredited IPCC 2007 report and all the junk the CRU and NASA have shoveled for 20 years?</p><p>Yep, some people will believe anything.  Some of them will even believe it after it has been proven false.</p><p>I've got a bridge to sell you and it'll stop AGW if you buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like how you believe in the discredited IPCC 2007 report and all the junk the CRU and NASA have shoveled for 20 years ? Yep , some people will believe anything .
Some of them will even believe it after it has been proven false.I 've got a bridge to sell you and it 'll stop AGW if you buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like how you believe in the discredited IPCC 2007 report and all the junk the CRU and NASA have shoveled for 20 years?Yep, some people will believe anything.
Some of them will even believe it after it has been proven false.I've got a bridge to sell you and it'll stop AGW if you buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133350</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1266143280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is called "Global Warming" because it is the global average temperature that will raise, not because it will get warmer everywhere. Warmer temperatures in some area can mean colder ones in others.</p><p>Climate is a complicated thing and it took decades to figure out and we aren't even done, you can't honestly argue that your napkin logic there is better then decades worth of research?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is called " Global Warming " because it is the global average temperature that will raise , not because it will get warmer everywhere .
Warmer temperatures in some area can mean colder ones in others.Climate is a complicated thing and it took decades to figure out and we are n't even done , you ca n't honestly argue that your napkin logic there is better then decades worth of research ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is called "Global Warming" because it is the global average temperature that will raise, not because it will get warmer everywhere.
Warmer temperatures in some area can mean colder ones in others.Climate is a complicated thing and it took decades to figure out and we aren't even done, you can't honestly argue that your napkin logic there is better then decades worth of research?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133388</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266144240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoken exactly as a true believer!</p><p>Seriously - when Sceptism (made popular by greek scientists) is arbitrarily dismissed as irrelevant - Science has truly left the conversation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken exactly as a true believer ! Seriously - when Sceptism ( made popular by greek scientists ) is arbitrarily dismissed as irrelevant - Science has truly left the conversation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken exactly as a true believer!Seriously - when Sceptism (made popular by greek scientists) is arbitrarily dismissed as irrelevant - Science has truly left the conversation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098</id>
	<title>Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266066240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Climate science is in its infancy, as anyone who has been really following the "Global Warming" debate knows. Certainly we know the globe is warming, but the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still very much up in the air.
<br> <br>
Setting up a Climate Service today would be akin to setting up an Astrology Service. They would probably both give equally good advice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate science is in its infancy , as anyone who has been really following the " Global Warming " debate knows .
Certainly we know the globe is warming , but the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still very much up in the air .
Setting up a Climate Service today would be akin to setting up an Astrology Service .
They would probably both give equally good advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate science is in its infancy, as anyone who has been really following the "Global Warming" debate knows.
Certainly we know the globe is warming, but the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still very much up in the air.
Setting up a Climate Service today would be akin to setting up an Astrology Service.
They would probably both give equally good advice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31142652</id>
	<title>Re:Separation of powers</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1266236880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder how long until we decide that separation of science and state is also a good idea.</p></div><p>So you would base political decisions on what ? Stupidity ? Ignorance ? Random numbers ? There are already way too many important decision based on 'gut feeling'...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how long until we decide that separation of science and state is also a good idea.So you would base political decisions on what ?
Stupidity ?
Ignorance ?
Random numbers ?
There are already way too many important decision based on 'gut feeling'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how long until we decide that separation of science and state is also a good idea.So you would base political decisions on what ?
Stupidity ?
Ignorance ?
Random numbers ?
There are already way too many important decision based on 'gut feeling'...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoa, you think that climate science is like astrology? That's nothing but fucked-up denialism. Luckily, climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them. I say we let them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa , you think that climate science is like astrology ?
That 's nothing but fucked-up denialism .
Luckily , climate scientists disagree with you and ( unlike astrologers ) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them .
I say we let them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa, you think that climate science is like astrology?
That's nothing but fucked-up denialism.
Luckily, climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them.
I say we let them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134408</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>mano the shark</author>
	<datestamp>1266162660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or Vancouver is being visited by El Nino

<a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/david\_epstein/02/13/vancouver.weather/index.html" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/david\_epstein/02/13/vancouver.weather/index.html</a> [cnn.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or Vancouver is being visited by El Nino http : //sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/david \ _epstein/02/13/vancouver.weather/index.html [ cnn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or Vancouver is being visited by El Nino

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/david\_epstein/02/13/vancouver.weather/index.html [cnn.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133146</id>
	<title>Re:Alaska is already doing this</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1266138000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intriguing: the site you link features a report signed by Sarah Palin, warning of the dangers of global warming and the importance of research on its effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intriguing : the site you link features a report signed by Sarah Palin , warning of the dangers of global warming and the importance of research on its effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intriguing: the site you link features a report signed by Sarah Palin, warning of the dangers of global warming and the importance of research on its effects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131742</id>
	<title>Re:Phil Jones threw CO2 climate warming under the</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1266073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...by saying the opposite of what you just said.</p><p>Did you actually read the article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...by saying the opposite of what you just said.Did you actually read the article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...by saying the opposite of what you just said.Did you actually read the article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131964</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266076320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>how is this a troll?  climatologists are making mutually exclusive predictions. No snow?  Global warming.  Lots of snow?  Global warming.  Cowboy Neal shits his pants after eating at taco bell?  Global warming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>how is this a troll ?
climatologists are making mutually exclusive predictions .
No snow ?
Global warming .
Lots of snow ?
Global warming .
Cowboy Neal shits his pants after eating at taco bell ?
Global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is this a troll?
climatologists are making mutually exclusive predictions.
No snow?
Global warming.
Lots of snow?
Global warming.
Cowboy Neal shits his pants after eating at taco bell?
Global warming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131578</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266071640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you have it backwards - the global warming advocates are the creationists.</p><p>Yes, we all agree that evolution is a true representation of history...we can verify this through the fossil record.  And we can also all agree on paleoclimatology for the most part, and see the past variations of global warming and cooling at various points in time.  Where AGW proponents fall of the track is by making unfalsifiable predictions.</p><p>To fit the evolution analogy, AGW proponents are telling us that ever since CO2 started pumping into the atmosphere, there has been a marked increase in albinism, and that future evolution for all species around the planet will eventually lead to catastrophic albinism, where no animals will have any skin or scale pigment at all.  Someone who "denies" this prediction of how evolution will proceed in the future cannot reasonably be compared to a creationist.</p><p>The scientific point of view is to have a falsifiable hypothesis.  When AGW advocates claim that both snow and the lack of snow fit their model, they've essentially admitted that their model has no scientific basis.</p><p>Tell me, what evidence would convince you that the theory of AGW, or catastrophic AGW is wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you have it backwards - the global warming advocates are the creationists.Yes , we all agree that evolution is a true representation of history...we can verify this through the fossil record .
And we can also all agree on paleoclimatology for the most part , and see the past variations of global warming and cooling at various points in time .
Where AGW proponents fall of the track is by making unfalsifiable predictions.To fit the evolution analogy , AGW proponents are telling us that ever since CO2 started pumping into the atmosphere , there has been a marked increase in albinism , and that future evolution for all species around the planet will eventually lead to catastrophic albinism , where no animals will have any skin or scale pigment at all .
Someone who " denies " this prediction of how evolution will proceed in the future can not reasonably be compared to a creationist.The scientific point of view is to have a falsifiable hypothesis .
When AGW advocates claim that both snow and the lack of snow fit their model , they 've essentially admitted that their model has no scientific basis.Tell me , what evidence would convince you that the theory of AGW , or catastrophic AGW is wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you have it backwards - the global warming advocates are the creationists.Yes, we all agree that evolution is a true representation of history...we can verify this through the fossil record.
And we can also all agree on paleoclimatology for the most part, and see the past variations of global warming and cooling at various points in time.
Where AGW proponents fall of the track is by making unfalsifiable predictions.To fit the evolution analogy, AGW proponents are telling us that ever since CO2 started pumping into the atmosphere, there has been a marked increase in albinism, and that future evolution for all species around the planet will eventually lead to catastrophic albinism, where no animals will have any skin or scale pigment at all.
Someone who "denies" this prediction of how evolution will proceed in the future cannot reasonably be compared to a creationist.The scientific point of view is to have a falsifiable hypothesis.
When AGW advocates claim that both snow and the lack of snow fit their model, they've essentially admitted that their model has no scientific basis.Tell me, what evidence would convince you that the theory of AGW, or catastrophic AGW is wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131904</id>
	<title>Nice link, thanks.</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1266075480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a truly sweet link.  Thanks for it.  This was not a friendly interview.
</p><p>Maxume's comment notwithstanding, he is truly throwing AGW under the bus.  "Warming since 1950" includes the periods 1950-1995 (some warming) and 1995-present (he admits no warming at all).  Admits doubt about local nature of Midieval Warm Period.  Admits measurement challenges and sensitivity of instruments.
</p><p>His response to the Yamal question was particularly interesting.  Rather than respond to the question he referred to the <a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/" title="uea.ac.uk">Briffa paper here</a> [uea.ac.uk].  Look closely and you'll find that the maximum number of trees is about 77.  Even if a tree were equivalent to a NIST calibrated platinum thermocouple, 75 trees is not enough measurement points in that vast area.  Demotes interpretation of Yamal data from "proved science" to "I believe it's sound".
</p><p>And then the killer quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

</p><p>It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.</p> </div><p>There you go.  Phil Jones doesn't think the debate on climate change is over - even for the instrumental measurements and especially for the palaeoclimatic.  And then there's the "independent review" mentioned several times:
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>T - Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?

</p><p>This is a matter for the independent review.</p> </div><p>That's shorthand for "I can't talk about that."  There are several of these.  And then a sweet, sweet close:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>W - Finally, a personal question: Do you expect to return as director of the Climatic Research Unit? What is next for you?

</p><p>This question is not for me to answer.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a truly sweet link .
Thanks for it .
This was not a friendly interview .
Maxume 's comment notwithstanding , he is truly throwing AGW under the bus .
" Warming since 1950 " includes the periods 1950-1995 ( some warming ) and 1995-present ( he admits no warming at all ) .
Admits doubt about local nature of Midieval Warm Period .
Admits measurement challenges and sensitivity of instruments .
His response to the Yamal question was particularly interesting .
Rather than respond to the question he referred to the Briffa paper here [ uea.ac.uk ] .
Look closely and you 'll find that the maximum number of trees is about 77 .
Even if a tree were equivalent to a NIST calibrated platinum thermocouple , 75 trees is not enough measurement points in that vast area .
Demotes interpretation of Yamal data from " proved science " to " I believe it 's sound " .
And then the killer quote : N - When scientists say " the debate on climate change is over " , what exactly do they mean - and what do n't they mean ?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason .
I do n't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this .
This is not my view .
There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties , not just for the future , but for the instrumental ( and especially the palaeoclimatic ) past as well .
There you go .
Phil Jones does n't think the debate on climate change is over - even for the instrumental measurements and especially for the palaeoclimatic .
And then there 's the " independent review " mentioned several times : T - Where do you draw the line on the handling of data ?
What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice ?
Do you accept that you crossed the line ?
This is a matter for the independent review .
That 's shorthand for " I ca n't talk about that .
" There are several of these .
And then a sweet , sweet close : W - Finally , a personal question : Do you expect to return as director of the Climatic Research Unit ?
What is next for you ?
This question is not for me to answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a truly sweet link.
Thanks for it.
This was not a friendly interview.
Maxume's comment notwithstanding, he is truly throwing AGW under the bus.
"Warming since 1950" includes the periods 1950-1995 (some warming) and 1995-present (he admits no warming at all).
Admits doubt about local nature of Midieval Warm Period.
Admits measurement challenges and sensitivity of instruments.
His response to the Yamal question was particularly interesting.
Rather than respond to the question he referred to the Briffa paper here [uea.ac.uk].
Look closely and you'll find that the maximum number of trees is about 77.
Even if a tree were equivalent to a NIST calibrated platinum thermocouple, 75 trees is not enough measurement points in that vast area.
Demotes interpretation of Yamal data from "proved science" to "I believe it's sound".
And then the killer quote:N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason.
I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this.
This is not my view.
There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
There you go.
Phil Jones doesn't think the debate on climate change is over - even for the instrumental measurements and especially for the palaeoclimatic.
And then there's the "independent review" mentioned several times:
T - Where do you draw the line on the handling of data?
What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice?
Do you accept that you crossed the line?
This is a matter for the independent review.
That's shorthand for "I can't talk about that.
"  There are several of these.
And then a sweet, sweet close:W - Finally, a personal question: Do you expect to return as director of the Climatic Research Unit?
What is next for you?
This question is not for me to answer. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131940</id>
	<title>Re:that sucking sound</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1266076020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not convinced on AGW, but please don't use the "the weatherman can't predict the weather a week in advance, why on earth would I believe they can predict it for a century from now..." argument in this debate.  It isn't helpful to either side of the argument.  It just comes off as plugging your ears and saying "na na na na na...".
<br> <br>
If you want a future prediction on weather that is falsifiable, I hereby predict that it will be hotter on July 12th in Tucson Arizona at 12:00 Noon, than on Febuary 15th at 12:00 Noon.  Weathermen are actually pretty good at predicting the weather.  If the weatherman says to take a jacket on vacation because it will be cold by the end of the week, you would be wise to take their advice.  That being said, the methods they use to predict next weeks weather are vastly more verifiable than the ones they use to predict weather 100 years from now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not convinced on AGW , but please do n't use the " the weatherman ca n't predict the weather a week in advance , why on earth would I believe they can predict it for a century from now... " argument in this debate .
It is n't helpful to either side of the argument .
It just comes off as plugging your ears and saying " na na na na na... " .
If you want a future prediction on weather that is falsifiable , I hereby predict that it will be hotter on July 12th in Tucson Arizona at 12 : 00 Noon , than on Febuary 15th at 12 : 00 Noon .
Weathermen are actually pretty good at predicting the weather .
If the weatherman says to take a jacket on vacation because it will be cold by the end of the week , you would be wise to take their advice .
That being said , the methods they use to predict next weeks weather are vastly more verifiable than the ones they use to predict weather 100 years from now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not convinced on AGW, but please don't use the "the weatherman can't predict the weather a week in advance, why on earth would I believe they can predict it for a century from now..." argument in this debate.
It isn't helpful to either side of the argument.
It just comes off as plugging your ears and saying "na na na na na...".
If you want a future prediction on weather that is falsifiable, I hereby predict that it will be hotter on July 12th in Tucson Arizona at 12:00 Noon, than on Febuary 15th at 12:00 Noon.
Weathermen are actually pretty good at predicting the weather.
If the weatherman says to take a jacket on vacation because it will be cold by the end of the week, you would be wise to take their advice.
That being said, the methods they use to predict next weeks weather are vastly more verifiable than the ones they use to predict weather 100 years from now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131358</id>
	<title>Fix it quick!</title>
	<author>digitalcowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266069300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AGW/CC has always been a lie and always will be a lie.</p><p>Before you reply to me think, "We've always been at war with East Asia."</p><p>This is about government control and "socializing" to that end.  You're all sheep if you buy this horseshit after all this time and after all that's been revealed.</p><p>You're also pretty damn arrogant - and ignorant -  if you think your Prius - or my Suburban - makes a whit of difference to this "climate."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AGW/CC has always been a lie and always will be a lie.Before you reply to me think , " We 've always been at war with East Asia .
" This is about government control and " socializing " to that end .
You 're all sheep if you buy this horseshit after all this time and after all that 's been revealed.You 're also pretty damn arrogant - and ignorant - if you think your Prius - or my Suburban - makes a whit of difference to this " climate .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AGW/CC has always been a lie and always will be a lie.Before you reply to me think, "We've always been at war with East Asia.
"This is about government control and "socializing" to that end.
You're all sheep if you buy this horseshit after all this time and after all that's been revealed.You're also pretty damn arrogant - and ignorant -  if you think your Prius - or my Suburban - makes a whit of difference to this "climate.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132506</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>tsm\_sf</author>
	<datestamp>1266083700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One little nit to pick with your rant... Falsification is not the defining aspect of "science".</p><p>One of the large problems we have right now is that, at best, most of us barely remember high school classes, yet we're being asked to formulate opinions on things we have no background in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One little nit to pick with your rant... Falsification is not the defining aspect of " science " .One of the large problems we have right now is that , at best , most of us barely remember high school classes , yet we 're being asked to formulate opinions on things we have no background in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One little nit to pick with your rant... Falsification is not the defining aspect of "science".One of the large problems we have right now is that, at best, most of us barely remember high school classes, yet we're being asked to formulate opinions on things we have no background in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131568</id>
	<title>Short term prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266071580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>scarcity of world butterflies if they plan to do long term weather predictions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>scarcity of world butterflies if they plan to do long term weather predictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>scarcity of world butterflies if they plan to do long term weather predictions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131470</id>
	<title>Let tom skilling do the job!!</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1266070620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let tom skilling do the job!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let tom skilling do the job !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let tom skilling do the job!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131708</id>
	<title>How to spend 101</title>
	<author>tallredeye</author>
	<datestamp>1266073200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get the pattern now:  declare a crisis, spend like a drunken sailor, and blame it on Bush.  Now I know what he meant by hope and change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the pattern now : declare a crisis , spend like a drunken sailor , and blame it on Bush .
Now I know what he meant by hope and change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the pattern now:  declare a crisis, spend like a drunken sailor, and blame it on Bush.
Now I know what he meant by hope and change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132642</id>
	<title>If you haven't already, watch this video.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Professor <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard\_Alley" title="wikipedia.org">Richard Alley</a> [wikipedia.org] recently gave <a href="http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture\_videos/A23A.shtml" title="agu.org">a presentation</a> [agu.org] called "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth&rsquo;s Climate History," in which he makes the case that climate models simply don't work right unless you incorporate CO2.</p><p>The key point he makes is that there is a record dating back over 400 million years that provides proof that climate is sensitive to CO2. Doubling CO2 adds 3 degrees C to global temperature.</p><p>There are multiple lines of evidence to support climate sensitivity, and additional research is filling in what gaps might have been missing, and further strengthening the argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Professor Richard Alley [ wikipedia.org ] recently gave a presentation [ agu.org ] called " The Biggest Control Knob : Carbon Dioxide in Earth    s Climate History , " in which he makes the case that climate models simply do n't work right unless you incorporate CO2.The key point he makes is that there is a record dating back over 400 million years that provides proof that climate is sensitive to CO2 .
Doubling CO2 adds 3 degrees C to global temperature.There are multiple lines of evidence to support climate sensitivity , and additional research is filling in what gaps might have been missing , and further strengthening the argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Professor Richard Alley [wikipedia.org] recently gave a presentation [agu.org] called "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History," in which he makes the case that climate models simply don't work right unless you incorporate CO2.The key point he makes is that there is a record dating back over 400 million years that provides proof that climate is sensitive to CO2.
Doubling CO2 adds 3 degrees C to global temperature.There are multiple lines of evidence to support climate sensitivity, and additional research is filling in what gaps might have been missing, and further strengthening the argument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132384</id>
	<title>Re:Premature</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1266081900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is <b>NOT</b> what I wrote. I will thank you to not try to put words in my mouth.
<br> <br>
What I stated was that right now, given the state of the art, a <b>government</b> climate service would give <b>advice</b> about as good as astrology.
<br> <br>
What was your reading comprehension schore in school?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is NOT what I wrote .
I will thank you to not try to put words in my mouth .
What I stated was that right now , given the state of the art , a government climate service would give advice about as good as astrology .
What was your reading comprehension schore in school ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is NOT what I wrote.
I will thank you to not try to put words in my mouth.
What I stated was that right now, given the state of the art, a government climate service would give advice about as good as astrology.
What was your reading comprehension schore in school?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131092</id>
	<title>When...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266066180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When will these people learn that their gig is up? It's time to come up with another get-rich-quick scheme!</htmltext>
<tokenext>When will these people learn that their gig is up ?
It 's time to come up with another get-rich-quick scheme !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will these people learn that their gig is up?
It's time to come up with another get-rich-quick scheme!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132024</id>
	<title>Re:Phil Jones threw CO2 climate warming under the</title>
	<author>uncadonna</author>
	<datestamp>1266077040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bus?

He isn't saying anything substantially different from what the climate science community says.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bus ?
He is n't saying anything substantially different from what the climate science community says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bus?
He isn't saying anything substantially different from what the climate science community says.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388</id>
	<title>that sucking sound</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266069660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is my bank account paying for more useless, pointless, farcical government programs ! For heavens sake, the weatherman can't predict the weather a week in advance, why on earth would I believe they can predict it for a century from now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is my bank account paying for more useless , pointless , farcical government programs !
For heavens sake , the weatherman ca n't predict the weather a week in advance , why on earth would I believe they can predict it for a century from now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is my bank account paying for more useless, pointless, farcical government programs !
For heavens sake, the weatherman can't predict the weather a week in advance, why on earth would I believe they can predict it for a century from now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133168</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266138840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Currently the two barriers that will prevent us from finding the truth are those who believe that consensus is equivalent to scientific truth and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks the current amount of snow in DC disproves global warming has absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion.</p></div><p>I think that's the point GP wants to make; real scientists aren't being heard in Washington.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently the two barriers that will prevent us from finding the truth are those who believe that consensus is equivalent to scientific truth and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.I 'm sorry , but anybody who thinks the current amount of snow in DC disproves global warming has absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion.I think that 's the point GP wants to make ; real scientists are n't being heard in Washington .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently the two barriers that will prevent us from finding the truth are those who believe that consensus is equivalent to scientific truth and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks the current amount of snow in DC disproves global warming has absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion.I think that's the point GP wants to make; real scientists aren't being heard in Washington.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133316</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Quandary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266142440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks the current amount of snow in DC disproves global warming has absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion.</p> </div><p>I'm not a denier. I'm more apathetic than anything. But you guys shot yourselves in the foot with years of warming, melting ice, warming, greenhouse gasses, warming, trapped heat, and "the planet has a fever!"</p><p>*You* guys played up the whole warming thing, so now we have some cold, and you expect the general public to not be skeptical and ask WTF is going on? I'm sorry, but every person in the world is not a climatologist, or has a deep understanding of ocean currents or whatever. Some people have to do, like, other jobs.</p><p>This is how it looks to the average person:</p><p>Global Warming Advocate: We're making prediction X which will support our theory.<br>Man On The Street: OK</p><p>(one year later)</p><p>Man On The Street: Well, instead of X we got -X (or Z or Q or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)<br>Global Warming Advocate: Yeah, well, that proves our theory, too. Don't question me!<br>Man On the Street: o.O?<br>Global Warming Advocate: STFU! You're stupid!<br>Man On the Street: KTHX. Bye!<br>Global Warming Advocate: Why won't anyone listen?</p><p>-----------</p><p>And so on.</p><p>A good example of X would be seasonal hurricane predictions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but anybody who thinks the current amount of snow in DC disproves global warming has absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion .
I 'm not a denier .
I 'm more apathetic than anything .
But you guys shot yourselves in the foot with years of warming , melting ice , warming , greenhouse gasses , warming , trapped heat , and " the planet has a fever !
" * You * guys played up the whole warming thing , so now we have some cold , and you expect the general public to not be skeptical and ask WTF is going on ?
I 'm sorry , but every person in the world is not a climatologist , or has a deep understanding of ocean currents or whatever .
Some people have to do , like , other jobs.This is how it looks to the average person : Global Warming Advocate : We 're making prediction X which will support our theory.Man On The Street : OK ( one year later ) Man On The Street : Well , instead of X we got -X ( or Z or Q or ... ) Global Warming Advocate : Yeah , well , that proves our theory , too .
Do n't question me ! Man On the Street : o.O ? Global Warming Advocate : STFU !
You 're stupid ! Man On the Street : KTHX .
Bye ! Global Warming Advocate : Why wo n't anyone listen ? -----------And so on.A good example of X would be seasonal hurricane predictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks the current amount of snow in DC disproves global warming has absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion.
I'm not a denier.
I'm more apathetic than anything.
But you guys shot yourselves in the foot with years of warming, melting ice, warming, greenhouse gasses, warming, trapped heat, and "the planet has a fever!
"*You* guys played up the whole warming thing, so now we have some cold, and you expect the general public to not be skeptical and ask WTF is going on?
I'm sorry, but every person in the world is not a climatologist, or has a deep understanding of ocean currents or whatever.
Some people have to do, like, other jobs.This is how it looks to the average person:Global Warming Advocate: We're making prediction X which will support our theory.Man On The Street: OK(one year later)Man On The Street: Well, instead of X we got -X (or Z or Q or ...)Global Warming Advocate: Yeah, well, that proves our theory, too.
Don't question me!Man On the Street: o.O?Global Warming Advocate: STFU!
You're stupid!Man On the Street: KTHX.
Bye!Global Warming Advocate: Why won't anyone listen?-----------And so on.A good example of X would be seasonal hurricane predictions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31136134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31149904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31142652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31154358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31136314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31142252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31136850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_13_2349205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131462
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131964
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132448
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31142252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31149904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131346
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131904
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132024
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131848
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132228
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132358
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131578
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132506
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131626
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132310
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132122
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132194
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31136314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31136850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31136134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31154358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31142652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31135110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31134216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31131568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31132208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_13_2349205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_13_2349205.31133262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
