<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_2146227</id>
	<title>A Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266330660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://poncacityweloveyou.com/" rel="nofollow">Ponca City, We love you</a> writes <i>"NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588&amp;ft=1&amp;f=1007">no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow</a>. 'The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was... in the 1970s,' says Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist. 'So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, DC, for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming.' <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/12/nation/la-na-climateqa12-2010feb12">Increased snowfall also fits a pattern suggested by many climate models</a>, in which rising temperatures increase the amount of atmospheric moisture, bringing more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ponca City , We love you writes " NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country , the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes ; but for scientists who study the climate , there 's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow .
'The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were , say , 30 years ago means there 's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was... in the 1970s, ' says Kevin Trenberth , a prominent climate scientist .
'So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington , DC , for instance , is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming .
' Increased snowfall also fits a pattern suggested by many climate models , in which rising temperatures increase the amount of atmospheric moisture , bringing more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ponca City, We love you writes "NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow.
'The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was... in the 1970s,' says Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist.
'So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, DC, for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming.
' Increased snowfall also fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures increase the amount of atmospheric moisture, bringing more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165330</id>
	<title>What we really should be asking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where does all the money go from both side of the equation?</p><p>I would bet that the same guy is making money on both sides.</p><p>I also remember many of the same scientists claiming global cooling in the 1970s and how we were going to have another ice age.</p><p>Our scientific community needs to be given money to perform science and not based on their results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where does all the money go from both side of the equation ? I would bet that the same guy is making money on both sides.I also remember many of the same scientists claiming global cooling in the 1970s and how we were going to have another ice age.Our scientific community needs to be given money to perform science and not based on their results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where does all the money go from both side of the equation?I would bet that the same guy is making money on both sides.I also remember many of the same scientists claiming global cooling in the 1970s and how we were going to have another ice age.Our scientific community needs to be given money to perform science and not based on their results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164372</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1266338580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change.  One day the facts will pile up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Congratulations.  You've just demonstrated what we all already know: the Earth's climate changes.  The fact that Earth's climate is changing is not noteworthy by itself, but it is disturbing now that it's an issue used by politicians of a certain flavor to push their agenda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change .
One day the facts will pile up ...Congratulations .
You 've just demonstrated what we all already know : the Earth 's climate changes .
The fact that Earth 's climate is changing is not noteworthy by itself , but it is disturbing now that it 's an issue used by politicians of a certain flavor to push their agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change.
One day the facts will pile up ...Congratulations.
You've just demonstrated what we all already know: the Earth's climate changes.
The fact that Earth's climate is changing is not noteworthy by itself, but it is disturbing now that it's an issue used by politicians of a certain flavor to push their agenda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164806</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's Bullshit</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1266341640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's true, but only because you define left to mean those people who advocate climate change (in which case it is a self fullfilling definition). If you on having to label people as left/right then, sure, those on the "left" will defend warming. But that does not mean that all people who defend warming are politically motivated. Some of them might also be non-biased scientists who have examined the data and come to an informed conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true , but only because you define left to mean those people who advocate climate change ( in which case it is a self fullfilling definition ) .
If you on having to label people as left/right then , sure , those on the " left " will defend warming .
But that does not mean that all people who defend warming are politically motivated .
Some of them might also be non-biased scientists who have examined the data and come to an informed conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true, but only because you define left to mean those people who advocate climate change (in which case it is a self fullfilling definition).
If you on having to label people as left/right then, sure, those on the "left" will defend warming.
But that does not mean that all people who defend warming are politically motivated.
Some of them might also be non-biased scientists who have examined the data and come to an informed conclusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164966</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1266342720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I may not be qualified to perform heart surgery, but I am qualified to tell you that using a chain saw is the wrong approach.  I can also tell you that building freeway bridges out Hershey Bars is a really dumb idea.  Claiming that not having a PhD means you cannot speak intelligently on a subject is just dumb.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may not be qualified to perform heart surgery , but I am qualified to tell you that using a chain saw is the wrong approach .
I can also tell you that building freeway bridges out Hershey Bars is a really dumb idea .
Claiming that not having a PhD means you can not speak intelligently on a subject is just dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may not be qualified to perform heart surgery, but I am qualified to tell you that using a chain saw is the wrong approach.
I can also tell you that building freeway bridges out Hershey Bars is a really dumb idea.
Claiming that not having a PhD means you cannot speak intelligently on a subject is just dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163742</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1266334560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're obviously a republican neocon neaderthal bigot corporate ceo idiot who dares to question the allknowing elite who want to save us from our ignorant selves by taking all our money that we don't need or know how to spend properly.  After all, it's about the children.

Go ahead...mod me troll.  I deserve it.  In my defense it was a shitty day at work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're obviously a republican neocon neaderthal bigot corporate ceo idiot who dares to question the allknowing elite who want to save us from our ignorant selves by taking all our money that we do n't need or know how to spend properly .
After all , it 's about the children .
Go ahead...mod me troll .
I deserve it .
In my defense it was a shitty day at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're obviously a republican neocon neaderthal bigot corporate ceo idiot who dares to question the allknowing elite who want to save us from our ignorant selves by taking all our money that we don't need or know how to spend properly.
After all, it's about the children.
Go ahead...mod me troll.
I deserve it.
In my defense it was a shitty day at work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168034</id>
	<title>Of cousre this is posible.</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1265034840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earth climate is not a simple x=y+1 formula like most want to believe ( or can understand, since most people are stupid  ) and is horrendously complex.</p><p>Not going to get into the 'man made' part of this discussion, ( or even if it IS warming or not.. ) but large scale warming can cause strange weather patterns since it means there is more stored energy in the atmosphere and moisture to dish out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earth climate is not a simple x = y + 1 formula like most want to believe ( or can understand , since most people are stupid ) and is horrendously complex.Not going to get into the 'man made ' part of this discussion , ( or even if it IS warming or not.. ) but large scale warming can cause strange weather patterns since it means there is more stored energy in the atmosphere and moisture to dish out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earth climate is not a simple x=y+1 formula like most want to believe ( or can understand, since most people are stupid  ) and is horrendously complex.Not going to get into the 'man made' part of this discussion, ( or even if it IS warming or not.. ) but large scale warming can cause strange weather patterns since it means there is more stored energy in the atmosphere and moisture to dish out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164010</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>aussie\_a</author>
	<datestamp>1266336420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Science has its staunch supporters who are just as closed minded over their beliefs as are the extremist in religion.</p></div><p>Definitely. Just look at archaeology. New ideas are often only accepted after the old guard who have built their career on an older idea have died. For example it was believed Hatshepsut wasn't a true pharoah because she was female, whereas more modern archaeologists have debunked every argument used to not consider her as a pharaoh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science has its staunch supporters who are just as closed minded over their beliefs as are the extremist in religion.Definitely .
Just look at archaeology .
New ideas are often only accepted after the old guard who have built their career on an older idea have died .
For example it was believed Hatshepsut was n't a true pharoah because she was female , whereas more modern archaeologists have debunked every argument used to not consider her as a pharaoh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science has its staunch supporters who are just as closed minded over their beliefs as are the extremist in religion.Definitely.
Just look at archaeology.
New ideas are often only accepted after the old guard who have built their career on an older idea have died.
For example it was believed Hatshepsut wasn't a true pharoah because she was female, whereas more modern archaeologists have debunked every argument used to not consider her as a pharaoh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164404</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion.  The weather is all about water moving around in the air.  More energy into the water means more water into the air.  More water into the air means more weather... more storms, more hurricanes, more snow... and what's really interesting is a new distribution of water.  We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts.  The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot.  Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs.</p></div><p>Unlike the dinosaurs, we have invented clothes and can live in almost any climate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion .
The weather is all about water moving around in the air .
More energy into the water means more water into the air .
More water into the air means more weather... more storms , more hurricanes , more snow... and what 's really interesting is a new distribution of water .
We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts .
The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot .
Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs.Unlike the dinosaurs , we have invented clothes and can live in almost any climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion.
The weather is all about water moving around in the air.
More energy into the water means more water into the air.
More water into the air means more weather... more storms, more hurricanes, more snow... and what's really interesting is a new distribution of water.
We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts.
The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot.
Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs.Unlike the dinosaurs, we have invented clothes and can live in almost any climate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164658</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266340560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FACT: anti-GW is funded mostly by energy corporations<br>FACT: anti-GW is believed mostly by right-wing retards</htmltext>
<tokenext>FACT : anti-GW is funded mostly by energy corporationsFACT : anti-GW is believed mostly by right-wing retards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FACT: anti-GW is funded mostly by energy corporationsFACT: anti-GW is believed mostly by right-wing retards</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166274</id>
	<title>Censorship!</title>
	<author>Ardeaem</author>
	<datestamp>1265015280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, since this seems to come up every time an AGW news item gets posted, the anti-AGW accuse the AGW people of trying to silence or censor them by downmodding anti-AGW posts (like, for instance, <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1522166&amp;cid=30874360" title="slashdot.org">here</a> [slashdot.org]. Just for fun, scroll up and see what proportion of the most highly ranked posts above are anti-AGW. It's a lot of them; at the time I'm posting right now, it is MOST of them.
<p> Will you please stop complaining of downmodding and "censorship"? It's ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , since this seems to come up every time an AGW news item gets posted , the anti-AGW accuse the AGW people of trying to silence or censor them by downmodding anti-AGW posts ( like , for instance , here [ slashdot.org ] .
Just for fun , scroll up and see what proportion of the most highly ranked posts above are anti-AGW .
It 's a lot of them ; at the time I 'm posting right now , it is MOST of them .
Will you please stop complaining of downmodding and " censorship " ?
It 's ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, since this seems to come up every time an AGW news item gets posted, the anti-AGW accuse the AGW people of trying to silence or censor them by downmodding anti-AGW posts (like, for instance, here [slashdot.org].
Just for fun, scroll up and see what proportion of the most highly ranked posts above are anti-AGW.
It's a lot of them; at the time I'm posting right now, it is MOST of them.
Will you please stop complaining of downmodding and "censorship"?
It's ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165464</id>
	<title>too much human ballast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why the oceans are rising is because we simply have too much human ballast on the land.  The oceans need to continue to rise, that way, we can shed the ballast and float back up.  And by shed, I mean, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why the oceans are rising is because we simply have too much human ballast on the land .
The oceans need to continue to rise , that way , we can shed the ballast and float back up .
And by shed , I mean , WE 'RE ALL GON NA DIE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why the oceans are rising is because we simply have too much human ballast on the land.
The oceans need to continue to rise, that way, we can shed the ballast and float back up.
And by shed, I mean, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Stormx2</author>
	<datestamp>1266339840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really isn't. You'd do well to try and claim that people without degrees in structural engineering are fit to design bridges, or that doctors who never went to medical school are okay to be surgeons.</p><p>In the same way, something as insanely complex as climate science needs a level of understanding that only a PhD can recognise. To claim otherwise is totally ignorant, but I suppose a little popularist.</p><p>Finally, 9000 is quite a minority. Numbers are meaningless without context. It's a long way to the sun, but thats nothing to the centre of the milky way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really is n't .
You 'd do well to try and claim that people without degrees in structural engineering are fit to design bridges , or that doctors who never went to medical school are okay to be surgeons.In the same way , something as insanely complex as climate science needs a level of understanding that only a PhD can recognise .
To claim otherwise is totally ignorant , but I suppose a little popularist.Finally , 9000 is quite a minority .
Numbers are meaningless without context .
It 's a long way to the sun , but thats nothing to the centre of the milky way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really isn't.
You'd do well to try and claim that people without degrees in structural engineering are fit to design bridges, or that doctors who never went to medical school are okay to be surgeons.In the same way, something as insanely complex as climate science needs a level of understanding that only a PhD can recognise.
To claim otherwise is totally ignorant, but I suppose a little popularist.Finally, 9000 is quite a minority.
Numbers are meaningless without context.
It's a long way to the sun, but thats nothing to the centre of the milky way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165148</id>
	<title>On listening to experts...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As a chess grand master, what's your view on this country's war strategy?"</p><p>"Send in the clergy! They can move diagonally!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As a chess grand master , what 's your view on this country 's war strategy ?
" " Send in the clergy !
They can move diagonally !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As a chess grand master, what's your view on this country's war strategy?
""Send in the clergy!
They can move diagonally!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165948</id>
	<title>Funny thing ...</title>
	<author>garry\_g</author>
	<datestamp>1266350160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Winters like this (and the last) are more like the winters 30 years ago - we usually had snow from mid October through late March, with much more snow than now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Back then, climate models predicted that a human-made climate change was causing a new ice age<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>When we had no "real" winter for several years, global warming was causing the non-existent winter.</p><p>Now, global warming is causing "extreme" winters (which still have quite a way to go until they're back to what winter was in the 70s) because there is more moisture in the air. Yet, droughts don't suffer the same fate of too much moisture in the air<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... WTF?</p><p>D@mn, scientists have learned a lot from politicians, namely that people's memory hardly ever extends beyond 1-2 years back (if that far).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Winters like this ( and the last ) are more like the winters 30 years ago - we usually had snow from mid October through late March , with much more snow than now ...Back then , climate models predicted that a human-made climate change was causing a new ice age ...When we had no " real " winter for several years , global warming was causing the non-existent winter.Now , global warming is causing " extreme " winters ( which still have quite a way to go until they 're back to what winter was in the 70s ) because there is more moisture in the air .
Yet , droughts do n't suffer the same fate of too much moisture in the air ... WTF ? D @ mn , scientists have learned a lot from politicians , namely that people 's memory hardly ever extends beyond 1-2 years back ( if that far ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Winters like this (and the last) are more like the winters 30 years ago - we usually had snow from mid October through late March, with much more snow than now ...Back then, climate models predicted that a human-made climate change was causing a new ice age ...When we had no "real" winter for several years, global warming was causing the non-existent winter.Now, global warming is causing "extreme" winters (which still have quite a way to go until they're back to what winter was in the 70s) because there is more moisture in the air.
Yet, droughts don't suffer the same fate of too much moisture in the air ... WTF?D@mn, scientists have learned a lot from politicians, namely that people's memory hardly ever extends beyond 1-2 years back (if that far).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163876</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meanwhile where there currently are glaciers, there used to not be.</p><p>How could that be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile where there currently are glaciers , there used to not be.How could that be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile where there currently are glaciers, there used to not be.How could that be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166036</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1265055120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is why I firmly believe in harsh penalties for any news source that deliberately prints or broadcasts misleading or factually incorrect information. Tripple punishment for any source that does not publicly and loudly issue a revocation any published or broadcasted false information.<br> <br>

Who am I kidding, NewsCorp, Daily Mail and so forth will just re-brand themselves as "infotainment" and technically class themselves as fiction in order to get around these laws and continue to print deliberately misleading stories. But at least we will have some truth in advertising.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When your " peers " appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny , actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published ( including threats to publishers ) , and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data , I 'd say we need to ask " Who Watches the Watchers " .
This is why I firmly believe in harsh penalties for any news source that deliberately prints or broadcasts misleading or factually incorrect information .
Tripple punishment for any source that does not publicly and loudly issue a revocation any published or broadcasted false information .
Who am I kidding , NewsCorp , Daily Mail and so forth will just re-brand themselves as " infotainment " and technically class themselves as fiction in order to get around these laws and continue to print deliberately misleading stories .
But at least we will have some truth in advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".
This is why I firmly believe in harsh penalties for any news source that deliberately prints or broadcasts misleading or factually incorrect information.
Tripple punishment for any source that does not publicly and loudly issue a revocation any published or broadcasted false information.
Who am I kidding, NewsCorp, Daily Mail and so forth will just re-brand themselves as "infotainment" and technically class themselves as fiction in order to get around these laws and continue to print deliberately misleading stories.
But at least we will have some truth in advertising.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164344</id>
	<title>I am happy to report that up here in Toronto ...</title>
	<author>quax</author>
	<datestamp>1266338460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... we have remarkably little snow this year.  So far I hardly had to get out my snow shovel.  For the bit of dustings we had I just use a broom and have the sun do the rest of the work.  Keeping my fingers crossed it stays that way.  In comparison the winter last year was brutal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... we have remarkably little snow this year .
So far I hardly had to get out my snow shovel .
For the bit of dustings we had I just use a broom and have the sun do the rest of the work .
Keeping my fingers crossed it stays that way .
In comparison the winter last year was brutal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... we have remarkably little snow this year.
So far I hardly had to get out my snow shovel.
For the bit of dustings we had I just use a broom and have the sun do the rest of the work.
Keeping my fingers crossed it stays that way.
In comparison the winter last year was brutal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164330</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Tehrasha</author>
	<datestamp>1266338340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"the more you keep repeating something (or the louder you state it) the more inclined people will be to accept it. "</i>
<p>
The debate is over.  There is concensus.  The debate is over.  There is no debate about climate change.</p><p>
Ive heard that repeated for years now, and its been getting louder recently...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the more you keep repeating something ( or the louder you state it ) the more inclined people will be to accept it .
" The debate is over .
There is concensus .
The debate is over .
There is no debate about climate change .
Ive heard that repeated for years now , and its been getting louder recently.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the more you keep repeating something (or the louder you state it) the more inclined people will be to accept it.
"

The debate is over.
There is concensus.
The debate is over.
There is no debate about climate change.
Ive heard that repeated for years now, and its been getting louder recently...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179852</id>
	<title>Re:So I'm also confused</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1265040960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- More girls on slashdot</p></div><p>
I'd like to see your raw data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- More girls on slashdot I 'd like to see your raw data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- More girls on slashdot
I'd like to see your raw data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164262</id>
	<title>El Ni&#241;o</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1266337920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So where does El Ni&#241;o fit into all of this? Doesn't El Ni&#241;o better explain this current weather variation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So where does El Ni   o fit into all of this ?
Does n't El Ni   o better explain this current weather variation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where does El Niño fit into all of this?
Doesn't El Niño better explain this current weather variation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167696</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1265031780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Direct effects of CO2 aren't what we're worried about, humans are fairly resilient. It's what the changing temperatures mean to agriculture that's the primary issue, we rely on that to get our food and you can be pretty damn sure that in the case of famine the leaders who got us into this mess will still have privileged access to the food pool and it's the lower classes who had no say in the policy and don't even understand the mechanics involved (though some believe they do because of the media trying to mislead them) that will starve instead.</p><p>Sure, mankind as a whole will not go extinct. We are too resilient for that, maybe not as much as cockroaches but certainly one of the most resilient species out there (and I'm pretty sure that even if a nuclear war broke out there'd still be enough humans left to maintain the species because we are EVERYWHERE and there's bound to be some places that nobody bothered nuking). We will however face some catastrophes that we rather wouldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Direct effects of CO2 are n't what we 're worried about , humans are fairly resilient .
It 's what the changing temperatures mean to agriculture that 's the primary issue , we rely on that to get our food and you can be pretty damn sure that in the case of famine the leaders who got us into this mess will still have privileged access to the food pool and it 's the lower classes who had no say in the policy and do n't even understand the mechanics involved ( though some believe they do because of the media trying to mislead them ) that will starve instead.Sure , mankind as a whole will not go extinct .
We are too resilient for that , maybe not as much as cockroaches but certainly one of the most resilient species out there ( and I 'm pretty sure that even if a nuclear war broke out there 'd still be enough humans left to maintain the species because we are EVERYWHERE and there 's bound to be some places that nobody bothered nuking ) .
We will however face some catastrophes that we rather would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Direct effects of CO2 aren't what we're worried about, humans are fairly resilient.
It's what the changing temperatures mean to agriculture that's the primary issue, we rely on that to get our food and you can be pretty damn sure that in the case of famine the leaders who got us into this mess will still have privileged access to the food pool and it's the lower classes who had no say in the policy and don't even understand the mechanics involved (though some believe they do because of the media trying to mislead them) that will starve instead.Sure, mankind as a whole will not go extinct.
We are too resilient for that, maybe not as much as cockroaches but certainly one of the most resilient species out there (and I'm pretty sure that even if a nuclear war broke out there'd still be enough humans left to maintain the species because we are EVERYWHERE and there's bound to be some places that nobody bothered nuking).
We will however face some catastrophes that we rather wouldn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166328</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes it seems pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A guy I know ran with this today and was going on and on about it, going off about how climate-change advocates were such idiots and how this was a huge slap in the face for them, etc etc. He tried to sound really educated about it, talking laws of thermodynamics and saturation of 14.77 micron absorbtion and so on. I countered all his points but he wouldn't let up, of course selectively responding to the stuff I countered with and bringing up some new zany thing each time. I ran out of energy to deal with him, and was simply reminded of why I never really liked the guy.</p></div><p>What, did he remind you too much of yourself?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A guy I know ran with this today and was going on and on about it , going off about how climate-change advocates were such idiots and how this was a huge slap in the face for them , etc etc .
He tried to sound really educated about it , talking laws of thermodynamics and saturation of 14.77 micron absorbtion and so on .
I countered all his points but he would n't let up , of course selectively responding to the stuff I countered with and bringing up some new zany thing each time .
I ran out of energy to deal with him , and was simply reminded of why I never really liked the guy.What , did he remind you too much of yourself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A guy I know ran with this today and was going on and on about it, going off about how climate-change advocates were such idiots and how this was a huge slap in the face for them, etc etc.
He tried to sound really educated about it, talking laws of thermodynamics and saturation of 14.77 micron absorbtion and so on.
I countered all his points but he wouldn't let up, of course selectively responding to the stuff I countered with and bringing up some new zany thing each time.
I ran out of energy to deal with him, and was simply reminded of why I never really liked the guy.What, did he remind you too much of yourself?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166236</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>phigmeta</author>
	<datestamp>1265057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If A guy lost the data-set that his entire career has been based on..........  is that PHD quality work ?

Funny, when investors make hockey stick graphs and "lose" the data THEY GO TO JAIL

just ask madoff</htmltext>
<tokenext>If A guy lost the data-set that his entire career has been based on.......... is that PHD quality work ?
Funny , when investors make hockey stick graphs and " lose " the data THEY GO TO JAIL just ask madoff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If A guy lost the data-set that his entire career has been based on..........  is that PHD quality work ?
Funny, when investors make hockey stick graphs and "lose" the data THEY GO TO JAIL

just ask madoff</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165258</id>
	<title>Weather isn't Climate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unless it can be plausibly argued that it is a consequence of Global Warming.  Then Weather is Climate just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unless it can be plausibly argued that it is a consequence of Global Warming .
Then Weather is Climate just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless it can be plausibly argued that it is a consequence of Global Warming.
Then Weather is Climate just fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163770</id>
	<title>nothing to see here.</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1266334740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes because there is no way that a model that predicts weather over long periods of time years/decades can have periodic variances day to day.  THey were saying the same here until I pointed out 2 weeks ago it was 60 then by the next weekend it was down to 10.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes because there is no way that a model that predicts weather over long periods of time years/decades can have periodic variances day to day .
THey were saying the same here until I pointed out 2 weeks ago it was 60 then by the next weekend it was down to 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes because there is no way that a model that predicts weather over long periods of time years/decades can have periodic variances day to day.
THey were saying the same here until I pointed out 2 weeks ago it was 60 then by the next weekend it was down to 10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166940</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a liar, Cavanaugh, by using that discredited Daily Mail story to make a point.</p><p>http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a liar , Cavanaugh , by using that discredited Daily Mail story to make a point.http : //initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a liar, Cavanaugh, by using that discredited Daily Mail story to make a point.http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163976</id>
	<title>Exposed already, get over it</title>
	<author>xiando</author>
	<datestamp>1266336240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not that hard to put "climategate" into a search-engine and find out that it's a scam. It's actually been getting colder every year the last decade. The UN "scientists" even admit that they actively falsify data and discredit those who tell the truth in leaked e-mails. "Global warming" is all about getting a global UN tax, it's got nothing to do with reality. I find it funny and sad that people seem to believe this myth due to the medias constant bombardment of "omg there will be global warming and the sky is falling and if we don't give the UN unlimited powers then the world is going to die"</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that hard to put " climategate " into a search-engine and find out that it 's a scam .
It 's actually been getting colder every year the last decade .
The UN " scientists " even admit that they actively falsify data and discredit those who tell the truth in leaked e-mails .
" Global warming " is all about getting a global UN tax , it 's got nothing to do with reality .
I find it funny and sad that people seem to believe this myth due to the medias constant bombardment of " omg there will be global warming and the sky is falling and if we do n't give the UN unlimited powers then the world is going to die "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that hard to put "climategate" into a search-engine and find out that it's a scam.
It's actually been getting colder every year the last decade.
The UN "scientists" even admit that they actively falsify data and discredit those who tell the truth in leaked e-mails.
"Global warming" is all about getting a global UN tax, it's got nothing to do with reality.
I find it funny and sad that people seem to believe this myth due to the medias constant bombardment of "omg there will be global warming and the sky is falling and if we don't give the UN unlimited powers then the world is going to die"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164062</id>
	<title>Global Warming may lead to BIG Chill....</title>
	<author>EightBitBanger</author>
	<datestamp>1266336660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing many people overlook (the global warming people especially) is that if you go back and look at ice core samples and prehistoric patterns of glaciation, the current weather patterns look eerily similar to what has happened before.</p><p>Specifically: initial warming leads to the melting of the permafrost, which leads to a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere. This promotes runaway global warming -- which unfortunately means greater ocean temperatures and much more evaporation. This means more rain and more SNOW.</p><p>Additionally, it also tends to disrupt ocean currents and the rotation of heat from the equator to the poles (i.e. the vast majority of Europe is at Latitudes higher than Canada is -- and if it weren't for the warm ocean currents they would have equally frigid weather).</p><p>The basic problem is that if you get enough extended period of heavy snow, you may eventually get enough snowpack to resist melting well into the summer months. This is exacerbated by the fact that snow, being white, reflects a HUGE amount of light/heat back into space. In essence, due to snow fall, cold weather is somewhat self-perpetuating.</p><p>Eventually you reach a situation where the amount of extra snow that falls in the winter is too great in certain latitudes to EVER completely melt in the winter -- and then things start going down hill from there. Thanks to the fact that evaporation / refreezing and then remelting acts as a wonderful method for desalinization of seawater, you also end up playing merry havoc with the ocean currents as well (and end up with much more coastal ice formation as the freezing point of the fresh water run off is much higher than that of pure seawater). Eventually the currents supplying heat to the North Atlantic basically shut down altogether and things go to hell in a hand basket (i.e. hell freezes over!).</p><p>The point that most of the "global warming" alarmists miss is that data shows that in the past both average global temperatures *and* CO2 levels peaked at levels significantly HIGHER than they are right now -- immediately before the planet plunged into the next ice age.</p><p>People need to realize that ALL of recorded human history has occurred in the current warm interglacial period -- which is only the most recent one. Furthermore, they need to realize that these warm interglacials of 20K-25K years are the EXCEPTION not the rule -- with ice ages of 100K years or more being the norm (with the interglacial periods between them).</p><p>While the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was largely pure BS, there were some grains of actual science behind it (albeit they sped up the time table of events by several orders of magnitude to make it exciting).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing many people overlook ( the global warming people especially ) is that if you go back and look at ice core samples and prehistoric patterns of glaciation , the current weather patterns look eerily similar to what has happened before.Specifically : initial warming leads to the melting of the permafrost , which leads to a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere .
This promotes runaway global warming -- which unfortunately means greater ocean temperatures and much more evaporation .
This means more rain and more SNOW.Additionally , it also tends to disrupt ocean currents and the rotation of heat from the equator to the poles ( i.e .
the vast majority of Europe is at Latitudes higher than Canada is -- and if it were n't for the warm ocean currents they would have equally frigid weather ) .The basic problem is that if you get enough extended period of heavy snow , you may eventually get enough snowpack to resist melting well into the summer months .
This is exacerbated by the fact that snow , being white , reflects a HUGE amount of light/heat back into space .
In essence , due to snow fall , cold weather is somewhat self-perpetuating.Eventually you reach a situation where the amount of extra snow that falls in the winter is too great in certain latitudes to EVER completely melt in the winter -- and then things start going down hill from there .
Thanks to the fact that evaporation / refreezing and then remelting acts as a wonderful method for desalinization of seawater , you also end up playing merry havoc with the ocean currents as well ( and end up with much more coastal ice formation as the freezing point of the fresh water run off is much higher than that of pure seawater ) .
Eventually the currents supplying heat to the North Atlantic basically shut down altogether and things go to hell in a hand basket ( i.e .
hell freezes over !
) .The point that most of the " global warming " alarmists miss is that data shows that in the past both average global temperatures * and * CO2 levels peaked at levels significantly HIGHER than they are right now -- immediately before the planet plunged into the next ice age.People need to realize that ALL of recorded human history has occurred in the current warm interglacial period -- which is only the most recent one .
Furthermore , they need to realize that these warm interglacials of 20K-25K years are the EXCEPTION not the rule -- with ice ages of 100K years or more being the norm ( with the interglacial periods between them ) .While the movie " The Day After Tomorrow " was largely pure BS , there were some grains of actual science behind it ( albeit they sped up the time table of events by several orders of magnitude to make it exciting ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing many people overlook (the global warming people especially) is that if you go back and look at ice core samples and prehistoric patterns of glaciation, the current weather patterns look eerily similar to what has happened before.Specifically: initial warming leads to the melting of the permafrost, which leads to a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
This promotes runaway global warming -- which unfortunately means greater ocean temperatures and much more evaporation.
This means more rain and more SNOW.Additionally, it also tends to disrupt ocean currents and the rotation of heat from the equator to the poles (i.e.
the vast majority of Europe is at Latitudes higher than Canada is -- and if it weren't for the warm ocean currents they would have equally frigid weather).The basic problem is that if you get enough extended period of heavy snow, you may eventually get enough snowpack to resist melting well into the summer months.
This is exacerbated by the fact that snow, being white, reflects a HUGE amount of light/heat back into space.
In essence, due to snow fall, cold weather is somewhat self-perpetuating.Eventually you reach a situation where the amount of extra snow that falls in the winter is too great in certain latitudes to EVER completely melt in the winter -- and then things start going down hill from there.
Thanks to the fact that evaporation / refreezing and then remelting acts as a wonderful method for desalinization of seawater, you also end up playing merry havoc with the ocean currents as well (and end up with much more coastal ice formation as the freezing point of the fresh water run off is much higher than that of pure seawater).
Eventually the currents supplying heat to the North Atlantic basically shut down altogether and things go to hell in a hand basket (i.e.
hell freezes over!
).The point that most of the "global warming" alarmists miss is that data shows that in the past both average global temperatures *and* CO2 levels peaked at levels significantly HIGHER than they are right now -- immediately before the planet plunged into the next ice age.People need to realize that ALL of recorded human history has occurred in the current warm interglacial period -- which is only the most recent one.
Furthermore, they need to realize that these warm interglacials of 20K-25K years are the EXCEPTION not the rule -- with ice ages of 100K years or more being the norm (with the interglacial periods between them).While the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was largely pure BS, there were some grains of actual science behind it (albeit they sped up the time table of events by several orders of magnitude to make it exciting).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166568</id>
	<title>Re:Or not</title>
	<author>hsthompson69</author>
	<datestamp>1265018940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If warming causes snow, and 1998 was the warmest year on record, why weren't there blizzards in 1998 on the east coast?

I think the problem you have is that if warming can cause increased snow fall and reduced snow fall, then the same could be said about cooling.  How do you differentiate between the two hypotheses?

You mention Antarctica, which is interesting, since the claim there is that the ice is receding...but according to your theory, it should actually be expanding due to increased snow fall.  Again, another "heads I win tails you lose" proposition.

Still haven't seen a single warmer posit what evidence would falsify their hypothesis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If warming causes snow , and 1998 was the warmest year on record , why were n't there blizzards in 1998 on the east coast ?
I think the problem you have is that if warming can cause increased snow fall and reduced snow fall , then the same could be said about cooling .
How do you differentiate between the two hypotheses ?
You mention Antarctica , which is interesting , since the claim there is that the ice is receding...but according to your theory , it should actually be expanding due to increased snow fall .
Again , another " heads I win tails you lose " proposition .
Still have n't seen a single warmer posit what evidence would falsify their hypothesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If warming causes snow, and 1998 was the warmest year on record, why weren't there blizzards in 1998 on the east coast?
I think the problem you have is that if warming can cause increased snow fall and reduced snow fall, then the same could be said about cooling.
How do you differentiate between the two hypotheses?
You mention Antarctica, which is interesting, since the claim there is that the ice is receding...but according to your theory, it should actually be expanding due to increased snow fall.
Again, another "heads I win tails you lose" proposition.
Still haven't seen a single warmer posit what evidence would falsify their hypothesis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164510</id>
	<title>Re:World is Fucked</title>
	<author>insufflate10mg</author>
	<datestamp>1266339420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sad part is, for you to have actually typed that out and consciously decide to post it, you probably followed it up by opening a new tab and beginning your jack-off procedures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad part is , for you to have actually typed that out and consciously decide to post it , you probably followed it up by opening a new tab and beginning your jack-off procedures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad part is, for you to have actually typed that out and consciously decide to post it, you probably followed it up by opening a new tab and beginning your jack-off procedures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165322</id>
	<title>when was the last time you saw a wooly mammoth?</title>
	<author>fadethepolice</author>
	<datestamp>1266344940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Climate change is an ongoing fact of life since our planet was founded.  The fact that climate change is debatable is a rather idiotic sign of our times.  That being said, the current snow fall in america is most likely due to el nino.   Like the mid nineties.  From my memory, we also had more snow in the seventies in the northeast than we have had this winter.  I remember 4' in front of my house as a kid in '77

CLIMATE CHANGE WILL OCCUR.  WE MAY AFFECT IT, BUT THE EARTH IS NOT A MUSEUM AND THE ONLY CONSTANT IN LIFE IS CHANGE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate change is an ongoing fact of life since our planet was founded .
The fact that climate change is debatable is a rather idiotic sign of our times .
That being said , the current snow fall in america is most likely due to el nino .
Like the mid nineties .
From my memory , we also had more snow in the seventies in the northeast than we have had this winter .
I remember 4 ' in front of my house as a kid in '77 CLIMATE CHANGE WILL OCCUR .
WE MAY AFFECT IT , BUT THE EARTH IS NOT A MUSEUM AND THE ONLY CONSTANT IN LIFE IS CHANGE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate change is an ongoing fact of life since our planet was founded.
The fact that climate change is debatable is a rather idiotic sign of our times.
That being said, the current snow fall in america is most likely due to el nino.
Like the mid nineties.
From my memory, we also had more snow in the seventies in the northeast than we have had this winter.
I remember 4' in front of my house as a kid in '77

CLIMATE CHANGE WILL OCCUR.
WE MAY AFFECT IT, BUT THE EARTH IS NOT A MUSEUM AND THE ONLY CONSTANT IN LIFE IS CHANGE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163826</id>
	<title>Global Warming!!!</title>
	<author>JDeane</author>
	<datestamp>1266335220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all seems such a moot point to me... Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth, in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth.</p><p>Save the whales, save the tree's, save yourself.... Death is the inevitable outcome of life.</p><p>On a more cheerful note I am going back to playing the Wii and enjoy my time here!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all seems such a moot point to me... Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth , in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth.Save the whales , save the tree 's , save yourself.... Death is the inevitable outcome of life.On a more cheerful note I am going back to playing the Wii and enjoy my time here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all seems such a moot point to me... Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth, in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth.Save the whales, save the tree's, save yourself.... Death is the inevitable outcome of life.On a more cheerful note I am going back to playing the Wii and enjoy my time here!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164706</id>
	<title>You know what?</title>
	<author>SetupWeasel</author>
	<datestamp>1266340920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't fucking care anymore. You can run around like chickens with your heads cut off and ruin all scientific debate. Not like there is a science that hasn't been completely poisoned by politics and greed at this point.</p><p>There are very few scientists that have the guts to say that they may not know something. I thought that was the point to science. They are all too afraid to lose that grant money or corporate sponsorship. Science isn't about a scientist's career. It is about finding the truth. Cooperate. Listen and address valid criticism. And can we stop with the poorly veiled Holocaust references. A "Climate Change denier" doesn't want to destroy the world or your family or Jewish people. Act your fucking age.</p><p>One final thought: stop pretending that environmentalism is altruistic. That's complete bullshit. Environmentalism is about the survival of humans, and honestly, that's the way it should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't fucking care anymore .
You can run around like chickens with your heads cut off and ruin all scientific debate .
Not like there is a science that has n't been completely poisoned by politics and greed at this point.There are very few scientists that have the guts to say that they may not know something .
I thought that was the point to science .
They are all too afraid to lose that grant money or corporate sponsorship .
Science is n't about a scientist 's career .
It is about finding the truth .
Cooperate. Listen and address valid criticism .
And can we stop with the poorly veiled Holocaust references .
A " Climate Change denier " does n't want to destroy the world or your family or Jewish people .
Act your fucking age.One final thought : stop pretending that environmentalism is altruistic .
That 's complete bullshit .
Environmentalism is about the survival of humans , and honestly , that 's the way it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't fucking care anymore.
You can run around like chickens with your heads cut off and ruin all scientific debate.
Not like there is a science that hasn't been completely poisoned by politics and greed at this point.There are very few scientists that have the guts to say that they may not know something.
I thought that was the point to science.
They are all too afraid to lose that grant money or corporate sponsorship.
Science isn't about a scientist's career.
It is about finding the truth.
Cooperate. Listen and address valid criticism.
And can we stop with the poorly veiled Holocaust references.
A "Climate Change denier" doesn't want to destroy the world or your family or Jewish people.
Act your fucking age.One final thought: stop pretending that environmentalism is altruistic.
That's complete bullshit.
Environmentalism is about the survival of humans, and honestly, that's the way it should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165152</id>
	<title>What if climate change isnt real?</title>
	<author>DeadRat4life</author>
	<datestamp>1266343860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if we did everything environmentalists want, polluted less, rode our bikes more, bought from local farms, conserved energy, and it all turned out that global warming was never really happening. We would have made a healthier planet for nothing. If we dont do anything and its wrong, we are still stuck with unhealthy habits, but at least we arent dead right? Now what if its right? we do the enviromental things, and cool! we stopped it! we dont do anything.....we die. do you really want to take the risk?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if we did everything environmentalists want , polluted less , rode our bikes more , bought from local farms , conserved energy , and it all turned out that global warming was never really happening .
We would have made a healthier planet for nothing .
If we dont do anything and its wrong , we are still stuck with unhealthy habits , but at least we arent dead right ?
Now what if its right ?
we do the enviromental things , and cool !
we stopped it !
we dont do anything.....we die .
do you really want to take the risk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if we did everything environmentalists want, polluted less, rode our bikes more, bought from local farms, conserved energy, and it all turned out that global warming was never really happening.
We would have made a healthier planet for nothing.
If we dont do anything and its wrong, we are still stuck with unhealthy habits, but at least we arent dead right?
Now what if its right?
we do the enviromental things, and cool!
we stopped it!
we dont do anything.....we die.
do you really want to take the risk?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164478</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's Bullshit</title>
	<author>trout007</author>
	<datestamp>1266339240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Put it this way. If it was just a study and no policies were to be made it wouldn't be politicized. But politics is all about power and control. And if groups want to use science to increase their power and control over other people then you can expect it to become politicized.

I think we need to see a separation of science and state.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Put it this way .
If it was just a study and no policies were to be made it would n't be politicized .
But politics is all about power and control .
And if groups want to use science to increase their power and control over other people then you can expect it to become politicized .
I think we need to see a separation of science and state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put it this way.
If it was just a study and no policies were to be made it wouldn't be politicized.
But politics is all about power and control.
And if groups want to use science to increase their power and control over other people then you can expect it to become politicized.
I think we need to see a separation of science and state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172960</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265051760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I may not be qualified to perform heart surgery, but I am qualified to tell you that using a chain saw is the wrong approach.</p></div><p>We're not talking about whether using a chain saw for heart surgery is a proper technique.  We are talking about where to make the initial incision.  Just because you are qualified to say that a chain saw is the wrong approach doesn't mean I'd trust you to know where to make the first cut.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may not be qualified to perform heart surgery , but I am qualified to tell you that using a chain saw is the wrong approach.We 're not talking about whether using a chain saw for heart surgery is a proper technique .
We are talking about where to make the initial incision .
Just because you are qualified to say that a chain saw is the wrong approach does n't mean I 'd trust you to know where to make the first cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may not be qualified to perform heart surgery, but I am qualified to tell you that using a chain saw is the wrong approach.We're not talking about whether using a chain saw for heart surgery is a proper technique.
We are talking about where to make the initial incision.
Just because you are qualified to say that a chain saw is the wrong approach doesn't mean I'd trust you to know where to make the first cut.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164452</id>
	<title>In Ontario, Canada...</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1266339120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... where I live we have had really bad winters the past couple of years. This year the winter has been really good (warm with little snowstorms). Say what you will -- I'm not complaining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... where I live we have had really bad winters the past couple of years .
This year the winter has been really good ( warm with little snowstorms ) .
Say what you will -- I 'm not complaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... where I live we have had really bad winters the past couple of years.
This year the winter has been really good (warm with little snowstorms).
Say what you will -- I'm not complaining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163880</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are stubborn and refuse to admit that humans(6+ billion of them) can change the climate of a planet. It's snowing in North America because it's winter and warmer water is putting more moisture in the air. Duh.</p><p>Look at South America, it's their summer. Nearly all of South America is above 70F, some parts are over near 100 and you have to get to the very southern tip to get reasonably mild temperature of 55.</p><p>Africa? Nope, whole continent(south to its very tip) is between 65F and 90F.</p><p>Okay, maybe Australia. Definitely not. The whole continent is over 85F.</p><p>Well shit, our snow must be an indicator of global cooling, despite smoking hot temperatures everywhere south of the equator.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are stubborn and refuse to admit that humans ( 6 + billion of them ) can change the climate of a planet .
It 's snowing in North America because it 's winter and warmer water is putting more moisture in the air .
Duh.Look at South America , it 's their summer .
Nearly all of South America is above 70F , some parts are over near 100 and you have to get to the very southern tip to get reasonably mild temperature of 55.Africa ?
Nope , whole continent ( south to its very tip ) is between 65F and 90F.Okay , maybe Australia .
Definitely not .
The whole continent is over 85F.Well shit , our snow must be an indicator of global cooling , despite smoking hot temperatures everywhere south of the equator .
/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are stubborn and refuse to admit that humans(6+ billion of them) can change the climate of a planet.
It's snowing in North America because it's winter and warmer water is putting more moisture in the air.
Duh.Look at South America, it's their summer.
Nearly all of South America is above 70F, some parts are over near 100 and you have to get to the very southern tip to get reasonably mild temperature of 55.Africa?
Nope, whole continent(south to its very tip) is between 65F and 90F.Okay, maybe Australia.
Definitely not.
The whole continent is over 85F.Well shit, our snow must be an indicator of global cooling, despite smoking hot temperatures everywhere south of the equator.
/sarcasm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168188</id>
	<title>Paraphrasing the scientist the late Ingmar Bergman</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1265035740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sunny winter days are depressing.</p><p>Everyone knows it snows most (and with the heaviest moisture density) on relatively warm days in the north.  Then the sub-zero F cold front comes through for one of those sunny snow diamond postcard shots that'll freeze your frackin' ass off.</p><p>People who don't know that are just ignorant of higher latitude weather.  Case closed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sunny winter days are depressing.Everyone knows it snows most ( and with the heaviest moisture density ) on relatively warm days in the north .
Then the sub-zero F cold front comes through for one of those sunny snow diamond postcard shots that 'll freeze your frackin ' ass off.People who do n't know that are just ignorant of higher latitude weather .
Case closed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sunny winter days are depressing.Everyone knows it snows most (and with the heaviest moisture density) on relatively warm days in the north.
Then the sub-zero F cold front comes through for one of those sunny snow diamond postcard shots that'll freeze your frackin' ass off.People who don't know that are just ignorant of higher latitude weather.
Case closed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31180210</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1265044260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.  No we are not.  I don't think there is anyone on either side of the debate that would say this we are talking about the first cut of a delicate surgery.  We are definitely talking about hacking parts off with a chainsaw.  And I don't need to have a PhD to tell the difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
No we are not .
I do n't think there is anyone on either side of the debate that would say this we are talking about the first cut of a delicate surgery .
We are definitely talking about hacking parts off with a chainsaw .
And I do n't need to have a PhD to tell the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
No we are not.
I don't think there is anyone on either side of the debate that would say this we are talking about the first cut of a delicate surgery.
We are definitely talking about hacking parts off with a chainsaw.
And I don't need to have a PhD to tell the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169228</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1265040120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>funny, mid 19th century america, we finally started to figure out how to build bridges that did not fall down.  not a structural engineer in sight, ah well, a little unfair, but figure it was before engineering was professionalized, so almost by definition, there was no "science" in sight</p><p>awg is happily dead.  I exerted myself quite a bit around copenhagen and maybe i did just a little bit of good.  so I think it is time to do the post-mortem.  sure we need to get rid of a lot of political types in the usa and elsewhere who have not got the word yet.  some people just like genocide.</p><p>so how do we avoid another awg?  One issue that comes to mind and is really obvious is the "settled", "consensus", "petition" stuff.  people on both sides play at this on slashdot even.  It looks to me that even "scientists" play at it and not even on just awg.  what do you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>funny , mid 19th century america , we finally started to figure out how to build bridges that did not fall down .
not a structural engineer in sight , ah well , a little unfair , but figure it was before engineering was professionalized , so almost by definition , there was no " science " in sightawg is happily dead .
I exerted myself quite a bit around copenhagen and maybe i did just a little bit of good .
so I think it is time to do the post-mortem .
sure we need to get rid of a lot of political types in the usa and elsewhere who have not got the word yet .
some people just like genocide.so how do we avoid another awg ?
One issue that comes to mind and is really obvious is the " settled " , " consensus " , " petition " stuff .
people on both sides play at this on slashdot even .
It looks to me that even " scientists " play at it and not even on just awg .
what do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>funny, mid 19th century america, we finally started to figure out how to build bridges that did not fall down.
not a structural engineer in sight, ah well, a little unfair, but figure it was before engineering was professionalized, so almost by definition, there was no "science" in sightawg is happily dead.
I exerted myself quite a bit around copenhagen and maybe i did just a little bit of good.
so I think it is time to do the post-mortem.
sure we need to get rid of a lot of political types in the usa and elsewhere who have not got the word yet.
some people just like genocide.so how do we avoid another awg?
One issue that comes to mind and is really obvious is the "settled", "consensus", "petition" stuff.
people on both sides play at this on slashdot even.
It looks to me that even "scientists" play at it and not even on just awg.
what do you think?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164558</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1266339780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Darwin will probably argue that we will simply adapt or evolve by natural selection. Those who can't handle the extra CO2 will simply make uglier kids.</p><p>The change is very slow and gradual, and unlike the proverbial boiling frog, we have the time to adapt and change to deal with this. Just like when we evolved from water based to land based.</p><p>We'll even grow UV resistant hair like our ancestors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Darwin will probably argue that we will simply adapt or evolve by natural selection .
Those who ca n't handle the extra CO2 will simply make uglier kids.The change is very slow and gradual , and unlike the proverbial boiling frog , we have the time to adapt and change to deal with this .
Just like when we evolved from water based to land based.We 'll even grow UV resistant hair like our ancestors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darwin will probably argue that we will simply adapt or evolve by natural selection.
Those who can't handle the extra CO2 will simply make uglier kids.The change is very slow and gradual, and unlike the proverbial boiling frog, we have the time to adapt and change to deal with this.
Just like when we evolved from water based to land based.We'll even grow UV resistant hair like our ancestors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164148</id>
	<title>Snow Line</title>
	<author>Group XVII</author>
	<datestamp>1266337200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/15/the-snow-line-is-moving-south/" title="wattsupwiththat.com" rel="nofollow">read</a> [wattsupwiththat.com] recently that the snow line (in the northern hemisphere) is moving south.  It's a substantial claim.  It's not undisputed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read [ wattsupwiththat.com ] recently that the snow line ( in the northern hemisphere ) is moving south .
It 's a substantial claim .
It 's not undisputed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read [wattsupwiththat.com] recently that the snow line (in the northern hemisphere) is moving south.
It's a substantial claim.
It's not undisputed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164294</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1266338160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995</p></div><p>And what do you conclude from this? That it is getting colder (like a lot of denialists claim)? That it is not changing at all? Or that it is still getting warmer, but just at a slower rate than before? Seriously, what does your quote prove?</p><p>Even if it was getting colder, does this falsify the climate change research? If you have a look at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental\_Temperature\_Record.svg" title="wikipedia.org">graph of global temperature</a> [wikipedia.org], does the current conditions have any precedent? The temperature does rise and fall (sometimes over an entire decade), and yet the overall trend keeps going up.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?</p></div><p>All of them. OK, maybe just the majority of them. The IPCC report is nearly 3000 pages long. Come back with more than a handful of mistakes in it before you call it busted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits : There has been no global warming since 1995And what do you conclude from this ?
That it is getting colder ( like a lot of denialists claim ) ?
That it is not changing at all ?
Or that it is still getting warmer , but just at a slower rate than before ?
Seriously , what does your quote prove ? Even if it was getting colder , does this falsify the climate change research ?
If you have a look at the graph of global temperature [ wikipedia.org ] , does the current conditions have any precedent ?
The temperature does rise and fall ( sometimes over an entire decade ) , and yet the overall trend keeps going up.How many more " mistakes " , falsifications , and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye ? All of them .
OK , maybe just the majority of them .
The IPCC report is nearly 3000 pages long .
Come back with more than a handful of mistakes in it before you call it busted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995And what do you conclude from this?
That it is getting colder (like a lot of denialists claim)?
That it is not changing at all?
Or that it is still getting warmer, but just at a slower rate than before?
Seriously, what does your quote prove?Even if it was getting colder, does this falsify the climate change research?
If you have a look at the graph of global temperature [wikipedia.org], does the current conditions have any precedent?
The temperature does rise and fall (sometimes over an entire decade), and yet the overall trend keeps going up.How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?All of them.
OK, maybe just the majority of them.
The IPCC report is nearly 3000 pages long.
Come back with more than a handful of mistakes in it before you call it busted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166108</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion? E-mail Excerpt?</title>
	<author>Game-Set-Match</author>
	<datestamp>1265056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you give me an excerpt from an E-mail that clearly demonstrates the conspiracy to hide data in the IPCC. I've heard a lot of insinuation but never any direct quotes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you give me an excerpt from an E-mail that clearly demonstrates the conspiracy to hide data in the IPCC .
I 've heard a lot of insinuation but never any direct quotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you give me an excerpt from an E-mail that clearly demonstrates the conspiracy to hide data in the IPCC.
I've heard a lot of insinuation but never any direct quotes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166410</id>
	<title>Re:The future matters more than the past</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, because it's not obviously provable (so possibly not evident because it might not be the right model)  we should do everything we can to prevent it?</p><p>Where the hell are you global warming true believers when there are NEAR's that have paths that DO definitely come close enough that we can't isolate their final orbit to know if they'll hit the moon, us, or pass us by.  We know it could possibly fall within that area for several large orbiting bodies...  I contest your global warming argument as nonsensical since one large nicely placed meteor which has a possibility of striking the earth (that's measurable) could make nice work of our atmosphere and we'd be having a WHOLE 'nother discussion on climate change...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , because it 's not obviously provable ( so possibly not evident because it might not be the right model ) we should do everything we can to prevent it ? Where the hell are you global warming true believers when there are NEAR 's that have paths that DO definitely come close enough that we ca n't isolate their final orbit to know if they 'll hit the moon , us , or pass us by .
We know it could possibly fall within that area for several large orbiting bodies... I contest your global warming argument as nonsensical since one large nicely placed meteor which has a possibility of striking the earth ( that 's measurable ) could make nice work of our atmosphere and we 'd be having a WHOLE 'nother discussion on climate change.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, because it's not obviously provable (so possibly not evident because it might not be the right model)  we should do everything we can to prevent it?Where the hell are you global warming true believers when there are NEAR's that have paths that DO definitely come close enough that we can't isolate their final orbit to know if they'll hit the moon, us, or pass us by.
We know it could possibly fall within that area for several large orbiting bodies...  I contest your global warming argument as nonsensical since one large nicely placed meteor which has a possibility of striking the earth (that's measurable) could make nice work of our atmosphere and we'd be having a WHOLE 'nother discussion on climate change...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165554</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's Bullshit</title>
	<author>XeroSine</author>
	<datestamp>1266346620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then I guess it can no longer be called science then can it?

All supposed "research" these days is tainted by political or monetary gain, sadly i do not foresee this being fixed anytime soon so for now we shall call science "shenanigans"

Honestly, i think a room full of 5th graders could get more research done than our vaunted "experts".
It doesn't help that the masses are far too easily swayed by the media about things "well, if he's on CNN/msnbc/fox/crazy science channel with a lab coat and nerd glasses i guess he knows his stuff".

I seem to remember this thing called snake oil, and i seem to remember the salesmen all drove cadillacs and wore armani.
Now we trade the caddy for a prius and the armani for a lab coat and voila....its a scientist in a box, ready to spread hysteria to the masses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then I guess it can no longer be called science then can it ?
All supposed " research " these days is tainted by political or monetary gain , sadly i do not foresee this being fixed anytime soon so for now we shall call science " shenanigans " Honestly , i think a room full of 5th graders could get more research done than our vaunted " experts " .
It does n't help that the masses are far too easily swayed by the media about things " well , if he 's on CNN/msnbc/fox/crazy science channel with a lab coat and nerd glasses i guess he knows his stuff " .
I seem to remember this thing called snake oil , and i seem to remember the salesmen all drove cadillacs and wore armani .
Now we trade the caddy for a prius and the armani for a lab coat and voila....its a scientist in a box , ready to spread hysteria to the masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then I guess it can no longer be called science then can it?
All supposed "research" these days is tainted by political or monetary gain, sadly i do not foresee this being fixed anytime soon so for now we shall call science "shenanigans"

Honestly, i think a room full of 5th graders could get more research done than our vaunted "experts".
It doesn't help that the masses are far too easily swayed by the media about things "well, if he's on CNN/msnbc/fox/crazy science channel with a lab coat and nerd glasses i guess he knows his stuff".
I seem to remember this thing called snake oil, and i seem to remember the salesmen all drove cadillacs and wore armani.
Now we trade the caddy for a prius and the armani for a lab coat and voila....its a scientist in a box, ready to spread hysteria to the masses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164280</id>
	<title>An inconvenient Snow Storm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hacked emails showing less than ethical behavior from prominent scientists.  check</p><p>United Nations reports with future weather predictions based on he said she said data rather actual scientifically vetted data.   check</p><p>A large number of recording stations being taken off line around the world in remote areas that tend to record lower temperatures (due to costs), but retaining stations in urban areas that are easily affect by the city heat island affect.  check</p><p>Satelilte data that does not back up the "sky is falling" temperature predictions, but show a much slow temperature trend upwards.  Check </p><p>Watching the Church of Global Warming froth at the mouth on the news at the audacity of mother nature for dumping record snows and low temperatures around the globe.  Priceless</p><p>I could buy into global warming if it weren't for all the douche bag polititians using it as an excuse for a power grab and if the scientists would pull their collective heads out of their asses and conduct all the, you know science above the table  in an organized manner.  Until they do its all bullshit and hearsay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hacked emails showing less than ethical behavior from prominent scientists .
checkUnited Nations reports with future weather predictions based on he said she said data rather actual scientifically vetted data .
checkA large number of recording stations being taken off line around the world in remote areas that tend to record lower temperatures ( due to costs ) , but retaining stations in urban areas that are easily affect by the city heat island affect .
checkSatelilte data that does not back up the " sky is falling " temperature predictions , but show a much slow temperature trend upwards .
Check Watching the Church of Global Warming froth at the mouth on the news at the audacity of mother nature for dumping record snows and low temperatures around the globe .
PricelessI could buy into global warming if it were n't for all the douche bag polititians using it as an excuse for a power grab and if the scientists would pull their collective heads out of their asses and conduct all the , you know science above the table in an organized manner .
Until they do its all bullshit and hearsay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hacked emails showing less than ethical behavior from prominent scientists.
checkUnited Nations reports with future weather predictions based on he said she said data rather actual scientifically vetted data.
checkA large number of recording stations being taken off line around the world in remote areas that tend to record lower temperatures (due to costs), but retaining stations in urban areas that are easily affect by the city heat island affect.
checkSatelilte data that does not back up the "sky is falling" temperature predictions, but show a much slow temperature trend upwards.
Check Watching the Church of Global Warming froth at the mouth on the news at the audacity of mother nature for dumping record snows and low temperatures around the globe.
PricelessI could buy into global warming if it weren't for all the douche bag polititians using it as an excuse for a power grab and if the scientists would pull their collective heads out of their asses and conduct all the, you know science above the table  in an organized manner.
Until they do its all bullshit and hearsay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31171778</id>
	<title>Warming NOT global</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If oceans getting warm means continents getting more snow, then the warming is not global but parcial, "oceanic" you might say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If oceans getting warm means continents getting more snow , then the warming is not global but parcial , " oceanic " you might say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If oceans getting warm means continents getting more snow, then the warming is not global but parcial, "oceanic" you might say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164408</id>
	<title>What part of Global?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's snowing on DC.  Then it's too hot at the Olympics and all the snow is melting.  Now there's too much snow at the Olympics?...</p><p>There's global warming in DC!  Everyone move to Vancouver where you'll be safe from global warming, because sometimes it's global cooling there and the two should cancel each other out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's snowing on DC .
Then it 's too hot at the Olympics and all the snow is melting .
Now there 's too much snow at the Olympics ? ...There 's global warming in DC !
Everyone move to Vancouver where you 'll be safe from global warming , because sometimes it 's global cooling there and the two should cancel each other out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's snowing on DC.
Then it's too hot at the Olympics and all the snow is melting.
Now there's too much snow at the Olympics?...There's global warming in DC!
Everyone move to Vancouver where you'll be safe from global warming, because sometimes it's global cooling there and the two should cancel each other out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165456</id>
	<title>But...but...but...</title>
	<author>L. J. Beauregard</author>
	<datestamp>1266345840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aaaaaaaaaaallllllllll Goooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrre!!1!11!ELEVENTYONE!!1!11!</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Bloody filter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aaaaaaaaaaallllllllll Goooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrre ! ! 1 ! 11 ! ELEVENTYONE ! ! 1 ! 11 !
/Bloody filter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aaaaaaaaaaallllllllll Goooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrre!!1!11!ELEVENTYONE!!1!11!
/Bloody filter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164714</id>
	<title>Ive lost hope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266340980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading these comments is making me lose hope for the climate and humanity. Everyday i feel myself becoming more and more against the current style of civilization and the internet that validates peoples idiocy. I, an anarcho/syndicalist/collectivist always used to make fun of my Anarchoprimitivist friends, but now im really starting to see their point. With technology comes great power, and as we all know with great power comes great responsibility, i think the human brain evolved wrong. It should have first learned to check it self before it wrecked itself, but instead it learned to build shit. Man i love B.C. bud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading these comments is making me lose hope for the climate and humanity .
Everyday i feel myself becoming more and more against the current style of civilization and the internet that validates peoples idiocy .
I , an anarcho/syndicalist/collectivist always used to make fun of my Anarchoprimitivist friends , but now im really starting to see their point .
With technology comes great power , and as we all know with great power comes great responsibility , i think the human brain evolved wrong .
It should have first learned to check it self before it wrecked itself , but instead it learned to build shit .
Man i love B.C .
bud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading these comments is making me lose hope for the climate and humanity.
Everyday i feel myself becoming more and more against the current style of civilization and the internet that validates peoples idiocy.
I, an anarcho/syndicalist/collectivist always used to make fun of my Anarchoprimitivist friends, but now im really starting to see their point.
With technology comes great power, and as we all know with great power comes great responsibility, i think the human brain evolved wrong.
It should have first learned to check it self before it wrecked itself, but instead it learned to build shit.
Man i love B.C.
bud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165032</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266343080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a long way to the sun, but thats nothing to the centre of the milky way.</p></div><p>I believe the quote is, "I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a long way to the sun , but thats nothing to the centre of the milky way.I believe the quote is , " I mean , you may think it 's a long way down the road to the drug store , but that 's just peanuts to space .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a long way to the sun, but thats nothing to the centre of the milky way.I believe the quote is, "I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163934</id>
	<title>gorebull warming?</title>
	<author>arem-aref</author>
	<datestamp>1266336000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>according to y'all, anything can be caused by gorebull warming</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>according to y'all , anything can be caused by gorebull warming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>according to y'all, anything can be caused by gorebull warming</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034</id>
	<title>The future matters more than the past</title>
	<author>atfrase</author>
	<datestamp>1266336540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To some extent I think the question of whether the globe is warming (or climate is changing, or whatever terminology comes next) is secondary.</p><p>Whether or not it's already happening in any measurable way today, I think we can all agree that it *could* happen in the future, so we (as a country, and a global society, and a species) need to be careful that it doesn't.  To that end, studying human civilization's side effects on the biosphere seems obviously worthwhile.</p><p>I think the original batch of climate scientists were well-intentioned but did themselves (and us) a disservice by overplaying the initial data.  They saw a potential problem in the future and tried to rally the public by saying "it's already happening!", but when that ended up not being very obviously provable, people started dismissing the entire concern.  That, to me, is a huge mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To some extent I think the question of whether the globe is warming ( or climate is changing , or whatever terminology comes next ) is secondary.Whether or not it 's already happening in any measurable way today , I think we can all agree that it * could * happen in the future , so we ( as a country , and a global society , and a species ) need to be careful that it does n't .
To that end , studying human civilization 's side effects on the biosphere seems obviously worthwhile.I think the original batch of climate scientists were well-intentioned but did themselves ( and us ) a disservice by overplaying the initial data .
They saw a potential problem in the future and tried to rally the public by saying " it 's already happening !
" , but when that ended up not being very obviously provable , people started dismissing the entire concern .
That , to me , is a huge mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To some extent I think the question of whether the globe is warming (or climate is changing, or whatever terminology comes next) is secondary.Whether or not it's already happening in any measurable way today, I think we can all agree that it *could* happen in the future, so we (as a country, and a global society, and a species) need to be careful that it doesn't.
To that end, studying human civilization's side effects on the biosphere seems obviously worthwhile.I think the original batch of climate scientists were well-intentioned but did themselves (and us) a disservice by overplaying the initial data.
They saw a potential problem in the future and tried to rally the public by saying "it's already happening!
", but when that ended up not being very obviously provable, people started dismissing the entire concern.
That, to me, is a huge mistake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164258</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266337860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Which is the tactic of the global warming "skeptics."...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
There you go again.  Can't make your case properly, so resorting to name calling and us-vs-them bullshit - that's so not how the creditability was built for science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is the tactic of the global warming " skeptics. " .. .
There you go again .
Ca n't make your case properly , so resorting to name calling and us-vs-them bullshit - that 's so not how the creditability was built for science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is the tactic of the global warming "skeptics."...
There you go again.
Can't make your case properly, so resorting to name calling and us-vs-them bullshit - that's so not how the creditability was built for science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168350</id>
	<title>And even worse is,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ABSOLUTE JUNK SCIENCE.  Oh, I errored.  This IS science to a coke snorting anti-American freak like Obama Bin Biden.</p><p>Even worse is that there are more blow-hard, tree hugging Allie-Gores who can con billions out of your pockets with this.  Remember what Obama said.  I'm paraphrasing; Any disaster is a good as we can use it to our advantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ABSOLUTE JUNK SCIENCE .
Oh , I errored .
This IS science to a coke snorting anti-American freak like Obama Bin Biden.Even worse is that there are more blow-hard , tree hugging Allie-Gores who can con billions out of your pockets with this .
Remember what Obama said .
I 'm paraphrasing ; Any disaster is a good as we can use it to our advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ABSOLUTE JUNK SCIENCE.
Oh, I errored.
This IS science to a coke snorting anti-American freak like Obama Bin Biden.Even worse is that there are more blow-hard, tree hugging Allie-Gores who can con billions out of your pockets with this.
Remember what Obama said.
I'm paraphrasing; Any disaster is a good as we can use it to our advantage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166660</id>
	<title>something's got to give?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fine, just so long as it's not any of US?</p><p>no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. &amp; recently (about a 1000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding &amp; excess by a few, resulted in a variety of negative consequences for all.</p><p>you may choose to call this possibly terminal mess 'weather issues' if it makes you feel better.</p><p>'shake, rattle &amp; roll' seems more accurate. maybe hell's bell's?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fine , just so long as it 's not any of US ? no need to confuse 'religion ' with being a spiritual being .
our soul purpose here is to care for one another .
failing that , we 're simply passing through ( excess baggage ) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind' .
&amp; recently ( about a 1000 years ago ) it was determined that hoarding &amp; excess by a few , resulted in a variety of negative consequences for all.you may choose to call this possibly terminal mess 'weather issues ' if it makes you feel better .
'shake , rattle &amp; roll ' seems more accurate .
maybe hell 's bell 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fine, just so long as it's not any of US?no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being.
our soul purpose here is to care for one another.
failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'.
&amp; recently (about a 1000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding &amp; excess by a few, resulted in a variety of negative consequences for all.you may choose to call this possibly terminal mess 'weather issues' if it makes you feel better.
'shake, rattle &amp; roll' seems more accurate.
maybe hell's bell's?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>192\_kbps</author>
	<datestamp>1266336480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here we go with that silly petition again:<br> <br>

1) Few if any of those scientists are climate scientists<br>
2) Only a small minority (~9000) have PhDs<br>
3) 31,000 is a small minority of the American scientific community<br>

The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists (which virtually requires a PhD), not publicity stunts such as this.<br> <br>

"the more you keep repeating something (or the louder you state it) the more inclined people will be to accept it. "<br> <br>

Which is the tactic of the global warming "skeptics." The people who actually have a truly informed opinion on this are generally too busy conducting research to be bothered trying to sway public opinion.

I have an MS in Software Engineering, but I wouldn't ever pronounce an opinion on if we'll get a computer to pass the Turing Test. I'm not an AI researcher, I don't know hard core Computer Science topics like Recursion Theory, and I never spent years earning a PhD to obtain a truly informed opinion. The folks who signed this petition can't really say they know what they are talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go with that silly petition again : 1 ) Few if any of those scientists are climate scientists 2 ) Only a small minority ( ~ 9000 ) have PhDs 3 ) 31,000 is a small minority of the American scientific community The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists ( which virtually requires a PhD ) , not publicity stunts such as this .
" the more you keep repeating something ( or the louder you state it ) the more inclined people will be to accept it .
" Which is the tactic of the global warming " skeptics .
" The people who actually have a truly informed opinion on this are generally too busy conducting research to be bothered trying to sway public opinion .
I have an MS in Software Engineering , but I would n't ever pronounce an opinion on if we 'll get a computer to pass the Turing Test .
I 'm not an AI researcher , I do n't know hard core Computer Science topics like Recursion Theory , and I never spent years earning a PhD to obtain a truly informed opinion .
The folks who signed this petition ca n't really say they know what they are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go with that silly petition again: 

1) Few if any of those scientists are climate scientists
2) Only a small minority (~9000) have PhDs
3) 31,000 is a small minority of the American scientific community

The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists (which virtually requires a PhD), not publicity stunts such as this.
"the more you keep repeating something (or the louder you state it) the more inclined people will be to accept it.
" 

Which is the tactic of the global warming "skeptics.
" The people who actually have a truly informed opinion on this are generally too busy conducting research to be bothered trying to sway public opinion.
I have an MS in Software Engineering, but I wouldn't ever pronounce an opinion on if we'll get a computer to pass the Turing Test.
I'm not an AI researcher, I don't know hard core Computer Science topics like Recursion Theory, and I never spent years earning a PhD to obtain a truly informed opinion.
The folks who signed this petition can't really say they know what they are talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164244</id>
	<title>Hilarity ensues</title>
	<author>Sarten-X</author>
	<datestamp>1266337800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a sick and twisted sort of way, I hold in my heart a secret hope that the increased snowfall will reflect more sunlight into space, causing a significant amount of global cooling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a sick and twisted sort of way , I hold in my heart a secret hope that the increased snowfall will reflect more sunlight into space , causing a significant amount of global cooling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a sick and twisted sort of way, I hold in my heart a secret hope that the increased snowfall will reflect more sunlight into space, causing a significant amount of global cooling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31183312</id>
	<title>Tell us news, not history ...</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1266503340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of effect was predicted two decades ago at least ; get over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of effect was predicted two decades ago at least ; get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of effect was predicted two decades ago at least ; get over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164962</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1266342720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans. "<br>Really?<br><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html" title="telegraph.co.uk">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html</a> [telegraph.co.uk]<br>To quote: When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.<br>Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr M&#246;rner.<br>One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".</p><p>"Meanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change. "<br>A professor.  Hm, that's convincing.  Yet somehow corals and shellfish are nearly THE OLDEST ORGANISMS ON THE PLANET, having survived MUCH higher CO2 levels than today, and much warmer (&amp; colder) climates than today.</p><p>"Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins to show signs of melting (via NASA and U of TX). "<br><a href="http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.125" title="globalwarminghoax.com">http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.125</a> [globalwarminghoax.com]<br>Contrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand. Ice totals for November 2009 are significantly higher than 1979 when measurements began...Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming as the models have predicted. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions.</p><p>"Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change. One day the facts will pile up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."<br>Funny, I see the facts piling up regarding the falsification of data, the 'smoothing' of data, the "loss" of data, the irreplicability of results; I'm not sure the "facts" are quite piling up the way you believe they will.</p><p>But hey, that's the beauty of religion.  Facts be damned, it's about faith.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans .
" Really ? http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html [ telegraph.co.uk ] To quote : When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change , he launched a special project on the Maldives , whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster .
Six times he and his expert team visited the islands , to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century .
Before announcing his findings , he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about .
The government refused to let it be shown.Similarly in Tuvalu , where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years , the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades .
The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it .
Meanwhile , Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising , says Dr M   rner.One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year .
Until 2003 , even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend .
But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC 's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise .
The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a " corrective factor " of 2.3mm , because , as the IPCC scientists admitted , they " needed to show a trend " .
" Meanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change .
" A professor .
Hm , that 's convincing .
Yet somehow corals and shellfish are nearly THE OLDEST ORGANISMS ON THE PLANET , having survived MUCH higher CO2 levels than today , and much warmer ( &amp; colder ) climates than today .
" Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica ( the steadfast 'unaffected ' part of Antarctica ) begins to show signs of melting ( via NASA and U of TX ) .
" http : //www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php ? comment.news.125 [ globalwarminghoax.com ] Contrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand .
Ice totals for November 2009 are significantly higher than 1979 when measurements began...Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming as the models have predicted .
According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1F since 1957 , with the coldest year being 2004 .
All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions .
" Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change .
One day the facts will pile up ... " Funny , I see the facts piling up regarding the falsification of data , the 'smoothing ' of data , the " loss " of data , the irreplicability of results ; I 'm not sure the " facts " are quite piling up the way you believe they will.But hey , that 's the beauty of religion .
Facts be damned , it 's about faith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans.
"Really?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html [telegraph.co.uk]To quote: When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster.
Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century.
Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about.
The government refused to let it be shown.Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades.
The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it.
Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year.
Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend.
But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise.
The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
"Meanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change.
"A professor.
Hm, that's convincing.
Yet somehow corals and shellfish are nearly THE OLDEST ORGANISMS ON THE PLANET, having survived MUCH higher CO2 levels than today, and much warmer (&amp; colder) climates than today.
"Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins to show signs of melting (via NASA and U of TX).
"http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.125 [globalwarminghoax.com]Contrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand.
Ice totals for November 2009 are significantly higher than 1979 when measurements began...Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming as the models have predicted.
According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004.
All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions.
"Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change.
One day the facts will pile up ..."Funny, I see the facts piling up regarding the falsification of data, the 'smoothing' of data, the "loss" of data, the irreplicability of results; I'm not sure the "facts" are quite piling up the way you believe they will.But hey, that's the beauty of religion.
Facts be damned, it's about faith.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163866</id>
	<title>Proof?</title>
	<author>amightywind</author>
	<datestamp>1266335460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does not constitute proof of global warming to these madmen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does not constitute proof of global warming to these madmen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does not constitute proof of global warming to these madmen?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165308</id>
	<title>why GW is a non-issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266344880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>global warming is a non-issue. if it's happening AND if the effects turn out to be bad it can easily be fixed. just set off a few nukes or launch some dust into orbit on a rocket and we'll have a nice bit of cooling. btw how much GW can be attributed to all those nuclear arms treaties.<br>what we should worry about is global cooling, which has happened many times in the past.<br>a decent ice age and we're pretty much bleeped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>global warming is a non-issue .
if it 's happening AND if the effects turn out to be bad it can easily be fixed .
just set off a few nukes or launch some dust into orbit on a rocket and we 'll have a nice bit of cooling .
btw how much GW can be attributed to all those nuclear arms treaties.what we should worry about is global cooling , which has happened many times in the past.a decent ice age and we 're pretty much bleeped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>global warming is a non-issue.
if it's happening AND if the effects turn out to be bad it can easily be fixed.
just set off a few nukes or launch some dust into orbit on a rocket and we'll have a nice bit of cooling.
btw how much GW can be attributed to all those nuclear arms treaties.what we should worry about is global cooling, which has happened many times in the past.a decent ice age and we're pretty much bleeped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168374</id>
	<title>runaway warming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, have the climatic models being used to suggest runaway warming taken into account the significant albedo effects? You paint an increasing land mass on average per year white with snow and you will suddenly reject a lot more insol (incoming solar radiation)back to space. Also, cloud cover rejection. If the total amount of insol being "trapped" on the earth declines, it declines. Regardless of what horrible thing we're doing to the planet.  Wet (not frozen)ground, with no cloud cover, generally increases absorption, but if water vapor increases and stays elevated you'll just get more clouds. And thereby dampen greenhouse effects due to insol rejection. In fact, I wrote a lovely PC app called INSOL that was a tool to graph out predicted absorbtion based on changing incoming solar radiation, albedo changes, etc. Soooo many variables.</p><p>The science on this, as far as I know, isn't "done". I worked in Climatology as a lead programmer building visualization tools and prediction tools for 5 years, and a room full of climatologists never agreed. On anything.</p><p>So, many of them would suggest that rising water vapor levels would ultimately mean ocean levels dropping due to increasing amounts of water being stored in the atmosphere, in lakes, in glaciers, in places bone dry but used to have lakes (Death Valley), in frozen deserts (dry part of Antarctica).</p><p>Our observations thus far tell us that, so far, the poles are melting and there's no report on significantly increased polar snowfall.</p><p>Now for Good News Bad News:</p><p>The Good News is that pollution particulates reject more energy to space<br>The Bad News is that pollution makes us sick and also enhances greenhouse effect and retention<br>The Good News is that pollution increases precipitation<br>The Bad News is that pollution increases precipitation<br>The Good News is that some pollution helps build Ozone<br>The Bad News is that other pollution attacks the Ozone, and ground level Ozone creation is useless and unhealthy<br>The Good News is that runaway warming might be false<br>The Bad News is that runaway warming might be either true, or we may be facing the much worse problem of runaway cooling</p><p>I refuse to buy into runaway warming, but I will absolutely buy into climate change. Climate change is always a given, but it's the RATE of regional change that will hurt us. The Amazon turns into a desert in 50 years vs a 1000 is a big difference. Regions ALWAYS change (Death Valley was a lake remember?), but now they are changing much quicker in observable, undeniable ways with terrible consequences.</p><p>The faster a regional climate changes, the greater the "inconvenience". Stacking our chips on the doom prediction of runaway warming is a tough prediction to prove. Proving regional disaster due to massive deforestation, pollution, and massive emptying of underground lakes and oceans (Mexico City) is a piece of cake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , have the climatic models being used to suggest runaway warming taken into account the significant albedo effects ?
You paint an increasing land mass on average per year white with snow and you will suddenly reject a lot more insol ( incoming solar radiation ) back to space .
Also , cloud cover rejection .
If the total amount of insol being " trapped " on the earth declines , it declines .
Regardless of what horrible thing we 're doing to the planet .
Wet ( not frozen ) ground , with no cloud cover , generally increases absorption , but if water vapor increases and stays elevated you 'll just get more clouds .
And thereby dampen greenhouse effects due to insol rejection .
In fact , I wrote a lovely PC app called INSOL that was a tool to graph out predicted absorbtion based on changing incoming solar radiation , albedo changes , etc .
Soooo many variables.The science on this , as far as I know , is n't " done " .
I worked in Climatology as a lead programmer building visualization tools and prediction tools for 5 years , and a room full of climatologists never agreed .
On anything.So , many of them would suggest that rising water vapor levels would ultimately mean ocean levels dropping due to increasing amounts of water being stored in the atmosphere , in lakes , in glaciers , in places bone dry but used to have lakes ( Death Valley ) , in frozen deserts ( dry part of Antarctica ) .Our observations thus far tell us that , so far , the poles are melting and there 's no report on significantly increased polar snowfall.Now for Good News Bad News : The Good News is that pollution particulates reject more energy to spaceThe Bad News is that pollution makes us sick and also enhances greenhouse effect and retentionThe Good News is that pollution increases precipitationThe Bad News is that pollution increases precipitationThe Good News is that some pollution helps build OzoneThe Bad News is that other pollution attacks the Ozone , and ground level Ozone creation is useless and unhealthyThe Good News is that runaway warming might be falseThe Bad News is that runaway warming might be either true , or we may be facing the much worse problem of runaway coolingI refuse to buy into runaway warming , but I will absolutely buy into climate change .
Climate change is always a given , but it 's the RATE of regional change that will hurt us .
The Amazon turns into a desert in 50 years vs a 1000 is a big difference .
Regions ALWAYS change ( Death Valley was a lake remember ?
) , but now they are changing much quicker in observable , undeniable ways with terrible consequences.The faster a regional climate changes , the greater the " inconvenience " .
Stacking our chips on the doom prediction of runaway warming is a tough prediction to prove .
Proving regional disaster due to massive deforestation , pollution , and massive emptying of underground lakes and oceans ( Mexico City ) is a piece of cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, have the climatic models being used to suggest runaway warming taken into account the significant albedo effects?
You paint an increasing land mass on average per year white with snow and you will suddenly reject a lot more insol (incoming solar radiation)back to space.
Also, cloud cover rejection.
If the total amount of insol being "trapped" on the earth declines, it declines.
Regardless of what horrible thing we're doing to the planet.
Wet (not frozen)ground, with no cloud cover, generally increases absorption, but if water vapor increases and stays elevated you'll just get more clouds.
And thereby dampen greenhouse effects due to insol rejection.
In fact, I wrote a lovely PC app called INSOL that was a tool to graph out predicted absorbtion based on changing incoming solar radiation, albedo changes, etc.
Soooo many variables.The science on this, as far as I know, isn't "done".
I worked in Climatology as a lead programmer building visualization tools and prediction tools for 5 years, and a room full of climatologists never agreed.
On anything.So, many of them would suggest that rising water vapor levels would ultimately mean ocean levels dropping due to increasing amounts of water being stored in the atmosphere, in lakes, in glaciers, in places bone dry but used to have lakes (Death Valley), in frozen deserts (dry part of Antarctica).Our observations thus far tell us that, so far, the poles are melting and there's no report on significantly increased polar snowfall.Now for Good News Bad News:The Good News is that pollution particulates reject more energy to spaceThe Bad News is that pollution makes us sick and also enhances greenhouse effect and retentionThe Good News is that pollution increases precipitationThe Bad News is that pollution increases precipitationThe Good News is that some pollution helps build OzoneThe Bad News is that other pollution attacks the Ozone, and ground level Ozone creation is useless and unhealthyThe Good News is that runaway warming might be falseThe Bad News is that runaway warming might be either true, or we may be facing the much worse problem of runaway coolingI refuse to buy into runaway warming, but I will absolutely buy into climate change.
Climate change is always a given, but it's the RATE of regional change that will hurt us.
The Amazon turns into a desert in 50 years vs a 1000 is a big difference.
Regions ALWAYS change (Death Valley was a lake remember?
), but now they are changing much quicker in observable, undeniable ways with terrible consequences.The faster a regional climate changes, the greater the "inconvenience".
Stacking our chips on the doom prediction of runaway warming is a tough prediction to prove.
Proving regional disaster due to massive deforestation, pollution, and massive emptying of underground lakes and oceans (Mexico City) is a piece of cake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167516</id>
	<title>Warm years have more snow storms</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1265029800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the US, warm years have more snow storms that cold years.  You can read all about US snow storms here:  <a href="http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1558-8432/45/8/pdf/i1558-8432-45-8-1141.pdf" title="allenpress.com">http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1558-8432/45/8/pdf/i1558-8432-45-8-1141.pdf</a> [allenpress.com]  Inhofe is usually wrong and this is just another example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , warm years have more snow storms that cold years .
You can read all about US snow storms here : http : //ams.allenpress.com/archive/1558-8432/45/8/pdf/i1558-8432-45-8-1141.pdf [ allenpress.com ] Inhofe is usually wrong and this is just another example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, warm years have more snow storms that cold years.
You can read all about US snow storms here:  http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1558-8432/45/8/pdf/i1558-8432-45-8-1141.pdf [allenpress.com]  Inhofe is usually wrong and this is just another example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169520</id>
	<title>Re:World is Fucked</title>
	<author>kehren77</author>
	<datestamp>1265041140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop. You are producing friction which is contributing to global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop .
You are producing friction which is contributing to global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop.
You are producing friction which is contributing to global warming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168716</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy Theories</title>
	<author>ProfM</author>
	<datestamp>1265038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>On one hand we have thousands of climatologists from dozens of countries armed with super computers and the resources of government. They tell us we have a problem.</i></p><p>Yes, yes they do tell us we have a problem.  At the same time, they ask or demand more funding to study it further.</p><p><i>Arguing against them are a bunch of people, most of whom are not climatologists or even scientists, who do not have super computers or any data of their own.  They argue that there is a worldwide conspiracy to falsify data.</i></p><p>EXACTLY. These same "scientists" refuse to give out the raw data, along with any information about how they're massaging the data.  In fact, many "studies" aren't even based on data, just thoughts and conjecture.  Some of these same scientists have recently done an about-face and have said that there has been INSIGNIFICANT WARMING for the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html" title="dailymail.co.uk" rel="nofollow">past 15 years.</a> [dailymail.co.uk]  So now, even Phil Jones has "come clean" about the information.</p><p><i>Thousands of scientists from Europe, Asia, Australasia and the Americas all working in harmony to defraud the world, to drive up taxes and bring down civilisation - all led by the anti-christ Al Gore.</i></p><p>Yep<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... although <b>anti-christ</b> is a little strong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I would say "useful idiot".  Al is as much a scientist as those not buying the "global warming" fraud.  Although he does stand to <a href="http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous\_conservative/2007/03/al\_gores\_inconv.html" title="riehlworldview.com" rel="nofollow">make billions</a> [riehlworldview.com] from continuing "global warming".  That alone should cause red flags to be raised by ANY believer in "global warming".</p><p><i>Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe.</i></p><p>I prefer not to drink the kool-aid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand we have thousands of climatologists from dozens of countries armed with super computers and the resources of government .
They tell us we have a problem.Yes , yes they do tell us we have a problem .
At the same time , they ask or demand more funding to study it further.Arguing against them are a bunch of people , most of whom are not climatologists or even scientists , who do not have super computers or any data of their own .
They argue that there is a worldwide conspiracy to falsify data.EXACTLY .
These same " scientists " refuse to give out the raw data , along with any information about how they 're massaging the data .
In fact , many " studies " are n't even based on data , just thoughts and conjecture .
Some of these same scientists have recently done an about-face and have said that there has been INSIGNIFICANT WARMING for the past 15 years .
[ dailymail.co.uk ] So now , even Phil Jones has " come clean " about the information.Thousands of scientists from Europe , Asia , Australasia and the Americas all working in harmony to defraud the world , to drive up taxes and bring down civilisation - all led by the anti-christ Al Gore.Yep ... although anti-christ is a little strong ... I would say " useful idiot " .
Al is as much a scientist as those not buying the " global warming " fraud .
Although he does stand to make billions [ riehlworldview.com ] from continuing " global warming " .
That alone should cause red flags to be raised by ANY believer in " global warming " .Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe.I prefer not to drink the kool-aid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand we have thousands of climatologists from dozens of countries armed with super computers and the resources of government.
They tell us we have a problem.Yes, yes they do tell us we have a problem.
At the same time, they ask or demand more funding to study it further.Arguing against them are a bunch of people, most of whom are not climatologists or even scientists, who do not have super computers or any data of their own.
They argue that there is a worldwide conspiracy to falsify data.EXACTLY.
These same "scientists" refuse to give out the raw data, along with any information about how they're massaging the data.
In fact, many "studies" aren't even based on data, just thoughts and conjecture.
Some of these same scientists have recently done an about-face and have said that there has been INSIGNIFICANT WARMING for the past 15 years.
[dailymail.co.uk]  So now, even Phil Jones has "come clean" about the information.Thousands of scientists from Europe, Asia, Australasia and the Americas all working in harmony to defraud the world, to drive up taxes and bring down civilisation - all led by the anti-christ Al Gore.Yep ... although anti-christ is a little strong ... I would say "useful idiot".
Al is as much a scientist as those not buying the "global warming" fraud.
Although he does stand to make billions [riehlworldview.com] from continuing "global warming".
That alone should cause red flags to be raised by ANY believer in "global warming".Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe.I prefer not to drink the kool-aid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163776</id>
	<title>weather is different than climate</title>
	<author>saiha</author>
	<datestamp>1266334800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A non-warming planet can also mean more snow year-to-year. And anyway it doesn't say anything about human-caused warming since we know the planet has gone through many warming and cooling cycles naturally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A non-warming planet can also mean more snow year-to-year .
And anyway it does n't say anything about human-caused warming since we know the planet has gone through many warming and cooling cycles naturally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A non-warming planet can also mean more snow year-to-year.
And anyway it doesn't say anything about human-caused warming since we know the planet has gone through many warming and cooling cycles naturally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164400</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming!!!</title>
	<author>yndrd1984</author>
	<datestamp>1266338820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth, in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth.</i> </p><p>

That's why, about 3.9 billion years from now, I've set aside some time for developing an escape plan.  Until then I plan on keeping the old homestead in good repair, because spending 50 million or so lifetimes in a dump doesn't sound like fun.  I promise that when the time comes you can throw a huge party and trash the place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth , in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth .
That 's why , about 3.9 billion years from now , I 've set aside some time for developing an escape plan .
Until then I plan on keeping the old homestead in good repair , because spending 50 million or so lifetimes in a dump does n't sound like fun .
I promise that when the time comes you can throw a huge party and trash the place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth, in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth.
That's why, about 3.9 billion years from now, I've set aside some time for developing an escape plan.
Until then I plan on keeping the old homestead in good repair, because spending 50 million or so lifetimes in a dump doesn't sound like fun.
I promise that when the time comes you can throw a huge party and trash the place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169142</id>
	<title>Re:Or not</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265039820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My state has been experiencing record cold temps all winter too, not just snow. Of course, knowing you religious types, I'm sure you can explain away that too (true believers always have an answer when something contradicts their religious beliefs).</htmltext>
<tokenext>My state has been experiencing record cold temps all winter too , not just snow .
Of course , knowing you religious types , I 'm sure you can explain away that too ( true believers always have an answer when something contradicts their religious beliefs ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My state has been experiencing record cold temps all winter too, not just snow.
Of course, knowing you religious types, I'm sure you can explain away that too (true believers always have an answer when something contradicts their religious beliefs).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31174598</id>
	<title>Re:Texas was once...</title>
	<author>JTsyo</author>
	<datestamp>1265057280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the right temperature for the earth because it's the one we're successful in. Maybe there's a condition in which all the deserts become farm lands and the the climate becomes temperate everywhere but there are far more scenarios where things would be worse with change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the right temperature for the earth because it 's the one we 're successful in .
Maybe there 's a condition in which all the deserts become farm lands and the the climate becomes temperate everywhere but there are far more scenarios where things would be worse with change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the right temperature for the earth because it's the one we're successful in.
Maybe there's a condition in which all the deserts become farm lands and the the climate becomes temperate everywhere but there are far more scenarios where things would be worse with change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31171364</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy Theories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they said there wasn't a problem would they get those supercomputers maintained next year?  Would they get the funding they need to keep running if there was a negative result in their published material?  Clinical Bias makes it pretty easy to get whatever statistics you want...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they said there was n't a problem would they get those supercomputers maintained next year ?
Would they get the funding they need to keep running if there was a negative result in their published material ?
Clinical Bias makes it pretty easy to get whatever statistics you want.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they said there wasn't a problem would they get those supercomputers maintained next year?
Would they get the funding they need to keep running if there was a negative result in their published material?
Clinical Bias makes it pretty easy to get whatever statistics you want...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167482</id>
	<title>Too many people ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's get some simple facts out on the table. The Earth's climate IS changing. It has been changing since it was created (long before humans infested it). The Earth's climate will continue to change up until the "day" it ceases to be  (astronomers tell us that in a few billion years the Sun will swallow the Earth; now THAT is real global warming). There is NOTHING humans can do to STOP climate change. NOTHING (even "modifying" the non-anthropomorphic climate change is CHANGING the climate).</p><p>Now, if the REAL issue is the "anthropomorphic" in anthropomorphic climate change (or anthropomorphic global warming if you prefer) that then please deal with it honestly. Get rid of the people and there's no more anthropomorphic ANYTHING.</p><p>The proponents of ACC (or AGW) typically point out how terrible things have become since the industrial age began and use of fossil fuels began in earnest. Well folks, we've added about 5 billion people to the world population since then. What if we got rid of those extra 5 billion people?</p><p>In the 1970's there were a number of studies done to determine ecologically sustainable populations. At the time the numbers for the US were about 110 to 120 million. We've pretty much busted that into 200 million pieces. The US is now a bit over 300 million and heading up. Imagine the impact (or lack thereof) on the ecology and climate if the population was only 5 milllion as in the beginning of the 1800s. Now repeat that exercise for the rest of the world.</p><p>The only real answer is to quit having kids. Quit providing incentives for having them (instead of providing tax breaks to parents they should have to pay more taxes to make up for the "force multiplier" effect of their "bundle(s) of joy"). Provide health care only to the level that was in effect at the beginning of the 1800s (no antibiotics, no immunzations) and let the populations die off.</p><p>Yeh. Not very palatable or likely. But IF the problem is the with "anthropomorphic" part of climate change (or global warming) then deal honestly with the "anthropomorphic" part of it. Otherwise, trying to stop non-anthropomorphic climate change (or global warming) is an irrational fools errand (or a big time money maker if you get in on the "carbon tax" gravy train).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's get some simple facts out on the table .
The Earth 's climate IS changing .
It has been changing since it was created ( long before humans infested it ) .
The Earth 's climate will continue to change up until the " day " it ceases to be ( astronomers tell us that in a few billion years the Sun will swallow the Earth ; now THAT is real global warming ) .
There is NOTHING humans can do to STOP climate change .
NOTHING ( even " modifying " the non-anthropomorphic climate change is CHANGING the climate ) .Now , if the REAL issue is the " anthropomorphic " in anthropomorphic climate change ( or anthropomorphic global warming if you prefer ) that then please deal with it honestly .
Get rid of the people and there 's no more anthropomorphic ANYTHING.The proponents of ACC ( or AGW ) typically point out how terrible things have become since the industrial age began and use of fossil fuels began in earnest .
Well folks , we 've added about 5 billion people to the world population since then .
What if we got rid of those extra 5 billion people ? In the 1970 's there were a number of studies done to determine ecologically sustainable populations .
At the time the numbers for the US were about 110 to 120 million .
We 've pretty much busted that into 200 million pieces .
The US is now a bit over 300 million and heading up .
Imagine the impact ( or lack thereof ) on the ecology and climate if the population was only 5 milllion as in the beginning of the 1800s .
Now repeat that exercise for the rest of the world.The only real answer is to quit having kids .
Quit providing incentives for having them ( instead of providing tax breaks to parents they should have to pay more taxes to make up for the " force multiplier " effect of their " bundle ( s ) of joy " ) .
Provide health care only to the level that was in effect at the beginning of the 1800s ( no antibiotics , no immunzations ) and let the populations die off.Yeh .
Not very palatable or likely .
But IF the problem is the with " anthropomorphic " part of climate change ( or global warming ) then deal honestly with the " anthropomorphic " part of it .
Otherwise , trying to stop non-anthropomorphic climate change ( or global warming ) is an irrational fools errand ( or a big time money maker if you get in on the " carbon tax " gravy train ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's get some simple facts out on the table.
The Earth's climate IS changing.
It has been changing since it was created (long before humans infested it).
The Earth's climate will continue to change up until the "day" it ceases to be  (astronomers tell us that in a few billion years the Sun will swallow the Earth; now THAT is real global warming).
There is NOTHING humans can do to STOP climate change.
NOTHING (even "modifying" the non-anthropomorphic climate change is CHANGING the climate).Now, if the REAL issue is the "anthropomorphic" in anthropomorphic climate change (or anthropomorphic global warming if you prefer) that then please deal with it honestly.
Get rid of the people and there's no more anthropomorphic ANYTHING.The proponents of ACC (or AGW) typically point out how terrible things have become since the industrial age began and use of fossil fuels began in earnest.
Well folks, we've added about 5 billion people to the world population since then.
What if we got rid of those extra 5 billion people?In the 1970's there were a number of studies done to determine ecologically sustainable populations.
At the time the numbers for the US were about 110 to 120 million.
We've pretty much busted that into 200 million pieces.
The US is now a bit over 300 million and heading up.
Imagine the impact (or lack thereof) on the ecology and climate if the population was only 5 milllion as in the beginning of the 1800s.
Now repeat that exercise for the rest of the world.The only real answer is to quit having kids.
Quit providing incentives for having them (instead of providing tax breaks to parents they should have to pay more taxes to make up for the "force multiplier" effect of their "bundle(s) of joy").
Provide health care only to the level that was in effect at the beginning of the 1800s (no antibiotics, no immunzations) and let the populations die off.Yeh.
Not very palatable or likely.
But IF the problem is the with "anthropomorphic" part of climate change (or global warming) then deal honestly with the "anthropomorphic" part of it.
Otherwise, trying to stop non-anthropomorphic climate change (or global warming) is an irrational fools errand (or a big time money maker if you get in on the "carbon tax" gravy train).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163726</id>
	<title>Could have told Vancouver earlier</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1266334440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this had been common knowledge a couple weeks ago, Vancouver could have properly prepared for this year's Olympic games.</p><p>That and rehearsing the torch ceremony. And putting proper walls on the luge track. And checked the Zambonis for proper maintenance.</p><p>But yeah, more snow earlier would have been nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this had been common knowledge a couple weeks ago , Vancouver could have properly prepared for this year 's Olympic games.That and rehearsing the torch ceremony .
And putting proper walls on the luge track .
And checked the Zambonis for proper maintenance.But yeah , more snow earlier would have been nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this had been common knowledge a couple weeks ago, Vancouver could have properly prepared for this year's Olympic games.That and rehearsing the torch ceremony.
And putting proper walls on the luge track.
And checked the Zambonis for proper maintenance.But yeah, more snow earlier would have been nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170220</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1265043420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995</p></div><p>That's not what he said.  Dr. Jones said that the 15 year period since 1995 was too short to see a verifiable warming trend.  It's a simple statistical concept; we need more data.  <a href="http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement" title="uea.ac.uk">His response to the Guardian article makes this plain.</a> [uea.ac.uk] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers</p></div><p>Yes, there is a single mistaken number on page 493 of Volume 2 in the IPCC report.  It's probably best if you instead focus on the well regarded, well sourced, 45 page section on glacial melting in Volume 1.</p><p>Climate change skeptics are like Ghost Hunters; whenever they hear a stair squeak, they leap to the assumption that there's a body nearby.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits : There has been no global warming since 1995That 's not what he said .
Dr. Jones said that the 15 year period since 1995 was too short to see a verifiable warming trend .
It 's a simple statistical concept ; we need more data .
His response to the Guardian article makes this plain .
[ uea.ac.uk ] UN climate body admits 'mistake ' on Himalayan glaciersYes , there is a single mistaken number on page 493 of Volume 2 in the IPCC report .
It 's probably best if you instead focus on the well regarded , well sourced , 45 page section on glacial melting in Volume 1.Climate change skeptics are like Ghost Hunters ; whenever they hear a stair squeak , they leap to the assumption that there 's a body nearby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995That's not what he said.
Dr. Jones said that the 15 year period since 1995 was too short to see a verifiable warming trend.
It's a simple statistical concept; we need more data.
His response to the Guardian article makes this plain.
[uea.ac.uk] UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciersYes, there is a single mistaken number on page 493 of Volume 2 in the IPCC report.
It's probably best if you instead focus on the well regarded, well sourced, 45 page section on glacial melting in Volume 1.Climate change skeptics are like Ghost Hunters; whenever they hear a stair squeak, they leap to the assumption that there's a body nearby.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165526</id>
	<title>Wrong parameters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266346380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of this hand wringing over whether AGW is real or not is pointless. Humans (and all other animals, by extension) are driven by incentives and punishment. One really bad + long medieval age where state and church conspired to make life miserable for the masses and democracy becomes the golden ideal in Europe. As a race, we tend not to react until the danger is real and present (in your face). How many of us would have been happy with a war on terror at the cost of hundreds of billions before 9/11? 3000 people died (which is a damn shame) before it became a national priority. Yet...an order of magnitude more die in road accidents every year and no one pushes for a 1-trillion dollar bill to fix that. Why -- because it doesnt really punish us enough statistically to consider alternatives. More importantly, it doesnt hurt the powerful enough. If 9/11 had occurred in bum-fuck Missouri, how many would have been on the war-against-terror bandwagon? They materially hurt the richest pocketbooks in the world and the response was immediate.</p><p>A couple of centigrades here or there and a few extra hurricanes or snowstorms are not enough to move humanity to change their primary energy source. Most people simply do not have the resources to care about that. They are fucking busy trying to stay alive and above the proverbial water. The punishment (or incentive) has to be significant enough to cover the cost of that migration. Mark my words --- people will have to start dying verifiably due to climate change AND the powers to be will have to be materially impacted by the same before anything meaningful will happen. How many millions die in genocides and famines and epidemics in poor nations? How many of us are moved to do anything substantial about that? Compare that to how many we "think" are going to die in the next 10-20 years due to AGW. Fire + Ass = Run...otherwise it is watch the show, sympathize, analyze, repeat the platitudes, and move on.</p><p>So the only way AGW will have any serious push behind it is when the richest in the world are materially impacted. If a statistical fluke led to paralyzing storms in NY, London, Berlin, and Shanghai at once for several years, I will bet my ass that AGW will suddenly become real and mainstream - science be damned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of this hand wringing over whether AGW is real or not is pointless .
Humans ( and all other animals , by extension ) are driven by incentives and punishment .
One really bad + long medieval age where state and church conspired to make life miserable for the masses and democracy becomes the golden ideal in Europe .
As a race , we tend not to react until the danger is real and present ( in your face ) .
How many of us would have been happy with a war on terror at the cost of hundreds of billions before 9/11 ?
3000 people died ( which is a damn shame ) before it became a national priority .
Yet...an order of magnitude more die in road accidents every year and no one pushes for a 1-trillion dollar bill to fix that .
Why -- because it doesnt really punish us enough statistically to consider alternatives .
More importantly , it doesnt hurt the powerful enough .
If 9/11 had occurred in bum-fuck Missouri , how many would have been on the war-against-terror bandwagon ?
They materially hurt the richest pocketbooks in the world and the response was immediate.A couple of centigrades here or there and a few extra hurricanes or snowstorms are not enough to move humanity to change their primary energy source .
Most people simply do not have the resources to care about that .
They are fucking busy trying to stay alive and above the proverbial water .
The punishment ( or incentive ) has to be significant enough to cover the cost of that migration .
Mark my words --- people will have to start dying verifiably due to climate change AND the powers to be will have to be materially impacted by the same before anything meaningful will happen .
How many millions die in genocides and famines and epidemics in poor nations ?
How many of us are moved to do anything substantial about that ?
Compare that to how many we " think " are going to die in the next 10-20 years due to AGW .
Fire + Ass = Run...otherwise it is watch the show , sympathize , analyze , repeat the platitudes , and move on.So the only way AGW will have any serious push behind it is when the richest in the world are materially impacted .
If a statistical fluke led to paralyzing storms in NY , London , Berlin , and Shanghai at once for several years , I will bet my ass that AGW will suddenly become real and mainstream - science be damned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of this hand wringing over whether AGW is real or not is pointless.
Humans (and all other animals, by extension) are driven by incentives and punishment.
One really bad + long medieval age where state and church conspired to make life miserable for the masses and democracy becomes the golden ideal in Europe.
As a race, we tend not to react until the danger is real and present (in your face).
How many of us would have been happy with a war on terror at the cost of hundreds of billions before 9/11?
3000 people died (which is a damn shame) before it became a national priority.
Yet...an order of magnitude more die in road accidents every year and no one pushes for a 1-trillion dollar bill to fix that.
Why -- because it doesnt really punish us enough statistically to consider alternatives.
More importantly, it doesnt hurt the powerful enough.
If 9/11 had occurred in bum-fuck Missouri, how many would have been on the war-against-terror bandwagon?
They materially hurt the richest pocketbooks in the world and the response was immediate.A couple of centigrades here or there and a few extra hurricanes or snowstorms are not enough to move humanity to change their primary energy source.
Most people simply do not have the resources to care about that.
They are fucking busy trying to stay alive and above the proverbial water.
The punishment (or incentive) has to be significant enough to cover the cost of that migration.
Mark my words --- people will have to start dying verifiably due to climate change AND the powers to be will have to be materially impacted by the same before anything meaningful will happen.
How many millions die in genocides and famines and epidemics in poor nations?
How many of us are moved to do anything substantial about that?
Compare that to how many we "think" are going to die in the next 10-20 years due to AGW.
Fire + Ass = Run...otherwise it is watch the show, sympathize, analyze, repeat the platitudes, and move on.So the only way AGW will have any serious push behind it is when the richest in the world are materially impacted.
If a statistical fluke led to paralyzing storms in NY, London, Berlin, and Shanghai at once for several years, I will bet my ass that AGW will suddenly become real and mainstream - science be damned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166462</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1265017500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> The OP was asking, quite reasonably, what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate change<p>Easy: how about a ten year, statistically significant downward trend.
<br> <br>
In the mean time, just in case, let's find ways to reduce our carbon emissions, just in case.  If that helps the downward trend become more significant, then we're all winners!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The OP was asking , quite reasonably , what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate changeEasy : how about a ten year , statistically significant downward trend .
In the mean time , just in case , let 's find ways to reduce our carbon emissions , just in case .
If that helps the downward trend become more significant , then we 're all winners !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The OP was asking, quite reasonably, what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate changeEasy: how about a ten year, statistically significant downward trend.
In the mean time, just in case, let's find ways to reduce our carbon emissions, just in case.
If that helps the downward trend become more significant, then we're all winners!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714</id>
	<title>Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266334320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One question for the warmers reading.  Can the theory of AGW be falsified?</p><p>If it gets hotter it is because of Global Warming.</p><p>If a hurricane hits it is because of Global Warming.</p><p>If there is a drought anywhere it is because of Global Warming.</p><p>But if we get a blizzard it is bacause of Global Climate Change.</p><p>If it floods it is because of Global Warming/Climate Change.</p><p>If the North polar ice shrinks it is Global Warming.</p><p>Yet when the Antarctic ice grows it is Climate Change.</p><p>When the Northern ice returns it is nothing to see here, move along.</p><p>When Phil Jones says there has been no warming for fifteen years, it doesn't mean anything.  In fact, to date only the Moonies at the Wash. Times and Fox News consider his statement worthy of repeating.  (He said it to the BBC, btw, not known as a bastion of Deniers.)</p><p>So my question is this:  For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One question for the warmers reading .
Can the theory of AGW be falsified ? If it gets hotter it is because of Global Warming.If a hurricane hits it is because of Global Warming.If there is a drought anywhere it is because of Global Warming.But if we get a blizzard it is bacause of Global Climate Change.If it floods it is because of Global Warming/Climate Change.If the North polar ice shrinks it is Global Warming.Yet when the Antarctic ice grows it is Climate Change.When the Northern ice returns it is nothing to see here , move along.When Phil Jones says there has been no warming for fifteen years , it does n't mean anything .
In fact , to date only the Moonies at the Wash. Times and Fox News consider his statement worthy of repeating .
( He said it to the BBC , btw , not known as a bastion of Deniers .
) So my question is this : For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable ; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One question for the warmers reading.
Can the theory of AGW be falsified?If it gets hotter it is because of Global Warming.If a hurricane hits it is because of Global Warming.If there is a drought anywhere it is because of Global Warming.But if we get a blizzard it is bacause of Global Climate Change.If it floods it is because of Global Warming/Climate Change.If the North polar ice shrinks it is Global Warming.Yet when the Antarctic ice grows it is Climate Change.When the Northern ice returns it is nothing to see here, move along.When Phil Jones says there has been no warming for fifteen years, it doesn't mean anything.
In fact, to date only the Moonies at the Wash. Times and Fox News consider his statement worthy of repeating.
(He said it to the BBC, btw, not known as a bastion of Deniers.
)So my question is this:  For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167852</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data"</p><p>This is all just a flat out lies, I will write it again because it need to be made clear.<br>The "...that trick to hide the decline by adding real data" was actually talking about tree ring growth and not temperature and it wasn't a secret.<br>They talk about not refereeing to a journal any more because it has allowed some bad papers though, but they never act on this, in the end they continued to reference the journal.<br>They talk about beating someone up in their private email discussions as an expression of their frustration but they don't make any threatening statements against anybody.<br>They express frustration that they don't have enough data to account for short term fluctuations in global temperatures, not doubt in global warming itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When your " peers " appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny , actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published ( including threats to publishers ) , and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data " This is all just a flat out lies , I will write it again because it need to be made clear.The " ...that trick to hide the decline by adding real data " was actually talking about tree ring growth and not temperature and it was n't a secret.They talk about not refereeing to a journal any more because it has allowed some bad papers though , but they never act on this , in the end they continued to reference the journal.They talk about beating someone up in their private email discussions as an expression of their frustration but they do n't make any threatening statements against anybody.They express frustration that they do n't have enough data to account for short term fluctuations in global temperatures , not doubt in global warming itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data"This is all just a flat out lies, I will write it again because it need to be made clear.The "...that trick to hide the decline by adding real data" was actually talking about tree ring growth and not temperature and it wasn't a secret.They talk about not refereeing to a journal any more because it has allowed some bad papers though, but they never act on this, in the end they continued to reference the journal.They talk about beating someone up in their private email discussions as an expression of their frustration but they don't make any threatening statements against anybody.They express frustration that they don't have enough data to account for short term fluctuations in global temperatures, not doubt in global warming itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166294</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>phigmeta</author>
	<datestamp>1265015580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Hawaiian islands ALL OF THEM are sinking into the ocean.... is that because of AGW?

James McClintock, Ph.D., is not a climatologist but rather a professor of biology.... I am a Math Masters.... ya want a some dental work done... i can help.
/
What did Eastern Antarctica look like in the 70's ? 30? 20s ?

You tree-hugging utopia is falling away<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... deal with it</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Hawaiian islands ALL OF THEM are sinking into the ocean.... is that because of AGW ?
James McClintock , Ph.D. , is not a climatologist but rather a professor of biology.... I am a Math Masters.... ya want a some dental work done... i can help .
/ What did Eastern Antarctica look like in the 70 's ?
30 ? 20s ?
You tree-hugging utopia is falling away .... deal with it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Hawaiian islands ALL OF THEM are sinking into the ocean.... is that because of AGW?
James McClintock, Ph.D., is not a climatologist but rather a professor of biology.... I am a Math Masters.... ya want a some dental work done... i can help.
/
What did Eastern Antarctica look like in the 70's ?
30? 20s ?
You tree-hugging utopia is falling away .... deal with it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166386</id>
	<title>Smile White Pro</title>
	<author>henryse</author>
	<datestamp>1265016720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea that global warming will lead to increased crop yields is a dangerous fallacy. Increasing temperatures increases the evaporation rate so crops require more water.
<a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Smile-White-Pro-Review&amp;id=3346984" title="ezinearticles.com" rel="nofollow">http://ezinearticles.com/?Smile-White-Pro-Review&amp;id=3346984</a> [ezinearticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that global warming will lead to increased crop yields is a dangerous fallacy .
Increasing temperatures increases the evaporation rate so crops require more water .
http : //ezinearticles.com/ ? Smile-White-Pro-Review&amp;id = 3346984 [ ezinearticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that global warming will lead to increased crop yields is a dangerous fallacy.
Increasing temperatures increases the evaporation rate so crops require more water.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Smile-White-Pro-Review&amp;id=3346984 [ezinearticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164660</id>
	<title>oh my</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1266340560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll say it yet again... these "Scientist" don't have a fucking clue. I'm not saying we aren't warming the planet. Without a doubt, us digging up shit that's been buried for millions of years, burning it, and dumping it's byproducts into the atmosphere, simply HAS to be a bad thing. But for these supposed experts to pretend like they have a fucking clue what's really going on is ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll say it yet again... these " Scientist " do n't have a fucking clue .
I 'm not saying we are n't warming the planet .
Without a doubt , us digging up shit that 's been buried for millions of years , burning it , and dumping it 's byproducts into the atmosphere , simply HAS to be a bad thing .
But for these supposed experts to pretend like they have a fucking clue what 's really going on is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll say it yet again... these "Scientist" don't have a fucking clue.
I'm not saying we aren't warming the planet.
Without a doubt, us digging up shit that's been buried for millions of years, burning it, and dumping it's byproducts into the atmosphere, simply HAS to be a bad thing.
But for these supposed experts to pretend like they have a fucking clue what's really going on is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163872</id>
	<title>This is easily skewered by ...</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1266335520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the best <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm" title="thedailyshow.com">cable news team</a> [thedailyshow.com] in America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the best cable news team [ thedailyshow.com ] in America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the best cable news team [thedailyshow.com] in America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168578</id>
	<title>This comes from a leftist, socialists, progressive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This comes from a leftist, socialists, progressive, news source and should be ignored.  It's BIASED the WRONG way!</p><p>For the facts, fair and balanced, get your news from Fox News!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This comes from a leftist , socialists , progressive , news source and should be ignored .
It 's BIASED the WRONG way ! For the facts , fair and balanced , get your news from Fox News !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comes from a leftist, socialists, progressive, news source and should be ignored.
It's BIASED the WRONG way!For the facts, fair and balanced, get your news from Fox News!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31173130</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1265052300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To claim a PhD (or 100000 of them)has enough knowledge to fully understand the dynamics of the climate is not logical.</p><p>All we understand is the observed effects of the climate. We can't even predict what the climate will do in one location in 5 days. Assuming we can predict what the entire climate of the earth will do for the next 20 years is folly. Anyone that claims they (or anyone) can strikes me as an idiot.</p><p>Climate science is in roughly the same stage in it's lifecycle that medical science was when Alcmaeon performed the first known dissection back in 535 BC. We have only recently, in the last 100 years, been able to observe the climate with any reliable measure.</p><p>We're still figuring out the basics. Predicting the behavior of a system you don't understand is impossible. You may as well tape a few thousand possibilities on a wall, blind fold yourself, and throw a dart at the wall. The result will be just as likely to be accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To claim a PhD ( or 100000 of them ) has enough knowledge to fully understand the dynamics of the climate is not logical.All we understand is the observed effects of the climate .
We ca n't even predict what the climate will do in one location in 5 days .
Assuming we can predict what the entire climate of the earth will do for the next 20 years is folly .
Anyone that claims they ( or anyone ) can strikes me as an idiot.Climate science is in roughly the same stage in it 's lifecycle that medical science was when Alcmaeon performed the first known dissection back in 535 BC .
We have only recently , in the last 100 years , been able to observe the climate with any reliable measure.We 're still figuring out the basics .
Predicting the behavior of a system you do n't understand is impossible .
You may as well tape a few thousand possibilities on a wall , blind fold yourself , and throw a dart at the wall .
The result will be just as likely to be accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To claim a PhD (or 100000 of them)has enough knowledge to fully understand the dynamics of the climate is not logical.All we understand is the observed effects of the climate.
We can't even predict what the climate will do in one location in 5 days.
Assuming we can predict what the entire climate of the earth will do for the next 20 years is folly.
Anyone that claims they (or anyone) can strikes me as an idiot.Climate science is in roughly the same stage in it's lifecycle that medical science was when Alcmaeon performed the first known dissection back in 535 BC.
We have only recently, in the last 100 years, been able to observe the climate with any reliable measure.We're still figuring out the basics.
Predicting the behavior of a system you don't understand is impossible.
You may as well tape a few thousand possibilities on a wall, blind fold yourself, and throw a dart at the wall.
The result will be just as likely to be accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31178404</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people are going to say "It's so cold this winter-- global warming is bull."  Now we're told "weather is not climate," but weren't they saying the exact opposite in the recent past?  California wildfires?  The summer's too hot because of global warming.  Hurricane Katrina? Global warming is causing more and bigger hurricanes.  No snow in the Alps?  It's too warm because of global warming.  For more than two years now I've been hearing ridiculous stories that catastrophic climate change  is just around the corner.  This need to overzealously sell AGW does a disservice to the science, and any serious attempt to address climate change is going to suffer for it.  The number of skeptics are increasing because of stupid shit like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people are going to say " It 's so cold this winter-- global warming is bull .
" Now we 're told " weather is not climate , " but were n't they saying the exact opposite in the recent past ?
California wildfires ?
The summer 's too hot because of global warming .
Hurricane Katrina ?
Global warming is causing more and bigger hurricanes .
No snow in the Alps ?
It 's too warm because of global warming .
For more than two years now I 've been hearing ridiculous stories that catastrophic climate change is just around the corner .
This need to overzealously sell AGW does a disservice to the science , and any serious attempt to address climate change is going to suffer for it .
The number of skeptics are increasing because of stupid shit like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people are going to say "It's so cold this winter-- global warming is bull.
"  Now we're told "weather is not climate," but weren't they saying the exact opposite in the recent past?
California wildfires?
The summer's too hot because of global warming.
Hurricane Katrina?
Global warming is causing more and bigger hurricanes.
No snow in the Alps?
It's too warm because of global warming.
For more than two years now I've been hearing ridiculous stories that catastrophic climate change  is just around the corner.
This need to overzealously sell AGW does a disservice to the science, and any serious attempt to address climate change is going to suffer for it.
The number of skeptics are increasing because of stupid shit like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166780</id>
	<title>Re:What we dont know....</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265021220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, we better stop breathing.<br> <br>
Seriously though, CO2 doesn't have an effect on a person until it comprises around 1\% of the air (it can get that high in a poorly ventilated room).  Then you feel mildly drowsy.  We have a long way before we get there.<br> <br>
On the other hand, for plants, in experiments with atmospheres of around 800 ppm CO2 concentration the plants have grown 30\% better or so.  In other words, ignoring the effects to global temperature, there are some definite positive effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and we are nowhere near levels that are dangerous to humans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , we better stop breathing .
Seriously though , CO2 does n't have an effect on a person until it comprises around 1 \ % of the air ( it can get that high in a poorly ventilated room ) .
Then you feel mildly drowsy .
We have a long way before we get there .
On the other hand , for plants , in experiments with atmospheres of around 800 ppm CO2 concentration the plants have grown 30 \ % better or so .
In other words , ignoring the effects to global temperature , there are some definite positive effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere , and we are nowhere near levels that are dangerous to humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, we better stop breathing.
Seriously though, CO2 doesn't have an effect on a person until it comprises around 1\% of the air (it can get that high in a poorly ventilated room).
Then you feel mildly drowsy.
We have a long way before we get there.
On the other hand, for plants, in experiments with atmospheres of around 800 ppm CO2 concentration the plants have grown 30\% better or so.
In other words, ignoring the effects to global temperature, there are some definite positive effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and we are nowhere near levels that are dangerous to humans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168678</id>
	<title>Re:Or not</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1265038020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um yeah they did.  They spoke about how with Global warming you will see extremes in temperatures.  You will see very cold winters and very warm summers.
<br> <br>
Too bad you missed that.  But I guess when you only accept bits of information that fit your world view, it's easy to ignore reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um yeah they did .
They spoke about how with Global warming you will see extremes in temperatures .
You will see very cold winters and very warm summers .
Too bad you missed that .
But I guess when you only accept bits of information that fit your world view , it 's easy to ignore reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um yeah they did.
They spoke about how with Global warming you will see extremes in temperatures.
You will see very cold winters and very warm summers.
Too bad you missed that.
But I guess when you only accept bits of information that fit your world view, it's easy to ignore reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168346</id>
	<title>Scientists?</title>
	<author>kyuubiunl</author>
	<datestamp>1265036580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a thought, even if the world temperature IS rising, thermometers have only existed since the 1500's, mercury since 1724, and the Fahrenheit scale itself has gone through something like a half dozen revisions. You are assuming that instruments from 100 years ago ACROSS THE FRIGGING PLANET are all calibrated and accurate, because YES since global warming is a game of single degrees, ACCURACY COUNTS!!!!!! If everyone's thermometer was 1 degree off (or more!), how the flying fuck do you know, well, anything about the last hundred years in temperature? You're assuming equal scales and a very high level of precision in tools that were still primitive by our own standard today.

This alone does not even take into account the further issue that different Fahrenheit scales would cause even more chaos in the results when converted to celsius and kelvin, making the different scales completely indistinguishable, and using a scale based on a much more accurate hypothesis of quantifiable heat.

If your data is shit, your results are even less useful</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a thought , even if the world temperature IS rising , thermometers have only existed since the 1500 's , mercury since 1724 , and the Fahrenheit scale itself has gone through something like a half dozen revisions .
You are assuming that instruments from 100 years ago ACROSS THE FRIGGING PLANET are all calibrated and accurate , because YES since global warming is a game of single degrees , ACCURACY COUNTS ! ! ! ! ! !
If everyone 's thermometer was 1 degree off ( or more !
) , how the flying fuck do you know , well , anything about the last hundred years in temperature ?
You 're assuming equal scales and a very high level of precision in tools that were still primitive by our own standard today .
This alone does not even take into account the further issue that different Fahrenheit scales would cause even more chaos in the results when converted to celsius and kelvin , making the different scales completely indistinguishable , and using a scale based on a much more accurate hypothesis of quantifiable heat .
If your data is shit , your results are even less useful</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a thought, even if the world temperature IS rising, thermometers have only existed since the 1500's, mercury since 1724, and the Fahrenheit scale itself has gone through something like a half dozen revisions.
You are assuming that instruments from 100 years ago ACROSS THE FRIGGING PLANET are all calibrated and accurate, because YES since global warming is a game of single degrees, ACCURACY COUNTS!!!!!!
If everyone's thermometer was 1 degree off (or more!
), how the flying fuck do you know, well, anything about the last hundred years in temperature?
You're assuming equal scales and a very high level of precision in tools that were still primitive by our own standard today.
This alone does not even take into account the further issue that different Fahrenheit scales would cause even more chaos in the results when converted to celsius and kelvin, making the different scales completely indistinguishable, and using a scale based on a much more accurate hypothesis of quantifiable heat.
If your data is shit, your results are even less useful</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165942</id>
	<title>Get back to work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266350040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Been watching computer geeks argue about stuff they have no real expertise in for 30 years. Lots of heat and passion, but in the end, that's all there is. This is yet another<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. post designed to generate site traffic. Let it rest, get back to writing code, where you can truly change the world for the better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Been watching computer geeks argue about stuff they have no real expertise in for 30 years .
Lots of heat and passion , but in the end , that 's all there is .
This is yet another / .
post designed to generate site traffic .
Let it rest , get back to writing code , where you can truly change the world for the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Been watching computer geeks argue about stuff they have no real expertise in for 30 years.
Lots of heat and passion, but in the end, that's all there is.
This is yet another /.
post designed to generate site traffic.
Let it rest, get back to writing code, where you can truly change the world for the better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166712</id>
	<title>OK...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265020500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now explain the record-breaking colder temps being experienced across the country.  Is that due to extra atmospheric moisture, too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now explain the record-breaking colder temps being experienced across the country .
Is that due to extra atmospheric moisture , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now explain the record-breaking colder temps being experienced across the country.
Is that due to extra atmospheric moisture, too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168664</id>
	<title>Fuck the climate change debate!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't we just all agree that poisoning our lungs is bad and start working from there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't we just all agree that poisoning our lungs is bad and start working from there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't we just all agree that poisoning our lungs is bad and start working from there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164350</id>
	<title>And give me something to believe in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go pedal your crazy elsewhere, Chicken Little.</p><p>With apoplogies, Bret!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go pedal your crazy elsewhere , Chicken Little.With apoplogies , Bret !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go pedal your crazy elsewhere, Chicken Little.With apoplogies, Bret!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167430</id>
	<title>Re:This is easily skewered by ...</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1265028720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video not available outside the US.</p><p>In our infinite wisdom, we've decided that it helps our brand to prevent the rest of the world seeing this content, even though allowing so would mean potentially more ad views on our pages and more popularity for the show.  Yay!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video not available outside the US.In our infinite wisdom , we 've decided that it helps our brand to prevent the rest of the world seeing this content , even though allowing so would mean potentially more ad views on our pages and more popularity for the show .
Yay ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video not available outside the US.In our infinite wisdom, we've decided that it helps our brand to prevent the rest of the world seeing this content, even though allowing so would mean potentially more ad views on our pages and more popularity for the show.
Yay!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166142</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dire solutions?  Such as spending some amount of money that we can argue over?  I think of curbing emissions as buying insurance.  I hope not to collect on it.  But if I do, I'll probably be glad that I bought it.  Too often, it seems that people are arguing that without near-perfect understanding of our climate, we should proceed as if there is no risk.</p><p>At the very least, there's a huge amount of research pointing to significant human contribution.  Knowing nothing else, it seems reasonable to give that at least as much weight as one does to the very small amount of research suggesting the opposite.  To do otherwise seems like a bad way to place bets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dire solutions ?
Such as spending some amount of money that we can argue over ?
I think of curbing emissions as buying insurance .
I hope not to collect on it .
But if I do , I 'll probably be glad that I bought it .
Too often , it seems that people are arguing that without near-perfect understanding of our climate , we should proceed as if there is no risk.At the very least , there 's a huge amount of research pointing to significant human contribution .
Knowing nothing else , it seems reasonable to give that at least as much weight as one does to the very small amount of research suggesting the opposite .
To do otherwise seems like a bad way to place bets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dire solutions?
Such as spending some amount of money that we can argue over?
I think of curbing emissions as buying insurance.
I hope not to collect on it.
But if I do, I'll probably be glad that I bought it.
Too often, it seems that people are arguing that without near-perfect understanding of our climate, we should proceed as if there is no risk.At the very least, there's a huge amount of research pointing to significant human contribution.
Knowing nothing else, it seems reasonable to give that at least as much weight as one does to the very small amount of research suggesting the opposite.
To do otherwise seems like a bad way to place bets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163914</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, like that fact that you're a dim-wit! This whole manmade global warming thing is about power and money. That means power over you, like telling you what you can and can't do, what kind of car you can drive, how big a house you can have, how warm or cold your house temp is...... It also means taking your money in form of taxes to fund THEIR power over you. The biggest voice is Al Gore. If he really believed what he was preaching, wouldn't he adjust his lifestyle to help save the planet? Wouldn't you? Well, he doesn't. He just rakes in $100,000,000+, lives in a HUGE house that wastes energy and flies in private jets that DUMP tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Let's put on our thinking caps for a minute. What single thing has the most influence on our climate. The SUN. The frik'in SUN!!!!! Sun spot activity is way more likely to have an effect on our climate then ANYTHING else. And sun spot activity has been changing plenty over the past few decades. After all, it been reported that Mars is experiencing global warming too. I've never seen an SUV on mars. Maybe it's the rovers causing it? Nope! They are solar powered. One day the facts will pile up. Showing that you alarmists are a bunch of kooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , like that fact that you 're a dim-wit !
This whole manmade global warming thing is about power and money .
That means power over you , like telling you what you can and ca n't do , what kind of car you can drive , how big a house you can have , how warm or cold your house temp is...... It also means taking your money in form of taxes to fund THEIR power over you .
The biggest voice is Al Gore .
If he really believed what he was preaching , would n't he adjust his lifestyle to help save the planet ?
Would n't you ?
Well , he does n't .
He just rakes in $ 100,000,000 + , lives in a HUGE house that wastes energy and flies in private jets that DUMP tons of carbon into the atmosphere .
Let 's put on our thinking caps for a minute .
What single thing has the most influence on our climate .
The SUN .
The frik'in SUN ! ! ! ! !
Sun spot activity is way more likely to have an effect on our climate then ANYTHING else .
And sun spot activity has been changing plenty over the past few decades .
After all , it been reported that Mars is experiencing global warming too .
I 've never seen an SUV on mars .
Maybe it 's the rovers causing it ?
Nope ! They are solar powered .
One day the facts will pile up .
Showing that you alarmists are a bunch of kooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, like that fact that you're a dim-wit!
This whole manmade global warming thing is about power and money.
That means power over you, like telling you what you can and can't do, what kind of car you can drive, how big a house you can have, how warm or cold your house temp is...... It also means taking your money in form of taxes to fund THEIR power over you.
The biggest voice is Al Gore.
If he really believed what he was preaching, wouldn't he adjust his lifestyle to help save the planet?
Wouldn't you?
Well, he doesn't.
He just rakes in $100,000,000+, lives in a HUGE house that wastes energy and flies in private jets that DUMP tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
Let's put on our thinking caps for a minute.
What single thing has the most influence on our climate.
The SUN.
The frik'in SUN!!!!!
Sun spot activity is way more likely to have an effect on our climate then ANYTHING else.
And sun spot activity has been changing plenty over the past few decades.
After all, it been reported that Mars is experiencing global warming too.
I've never seen an SUV on mars.
Maybe it's the rovers causing it?
Nope! They are solar powered.
One day the facts will pile up.
Showing that you alarmists are a bunch of kooks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164388</id>
	<title>What a bunch of brain dead idiots.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fake, socialism doesn't work, gays aren't normal, the founders of America weren't atheists that hated religion, we didn't spontaneously evolve form ooze,  and no matter how many times you spout your crap it won't come true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fake , socialism does n't work , gays are n't normal , the founders of America were n't atheists that hated religion , we did n't spontaneously evolve form ooze , and no matter how many times you spout your crap it wo n't come true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fake, socialism doesn't work, gays aren't normal, the founders of America weren't atheists that hated religion, we didn't spontaneously evolve form ooze,  and no matter how many times you spout your crap it won't come true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164072</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?</p></div><p>Suppose the City of Detroit hired researchers to review all the reports and articles written over the past 20 years about the allegedly poor quality of living in Detroit (murders, gang violence, drugs, shuttered neighborhoods, race, etc), and made a tabulation of all the exaggerations and falsehoods.  Suppose the latter was a substantial document, with footnotes and everything.  Would that convince you that it's a good idea to move to Detroit?</p><p>You have to look at mistakes in context.  If "90 percent of ANYTHING is shit", as some noted science fiction writer once said, then it's quite possible that a substantial proportion of all AGW studies have serious errors.  Maybe some of the studies connecting cigarette smoking with lung cancer were flawed too.  But that doesn't invalidate the theory.  It is a fact that the polar icecaps are melting, and that average temperatures for the past 15 years are among the highest on record.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many more " mistakes " , falsifications , and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye ? Suppose the City of Detroit hired researchers to review all the reports and articles written over the past 20 years about the allegedly poor quality of living in Detroit ( murders , gang violence , drugs , shuttered neighborhoods , race , etc ) , and made a tabulation of all the exaggerations and falsehoods .
Suppose the latter was a substantial document , with footnotes and everything .
Would that convince you that it 's a good idea to move to Detroit ? You have to look at mistakes in context .
If " 90 percent of ANYTHING is shit " , as some noted science fiction writer once said , then it 's quite possible that a substantial proportion of all AGW studies have serious errors .
Maybe some of the studies connecting cigarette smoking with lung cancer were flawed too .
But that does n't invalidate the theory .
It is a fact that the polar icecaps are melting , and that average temperatures for the past 15 years are among the highest on record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?Suppose the City of Detroit hired researchers to review all the reports and articles written over the past 20 years about the allegedly poor quality of living in Detroit (murders, gang violence, drugs, shuttered neighborhoods, race, etc), and made a tabulation of all the exaggerations and falsehoods.
Suppose the latter was a substantial document, with footnotes and everything.
Would that convince you that it's a good idea to move to Detroit?You have to look at mistakes in context.
If "90 percent of ANYTHING is shit", as some noted science fiction writer once said, then it's quite possible that a substantial proportion of all AGW studies have serious errors.
Maybe some of the studies connecting cigarette smoking with lung cancer were flawed too.
But that doesn't invalidate the theory.
It is a fact that the polar icecaps are melting, and that average temperatures for the past 15 years are among the highest on record.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169442</id>
	<title>AGW calls for more precipitation</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1265040900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with saying that AGW theory calls for more snow is that it calls for increases in precipitation (and for increases in droughts, WTF?). However, the snow that the East Coast got this year is not an increase in precipitation, at least not in the area where I live. In the area where I live, we usually get quite a bit of rain/freezing rain this time of year. This year we got snow. The standard conversion of snow to rain is 10 inches of snow to one inch of rain. I have been unable to find an exact listing of how much snow we have had over January and February so far, however, we have had a total of just over 70 inches of snow since last July. We have had almost no rain this January or February (less than 1/2 inch), but our average rainfall for January and February is 6 inches, which means we are less than one inch above average precipitation levels for January and February (we had somewhere between 4 and 12 inches before the start of the new year). Over the last ten years we have had two or more years with drought concerns in the early to mid spring due to extremely low precipitation levels over the winter. <br>
All of that means that precipitation levels appear to be within normal for this area, but the proportion that is snow is higher. This article says that precipitation levels (including snowfall) will be higher due to AGW.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with saying that AGW theory calls for more snow is that it calls for increases in precipitation ( and for increases in droughts , WTF ? ) .
However , the snow that the East Coast got this year is not an increase in precipitation , at least not in the area where I live .
In the area where I live , we usually get quite a bit of rain/freezing rain this time of year .
This year we got snow .
The standard conversion of snow to rain is 10 inches of snow to one inch of rain .
I have been unable to find an exact listing of how much snow we have had over January and February so far , however , we have had a total of just over 70 inches of snow since last July .
We have had almost no rain this January or February ( less than 1/2 inch ) , but our average rainfall for January and February is 6 inches , which means we are less than one inch above average precipitation levels for January and February ( we had somewhere between 4 and 12 inches before the start of the new year ) .
Over the last ten years we have had two or more years with drought concerns in the early to mid spring due to extremely low precipitation levels over the winter .
All of that means that precipitation levels appear to be within normal for this area , but the proportion that is snow is higher .
This article says that precipitation levels ( including snowfall ) will be higher due to AGW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with saying that AGW theory calls for more snow is that it calls for increases in precipitation (and for increases in droughts, WTF?).
However, the snow that the East Coast got this year is not an increase in precipitation, at least not in the area where I live.
In the area where I live, we usually get quite a bit of rain/freezing rain this time of year.
This year we got snow.
The standard conversion of snow to rain is 10 inches of snow to one inch of rain.
I have been unable to find an exact listing of how much snow we have had over January and February so far, however, we have had a total of just over 70 inches of snow since last July.
We have had almost no rain this January or February (less than 1/2 inch), but our average rainfall for January and February is 6 inches, which means we are less than one inch above average precipitation levels for January and February (we had somewhere between 4 and 12 inches before the start of the new year).
Over the last ten years we have had two or more years with drought concerns in the early to mid spring due to extremely low precipitation levels over the winter.
All of that means that precipitation levels appear to be within normal for this area, but the proportion that is snow is higher.
This article says that precipitation levels (including snowfall) will be higher due to AGW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164520</id>
	<title>So I'm also confused</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1266339480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll tell you what a warming planet means:<br>- More/less heath<br>- More/less snow<br>- More/less rain<br>- Rising/lower sea waters<br>- More earthquakes<br>- More volcano eruptions<br>- More girls on slashdot<br>Yeah, I'm confused.</p><p>What I know is that:<br>We breathe oxygen/nitrogen and exhale CO2<br>Trees breathe CO2 and exhale oxygen</p><p>Plant more trees or avoid breathing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll tell you what a warming planet means : - More/less heath- More/less snow- More/less rain- Rising/lower sea waters- More earthquakes- More volcano eruptions- More girls on slashdotYeah , I 'm confused.What I know is that : We breathe oxygen/nitrogen and exhale CO2Trees breathe CO2 and exhale oxygenPlant more trees or avoid breathing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll tell you what a warming planet means:- More/less heath- More/less snow- More/less rain- Rising/lower sea waters- More earthquakes- More volcano eruptions- More girls on slashdotYeah, I'm confused.What I know is that:We breathe oxygen/nitrogen and exhale CO2Trees breathe CO2 and exhale oxygenPlant more trees or avoid breathing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170420</id>
	<title>Re:The future matters more than the past</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1265044200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know.. a burgler *could* rob your house.</p><p>Do you have an alarm system?<br>Do you have a panic room?<br>Do you not own a gun because they cost too much money?</p><p>A lot of the proposed fixes for global warming (and the reason it is getting so much push lately) will funnel a lot of your money (hundreds of dollars each and every year) into goldman sachs (via the carbon trading market which will certainly be manipulated) and all of the companies selling new freons, new tires, etc. which are all more expensive because they are "more green" in some fashion.</p><p>That's why folks are not acting on *possible* global warming.  It's going to be extremely expensive.  I'd rather spend my money on cheap wine and wild women than give it to a rich executive on wall street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know.. a burgler * could * rob your house.Do you have an alarm system ? Do you have a panic room ? Do you not own a gun because they cost too much money ? A lot of the proposed fixes for global warming ( and the reason it is getting so much push lately ) will funnel a lot of your money ( hundreds of dollars each and every year ) into goldman sachs ( via the carbon trading market which will certainly be manipulated ) and all of the companies selling new freons , new tires , etc .
which are all more expensive because they are " more green " in some fashion.That 's why folks are not acting on * possible * global warming .
It 's going to be extremely expensive .
I 'd rather spend my money on cheap wine and wild women than give it to a rich executive on wall street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know.. a burgler *could* rob your house.Do you have an alarm system?Do you have a panic room?Do you not own a gun because they cost too much money?A lot of the proposed fixes for global warming (and the reason it is getting so much push lately) will funnel a lot of your money (hundreds of dollars each and every year) into goldman sachs (via the carbon trading market which will certainly be manipulated) and all of the companies selling new freons, new tires, etc.
which are all more expensive because they are "more green" in some fashion.That's why folks are not acting on *possible* global warming.
It's going to be extremely expensive.
I'd rather spend my money on cheap wine and wild women than give it to a rich executive on wall street.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164374</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any scientist dumb enough to falsify his results probably isn't smart enough to be doing science in the first place.  I'd be inclined to ignore anything this guy says, both past and future.</p><p>Are you really all that shocked to learn that there are a few bad apples in any particular field or organization?  (Recall the Acorn "espos&#233;" that took the reporters several dozen attempts before somebody finally fell for the bait).  A theory is NOT disproven just because a few select scientists were corrupt, or a few hypotheses turned out to be incorrect.  I'm sure that there are many strange weather phenomena today that are <i>not</i> caused by climate change (although it is often a good starting hypothesis that should indeed be investigated)</p><p>A few years ago, I worked with a research project dealing with Niobium superconductors.  Unfortunately, the conditions under which we were attempting to get the materials to superconduct ultimately prevented them from superconducting at all.  Although this forced us to discard our original hypothesis and design proposal, we sure as hell didn't phone CERN to tell them that their Niobium accelerator was a lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any scientist dumb enough to falsify his results probably is n't smart enough to be doing science in the first place .
I 'd be inclined to ignore anything this guy says , both past and future.Are you really all that shocked to learn that there are a few bad apples in any particular field or organization ?
( Recall the Acorn " espos   " that took the reporters several dozen attempts before somebody finally fell for the bait ) .
A theory is NOT disproven just because a few select scientists were corrupt , or a few hypotheses turned out to be incorrect .
I 'm sure that there are many strange weather phenomena today that are not caused by climate change ( although it is often a good starting hypothesis that should indeed be investigated ) A few years ago , I worked with a research project dealing with Niobium superconductors .
Unfortunately , the conditions under which we were attempting to get the materials to superconduct ultimately prevented them from superconducting at all .
Although this forced us to discard our original hypothesis and design proposal , we sure as hell did n't phone CERN to tell them that their Niobium accelerator was a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any scientist dumb enough to falsify his results probably isn't smart enough to be doing science in the first place.
I'd be inclined to ignore anything this guy says, both past and future.Are you really all that shocked to learn that there are a few bad apples in any particular field or organization?
(Recall the Acorn "esposé" that took the reporters several dozen attempts before somebody finally fell for the bait).
A theory is NOT disproven just because a few select scientists were corrupt, or a few hypotheses turned out to be incorrect.
I'm sure that there are many strange weather phenomena today that are not caused by climate change (although it is often a good starting hypothesis that should indeed be investigated)A few years ago, I worked with a research project dealing with Niobium superconductors.
Unfortunately, the conditions under which we were attempting to get the materials to superconduct ultimately prevented them from superconducting at all.
Although this forced us to discard our original hypothesis and design proposal, we sure as hell didn't phone CERN to tell them that their Niobium accelerator was a lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172556</id>
	<title>Re:Or not</title>
	<author>floorgoblin</author>
	<datestamp>1265050620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think that's accurate, I've definitely heard the argument that global warming could make winters more severe before this year (don't have any citations of the top of my head).  Regardless, its not that complicated to understand.  A higher global temperature means a more energetic climate, and warmer seas.  Warmer seas means more evaporation, which means more water vapor and more snow/rain across the board.  Local-level variations will either amplify or hinder this effect, so local weather variability will remain as unpredictable as always.  But over time, the trends will move towards warmer climate, more precipitation, more storms, less ice, higher sea levels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that 's accurate , I 've definitely heard the argument that global warming could make winters more severe before this year ( do n't have any citations of the top of my head ) .
Regardless , its not that complicated to understand .
A higher global temperature means a more energetic climate , and warmer seas .
Warmer seas means more evaporation , which means more water vapor and more snow/rain across the board .
Local-level variations will either amplify or hinder this effect , so local weather variability will remain as unpredictable as always .
But over time , the trends will move towards warmer climate , more precipitation , more storms , less ice , higher sea levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that's accurate, I've definitely heard the argument that global warming could make winters more severe before this year (don't have any citations of the top of my head).
Regardless, its not that complicated to understand.
A higher global temperature means a more energetic climate, and warmer seas.
Warmer seas means more evaporation, which means more water vapor and more snow/rain across the board.
Local-level variations will either amplify or hinder this effect, so local weather variability will remain as unpredictable as always.
But over time, the trends will move towards warmer climate, more precipitation, more storms, less ice, higher sea levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31199760</id>
	<title>Re:Or not</title>
	<author>jon3k</author>
	<datestamp>1266597540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't pretty much the entire US colder?  I know here in Florida we got snow for the first time in probably 2 decades.  How big of an area do we need to be talking about before it stops being local?
<br> <br>
I know I'm going to get modded into oblivion but I'm really not well educated on global warming issues and I'm genuinely curious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't pretty much the entire US colder ?
I know here in Florida we got snow for the first time in probably 2 decades .
How big of an area do we need to be talking about before it stops being local ?
I know I 'm going to get modded into oblivion but I 'm really not well educated on global warming issues and I 'm genuinely curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't pretty much the entire US colder?
I know here in Florida we got snow for the first time in probably 2 decades.
How big of an area do we need to be talking about before it stops being local?
I know I'm going to get modded into oblivion but I'm really not well educated on global warming issues and I'm genuinely curious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166166</id>
	<title>Re:The future matters more than the past</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think the original batch of climate scientists were well-intentioned but did themselves (and us) a disservice by overplaying the initial data. They saw a potential problem in the future and tried to rally the public by saying "it's already happening!"</p></div></blockquote><p>Bullshit.</p><p>It is already happening. Global Warning has been happening since a few decades after Industrial Revolution (1850s). In last few decades it has really accelerated as natural heat sinks are starting to fail (aka, melt). In early 1900s first expeditions to the North Pole were on dog slegs and lots of warm clothing and provisions. Today, you can either,</p><p>
&nbsp; 1. take a boat to the North Pole (ice breaker), or<br>
&nbsp; 2. if you chose to travel as they did in early 1900s, you now need a floatation suit and a sled/boat because all you have is slush or very thin ice cover. No dogs - they would drown.</p><p>The North West Passage through Canada's north is now open for business. 150 years ago, it didn't exist.</p><p>Just because people are retards and think climate change means next summer will be 10C warmer is not the fault of scientists doing actual science. But whatever, scientists will not have to worry when Bangladesh has a few hundred million displaced people and when New Orleans sinks beneath the waves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the original batch of climate scientists were well-intentioned but did themselves ( and us ) a disservice by overplaying the initial data .
They saw a potential problem in the future and tried to rally the public by saying " it 's already happening !
" Bullshit.It is already happening .
Global Warning has been happening since a few decades after Industrial Revolution ( 1850s ) .
In last few decades it has really accelerated as natural heat sinks are starting to fail ( aka , melt ) .
In early 1900s first expeditions to the North Pole were on dog slegs and lots of warm clothing and provisions .
Today , you can either ,   1. take a boat to the North Pole ( ice breaker ) , or   2. if you chose to travel as they did in early 1900s , you now need a floatation suit and a sled/boat because all you have is slush or very thin ice cover .
No dogs - they would drown.The North West Passage through Canada 's north is now open for business .
150 years ago , it did n't exist.Just because people are retards and think climate change means next summer will be 10C warmer is not the fault of scientists doing actual science .
But whatever , scientists will not have to worry when Bangladesh has a few hundred million displaced people and when New Orleans sinks beneath the waves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the original batch of climate scientists were well-intentioned but did themselves (and us) a disservice by overplaying the initial data.
They saw a potential problem in the future and tried to rally the public by saying "it's already happening!
"Bullshit.It is already happening.
Global Warning has been happening since a few decades after Industrial Revolution (1850s).
In last few decades it has really accelerated as natural heat sinks are starting to fail (aka, melt).
In early 1900s first expeditions to the North Pole were on dog slegs and lots of warm clothing and provisions.
Today, you can either,
  1. take a boat to the North Pole (ice breaker), or
  2. if you chose to travel as they did in early 1900s, you now need a floatation suit and a sled/boat because all you have is slush or very thin ice cover.
No dogs - they would drown.The North West Passage through Canada's north is now open for business.
150 years ago, it didn't exist.Just because people are retards and think climate change means next summer will be 10C warmer is not the fault of scientists doing actual science.
But whatever, scientists will not have to worry when Bangladesh has a few hundred million displaced people and when New Orleans sinks beneath the waves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163758</id>
	<title>World is Fucked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266334740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>World is fucked. Oh well, time to jerk off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>World is fucked .
Oh well , time to jerk off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World is fucked.
Oh well, time to jerk off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163996</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>XanC</author>
	<datestamp>1266336300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, right.  That's why the warmers told us that the 2005 hurricane season was the tip of the iceberg, and that it would get worse and worse since then.  I'm not sure there's been one major storm make landfall since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , right .
That 's why the warmers told us that the 2005 hurricane season was the tip of the iceberg , and that it would get worse and worse since then .
I 'm not sure there 's been one major storm make landfall since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, right.
That's why the warmers told us that the 2005 hurricane season was the tip of the iceberg, and that it would get worse and worse since then.
I'm not sure there's been one major storm make landfall since then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163982</id>
	<title>Very convenient</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that there is more water vapor in the air is actually quite plausible to me (as a Global Warming denier), but suggesting that the warm water off the East Coast caused it is a joke.  Both major storms came from the Southwest, to Midwest region of the US.</p><p>Global warming activists must have loved the Fall, when it was unusually warm, but now they are quickly looking for ways to twist the unusually cold and wintery winter into a Global Warming activity.  The scientists making these claims really need to quit tossing out pieces of the puzzle when they make their grand claims.</p><p>I also have always found it amusing that the doom and gloom theories about the future of the Earth in 40-50 years when we are still unable to accurately predict the weather even a day in advance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that there is more water vapor in the air is actually quite plausible to me ( as a Global Warming denier ) , but suggesting that the warm water off the East Coast caused it is a joke .
Both major storms came from the Southwest , to Midwest region of the US.Global warming activists must have loved the Fall , when it was unusually warm , but now they are quickly looking for ways to twist the unusually cold and wintery winter into a Global Warming activity .
The scientists making these claims really need to quit tossing out pieces of the puzzle when they make their grand claims.I also have always found it amusing that the doom and gloom theories about the future of the Earth in 40-50 years when we are still unable to accurately predict the weather even a day in advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that there is more water vapor in the air is actually quite plausible to me (as a Global Warming denier), but suggesting that the warm water off the East Coast caused it is a joke.
Both major storms came from the Southwest, to Midwest region of the US.Global warming activists must have loved the Fall, when it was unusually warm, but now they are quickly looking for ways to twist the unusually cold and wintery winter into a Global Warming activity.
The scientists making these claims really need to quit tossing out pieces of the puzzle when they make their grand claims.I also have always found it amusing that the doom and gloom theories about the future of the Earth in 40-50 years when we are still unable to accurately predict the weather even a day in advance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31176480</id>
	<title>Re:Warmer years have more snow storms.</title>
	<author>SoftwareArtist</author>
	<datestamp>1265020620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why on earth does anyone even think that lots of snow contradicts global warming?  snow != cold.  Anyone who claims otherwise has clearly never spent much time in a cold climate.  Snow only falls in a narrow range of temperatures.  You don't get snow when it's either too warm or too cold.  If you increase the temperature, you simply shift that window: some places that would previously have had snow become too warm, and some places that were previously too cold to get snow become warm enough.  And certainly the midwest is frequently too cold to get snow during the winter, so it's very reasonable that increased temperatures would lead to more snow there, not less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth does anyone even think that lots of snow contradicts global warming ?
snow ! = cold .
Anyone who claims otherwise has clearly never spent much time in a cold climate .
Snow only falls in a narrow range of temperatures .
You do n't get snow when it 's either too warm or too cold .
If you increase the temperature , you simply shift that window : some places that would previously have had snow become too warm , and some places that were previously too cold to get snow become warm enough .
And certainly the midwest is frequently too cold to get snow during the winter , so it 's very reasonable that increased temperatures would lead to more snow there , not less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth does anyone even think that lots of snow contradicts global warming?
snow != cold.
Anyone who claims otherwise has clearly never spent much time in a cold climate.
Snow only falls in a narrow range of temperatures.
You don't get snow when it's either too warm or too cold.
If you increase the temperature, you simply shift that window: some places that would previously have had snow become too warm, and some places that were previously too cold to get snow become warm enough.
And certainly the midwest is frequently too cold to get snow during the winter, so it's very reasonable that increased temperatures would lead to more snow there, not less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164012</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people also realized that human produced CO2 did not kill the dinosaurs. Somehow the earth warmed up all by itself.  I wish I had the power of God in me to warm the earth, but I'm afraid i don't.  So if we didn't cause the earth to warm and cool and then warm again and cool again, why, i ask, would the earth stop doing this just because the almighty man came around.  Maybe there is just nothing that can be done........... If anyone can figure out how to make the climate stay perfectly calm, i'm tired of the tide too, can you get rid of the moon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people also realized that human produced CO2 did not kill the dinosaurs .
Somehow the earth warmed up all by itself .
I wish I had the power of God in me to warm the earth , but I 'm afraid i do n't .
So if we did n't cause the earth to warm and cool and then warm again and cool again , why , i ask , would the earth stop doing this just because the almighty man came around .
Maybe there is just nothing that can be done........... If anyone can figure out how to make the climate stay perfectly calm , i 'm tired of the tide too , can you get rid of the moon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people also realized that human produced CO2 did not kill the dinosaurs.
Somehow the earth warmed up all by itself.
I wish I had the power of God in me to warm the earth, but I'm afraid i don't.
So if we didn't cause the earth to warm and cool and then warm again and cool again, why, i ask, would the earth stop doing this just because the almighty man came around.
Maybe there is just nothing that can be done........... If anyone can figure out how to make the climate stay perfectly calm, i'm tired of the tide too, can you get rid of the moon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190</id>
	<title>I think it's Bullshit</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1266337440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's bullshit that science is divided politically, with the left typically defending warming, and the right countering it.<br> <br>

Science is the search for facts, not the bending of data for political aims.<br> <br>

Disgusting...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's bullshit that science is divided politically , with the left typically defending warming , and the right countering it .
Science is the search for facts , not the bending of data for political aims .
Disgusting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's bullshit that science is divided politically, with the left typically defending warming, and the right countering it.
Science is the search for facts, not the bending of data for political aims.
Disgusting...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164908</id>
	<title>I disagree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266342240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>World is fine. Time to jerk off anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>World is fine .
Time to jerk off anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World is fine.
Time to jerk off anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164406</id>
	<title>Good thing...</title>
	<author>KalvinB</author>
	<datestamp>1266338820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that the AGW true believers aren't intentionally preventing contrary opinions from being put into peer reviewed journals.</p><p>Appeal to authority is a fallacy.  If authority mattered the earth would still be the center of the universe.  When the authority is preventing contrary opinions from being considered they are no longer an authority.</p><p>The hockey stick is a lie.  It's been exposed.  I find it hilarious that "Global Warming" believers were first whining about the term "Climate Change" being used and now they've fully embraced it.  They will embrace whatever term is most socially acceptable.  Nobody doubts that the climate changes.  We have days, we have seasons.  Why would things not shift on a larger time scale as well?</p><p>People ignorantly dump their time, effort and money into cults all the time while the people at the top get rich.  The idiots at the bottom don't prove the lies at the top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that the AGW true believers are n't intentionally preventing contrary opinions from being put into peer reviewed journals.Appeal to authority is a fallacy .
If authority mattered the earth would still be the center of the universe .
When the authority is preventing contrary opinions from being considered they are no longer an authority.The hockey stick is a lie .
It 's been exposed .
I find it hilarious that " Global Warming " believers were first whining about the term " Climate Change " being used and now they 've fully embraced it .
They will embrace whatever term is most socially acceptable .
Nobody doubts that the climate changes .
We have days , we have seasons .
Why would things not shift on a larger time scale as well ? People ignorantly dump their time , effort and money into cults all the time while the people at the top get rich .
The idiots at the bottom do n't prove the lies at the top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the AGW true believers aren't intentionally preventing contrary opinions from being put into peer reviewed journals.Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
If authority mattered the earth would still be the center of the universe.
When the authority is preventing contrary opinions from being considered they are no longer an authority.The hockey stick is a lie.
It's been exposed.
I find it hilarious that "Global Warming" believers were first whining about the term "Climate Change" being used and now they've fully embraced it.
They will embrace whatever term is most socially acceptable.
Nobody doubts that the climate changes.
We have days, we have seasons.
Why would things not shift on a larger time scale as well?People ignorantly dump their time, effort and money into cults all the time while the people at the top get rich.
The idiots at the bottom don't prove the lies at the top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31178972</id>
	<title>Global Cooling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone remember the global cooling scare a few decades back? Good times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember the global cooling scare a few decades back ?
Good times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember the global cooling scare a few decades back?
Good times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31180744</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1265050500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's do consider the long term situation: for the past 5 million years it has mostly been really cold on Earth with enormous continental ice caps.  From time to time we have had these "inter-glacial" periods.   They last 10K to 20K years.  OK?

The interglacial we are in now has lasted about 10K years.  If AGW is true, wouldn't it make sense to continue carboning it up as a buffer against the inevitable and just possibly not that far off end of the current interglacial? <br> <br>

 I'd much rather that things were too warm instead of ice-age-cold.  Hmm?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's do consider the long term situation : for the past 5 million years it has mostly been really cold on Earth with enormous continental ice caps .
From time to time we have had these " inter-glacial " periods .
They last 10K to 20K years .
OK ? The interglacial we are in now has lasted about 10K years .
If AGW is true , would n't it make sense to continue carboning it up as a buffer against the inevitable and just possibly not that far off end of the current interglacial ?
I 'd much rather that things were too warm instead of ice-age-cold .
Hmm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's do consider the long term situation: for the past 5 million years it has mostly been really cold on Earth with enormous continental ice caps.
From time to time we have had these "inter-glacial" periods.
They last 10K to 20K years.
OK?

The interglacial we are in now has lasted about 10K years.
If AGW is true, wouldn't it make sense to continue carboning it up as a buffer against the inevitable and just possibly not that far off end of the current interglacial?
I'd much rather that things were too warm instead of ice-age-cold.
Hmm?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164130</id>
	<title>Re:weather is different than climate</title>
	<author>aussie\_a</author>
	<datestamp>1266337080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also been periods of extinction where most of the land-lifeforms have disappeared. It shouldn't be a question of whether or not man caused global warming, but if man can stop global warming. I'd rather not join the dinosaurs and turn into birds or die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also been periods of extinction where most of the land-lifeforms have disappeared .
It should n't be a question of whether or not man caused global warming , but if man can stop global warming .
I 'd rather not join the dinosaurs and turn into birds or die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also been periods of extinction where most of the land-lifeforms have disappeared.
It shouldn't be a question of whether or not man caused global warming, but if man can stop global warming.
I'd rather not join the dinosaurs and turn into birds or die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? Only nine thousand PhDs??? Wow, this must be humbug!</p><p>Beside, claiming only PhDs know what they are talking about is a bit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... elitists, to put it nicely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Only nine thousand PhDs ? ? ?
Wow , this must be humbug ! Beside , claiming only PhDs know what they are talking about is a bit ... elitists , to put it nicely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Only nine thousand PhDs???
Wow, this must be humbug!Beside, claiming only PhDs know what they are talking about is a bit ... elitists, to put it nicely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1266341100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change</p></div><p>The OP was asking, quite reasonably, what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate change.</p><p>You have ignored the question and replied with various carefully selected bits of evidence from different isolated locales that do support your notions of global warming or climate change.</p><p>You've missed his point:  there are serious people coming up with disconfirming cases.  Those Greek hydrologists, for example, who found that of the local long-term temperature records they compared to model results, there was most an anti-correlation between the model predictions and the data.</p><p>It is easy to hand-wave and dismiss the odd thing here and there.  It happens all the time in science.  But with regard to GW/CC and AGW in particular, there are a LOT of odd things, and the current flat trend in "global temperature" is one of them.</p><p>Scientists are more interested in where and how their models are WRONG, and I'm not hearing a lot of that from the GW/CC folks.  I'm hearing a lot of what the OP pointed out:  the carefully crafted political use of every climate event whatsoever to attempt to bolster their position that we need to kill everyone and invade Poland before it's too late.  Or something like that--I may have the details of their proposed solutions wrong, but they sound dire enough to warrant a really high degree of certainty, and a complete lack of faith.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate changeThe OP was asking , quite reasonably , what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate change.You have ignored the question and replied with various carefully selected bits of evidence from different isolated locales that do support your notions of global warming or climate change.You 've missed his point : there are serious people coming up with disconfirming cases .
Those Greek hydrologists , for example , who found that of the local long-term temperature records they compared to model results , there was most an anti-correlation between the model predictions and the data.It is easy to hand-wave and dismiss the odd thing here and there .
It happens all the time in science .
But with regard to GW/CC and AGW in particular , there are a LOT of odd things , and the current flat trend in " global temperature " is one of them.Scientists are more interested in where and how their models are WRONG , and I 'm not hearing a lot of that from the GW/CC folks .
I 'm hearing a lot of what the OP pointed out : the carefully crafted political use of every climate event whatsoever to attempt to bolster their position that we need to kill everyone and invade Poland before it 's too late .
Or something like that--I may have the details of their proposed solutions wrong , but they sound dire enough to warrant a really high degree of certainty , and a complete lack of faith .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate changeThe OP was asking, quite reasonably, what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate change.You have ignored the question and replied with various carefully selected bits of evidence from different isolated locales that do support your notions of global warming or climate change.You've missed his point:  there are serious people coming up with disconfirming cases.
Those Greek hydrologists, for example, who found that of the local long-term temperature records they compared to model results, there was most an anti-correlation between the model predictions and the data.It is easy to hand-wave and dismiss the odd thing here and there.
It happens all the time in science.
But with regard to GW/CC and AGW in particular, there are a LOT of odd things, and the current flat trend in "global temperature" is one of them.Scientists are more interested in where and how their models are WRONG, and I'm not hearing a lot of that from the GW/CC folks.
I'm hearing a lot of what the OP pointed out:  the carefully crafted political use of every climate event whatsoever to attempt to bolster their position that we need to kill everyone and invade Poland before it's too late.
Or something like that--I may have the details of their proposed solutions wrong, but they sound dire enough to warrant a really high degree of certainty, and a complete lack of faith.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164588</id>
	<title>Re:weather is different than climate</title>
	<author>trouser</author>
	<datestamp>1266339960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shut up, it would be awesome to be a bird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shut up , it would be awesome to be a bird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shut up, it would be awesome to be a bird.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165574</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Gorgoth</author>
	<datestamp>1266346920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans.</p></div><p>  That to me sounds more like a land erosion problem than rising water levels</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Meanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change.</p></div><p>acidification of oceans is a major carbon sink the amount of CO2 that could be absorbed before anything but very localized effects could be seen is unimaginably large. the statement that the pH could go down by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.4 of a unit by the end of the decade is ridiculous the amount of CO2 required to do that to sea water is so large that it is beyond imagining the amount required to change it by another<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1 would be more that twice what was required to drop the pH from 8.2 to 8.1</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans .
That to me sounds more like a land erosion problem than rising water levelsMeanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change.acidification of oceans is a major carbon sink the amount of CO2 that could be absorbed before anything but very localized effects could be seen is unimaginably large .
the statement that the pH could go down by .4 of a unit by the end of the decade is ridiculous the amount of CO2 required to do that to sea water is so large that it is beyond imagining the amount required to change it by another .1 would be more that twice what was required to drop the pH from 8.2 to 8.1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans.
That to me sounds more like a land erosion problem than rising water levelsMeanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change.acidification of oceans is a major carbon sink the amount of CO2 that could be absorbed before anything but very localized effects could be seen is unimaginably large.
the statement that the pH could go down by .4 of a unit by the end of the decade is ridiculous the amount of CO2 required to do that to sea water is so large that it is beyond imagining the amount required to change it by another .1 would be more that twice what was required to drop the pH from 8.2 to 8.1
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165350</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers),...</p></div><p>Nice try. You don't really know what "peer review" means, do you?</p><p>Scientists don't talk about their "peers".  They talk about their "reviewers".  Often in language that is not fit for public consumption.</p><p>A better term than "peer review" would be "competitor review".  It gets ugly.  There is occasional misbehavior of course, but its often just plain rough and feelings get hurt.</p><p>As for science being "groupthink", you're halfway there.   It's groupthink with  negative feedback which alters the group consensus when it strays too far from the facts.  The feedback mechanism is peer review.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When your " peers " appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny , actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published ( including threats to publishers ) ,...Nice try .
You do n't really know what " peer review " means , do you ? Scientists do n't talk about their " peers " .
They talk about their " reviewers " .
Often in language that is not fit for public consumption.A better term than " peer review " would be " competitor review " .
It gets ugly .
There is occasional misbehavior of course , but its often just plain rough and feelings get hurt.As for science being " groupthink " , you 're halfway there .
It 's groupthink with negative feedback which alters the group consensus when it strays too far from the facts .
The feedback mechanism is peer review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers),...Nice try.
You don't really know what "peer review" means, do you?Scientists don't talk about their "peers".
They talk about their "reviewers".
Often in language that is not fit for public consumption.A better term than "peer review" would be "competitor review".
It gets ugly.
There is occasional misbehavior of course, but its often just plain rough and feelings get hurt.As for science being "groupthink", you're halfway there.
It's groupthink with  negative feedback which alters the group consensus when it strays too far from the facts.
The feedback mechanism is peer review.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164710</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1266340980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>facts won't confuse the right-tards, they have been disregarding those for ages</htmltext>
<tokenext>facts wo n't confuse the right-tards , they have been disregarding those for ages</tokentext>
<sentencetext>facts won't confuse the right-tards, they have been disregarding those for ages</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31184580</id>
	<title>Loss of liberty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266509280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Global Warming" is theft of personal wealth on a global scale.   The science is in and it's known to be a fraud.<br>When man can start controlling solar flares and sunspots which generate solar wind which determines the amount of energetic particles that reach Earth from cosmic rays then we can really start fouling up the natural order of things.</p><p>I would love to cast Al Gore into a sunspot and see what happens.   Probably much more prosperity and happiness on Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Global Warming " is theft of personal wealth on a global scale .
The science is in and it 's known to be a fraud.When man can start controlling solar flares and sunspots which generate solar wind which determines the amount of energetic particles that reach Earth from cosmic rays then we can really start fouling up the natural order of things.I would love to cast Al Gore into a sunspot and see what happens .
Probably much more prosperity and happiness on Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Global Warming" is theft of personal wealth on a global scale.
The science is in and it's known to be a fraud.When man can start controlling solar flares and sunspots which generate solar wind which determines the amount of energetic particles that reach Earth from cosmic rays then we can really start fouling up the natural order of things.I would love to cast Al Gore into a sunspot and see what happens.
Probably much more prosperity and happiness on Earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169392</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1265040720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I do find interesting is more snow means more light gets reflected. More light gets reflected the colder it gets.  Could be a self regulating mechanism kicking in. If CO2 levels don't keep rising then it may reach a new and not terrible equilibrium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do find interesting is more snow means more light gets reflected .
More light gets reflected the colder it gets .
Could be a self regulating mechanism kicking in .
If CO2 levels do n't keep rising then it may reach a new and not terrible equilibrium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I do find interesting is more snow means more light gets reflected.
More light gets reflected the colder it gets.
Could be a self regulating mechanism kicking in.
If CO2 levels don't keep rising then it may reach a new and not terrible equilibrium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167608</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change</p></div><p>The OP was asking, quite reasonably, what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate change.</p><p>You have ignored the question</p></div><p>What the hell are you talking about?  eldavojohn didn't reply to anything, that's the first post in this thread!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate changeThe OP was asking , quite reasonably , what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate change.You have ignored the questionWhat the hell are you talking about ?
eldavojohn did n't reply to anything , that 's the first post in this thread !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate changeThe OP was asking, quite reasonably, what evidence would it take for you to stop believing in global warming or climate change.You have ignored the questionWhat the hell are you talking about?
eldavojohn didn't reply to anything, that's the first post in this thread!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167074</id>
	<title>Re:What we dont know....</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1265024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because its cheaper to sleep in our own excrement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because its cheaper to sleep in our own excrement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because its cheaper to sleep in our own excrement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164346</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You thought all slashdotters would appreciate and understand a simple notion of science? Are you new here are what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You thought all slashdotters would appreciate and understand a simple notion of science ?
Are you new here are what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You thought all slashdotters would appreciate and understand a simple notion of science?
Are you new here are what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164030</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And some crazy bastards think it was that 10 kilometer comet that hit the Yucatan.  Or you know, it could have been water vapor.  Whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And some crazy bastards think it was that 10 kilometer comet that hit the Yucatan .
Or you know , it could have been water vapor .
Whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And some crazy bastards think it was that 10 kilometer comet that hit the Yucatan.
Or you know, it could have been water vapor.
Whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164240</id>
	<title>more short term snow = more long term snow</title>
	<author>fasthazard</author>
	<datestamp>1266337740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if global warming leads to more snow in the short term / winter season due to increased moisture levels, then isn't it possible the ground albedo (solar reflectivity) will be increased enough to further reduce solar heating / trigger an ice age?</htmltext>
<tokenext>if global warming leads to more snow in the short term / winter season due to increased moisture levels , then is n't it possible the ground albedo ( solar reflectivity ) will be increased enough to further reduce solar heating / trigger an ice age ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if global warming leads to more snow in the short term / winter season due to increased moisture levels, then isn't it possible the ground albedo (solar reflectivity) will be increased enough to further reduce solar heating / trigger an ice age?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31173474</id>
	<title>Re:Or not</title>
	<author>abionnnn</author>
	<datestamp>1265053440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;difference between global climate and local weather</p><p>Care to tell us? Tread lightly, you're now talking to a physicist.</p><p>&gt;This stuff really isn't that complicated.</p><p>LOL, ok, don't bother telling us. I've heard enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; difference between global climate and local weatherCare to tell us ?
Tread lightly , you 're now talking to a physicist. &gt; This stuff really is n't that complicated.LOL , ok , do n't bother telling us .
I 've heard enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;difference between global climate and local weatherCare to tell us?
Tread lightly, you're now talking to a physicist.&gt;This stuff really isn't that complicated.LOL, ok, don't bother telling us.
I've heard enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163862</id>
	<title>Whatever...</title>
	<author>moogoogaipan</author>
	<datestamp>1266335400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You scientists are confusing me more and more each day with all these sayings. I'll adapt to whatever the environment we'll end up with. I might end up looking like a frog but I bet the girls are still sexy in their bumpy skins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You scientists are confusing me more and more each day with all these sayings .
I 'll adapt to whatever the environment we 'll end up with .
I might end up looking like a frog but I bet the girls are still sexy in their bumpy skins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You scientists are confusing me more and more each day with all these sayings.
I'll adapt to whatever the environment we'll end up with.
I might end up looking like a frog but I bet the girls are still sexy in their bumpy skins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164834</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>artsrc</author>
	<datestamp>1266341820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Ocean acidification is a negative impact of CO2 pollution, but is it a direct result of CO2, rather than an indirect effect of climate change.<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ocean acidification is a negative impact of CO2 pollution , but is it a direct result of CO2 , rather than an indirect effect of climate change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ocean acidification is a negative impact of CO2 pollution, but is it a direct result of CO2, rather than an indirect effect of climate change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165740</id>
	<title>Re:What we dont know....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266348060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same reason that we walk outdoors everyday: if we choose not to do anything because it may harm us, then we end up doing nothing at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same reason that we walk outdoors everyday : if we choose not to do anything because it may harm us , then we end up doing nothing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same reason that we walk outdoors everyday: if we choose not to do anything because it may harm us, then we end up doing nothing at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167322</id>
	<title>It was obvious.</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1265027400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted a comment before along the lines of, regardless of the weather the global warming is caused by man side will claim they are right.  In other words, if it cools it will be because they helped guide us to that direction, if it warms it proves they are right and we aren't listening.</p><p>So if it snows and there are no hurricanes its proof that mans effect on the environment is obvious.</p><p>So if it does not snow and there are many hurricanes its we told you so</p><p>So if hot magma boils all the laser wielding sharks thereby depriving pirates of their pets making ninjas feel sorry for them we told you so.</p><p>You cannot win an argument with a zealot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted a comment before along the lines of , regardless of the weather the global warming is caused by man side will claim they are right .
In other words , if it cools it will be because they helped guide us to that direction , if it warms it proves they are right and we are n't listening.So if it snows and there are no hurricanes its proof that mans effect on the environment is obvious.So if it does not snow and there are many hurricanes its we told you soSo if hot magma boils all the laser wielding sharks thereby depriving pirates of their pets making ninjas feel sorry for them we told you so.You can not win an argument with a zealot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted a comment before along the lines of, regardless of the weather the global warming is caused by man side will claim they are right.
In other words, if it cools it will be because they helped guide us to that direction, if it warms it proves they are right and we aren't listening.So if it snows and there are no hurricanes its proof that mans effect on the environment is obvious.So if it does not snow and there are many hurricanes its we told you soSo if hot magma boils all the laser wielding sharks thereby depriving pirates of their pets making ninjas feel sorry for them we told you so.You cannot win an argument with a zealot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164040</id>
	<title>See, the problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one really knows what happens with Global Warming&ndash;the whole point is that we \_don't\_. What we do know, though, is that there are a lot of very important variables to Earth's climate that we're screwing with, and we have \_no idea\_ what we're doing. Heck, we might make our planet better for our species; it's not outside the realm of possibility. But just the uncertainty alone should give you pause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one really knows what happens with Global Warming    the whole point is that we \ _do n't \ _ .
What we do know , though , is that there are a lot of very important variables to Earth 's climate that we 're screwing with , and we have \ _no idea \ _ what we 're doing .
Heck , we might make our planet better for our species ; it 's not outside the realm of possibility .
But just the uncertainty alone should give you pause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one really knows what happens with Global Warming–the whole point is that we \_don't\_.
What we do know, though, is that there are a lot of very important variables to Earth's climate that we're screwing with, and we have \_no idea\_ what we're doing.
Heck, we might make our planet better for our species; it's not outside the realm of possibility.
But just the uncertainty alone should give you pause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Povidius</author>
	<datestamp>1266334800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not alone in asking that question.  Apparently 31,000+ scientists are holding the same doubts as you:

<a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/" title="petitionproject.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.petitionproject.org/</a> [petitionproject.org]

but you know how it goes... the more you keep repeating something (or the louder you state it) the more inclined people will be to accept it.

Science has its staunch supporters who are just as closed minded over their beliefs as are the extremist in religion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not alone in asking that question .
Apparently 31,000 + scientists are holding the same doubts as you : http : //www.petitionproject.org/ [ petitionproject.org ] but you know how it goes... the more you keep repeating something ( or the louder you state it ) the more inclined people will be to accept it .
Science has its staunch supporters who are just as closed minded over their beliefs as are the extremist in religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not alone in asking that question.
Apparently 31,000+ scientists are holding the same doubts as you:

http://www.petitionproject.org/ [petitionproject.org]

but you know how it goes... the more you keep repeating something (or the louder you state it) the more inclined people will be to accept it.
Science has its staunch supporters who are just as closed minded over their beliefs as are the extremist in religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164526</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Phantom of the Opera</author>
	<datestamp>1266339540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know someone who is a Doctor of Aromatherapy!
Can't do without that opinion now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know someone who is a Doctor of Aromatherapy !
Ca n't do without that opinion now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know someone who is a Doctor of Aromatherapy!
Can't do without that opinion now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169014</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion.  The weather is all about water moving around in the air.  More energy into the water means more water into the air.  More water into the air means more weather... more storms, more hurricanes, more snow... and what's really interesting is a new distribution of water.  We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts.  The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot.  Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs.</p></div><p>So you agree that this is NOT man-made then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion .
The weather is all about water moving around in the air .
More energy into the water means more water into the air .
More water into the air means more weather... more storms , more hurricanes , more snow... and what 's really interesting is a new distribution of water .
We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts .
The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot .
Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs.So you agree that this is NOT man-made then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion.
The weather is all about water moving around in the air.
More energy into the water means more water into the air.
More water into the air means more weather... more storms, more hurricanes, more snow... and what's really interesting is a new distribution of water.
We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts.
The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot.
Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs.So you agree that this is NOT man-made then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163804</id>
	<title>Dear Global Warming</title>
	<author>ronz0o</author>
	<datestamp>1266335040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Global Warming,
<br>
I looked out my window, and saw another 8 inches of snow. I just wanted to tell you that you are a liar, and I hate you.
<br>
Sincerely,
<br> <br>
ronz0o</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Global Warming , I looked out my window , and saw another 8 inches of snow .
I just wanted to tell you that you are a liar , and I hate you .
Sincerely , ronz0o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Global Warming,

I looked out my window, and saw another 8 inches of snow.
I just wanted to tell you that you are a liar, and I hate you.
Sincerely,
 
ronz0o</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164106</id>
	<title>Specious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>specious<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/spis/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spee-shuhs] Show IPA<br>&ndash;adjective<br>1.     apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.<br>2.     pleasing to the eye but deceptive.<br>3.     Obsolete. pleasing to the eye; fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>specious /spis/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ spee-shuhs ] Show IPA    adjective1 .
apparently good or right though lacking real merit ; superficially pleasing or plausible : specious arguments.2 .
pleasing to the eye but deceptive.3 .
Obsolete. pleasing to the eye ; fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>specious /spis/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spee-shuhs] Show IPA–adjective1.
apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.2.
pleasing to the eye but deceptive.3.
Obsolete. pleasing to the eye; fair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164186</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266337380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated...</p></div><p>  I'll stop you right there.</p><p>You must be new here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated... I 'll stop you right there.You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated...  I'll stop you right there.You must be new here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164434</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming!!!</title>
	<author>kybred</author>
	<datestamp>1266339000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You:<p><div class="quote"><p>Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth, in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth.</p></div><p>Me: Did you say 4-5 <b>MILLION</b> years?
</p><p>
You:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4-5 <b>billion</b> years</p></div><p>Me: Whew! I was worried!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You : Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth , in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth.Me : Did you say 4-5 MILLION years ?
You : 4-5 billion yearsMe : Whew !
I was worried !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You:Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth, in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth.Me: Did you say 4-5 MILLION years?
You:4-5 billion yearsMe: Whew!
I was worried!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163964</id>
	<title>Possible... but it's not that simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's possible that warming caused by increasing CO2 concentrations could cause more snowfall. It's probably true that warming will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. That's a reasonable assumption. Whether this leads to more snow or not is not nearly as certain.</p><p>The general circulation of the atmosphere can be described by three circulations in each hemisphere. The Hadley Cell is a thermally direct circulation and is the most equatorward cell in either hemisphere. The strongest of the cells is the Hadley Cell. Moving poleward, the Ferrel Cell is a thermally indirect circulation and is weaker than the Hadley Cell. And around the poles, the Polar Cell is a thermally direct circulation that is weaker than the Ferrel Cell. These cells aren't found by looking at the day to day weather but instead are planetary scale circulations that show up in long term means.</p><p>The tropics have a surplus of heat. That is to say, more radiation enters from the sun than is lost due to outgoing longwave radiation. The poles have a deficit of heat, meaning that more outgoing longwave radiation is lost to space than incoming shortwave radiation is received from the sun. To keep the system in balance, heat is transported poleward from the equator.</p><p>Observations and climate models indicate that the greatest warming will occur at the poles. This means that there will be less of a thermal gradient between the tropics and poles.</p><p>Mid-latitude cyclones are responsible for a substantial amount of snowfall in the United States and many heavy snow events. These cyclones exist in the atmosphere to transport thermal energy poleward and help to maintain the energy budget in the atmosphere.</p><p>If the thermal gradient between the tropics and the poles becomes weaker due to polar warming, this could result in fewer or weaker mid-latitude cyclones. Because mid-latitude cyclones are responsible for much of the snow in the United States and many of the heavy snow events, if they decrease in number or intensity, it may result in an overall decrease in snowfall.</p><p>This is conjecture and shouldn't be taken as fact. However, the point that the effects of warming are far more complex than just an increase in water vapor is correct. The effect on the general circulation of the atmosphere is very important and could easily negate any increase in snowfall caused by increasing water vapor concentrations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible that warming caused by increasing CO2 concentrations could cause more snowfall .
It 's probably true that warming will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere .
That 's a reasonable assumption .
Whether this leads to more snow or not is not nearly as certain.The general circulation of the atmosphere can be described by three circulations in each hemisphere .
The Hadley Cell is a thermally direct circulation and is the most equatorward cell in either hemisphere .
The strongest of the cells is the Hadley Cell .
Moving poleward , the Ferrel Cell is a thermally indirect circulation and is weaker than the Hadley Cell .
And around the poles , the Polar Cell is a thermally direct circulation that is weaker than the Ferrel Cell .
These cells are n't found by looking at the day to day weather but instead are planetary scale circulations that show up in long term means.The tropics have a surplus of heat .
That is to say , more radiation enters from the sun than is lost due to outgoing longwave radiation .
The poles have a deficit of heat , meaning that more outgoing longwave radiation is lost to space than incoming shortwave radiation is received from the sun .
To keep the system in balance , heat is transported poleward from the equator.Observations and climate models indicate that the greatest warming will occur at the poles .
This means that there will be less of a thermal gradient between the tropics and poles.Mid-latitude cyclones are responsible for a substantial amount of snowfall in the United States and many heavy snow events .
These cyclones exist in the atmosphere to transport thermal energy poleward and help to maintain the energy budget in the atmosphere.If the thermal gradient between the tropics and the poles becomes weaker due to polar warming , this could result in fewer or weaker mid-latitude cyclones .
Because mid-latitude cyclones are responsible for much of the snow in the United States and many of the heavy snow events , if they decrease in number or intensity , it may result in an overall decrease in snowfall.This is conjecture and should n't be taken as fact .
However , the point that the effects of warming are far more complex than just an increase in water vapor is correct .
The effect on the general circulation of the atmosphere is very important and could easily negate any increase in snowfall caused by increasing water vapor concentrations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible that warming caused by increasing CO2 concentrations could cause more snowfall.
It's probably true that warming will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
That's a reasonable assumption.
Whether this leads to more snow or not is not nearly as certain.The general circulation of the atmosphere can be described by three circulations in each hemisphere.
The Hadley Cell is a thermally direct circulation and is the most equatorward cell in either hemisphere.
The strongest of the cells is the Hadley Cell.
Moving poleward, the Ferrel Cell is a thermally indirect circulation and is weaker than the Hadley Cell.
And around the poles, the Polar Cell is a thermally direct circulation that is weaker than the Ferrel Cell.
These cells aren't found by looking at the day to day weather but instead are planetary scale circulations that show up in long term means.The tropics have a surplus of heat.
That is to say, more radiation enters from the sun than is lost due to outgoing longwave radiation.
The poles have a deficit of heat, meaning that more outgoing longwave radiation is lost to space than incoming shortwave radiation is received from the sun.
To keep the system in balance, heat is transported poleward from the equator.Observations and climate models indicate that the greatest warming will occur at the poles.
This means that there will be less of a thermal gradient between the tropics and poles.Mid-latitude cyclones are responsible for a substantial amount of snowfall in the United States and many heavy snow events.
These cyclones exist in the atmosphere to transport thermal energy poleward and help to maintain the energy budget in the atmosphere.If the thermal gradient between the tropics and the poles becomes weaker due to polar warming, this could result in fewer or weaker mid-latitude cyclones.
Because mid-latitude cyclones are responsible for much of the snow in the United States and many of the heavy snow events, if they decrease in number or intensity, it may result in an overall decrease in snowfall.This is conjecture and shouldn't be taken as fact.
However, the point that the effects of warming are far more complex than just an increase in water vapor is correct.
The effect on the general circulation of the atmosphere is very important and could easily negate any increase in snowfall caused by increasing water vapor concentrations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169434</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meanwhile, the temperatures where I live continue to be 15F below average going into the 4th straight week now and global warming is starting to look appealing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , the temperatures where I live continue to be 15F below average going into the 4th straight week now and global warming is starting to look appealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, the temperatures where I live continue to be 15F below average going into the 4th straight week now and global warming is starting to look appealing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165324</id>
	<title>Warmer years have more snow storms.</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1266345000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A detailed study was done of &ldquo;the relationships of the storm frequencies to seasonal temperature and precipitation conditions&rdquo; for the years &ldquo;1901&ndash;2000 using data from 1222 stations across the United States.&rdquo;  The 2006 study, <a href="http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1558-8432/45/8/pdf/i1558-8432-45-8-1141.pdf" title="allenpress.com">Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States</a> [allenpress.com] [PDF] (Chagnon et al., 2006) found we get more snow storms in warmer years:</p><p><i>Results for the November&ndash;December period showed that most of the United States had experienced 61\%&ndash; 80\% of the storms in warmer-than-normal years. Assessment of the January&ndash;February temperature conditions again showed that most of the United States had 71\%&ndash;80\% of their snowstorms in warmer-than-normal years. In the March&ndash;April season 61\%&ndash;80\% of all snowstorms in the central and southern United States had occurred in warmer-than-normal years. Thus, these comparative results reveal that a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more snowstorms than in 1901&ndash;2000. Agee (1991) found that long-term warming trends in the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic activity in North America, further indicating that a warmer future climate will generate more winter storms.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A detailed study was done of    the relationships of the storm frequencies to seasonal temperature and precipitation conditions    for the years    1901    2000 using data from 1222 stations across the United States.    The 2006 study , Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States [ allenpress.com ] [ PDF ] ( Chagnon et al. , 2006 ) found we get more snow storms in warmer years : Results for the November    December period showed that most of the United States had experienced 61 \ %    80 \ % of the storms in warmer-than-normal years .
Assessment of the January    February temperature conditions again showed that most of the United States had 71 \ %    80 \ % of their snowstorms in warmer-than-normal years .
In the March    April season 61 \ %    80 \ % of all snowstorms in the central and southern United States had occurred in warmer-than-normal years .
Thus , these comparative results reveal that a future with wetter and warmer winters , which is one outcome expected ( National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001 ) , will bring more snowstorms than in 1901    2000 .
Agee ( 1991 ) found that long-term warming trends in the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic activity in North America , further indicating that a warmer future climate will generate more winter storms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A detailed study was done of “the relationships of the storm frequencies to seasonal temperature and precipitation conditions” for the years “1901–2000 using data from 1222 stations across the United States.”  The 2006 study, Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States [allenpress.com] [PDF] (Chagnon et al., 2006) found we get more snow storms in warmer years:Results for the November–December period showed that most of the United States had experienced 61\%– 80\% of the storms in warmer-than-normal years.
Assessment of the January–February temperature conditions again showed that most of the United States had 71\%–80\% of their snowstorms in warmer-than-normal years.
In the March–April season 61\%–80\% of all snowstorms in the central and southern United States had occurred in warmer-than-normal years.
Thus, these comparative results reveal that a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more snowstorms than in 1901–2000.
Agee (1991) found that long-term warming trends in the United States were associated with increasing cyclonic activity in North America, further indicating that a warmer future climate will generate more winter storms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164766</id>
	<title>Intellectuals Easiest To Hypnotize</title>
	<author>chromozone</author>
	<datestamp>1266341400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who study a lot and  who often use their imaginations (like artists) are often the easiest to hypnotize  (and the most susceptible to psychotic illness). One reason is that they get conditioned to focus tightly one one thing to the exclusion of others. Concentration and exclusion are fundamental to a hypnotic state. Another reason people who study a lot can be suggestible is that they are more prone to authority (look for approval from teachers , profs etc). Any good hypnotist knows their greatest asset is an authoritarian manner. Of course people can be intelligent in healthy ways but the people who fall into their intellectualism to the exclusion of other aspects of their psyche are lopsided ( a reason they are often neurotic).</p><p>Many people have absorbed warming theories uncritically because some authority (an academic or artist etc) told them it was "settled science" when it wasn't. Experts also offered up congested articles that were scientism more than science, and like art consumers who get bamboozled into accepting dung on a museum floor as art people went along with studies as long as they sounded scientific.</p><p>AGW is a perfect illustration of the naked emperor syndrome. Lots and lots of people have insisted the emperor was not naked when in fact he was. We live in an age of junk science where money/fame has more influence on individuals  than a desire to know the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who study a lot and who often use their imaginations ( like artists ) are often the easiest to hypnotize ( and the most susceptible to psychotic illness ) .
One reason is that they get conditioned to focus tightly one one thing to the exclusion of others .
Concentration and exclusion are fundamental to a hypnotic state .
Another reason people who study a lot can be suggestible is that they are more prone to authority ( look for approval from teachers , profs etc ) .
Any good hypnotist knows their greatest asset is an authoritarian manner .
Of course people can be intelligent in healthy ways but the people who fall into their intellectualism to the exclusion of other aspects of their psyche are lopsided ( a reason they are often neurotic ) .Many people have absorbed warming theories uncritically because some authority ( an academic or artist etc ) told them it was " settled science " when it was n't .
Experts also offered up congested articles that were scientism more than science , and like art consumers who get bamboozled into accepting dung on a museum floor as art people went along with studies as long as they sounded scientific.AGW is a perfect illustration of the naked emperor syndrome .
Lots and lots of people have insisted the emperor was not naked when in fact he was .
We live in an age of junk science where money/fame has more influence on individuals than a desire to know the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who study a lot and  who often use their imaginations (like artists) are often the easiest to hypnotize  (and the most susceptible to psychotic illness).
One reason is that they get conditioned to focus tightly one one thing to the exclusion of others.
Concentration and exclusion are fundamental to a hypnotic state.
Another reason people who study a lot can be suggestible is that they are more prone to authority (look for approval from teachers , profs etc).
Any good hypnotist knows their greatest asset is an authoritarian manner.
Of course people can be intelligent in healthy ways but the people who fall into their intellectualism to the exclusion of other aspects of their psyche are lopsided ( a reason they are often neurotic).Many people have absorbed warming theories uncritically because some authority (an academic or artist etc) told them it was "settled science" when it wasn't.
Experts also offered up congested articles that were scientism more than science, and like art consumers who get bamboozled into accepting dung on a museum floor as art people went along with studies as long as they sounded scientific.AGW is a perfect illustration of the naked emperor syndrome.
Lots and lots of people have insisted the emperor was not naked when in fact he was.
We live in an age of junk science where money/fame has more influence on individuals  than a desire to know the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163988</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the last time that some of the areas go hit with this much snow was in the 1950s. What does that say about your "evidence" of global warming? Or was global warming at a peak 60 years ago too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the last time that some of the areas go hit with this much snow was in the 1950s .
What does that say about your " evidence " of global warming ?
Or was global warming at a peak 60 years ago too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the last time that some of the areas go hit with this much snow was in the 1950s.
What does that say about your "evidence" of global warming?
Or was global warming at a peak 60 years ago too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172772</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1265051160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html" title="dailymail.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995</a> [dailymail.co.uk] </p><p>At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.</p><p> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8468358.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers</a> [bbc.co.uk] </p><p>How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?</p></div><p>So you are saying "skepticism" will finally whither away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits : There has been no global warming since 1995 [ dailymail.co.uk ] At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data .
UN climate body admits 'mistake ' on Himalayan glaciers [ bbc.co.uk ] How many more " mistakes " , falsifications , and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye ? So you are saying " skepticism " will finally whither away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [dailymail.co.uk] At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.
UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers [bbc.co.uk] How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?So you are saying "skepticism" will finally whither away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164444</id>
	<title>duh...</title>
	<author>qkslvr</author>
	<datestamp>1266339060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d\_281.html" title="engineeringtoolbox.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d\_281.html</a> [engineeringtoolbox.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d \ _281.html [ engineeringtoolbox.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d\_281.html [engineeringtoolbox.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166382</id>
	<title>Re:What we dont know....</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265016660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans?</p></div><p>Yes, because it is a byproduct of activity that is beneficial to someone. Nobody's job is injecting a zillion tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere or hurting a few million people. They are doing something useful that has waste byproducts. Can we do this activity while polluting less? Most likely. But don't pretend that the activity has no benefit to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans ? Yes , because it is a byproduct of activity that is beneficial to someone .
Nobody 's job is injecting a zillion tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere or hurting a few million people .
They are doing something useful that has waste byproducts .
Can we do this activity while polluting less ?
Most likely .
But do n't pretend that the activity has no benefit to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans?Yes, because it is a byproduct of activity that is beneficial to someone.
Nobody's job is injecting a zillion tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere or hurting a few million people.
They are doing something useful that has waste byproducts.
Can we do this activity while polluting less?
Most likely.
But don't pretend that the activity has no benefit to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164112</id>
	<title>Texas was once...</title>
	<author>night\_flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1266337020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...under a layer of ice, did the wooly mamoths drive SUVs?</p><p>and even *if* the earth is warming, who are we to say that "right here and right now" is the "right" temperature for the earth?</p><p>The only measurable data that we have only goes back about 150 years, and even then its been manipulated as exposed by climategate. Temperature probes placed by asphault parking lots or by air conditioner vents have been scewing the data for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...under a layer of ice , did the wooly mamoths drive SUVs ? and even * if * the earth is warming , who are we to say that " right here and right now " is the " right " temperature for the earth ? The only measurable data that we have only goes back about 150 years , and even then its been manipulated as exposed by climategate .
Temperature probes placed by asphault parking lots or by air conditioner vents have been scewing the data for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...under a layer of ice, did the wooly mamoths drive SUVs?and even *if* the earth is warming, who are we to say that "right here and right now" is the "right" temperature for the earth?The only measurable data that we have only goes back about 150 years, and even then its been manipulated as exposed by climategate.
Temperature probes placed by asphault parking lots or by air conditioner vents have been scewing the data for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</id>
	<title>Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion.  The weather is all about water moving around in the air.  More energy into the water means more water into the air.  More water into the air means more weather... more storms, more hurricanes, more snow... and what's really interesting is a new distribution of water.  We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts.  The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot.  Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion .
The weather is all about water moving around in the air .
More energy into the water means more water into the air .
More water into the air means more weather... more storms , more hurricanes , more snow... and what 's really interesting is a new distribution of water .
We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts .
The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot .
Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion.
The weather is all about water moving around in the air.
More energy into the water means more water into the air.
More water into the air means more weather... more storms, more hurricanes, more snow... and what's really interesting is a new distribution of water.
We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts.
The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot.
Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164776</id>
	<title>oh the fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266341460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what crap. a theory of everything and a theory of nothing. the tawdry spectacle of a collapsing belief system. the world is not warming and obama is not the messiah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what crap .
a theory of everything and a theory of nothing .
the tawdry spectacle of a collapsing belief system .
the world is not warming and obama is not the messiah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what crap.
a theory of everything and a theory of nothing.
the tawdry spectacle of a collapsing belief system.
the world is not warming and obama is not the messiah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179780</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1265040420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2751232.htm" title="abc.net.au">to show signs of melting</a> [abc.net.au]</p> </div><p>How can there be an Eastern Antarctica??  I thought all of the Antarctic coast was Northern Antarctica, the pole was Southern Antarctica, and if you go east you just go in a circle without ever reaching the end...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica ( the steadfast 'unaffected ' part of Antarctica ) begins to show signs of melting [ abc.net.au ] How can there be an Eastern Antarctica ? ?
I thought all of the Antarctic coast was Northern Antarctica , the pole was Southern Antarctica , and if you go east you just go in a circle without ever reaching the end.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins to show signs of melting [abc.net.au] How can there be an Eastern Antarctica??
I thought all of the Antarctic coast was Northern Antarctica, the pole was Southern Antarctica, and if you go east you just go in a circle without ever reaching the end...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165804</id>
	<title>Ocean acidification != global warming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266348720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people have posted here claiming that ocean acidification is proof of AGW?  I am a chemist, and the only thing that ocean acidification proves is that there is a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere. But this discounts the warming: if anything the ocean should be less acidic since warm water is less soluble to CO2.</p><p>Proof of global warming I will accept:<br>Build a climate model that can take data from the 1900s and predict the climate of the 1950s (this has not been done). If that model predicts climate change, I will believe it. But sadly, our current climate models are as speculative as stock market models, and we all know how well those worked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people have posted here claiming that ocean acidification is proof of AGW ?
I am a chemist , and the only thing that ocean acidification proves is that there is a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere .
But this discounts the warming : if anything the ocean should be less acidic since warm water is less soluble to CO2.Proof of global warming I will accept : Build a climate model that can take data from the 1900s and predict the climate of the 1950s ( this has not been done ) .
If that model predicts climate change , I will believe it .
But sadly , our current climate models are as speculative as stock market models , and we all know how well those worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people have posted here claiming that ocean acidification is proof of AGW?
I am a chemist, and the only thing that ocean acidification proves is that there is a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But this discounts the warming: if anything the ocean should be less acidic since warm water is less soluble to CO2.Proof of global warming I will accept:Build a climate model that can take data from the 1900s and predict the climate of the 1950s (this has not been done).
If that model predicts climate change, I will believe it.
But sadly, our current climate models are as speculative as stock market models, and we all know how well those worked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165556</id>
	<title>Right, but what is C02?</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1266346680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The bigger question everyone fails to ask... Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans? Most likely not! So why not change for that reason alone, regardless if climate change is true or not.</i></p><p>No-one is saying we should not reduce pollution.  That is obvious since as you say, it's not healthy for anyone.</p><p>The question is what is C02?  Under normal conditions this is not really a pollutant, since animals breathe it out and trees use it to live.</p><p>Then the question is, is this non-polllutant a pollutant just by virtue of there being too much of it?  That is the real debate, around which trillions of dollars flows (from both sides).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bigger question everyone fails to ask... Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans ?
Most likely not !
So why not change for that reason alone , regardless if climate change is true or not.No-one is saying we should not reduce pollution .
That is obvious since as you say , it 's not healthy for anyone.The question is what is C02 ?
Under normal conditions this is not really a pollutant , since animals breathe it out and trees use it to live.Then the question is , is this non-polllutant a pollutant just by virtue of there being too much of it ?
That is the real debate , around which trillions of dollars flows ( from both sides ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bigger question everyone fails to ask... Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans?
Most likely not!
So why not change for that reason alone, regardless if climate change is true or not.No-one is saying we should not reduce pollution.
That is obvious since as you say, it's not healthy for anyone.The question is what is C02?
Under normal conditions this is not really a pollutant, since animals breathe it out and trees use it to live.Then the question is, is this non-polllutant a pollutant just by virtue of there being too much of it?
That is the real debate, around which trillions of dollars flows (from both sides).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163720</id>
	<title>Sherlock Holmes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266334320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this finding facts to fit theories, or theories to fit facts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this finding facts to fit theories , or theories to fit facts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this finding facts to fit theories, or theories to fit facts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164930</id>
	<title>Re:weather is different than climate</title>
	<author>Nazlfrag</author>
	<datestamp>1266342420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So global warming is the cause of mass extincion events? Where did you get that idea from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So global warming is the cause of mass extincion events ?
Where did you get that idea from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So global warming is the cause of mass extincion events?
Where did you get that idea from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164680</id>
	<title>Blowing Hot and Cold</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1266340740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of an old Persian (/Indian/Chinese/Turkish - it's one of those popular ones) story -
<br>
<br>
A villager goes to visit a wise man to gain wisdom. As he walks into the wise man's home, he sees him blowing into his cupped palms.
<br>
<br>
"Why are you blowing into your hands?", he asks.
<br>
<br>
"To warm them", comes the reply.
<br>
<br>
A little while later, the wise man's wife serves soup. The wise man blows into it.
<br>
<br>
"Why are you blowing into your soup?", the villager asks.
<br>
<br>
"To cool it", is the reply.
<br>
<br>
The villager finishes his soup and hurries to leave. When the wise man asks him why he won't stay, he says "I can't trust a man who blows both hot and cold."
<br>
<br>
The moral isn't that one can't trust scientists who claim global warming can have a local cooling effect. It is that, despite all indignant incredulity, the same cause can have different effects in different contexts and scales.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of an old Persian ( /Indian/Chinese/Turkish - it 's one of those popular ones ) story - A villager goes to visit a wise man to gain wisdom .
As he walks into the wise man 's home , he sees him blowing into his cupped palms .
" Why are you blowing into your hands ?
" , he asks .
" To warm them " , comes the reply .
A little while later , the wise man 's wife serves soup .
The wise man blows into it .
" Why are you blowing into your soup ?
" , the villager asks .
" To cool it " , is the reply .
The villager finishes his soup and hurries to leave .
When the wise man asks him why he wo n't stay , he says " I ca n't trust a man who blows both hot and cold .
" The moral is n't that one ca n't trust scientists who claim global warming can have a local cooling effect .
It is that , despite all indignant incredulity , the same cause can have different effects in different contexts and scales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of an old Persian (/Indian/Chinese/Turkish - it's one of those popular ones) story -


A villager goes to visit a wise man to gain wisdom.
As he walks into the wise man's home, he sees him blowing into his cupped palms.
"Why are you blowing into your hands?
", he asks.
"To warm them", comes the reply.
A little while later, the wise man's wife serves soup.
The wise man blows into it.
"Why are you blowing into your soup?
", the villager asks.
"To cool it", is the reply.
The villager finishes his soup and hurries to leave.
When the wise man asks him why he won't stay, he says "I can't trust a man who blows both hot and cold.
"


The moral isn't that one can't trust scientists who claim global warming can have a local cooling effect.
It is that, despite all indignant incredulity, the same cause can have different effects in different contexts and scales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31184708</id>
	<title>Don't piss in your living room.</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1266509760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there GW?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &gt; Yes</p><p>Is there long term GW?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &gt; I don't know. At least not on the scale of 1-3 centuries.</p><p>Is there longer term GW.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &gt; Yes.  Our neighborhood glacier left 9,000 years ago.</p><p>Is the GW caused by human activity?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &gt; Irrelevant.</p><p>Our society is fragile, and for much of the world, climate change is not good news.  It doesn't matter whether the cause is the orbit of the earth, the precession of the Earth, the increase of CO2, Decreased forestation in the tropics, increased forestation at temperate and arctic latitudes.</p><p>We *don't* understand water very well.  We *don't* understand clouds very well.</p><p>We'd better learn how to control our climate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there GW ?
    &gt; YesIs there long term GW ?
    &gt; I do n't know .
At least not on the scale of 1-3 centuries.Is there longer term GW .
    &gt; Yes .
Our neighborhood glacier left 9,000 years ago.Is the GW caused by human activity ?
    &gt; Irrelevant.Our society is fragile , and for much of the world , climate change is not good news .
It does n't matter whether the cause is the orbit of the earth , the precession of the Earth , the increase of CO2 , Decreased forestation in the tropics , increased forestation at temperate and arctic latitudes.We * do n't * understand water very well .
We * do n't * understand clouds very well.We 'd better learn how to control our climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there GW?
    &gt; YesIs there long term GW?
    &gt; I don't know.
At least not on the scale of 1-3 centuries.Is there longer term GW.
    &gt; Yes.
Our neighborhood glacier left 9,000 years ago.Is the GW caused by human activity?
    &gt; Irrelevant.Our society is fragile, and for much of the world, climate change is not good news.
It doesn't matter whether the cause is the orbit of the earth, the precession of the Earth, the increase of CO2, Decreased forestation in the tropics, increased forestation at temperate and arctic latitudes.We *don't* understand water very well.
We *don't* understand clouds very well.We'd better learn how to control our climate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167714</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1265032080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169618</id>
	<title>Still selling Al Gore's snake oil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obvious contradiction in the above statement is the claim that rising temperatures put more moisture in the air which becomes snow in freezing temperatures.</p><p>How much water the atmosphere holds is indeed dependent on temperature. Warmer atmosphere actually means LESS rain (not to mention no snow) because the air holds more water.  It is when the atmosphere COOLS that water or snow precipitates out. So heavy rains and snow are a sign of a cooling atmosphere.</p><p>And rain and snow aside, the simple fact that temperatures this winter are sharply down, to the point of killing corals and manatees in Florida, tells you which way the trend is going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious contradiction in the above statement is the claim that rising temperatures put more moisture in the air which becomes snow in freezing temperatures.How much water the atmosphere holds is indeed dependent on temperature .
Warmer atmosphere actually means LESS rain ( not to mention no snow ) because the air holds more water .
It is when the atmosphere COOLS that water or snow precipitates out .
So heavy rains and snow are a sign of a cooling atmosphere.And rain and snow aside , the simple fact that temperatures this winter are sharply down , to the point of killing corals and manatees in Florida , tells you which way the trend is going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious contradiction in the above statement is the claim that rising temperatures put more moisture in the air which becomes snow in freezing temperatures.How much water the atmosphere holds is indeed dependent on temperature.
Warmer atmosphere actually means LESS rain (not to mention no snow) because the air holds more water.
It is when the atmosphere COOLS that water or snow precipitates out.
So heavy rains and snow are a sign of a cooling atmosphere.And rain and snow aside, the simple fact that temperatures this winter are sharply down, to the point of killing corals and manatees in Florida, tells you which way the trend is going.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166052</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the current flat trend in "global temperature" is one of them</p></div></blockquote><p>For FUCKS SAKE.</p><p>1900 - 2000 - temperature RISE. Deniers say "WTF, that's only 100 years"<br>1500 - 2000 - temperature RISE in correlation to CO2 emissions. Deniers say "WTF? Only "good" measurements are in last 50 years"<br>2007 - 2009 - temperature stays about the same. Deniers say "OMG OMG!!! LOOK AT THIS OMG FLAT TEMPERATURE TREND!!111"!!</p><p>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/</p><p>I guess deniers see trends where none even exist in real data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the current flat trend in " global temperature " is one of themFor FUCKS SAKE.1900 - 2000 - temperature RISE .
Deniers say " WTF , that 's only 100 years " 1500 - 2000 - temperature RISE in correlation to CO2 emissions .
Deniers say " WTF ?
Only " good " measurements are in last 50 years " 2007 - 2009 - temperature stays about the same .
Deniers say " OMG OMG ! ! !
LOOK AT THIS OMG FLAT TEMPERATURE TREND ! ! 111 " !
! http : //www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/I guess deniers see trends where none even exist in real data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the current flat trend in "global temperature" is one of themFor FUCKS SAKE.1900 - 2000 - temperature RISE.
Deniers say "WTF, that's only 100 years"1500 - 2000 - temperature RISE in correlation to CO2 emissions.
Deniers say "WTF?
Only "good" measurements are in last 50 years"2007 - 2009 - temperature stays about the same.
Deniers say "OMG OMG!!!
LOOK AT THIS OMG FLAT TEMPERATURE TREND!!111"!
!http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/I guess deniers see trends where none even exist in real data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164226</id>
	<title>Ignorance is Power</title>
	<author>snikulin</author>
	<datestamp>1266337680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom is Slavery<br>War is Peace</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom is SlaveryWar is Peace</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom is SlaveryWar is Peace</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31183784</id>
	<title>Re:Sherlock Holmes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266505680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A comprehensive theory to fit facts can only come up after having decades of trustable data.(which we haven't) . Currently the best process to find a theory to fit facts is to see whether facts fit a theory. Many facts fit AGW and many don't . After some time you may find that all facts may fit a modified AGW.(and a modified anti-AGW). Instead of complaining "OMG! YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR THEORY! LOLZ! GOT YOU!" , people should recognize that this is natural evolution of a theory. In this case we may get a accurate theory only after decades of data and debate. (Whether it will be too late or not is another story.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A comprehensive theory to fit facts can only come up after having decades of trustable data .
( which we have n't ) .
Currently the best process to find a theory to fit facts is to see whether facts fit a theory .
Many facts fit AGW and many do n't .
After some time you may find that all facts may fit a modified AGW .
( and a modified anti-AGW ) .
Instead of complaining " OMG !
YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR THEORY !
LOLZ ! GOT YOU !
" , people should recognize that this is natural evolution of a theory .
In this case we may get a accurate theory only after decades of data and debate .
( Whether it will be too late or not is another story .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A comprehensive theory to fit facts can only come up after having decades of trustable data.
(which we haven't) .
Currently the best process to find a theory to fit facts is to see whether facts fit a theory.
Many facts fit AGW and many don't .
After some time you may find that all facts may fit a modified AGW.
(and a modified anti-AGW).
Instead of complaining "OMG!
YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR THEORY!
LOLZ! GOT YOU!
" , people should recognize that this is natural evolution of a theory.
In this case we may get a accurate theory only after decades of data and debate.
(Whether it will be too late or not is another story.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170288</id>
	<title>Warmth is needed for snow</title>
	<author>geek2k5</author>
	<datestamp>1265043660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vindication!</p><p>For several years, when people have pointed out that record snows are 'proof' that global climate change is NOT happening, I've mentioned that snow requires moisture and moisture requires warmth.  The more warmth you have, the more moisture you have in the air and the more snow you can have when that moisture moves into an area where it is cold enough to get snow.</p><p>Oddly enough, in my area, after back to back seasons of heavy snow, including one record breaking season and one season where it was an inch short of the previous record, we have had a warm winter with minimal snow.  For some reason the people that were using the record snows as 'proof' that global climate change is NOT happening are not talking about about what could be considered counter proof.</p><p>People really need to take a hard look at what they consider to be proof of their positions, no matter what position they take with regards to global climate change.  And they also need to remember that it is NOT a binary man-made/not-man-made setup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vindication ! For several years , when people have pointed out that record snows are 'proof ' that global climate change is NOT happening , I 've mentioned that snow requires moisture and moisture requires warmth .
The more warmth you have , the more moisture you have in the air and the more snow you can have when that moisture moves into an area where it is cold enough to get snow.Oddly enough , in my area , after back to back seasons of heavy snow , including one record breaking season and one season where it was an inch short of the previous record , we have had a warm winter with minimal snow .
For some reason the people that were using the record snows as 'proof ' that global climate change is NOT happening are not talking about about what could be considered counter proof.People really need to take a hard look at what they consider to be proof of their positions , no matter what position they take with regards to global climate change .
And they also need to remember that it is NOT a binary man-made/not-man-made setup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vindication!For several years, when people have pointed out that record snows are 'proof' that global climate change is NOT happening, I've mentioned that snow requires moisture and moisture requires warmth.
The more warmth you have, the more moisture you have in the air and the more snow you can have when that moisture moves into an area where it is cold enough to get snow.Oddly enough, in my area, after back to back seasons of heavy snow, including one record breaking season and one season where it was an inch short of the previous record, we have had a warm winter with minimal snow.
For some reason the people that were using the record snows as 'proof' that global climate change is NOT happening are not talking about about what could be considered counter proof.People really need to take a hard look at what they consider to be proof of their positions, no matter what position they take with regards to global climate change.
And they also need to remember that it is NOT a binary man-made/not-man-made setup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165790</id>
	<title>I think there is a mistake here....</title>
	<author>Eric Freyhart</author>
	<datestamp>1266348660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow."</p></div><p>The above statement is wrong.  The IPCC's latest report said exactly the opposite of this statement.  The computer models showed a global decrease in precipitation due to the warming of the earth's atmosphere, not an increase.  An increase in global humidity would cause increased cloud cover at lower altitudes, which has been proven years ago causes a decrease in surface temperature due to the refection effect.<br> <br>

I read the report.  If you take the IPCC to be the default standard for climate change, then you have to believe that there has not been an increase in snow coverage.  The white stuff you see coming down outside is actually just common "Albino Brain Chiggers".  They are harmless.  Put some tin foil on your head and they will stay out of your ears.  Also, they are caused by global warming.<br> <br>

Nothing to see here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country , the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes ; but for scientists who study the climate , there 's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow .
" The above statement is wrong .
The IPCC 's latest report said exactly the opposite of this statement .
The computer models showed a global decrease in precipitation due to the warming of the earth 's atmosphere , not an increase .
An increase in global humidity would cause increased cloud cover at lower altitudes , which has been proven years ago causes a decrease in surface temperature due to the refection effect .
I read the report .
If you take the IPCC to be the default standard for climate change , then you have to believe that there has not been an increase in snow coverage .
The white stuff you see coming down outside is actually just common " Albino Brain Chiggers " .
They are harmless .
Put some tin foil on your head and they will stay out of your ears .
Also , they are caused by global warming .
Nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow.
"The above statement is wrong.
The IPCC's latest report said exactly the opposite of this statement.
The computer models showed a global decrease in precipitation due to the warming of the earth's atmosphere, not an increase.
An increase in global humidity would cause increased cloud cover at lower altitudes, which has been proven years ago causes a decrease in surface temperature due to the refection effect.
I read the report.
If you take the IPCC to be the default standard for climate change, then you have to believe that there has not been an increase in snow coverage.
The white stuff you see coming down outside is actually just common "Albino Brain Chiggers".
They are harmless.
Put some tin foil on your head and they will stay out of your ears.
Also, they are caused by global warming.
Nothing to see here.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169110</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes it seems pointless</title>
	<author>ZonkerWilliam</author>
	<datestamp>1265039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, elitism and false intellectualism, so 2009.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , elitism and false intellectualism , so 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, elitism and false intellectualism, so 2009.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164036</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And some people think that "some people think" does not rise to the level of scientific evidence.  Some people even KNOW that Newton had to be an Aristotle skeptic to discover the law of gravity. While some people know that the heat law shows that a barrier doesn't trap heat but produces a drag on escaping of heat.  Some people even know that warmer temperatures cause more vegetation to grow and reabsorb more CO2.  And some people get their science from politicians.  These are not all the same people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And some people think that " some people think " does not rise to the level of scientific evidence .
Some people even KNOW that Newton had to be an Aristotle skeptic to discover the law of gravity .
While some people know that the heat law shows that a barrier does n't trap heat but produces a drag on escaping of heat .
Some people even know that warmer temperatures cause more vegetation to grow and reabsorb more CO2 .
And some people get their science from politicians .
These are not all the same people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And some people think that "some people think" does not rise to the level of scientific evidence.
Some people even KNOW that Newton had to be an Aristotle skeptic to discover the law of gravity.
While some people know that the heat law shows that a barrier doesn't trap heat but produces a drag on escaping of heat.
Some people even know that warmer temperatures cause more vegetation to grow and reabsorb more CO2.
And some people get their science from politicians.
These are not all the same people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167800</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Always thought water just rose... piling up, that's a new one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) must be the snowflake upon snoflake effect....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Always thought water just rose... piling up , that 's a new one ; ) must be the snowflake upon snoflake effect... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Always thought water just rose... piling up, that's a new one ;) must be the snowflake upon snoflake effect....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166344</id>
	<title>Re:Or not</title>
	<author>phigmeta</author>
	<datestamp>1265016240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its snowed like hell here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... one of the coldest temps in history for the NW</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its snowed like hell here ... one of the coldest temps in history for the NW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its snowed like hell here ... one of the coldest temps in history for the NW</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164804</id>
	<title>GW swindle vid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266341640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&amp;hl=en#</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = -5576670191369613647&amp;hl = en #</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&amp;hl=en#</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164370</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming!!!</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1266338580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It only ends once .
Anything that happens before that is just progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only ends once.
Anything that happens before that is just progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168352</id>
	<title>Re:What we dont know....</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1265036580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An even bigger question is, "Are we using our resources in a sustainable fashion?", for which the answer is a disgustingly overweight NO.  We'll kill our foodstock, overfarm our land, cut down our trees, pollute our water, and collapse long before global warming becomes a viable threat.  There's just way too many people to live off what little resources we've not destroyed so far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An even bigger question is , " Are we using our resources in a sustainable fashion ?
" , for which the answer is a disgustingly overweight NO .
We 'll kill our foodstock , overfarm our land , cut down our trees , pollute our water , and collapse long before global warming becomes a viable threat .
There 's just way too many people to live off what little resources we 've not destroyed so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An even bigger question is, "Are we using our resources in a sustainable fashion?
", for which the answer is a disgustingly overweight NO.
We'll kill our foodstock, overfarm our land, cut down our trees, pollute our water, and collapse long before global warming becomes a viable threat.
There's just way too many people to live off what little resources we've not destroyed so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165366</id>
	<title>Re:Intellectuals Easiest To Hypnotize</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1266345240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whereas ignorant knuckleheads just  instinctively know the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whereas ignorant knuckleheads just instinctively know the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whereas ignorant knuckleheads just  instinctively know the truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179822</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes it seems pointless</title>
	<author>fishexe</author>
	<datestamp>1265040720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I confess... this was on Facebook) and of course they will all just see it as a victory and continue to reinforce each others' delusion... but I really don't see how I could ever change his or any of their minds on the subject.</p></div><p>Don't try to change his mind, or his fanboys' minds.  Try to make them look so ridiculous that you convince all other bystanders (who are not already fans).  That's how you do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I confess... this was on Facebook ) and of course they will all just see it as a victory and continue to reinforce each others ' delusion... but I really do n't see how I could ever change his or any of their minds on the subject.Do n't try to change his mind , or his fanboys ' minds .
Try to make them look so ridiculous that you convince all other bystanders ( who are not already fans ) .
That 's how you do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I confess... this was on Facebook) and of course they will all just see it as a victory and continue to reinforce each others' delusion... but I really don't see how I could ever change his or any of their minds on the subject.Don't try to change his mind, or his fanboys' minds.
Try to make them look so ridiculous that you convince all other bystanders (who are not already fans).
That's how you do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166608</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Truth\_Quark</author>
	<datestamp>1265019360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".</p></div><p>I think that the main problem with the CRU FOI requests was that the source data had been entered into the computer system 20 years earlier, and the original paperwork had no longer been considered important to file. And for producing the science it is not. Although a good administrator would have foreseen the need for a sound paper-trail 20 years later, claiming that the scientists were "actively engaged" in hiding data is judging them too harshly.<br> <br>
What threats were made to what publishers?<br> <br>
And there has been no suggestion of academic fraud or of manipulating temperature data. (And so neither is it academically important that the source data is not all kept, because reproducing the temperature data is better if the data collection is also reproduced, in case there are biases in that. And NASA, NOAA, RSS and UAH are four bodies that also produce a global mean surface temperature data set. <a href="http://scentofpine.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/global\_temperature\_1999-2008.jpg" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">And they do support the HadCRU data</a> [wordpress.com].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now... this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding.</p></div><p>I'm not aware of any funding falling through because of the line the research was taking in climate science. (And one <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">BBC reported failed to find anyone with such a story</a> [bbc.co.uk] in 2007)<br> <br>
And the suggestion that all over the world, PhD students are ignoring fame and fortune by overturning a paradigm because of funding that they are not yet getting is way too big a conspiracy theory to begin to accept.<br> <br>
Many of the highest profile climate scientists are academics with tenure. This mechanism of repression of research doesn't hold water.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When your " peers " appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny , actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published ( including threats to publishers ) , and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data , I 'd say we need to ask " Who Watches the Watchers " .I think that the main problem with the CRU FOI requests was that the source data had been entered into the computer system 20 years earlier , and the original paperwork had no longer been considered important to file .
And for producing the science it is not .
Although a good administrator would have foreseen the need for a sound paper-trail 20 years later , claiming that the scientists were " actively engaged " in hiding data is judging them too harshly .
What threats were made to what publishers ?
And there has been no suggestion of academic fraud or of manipulating temperature data .
( And so neither is it academically important that the source data is not all kept , because reproducing the temperature data is better if the data collection is also reproduced , in case there are biases in that .
And NASA , NOAA , RSS and UAH are four bodies that also produce a global mean surface temperature data set .
And they do support the HadCRU data [ wordpress.com ] .Now... this does n't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding.I 'm not aware of any funding falling through because of the line the research was taking in climate science .
( And one BBC reported failed to find anyone with such a story [ bbc.co.uk ] in 2007 ) And the suggestion that all over the world , PhD students are ignoring fame and fortune by overturning a paradigm because of funding that they are not yet getting is way too big a conspiracy theory to begin to accept .
Many of the highest profile climate scientists are academics with tenure .
This mechanism of repression of research does n't hold water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".I think that the main problem with the CRU FOI requests was that the source data had been entered into the computer system 20 years earlier, and the original paperwork had no longer been considered important to file.
And for producing the science it is not.
Although a good administrator would have foreseen the need for a sound paper-trail 20 years later, claiming that the scientists were "actively engaged" in hiding data is judging them too harshly.
What threats were made to what publishers?
And there has been no suggestion of academic fraud or of manipulating temperature data.
(And so neither is it academically important that the source data is not all kept, because reproducing the temperature data is better if the data collection is also reproduced, in case there are biases in that.
And NASA, NOAA, RSS and UAH are four bodies that also produce a global mean surface temperature data set.
And they do support the HadCRU data [wordpress.com].Now... this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding.I'm not aware of any funding falling through because of the line the research was taking in climate science.
(And one BBC reported failed to find anyone with such a story [bbc.co.uk] in 2007) 
And the suggestion that all over the world, PhD students are ignoring fame and fortune by overturning a paradigm because of funding that they are not yet getting is way too big a conspiracy theory to begin to accept.
Many of the highest profile climate scientists are academics with tenure.
This mechanism of repression of research doesn't hold water.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164950</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>arthurh3535</author>
	<datestamp>1266342600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More energy into the system does not mean just more heat. That could also increase winds and storm systems.</p><p>While I'm not a fan of the current "AGW" I do think we are having an affect on the ecosystem and need to take some reasonable steps to curtails some of the worst excesses. We also need more power generation for our future needs.</p><p>That's why nuclear power and other non-fossil fuel power sources are important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More energy into the system does not mean just more heat .
That could also increase winds and storm systems.While I 'm not a fan of the current " AGW " I do think we are having an affect on the ecosystem and need to take some reasonable steps to curtails some of the worst excesses .
We also need more power generation for our future needs.That 's why nuclear power and other non-fossil fuel power sources are important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More energy into the system does not mean just more heat.
That could also increase winds and storm systems.While I'm not a fan of the current "AGW" I do think we are having an affect on the ecosystem and need to take some reasonable steps to curtails some of the worst excesses.
We also need more power generation for our future needs.That's why nuclear power and other non-fossil fuel power sources are important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170058</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was a loaded question and then quotemined afterwards.  The warming IS statistically significant at 16 years VS 15 as 1995 was an above average year for global temperatures.  If you've ever seen global temperature graphs, you'll see many peaks and valleys across the raw temps.  Climate change doesn't say that every year will be hotter than the next.  It says that the average trend is going up.  If you cherry pick your data and pick a single high data point in the past and compare it to a single point today, you're going to get a biased result.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a loaded question and then quotemined afterwards .
The warming IS statistically significant at 16 years VS 15 as 1995 was an above average year for global temperatures .
If you 've ever seen global temperature graphs , you 'll see many peaks and valleys across the raw temps .
Climate change does n't say that every year will be hotter than the next .
It says that the average trend is going up .
If you cherry pick your data and pick a single high data point in the past and compare it to a single point today , you 're going to get a biased result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a loaded question and then quotemined afterwards.
The warming IS statistically significant at 16 years VS 15 as 1995 was an above average year for global temperatures.
If you've ever seen global temperature graphs, you'll see many peaks and valleys across the raw temps.
Climate change doesn't say that every year will be hotter than the next.
It says that the average trend is going up.
If you cherry pick your data and pick a single high data point in the past and compare it to a single point today, you're going to get a biased result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164904</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1266342240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somewhat overlooked is the pole-equator interaction. For cold air to move south, warm air has to move north to displace it. (Warm air has the energy.) Push more warm air north, and you get a corresponding flow of cold air south. <br> <br>When people see abnormally cold weather, they often pull out the "heh, so what about global warming NOW!" In reality, that could be a direct cause of the cold weather.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhat overlooked is the pole-equator interaction .
For cold air to move south , warm air has to move north to displace it .
( Warm air has the energy .
) Push more warm air north , and you get a corresponding flow of cold air south .
When people see abnormally cold weather , they often pull out the " heh , so what about global warming NOW !
" In reality , that could be a direct cause of the cold weather .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhat overlooked is the pole-equator interaction.
For cold air to move south, warm air has to move north to displace it.
(Warm air has the energy.
) Push more warm air north, and you get a corresponding flow of cold air south.
When people see abnormally cold weather, they often pull out the "heh, so what about global warming NOW!
" In reality, that could be a direct cause of the cold weather.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168760</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1265038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah it's not like the tobacco industry ever lied to  us or the Oil industry.  I mean really, corporations have our best interests at heart. It's really all those greedy greedy scientists, whizzing around in their Ferrari's that are the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah it 's not like the tobacco industry ever lied to us or the Oil industry .
I mean really , corporations have our best interests at heart .
It 's really all those greedy greedy scientists , whizzing around in their Ferrari 's that are the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah it's not like the tobacco industry ever lied to  us or the Oil industry.
I mean really, corporations have our best interests at heart.
It's really all those greedy greedy scientists, whizzing around in their Ferrari's that are the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167848</id>
	<title>Re:The future matters more than the past</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1265033700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where did you get this idea that is not already happening? From the snow in front of your house?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where did you get this idea that is not already happening ?
From the snow in front of your house ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where did you get this idea that is not already happening?
From the snow in front of your house?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</id>
	<title>Meanwhile</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1266334320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The East Coast gets a bit of a blizzard (I live in DC but am from Minnesota).  People start saying, "Global warming?! HA!"<br> <br>

Meanwhile Sagar Island <a href="http://www.wbur.org/npr/123733017" title="wbur.org">shrinks away from rising oceans</a> [wbur.org].  <br> <br>

Meanwhile a UAB professor claims <a href="http://main.uab.edu/Sites/MediaRelations/articles/73195/" title="uab.edu">ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change</a> [uab.edu].  <br> <br>

Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2751232.htm" title="abc.net.au">to show signs of melting</a> [abc.net.au] (via NASA and U of TX).  <br> <br>

Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change.  One day the facts will pile up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The East Coast gets a bit of a blizzard ( I live in DC but am from Minnesota ) .
People start saying , " Global warming ? !
HA ! " Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans [ wbur.org ] .
Meanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change [ uab.edu ] .
Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica ( the steadfast 'unaffected ' part of Antarctica ) begins to show signs of melting [ abc.net.au ] ( via NASA and U of TX ) .
Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change .
One day the facts will pile up .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The East Coast gets a bit of a blizzard (I live in DC but am from Minnesota).
People start saying, "Global warming?!
HA!" 

Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans [wbur.org].
Meanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change [uab.edu].
Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins to show signs of melting [abc.net.au] (via NASA and U of TX).
Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change.
One day the facts will pile up ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164178</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>ZonkerWilliam</author>
	<datestamp>1266337380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I'm not  missing something, if there is more snow, there is more reflectivity of incoming light, meaning less heating of the lower atmosphere. I would still think this is a corrective measure by the earths atmosphere for warming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm not missing something , if there is more snow , there is more reflectivity of incoming light , meaning less heating of the lower atmosphere .
I would still think this is a corrective measure by the earths atmosphere for warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm not  missing something, if there is more snow, there is more reflectivity of incoming light, meaning less heating of the lower atmosphere.
I would still think this is a corrective measure by the earths atmosphere for warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172330</id>
	<title>An even better explanation:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265049960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last winters (those that we personally remember) all were unnaturally <em>warm</em>. And this one was just a normal winter, by pre-1900 standards.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Makes sense to me, provided we find out why this one is different.</p><p>Anyway. It&rsquo;s ridiculous to think that a single winter (one local data point) could prove a huge long-term data set wrong.</p><p>Even the whole discussion is irrelevant and hence stupid. Let&rsquo;s use logic for a second:<br><strong>Assumption 1:</strong> Green house gasses keep the heat inside the atmosphere. <em>= Is proven in my book, because I know my share of physics</em>.<br><strong>Assumption 2:</strong> We blow billions of tons of that stuff into the atmosphere. <em>= Also proven to me, if the power plants, cars, cows, etc. really exist.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</em><br><strong>Conclusion 1:</strong> Our billions of tons of green house gasses must have a heating effect bigger than zero. <em>= Assumption 1 + Assumption 2</em><br><strong>Assumption 3:</strong> Those gasses are released globally, and spread globally anyway. <em>= Laws of thermodynamics.</em><br><strong>Assumption 4:</strong> &ldquo;Global warming&rdquo; is defined as &ldquo;Earth getting warmer globally&ldquo;. <em>= Is it not?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</em><br><strong>Conclusion 2:</strong> Since we have a heating effect bigger than zero, and that effect is global, we have &ldquo;global warming&rdquo; of earth by humans. = Conclusion 1 + Assumption 3 + Assumption 4.<br><strong>Q.E.D.</strong></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last winters ( those that we personally remember ) all were unnaturally warm .
And this one was just a normal winter , by pre-1900 standards .
; ) Makes sense to me , provided we find out why this one is different.Anyway .
It    s ridiculous to think that a single winter ( one local data point ) could prove a huge long-term data set wrong.Even the whole discussion is irrelevant and hence stupid .
Let    s use logic for a second : Assumption 1 : Green house gasses keep the heat inside the atmosphere .
= Is proven in my book , because I know my share of physics.Assumption 2 : We blow billions of tons of that stuff into the atmosphere .
= Also proven to me , if the power plants , cars , cows , etc .
really exist .
; ) Conclusion 1 : Our billions of tons of green house gasses must have a heating effect bigger than zero .
= Assumption 1 + Assumption 2Assumption 3 : Those gasses are released globally , and spread globally anyway .
= Laws of thermodynamics.Assumption 4 :    Global warming    is defined as    Earth getting warmer globally    .
= Is it not ?
; ) Conclusion 2 : Since we have a heating effect bigger than zero , and that effect is global , we have    global warming    of earth by humans .
= Conclusion 1 + Assumption 3 + Assumption 4.Q.E.D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last winters (those that we personally remember) all were unnaturally warm.
And this one was just a normal winter, by pre-1900 standards.
;)Makes sense to me, provided we find out why this one is different.Anyway.
It’s ridiculous to think that a single winter (one local data point) could prove a huge long-term data set wrong.Even the whole discussion is irrelevant and hence stupid.
Let’s use logic for a second:Assumption 1: Green house gasses keep the heat inside the atmosphere.
= Is proven in my book, because I know my share of physics.Assumption 2: We blow billions of tons of that stuff into the atmosphere.
= Also proven to me, if the power plants, cars, cows, etc.
really exist.
;)Conclusion 1: Our billions of tons of green house gasses must have a heating effect bigger than zero.
= Assumption 1 + Assumption 2Assumption 3: Those gasses are released globally, and spread globally anyway.
= Laws of thermodynamics.Assumption 4: “Global warming” is defined as “Earth getting warmer globally“.
= Is it not?
;)Conclusion 2: Since we have a heating effect bigger than zero, and that effect is global, we have “global warming” of earth by humans.
= Conclusion 1 + Assumption 3 + Assumption 4.Q.E.D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166510</id>
	<title>If it is important that we do something about ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>climate change, why is it that the most prominent public figure (Al Gore) urging action goes out of his way to alienate a large portion of the US population (the conservatives) with his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth?  Throughout the movie he portrays conservatives as ignorant dopes.</p><p>It seems to me that he should be trying to educate rather than alienate.  And, then to further reinforce the fact that he really has no interest in educating, he refuses to debate the subject.  And, then to further prove how much he believes in global warming he lives in a large home that consumes more energy and produces more CO2 than he should.</p><p>Sorry folks, until the climate change crowd comes up with someone who can explain things clearly and reasonably without alienating folks, and who walks the talk, there will be the belief that global warming is just another scam to be used by folks like Al Gore to increase his wealth or by politicians to collect more taxes and control the population.</p><p>To the global warming cult: get your ducks in a row before you begin the conversion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>climate change , why is it that the most prominent public figure ( Al Gore ) urging action goes out of his way to alienate a large portion of the US population ( the conservatives ) with his movie , " An Inconvenient Truth ?
Throughout the movie he portrays conservatives as ignorant dopes.It seems to me that he should be trying to educate rather than alienate .
And , then to further reinforce the fact that he really has no interest in educating , he refuses to debate the subject .
And , then to further prove how much he believes in global warming he lives in a large home that consumes more energy and produces more CO2 than he should.Sorry folks , until the climate change crowd comes up with someone who can explain things clearly and reasonably without alienating folks , and who walks the talk , there will be the belief that global warming is just another scam to be used by folks like Al Gore to increase his wealth or by politicians to collect more taxes and control the population.To the global warming cult : get your ducks in a row before you begin the conversion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>climate change, why is it that the most prominent public figure (Al Gore) urging action goes out of his way to alienate a large portion of the US population (the conservatives) with his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth?
Throughout the movie he portrays conservatives as ignorant dopes.It seems to me that he should be trying to educate rather than alienate.
And, then to further reinforce the fact that he really has no interest in educating, he refuses to debate the subject.
And, then to further prove how much he believes in global warming he lives in a large home that consumes more energy and produces more CO2 than he should.Sorry folks, until the climate change crowd comes up with someone who can explain things clearly and reasonably without alienating folks, and who walks the talk, there will be the belief that global warming is just another scam to be used by folks like Al Gore to increase his wealth or by politicians to collect more taxes and control the population.To the global warming cult: get your ducks in a row before you begin the conversion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169770</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Kumiorava</author>
	<datestamp>1265041980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is with climate change people without background in climate research talk about local weather rather than climate change. Local weather being this years temperatures, temperatures outside the window, or snowstorm/heatwave somewhere. We can also debunk the research with oneliners such as "It's because of solar activity" or "Climate has changed always, ice ages come and go" without actually understanding the science behind these events. Even the experts in these fields don't fully understand how these forcings work.</p><p>Climate change research mostly focuses in figuring out climate models and validating those models with real world observations. Without PhD or equivalent degree there is no way to be able to run the simulations that require super computer level processing power. Right now the collective peer reviewed material points towards climate change that is partially caused by human activity where CO2 is a large driver.</p><p>Of course scientists can be wrong and over the course of time they have been proven wrong. Earth wasn't flat, earth wasn't the center of the universe, sun wasn't center of the universe, earth's orbit wasn't round, newtonian physics didn't give accurate results, etc. As I see it the science gets more accurate, in climate change case as time passes we get more accurate predictions on the phenomena. Assuming that current scientists are completely wrong or that they are all faking the results is a dangerous assumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is with climate change people without background in climate research talk about local weather rather than climate change .
Local weather being this years temperatures , temperatures outside the window , or snowstorm/heatwave somewhere .
We can also debunk the research with oneliners such as " It 's because of solar activity " or " Climate has changed always , ice ages come and go " without actually understanding the science behind these events .
Even the experts in these fields do n't fully understand how these forcings work.Climate change research mostly focuses in figuring out climate models and validating those models with real world observations .
Without PhD or equivalent degree there is no way to be able to run the simulations that require super computer level processing power .
Right now the collective peer reviewed material points towards climate change that is partially caused by human activity where CO2 is a large driver.Of course scientists can be wrong and over the course of time they have been proven wrong .
Earth was n't flat , earth was n't the center of the universe , sun was n't center of the universe , earth 's orbit was n't round , newtonian physics did n't give accurate results , etc .
As I see it the science gets more accurate , in climate change case as time passes we get more accurate predictions on the phenomena .
Assuming that current scientists are completely wrong or that they are all faking the results is a dangerous assumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is with climate change people without background in climate research talk about local weather rather than climate change.
Local weather being this years temperatures, temperatures outside the window, or snowstorm/heatwave somewhere.
We can also debunk the research with oneliners such as "It's because of solar activity" or "Climate has changed always, ice ages come and go" without actually understanding the science behind these events.
Even the experts in these fields don't fully understand how these forcings work.Climate change research mostly focuses in figuring out climate models and validating those models with real world observations.
Without PhD or equivalent degree there is no way to be able to run the simulations that require super computer level processing power.
Right now the collective peer reviewed material points towards climate change that is partially caused by human activity where CO2 is a large driver.Of course scientists can be wrong and over the course of time they have been proven wrong.
Earth wasn't flat, earth wasn't the center of the universe, sun wasn't center of the universe, earth's orbit wasn't round, newtonian physics didn't give accurate results, etc.
As I see it the science gets more accurate, in climate change case as time passes we get more accurate predictions on the phenomena.
Assuming that current scientists are completely wrong or that they are all faking the results is a dangerous assumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166548</id>
	<title>Yeah unlike the Fox News / Daily Fail public</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1265018700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Palin brigade is in force today. I wonder how much $ Exxon Mobil is spending to keep the astroturfing. It's probably quite cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Palin brigade is in force today .
I wonder how much $ Exxon Mobil is spending to keep the astroturfing .
It 's probably quite cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Palin brigade is in force today.
I wonder how much $ Exxon Mobil is spending to keep the astroturfing.
It's probably quite cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165990</id>
	<title>The world maintains a balance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265054760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When we get more snow, more of the earth will have white color, and reflect more sun, cause global cooling. So the snow is a way for earth to defend itself against global warming. Humans has no big influence in the big puzzle, where the sun is the main cause of global warming.</p><p>Some scientists says, that if all roofs +/- 30 degrees from equator was painted white, we would reflect so much sunlight that global temperature would go down by some degreess. Not parts of a degree, but way more.</p><p>When all this is said, it is more or less a fact that we will have a new small ice-age around 2035 when the sun activity will be at its lowest for a few hundred years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When we get more snow , more of the earth will have white color , and reflect more sun , cause global cooling .
So the snow is a way for earth to defend itself against global warming .
Humans has no big influence in the big puzzle , where the sun is the main cause of global warming.Some scientists says , that if all roofs + /- 30 degrees from equator was painted white , we would reflect so much sunlight that global temperature would go down by some degreess .
Not parts of a degree , but way more.When all this is said , it is more or less a fact that we will have a new small ice-age around 2035 when the sun activity will be at its lowest for a few hundred years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When we get more snow, more of the earth will have white color, and reflect more sun, cause global cooling.
So the snow is a way for earth to defend itself against global warming.
Humans has no big influence in the big puzzle, where the sun is the main cause of global warming.Some scientists says, that if all roofs +/- 30 degrees from equator was painted white, we would reflect so much sunlight that global temperature would go down by some degreess.
Not parts of a degree, but way more.When all this is said, it is more or less a fact that we will have a new small ice-age around 2035 when the sun activity will be at its lowest for a few hundred years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165006</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>zz5555</author>
	<datestamp>1266343020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html" title="dailymail.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995</a> [dailymail.co.uk] </p><p>At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.</p><p> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8468358.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers</a> [bbc.co.uk] </p><p>How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?</p></div><p>So:
1. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995.  He said that it (barely) wasn't statistically significant since the time period was too short for the statistics (ie, not enough data).  Oddly enough, had they asked about 1994 or any year prior to 1995 the answer would have been yes.  So the question was pretty much a set up.

2. It appears that they did fully reply to the FOI request, giving Mr. Keenan all the data he asked for.  The data was also published on their website, so it's not like anybody couldn't find it.

3. The IPCC document is something like 2400 pages and so far there has only been one error found.  I'd be surprised if there aren't more.  I mean, look at your response: you only had about 4 sentences and two of them were incorrect.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits : There has been no global warming since 1995 [ dailymail.co.uk ] At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data .
UN climate body admits 'mistake ' on Himalayan glaciers [ bbc.co.uk ] How many more " mistakes " , falsifications , and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye ? So : 1 .
Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995 .
He said that it ( barely ) was n't statistically significant since the time period was too short for the statistics ( ie , not enough data ) .
Oddly enough , had they asked about 1994 or any year prior to 1995 the answer would have been yes .
So the question was pretty much a set up .
2. It appears that they did fully reply to the FOI request , giving Mr. Keenan all the data he asked for .
The data was also published on their website , so it 's not like anybody could n't find it .
3. The IPCC document is something like 2400 pages and so far there has only been one error found .
I 'd be surprised if there are n't more .
I mean , look at your response : you only had about 4 sentences and two of them were incorrect .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [dailymail.co.uk] At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.
UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers [bbc.co.uk] How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?So:
1.
Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995.
He said that it (barely) wasn't statistically significant since the time period was too short for the statistics (ie, not enough data).
Oddly enough, had they asked about 1994 or any year prior to 1995 the answer would have been yes.
So the question was pretty much a set up.
2. It appears that they did fully reply to the FOI request, giving Mr. Keenan all the data he asked for.
The data was also published on their website, so it's not like anybody couldn't find it.
3. The IPCC document is something like 2400 pages and so far there has only been one error found.
I'd be surprised if there aren't more.
I mean, look at your response: you only had about 4 sentences and two of them were incorrect.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163888</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1266335580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about <i>any</i> that are at all related to what GP mentioned?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about any that are at all related to what GP mentioned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about any that are at all related to what GP mentioned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168780</id>
	<title>Reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reality doesn't care whether or not you believe in it, and yet it still exists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality does n't care whether or not you believe in it , and yet it still exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reality doesn't care whether or not you believe in it, and yet it still exists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166408</id>
	<title>Snow in Florida = Global *Warming*...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, I'm kinda tired of the bitchy lil whiners in the NE US complaining about getting less snow that I saw in MN on *Halloween* one year... Get a grip! "Snowmagedon" my ass..</p><p>But..</p><p>I find it odd that my dad's science teacher in 1950s Chicago told him we'd see an ice age that could start in 2010, including snow in FL, and here we are, snow in FL... But it's due to "Global Warming"...</p><p>2 things strike me odd about this...</p><p>1. A science teacher in 1950s Chicago was better able to predict FL weather in 2010 than the local weather "expert" was 5 days before the snow..<br>2. Is it possible scientists and science teachers in the 1950s were just less politically motivated to preach the gospel according to special interests?</p><p>I'm not a climate change denier.. However, I do question all the "Chicken Little" behavior and fatalistic predictions of doom, and claims that CO2 *production* is more at fault than the crap big ag-business dumps into the rivers that kills CO2 filtering life in the gulfs/oceans.. or more at fault than all the agent orange the US sprays over central and south america because there *may* be some funny plants down there, and lil timmy may smoke a joint if we don't kill everything green down there...</p><p>Cars and power plants are easy scapegoats.. almost everyone has a car.. and everyone can be guilted about not turning a light off.. Not everyone has a feedlot in their back yard...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , I 'm kinda tired of the bitchy lil whiners in the NE US complaining about getting less snow that I saw in MN on * Halloween * one year... Get a grip !
" Snowmagedon " my ass..But..I find it odd that my dad 's science teacher in 1950s Chicago told him we 'd see an ice age that could start in 2010 , including snow in FL , and here we are , snow in FL... But it 's due to " Global Warming " ...2 things strike me odd about this...1 .
A science teacher in 1950s Chicago was better able to predict FL weather in 2010 than the local weather " expert " was 5 days before the snow..2 .
Is it possible scientists and science teachers in the 1950s were just less politically motivated to preach the gospel according to special interests ? I 'm not a climate change denier.. However , I do question all the " Chicken Little " behavior and fatalistic predictions of doom , and claims that CO2 * production * is more at fault than the crap big ag-business dumps into the rivers that kills CO2 filtering life in the gulfs/oceans.. or more at fault than all the agent orange the US sprays over central and south america because there * may * be some funny plants down there , and lil timmy may smoke a joint if we do n't kill everything green down there...Cars and power plants are easy scapegoats.. almost everyone has a car.. and everyone can be guilted about not turning a light off.. Not everyone has a feedlot in their back yard.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, I'm kinda tired of the bitchy lil whiners in the NE US complaining about getting less snow that I saw in MN on *Halloween* one year... Get a grip!
"Snowmagedon" my ass..But..I find it odd that my dad's science teacher in 1950s Chicago told him we'd see an ice age that could start in 2010, including snow in FL, and here we are, snow in FL... But it's due to "Global Warming"...2 things strike me odd about this...1.
A science teacher in 1950s Chicago was better able to predict FL weather in 2010 than the local weather "expert" was 5 days before the snow..2.
Is it possible scientists and science teachers in the 1950s were just less politically motivated to preach the gospel according to special interests?I'm not a climate change denier.. However, I do question all the "Chicken Little" behavior and fatalistic predictions of doom, and claims that CO2 *production* is more at fault than the crap big ag-business dumps into the rivers that kills CO2 filtering life in the gulfs/oceans.. or more at fault than all the agent orange the US sprays over central and south america because there *may* be some funny plants down there, and lil timmy may smoke a joint if we don't kill everything green down there...Cars and power plants are easy scapegoats.. almost everyone has a car.. and everyone can be guilted about not turning a light off.. Not everyone has a feedlot in their back yard...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164342</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three names come to mind: Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, for whom weather happily =ed climate when it suited them, and GW Bush, who pisses oil and farts carbon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three names come to mind : Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi , for whom weather happily = ed climate when it suited them , and GW Bush , who pisses oil and farts carbon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three names come to mind: Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, for whom weather happily =ed climate when it suited them, and GW Bush, who pisses oil and farts carbon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166210</id>
	<title>Conspiracy Theories</title>
	<author>grege1</author>
	<datestamp>1265057400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>On one hand we have thousands of climatologists from dozens of countries armed with super computers and the resources of government. They tell us we have a problem.

Arguing against them are a bunch of people, most of whom are not climatologists or even scientists, who do not have super computers or any data of their own. They argue that there is a worldwide conspiracy to falsify data. Thousands of scientists from Europe, Asia, Australasia and the Americas all working in harmony to defraud the world, to drive up taxes and bring down civilisation - all led by the anti-christ Al Gore.

Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand we have thousands of climatologists from dozens of countries armed with super computers and the resources of government .
They tell us we have a problem .
Arguing against them are a bunch of people , most of whom are not climatologists or even scientists , who do not have super computers or any data of their own .
They argue that there is a worldwide conspiracy to falsify data .
Thousands of scientists from Europe , Asia , Australasia and the Americas all working in harmony to defraud the world , to drive up taxes and bring down civilisation - all led by the anti-christ Al Gore .
Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand we have thousands of climatologists from dozens of countries armed with super computers and the resources of government.
They tell us we have a problem.
Arguing against them are a bunch of people, most of whom are not climatologists or even scientists, who do not have super computers or any data of their own.
They argue that there is a worldwide conspiracy to falsify data.
Thousands of scientists from Europe, Asia, Australasia and the Americas all working in harmony to defraud the world, to drive up taxes and bring down civilisation - all led by the anti-christ Al Gore.
Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>Jhon</author>
	<datestamp>1266337860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".</p><p>Now...  this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding.  Which means all new scientists entering the field will pick research were they can GET funding.  It's a feedback loop of bad science, in my opinion (not necessarily the research).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists When your " peers " appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny , actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published ( including threats to publishers ) , and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data , I 'd say we need to ask " Who Watches the Watchers " .Now... this does n't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding .
Which means all new scientists entering the field will pick research were they can GET funding .
It 's a feedback loop of bad science , in my opinion ( not necessarily the research ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The only opinions that count are expressed in peer-reviewed journals of climate scientists When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".Now...  this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding.
Which means all new scientists entering the field will pick research were they can GET funding.
It's a feedback loop of bad science, in my opinion (not necessarily the research).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165808</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>aonic</author>
	<datestamp>1266348720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have satellites doing centimeter-level laser altimetry with millimeter-level orbit determination flying around the globe every few hours measuring ocean height. When the data from those no longer correlates with the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, I will stop concerning myself with AGW. Same goes for the glacier ice levels.</p><p>Until then, you can talk about how much snow or the local temperature until you get bored. AGW doesn't try to predict any of those. It predicts that the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will increase the temperatures of the global climate (over decades). All the other anecdotes are secondary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have satellites doing centimeter-level laser altimetry with millimeter-level orbit determination flying around the globe every few hours measuring ocean height .
When the data from those no longer correlates with the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere , I will stop concerning myself with AGW .
Same goes for the glacier ice levels.Until then , you can talk about how much snow or the local temperature until you get bored .
AGW does n't try to predict any of those .
It predicts that the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will increase the temperatures of the global climate ( over decades ) .
All the other anecdotes are secondary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have satellites doing centimeter-level laser altimetry with millimeter-level orbit determination flying around the globe every few hours measuring ocean height.
When the data from those no longer correlates with the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, I will stop concerning myself with AGW.
Same goes for the glacier ice levels.Until then, you can talk about how much snow or the local temperature until you get bored.
AGW doesn't try to predict any of those.
It predicts that the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will increase the temperatures of the global climate (over decades).
All the other anecdotes are secondary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167610</id>
	<title>Re:Warmer years have more snow storms.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You guys are insisting on a local event, which has nothing to do with climatology. But if you insist... How do you explain the unusual snow falls in Europe this year, even in places like Italy where it never snows? How do you explain the unusual cold winter in China this year? All 3 caused by global warming? Come on, give me a break...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys are insisting on a local event , which has nothing to do with climatology .
But if you insist... How do you explain the unusual snow falls in Europe this year , even in places like Italy where it never snows ?
How do you explain the unusual cold winter in China this year ?
All 3 caused by global warming ?
Come on , give me a break.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys are insisting on a local event, which has nothing to do with climatology.
But if you insist... How do you explain the unusual snow falls in Europe this year, even in places like Italy where it never snows?
How do you explain the unusual cold winter in China this year?
All 3 caused by global warming?
Come on, give me a break...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164456</id>
	<title>Oh brother</title>
	<author>jav1231</author>
	<datestamp>1266339120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The IPCC document has be shown to be a joke. Everytime an error is found in the IPCC Al Gore should get a hemorrhoid.<br> <br>That said, take what's measurable, measure it. Take the data and vet it. Making scientific theory a cause-celebre can only bring trouble. And it has.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The IPCC document has be shown to be a joke .
Everytime an error is found in the IPCC Al Gore should get a hemorrhoid .
That said , take what 's measurable , measure it .
Take the data and vet it .
Making scientific theory a cause-celebre can only bring trouble .
And it has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IPCC document has be shown to be a joke.
Everytime an error is found in the IPCC Al Gore should get a hemorrhoid.
That said, take what's measurable, measure it.
Take the data and vet it.
Making scientific theory a cause-celebre can only bring trouble.
And it has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163916</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1266335820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, those two incidents themselves don't disprove global warming.  Generally the world has been warming for a while now.  The question really centers around the cause of it.  Is it natural or man made?  That's the real debate.  The other big question is can we reverse the trend and what would it take to do so?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , those two incidents themselves do n't disprove global warming .
Generally the world has been warming for a while now .
The question really centers around the cause of it .
Is it natural or man made ?
That 's the real debate .
The other big question is can we reverse the trend and what would it take to do so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, those two incidents themselves don't disprove global warming.
Generally the world has been warming for a while now.
The question really centers around the cause of it.
Is it natural or man made?
That's the real debate.
The other big question is can we reverse the trend and what would it take to do so?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167356</id>
	<title>mini ice age</title>
	<author>Ofloo</author>
	<datestamp>1265027760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need to be a moron to not see this coming, in the end we'll end up in mini ice age, how else would you explain all that ice,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. during the age of the dinosaur it was a lot warmer and they had an ice age didn't they? Why would it be any different now,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and in 2012 we get a solar boost, because the suns quiet period is ending by then. So there will be even more heat and so more water will vapor,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and we'll get even more snow..</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to be a moron to not see this coming , in the end we 'll end up in mini ice age , how else would you explain all that ice , .. during the age of the dinosaur it was a lot warmer and they had an ice age did n't they ?
Why would it be any different now , .. and in 2012 we get a solar boost , because the suns quiet period is ending by then .
So there will be even more heat and so more water will vapor , .. and we 'll get even more snow. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to be a moron to not see this coming, in the end we'll end up in mini ice age, how else would you explain all that ice, .. during the age of the dinosaur it was a lot warmer and they had an ice age didn't they?
Why would it be any different now, .. and in 2012 we get a solar boost, because the suns quiet period is ending by then.
So there will be even more heat and so more water will vapor, .. and we'll get even more snow..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164522</id>
	<title>The "debate" is just a confidence trick</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1266339480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "debate" doesn't exist, it's just PR firms and confidence tricksters making money by telling people what they want to hear.<br>The scandals here are as relevant as thinking that whatever a police photographer paid for lunch after taking a photo of a crime scene has any bearing on the murder they photographed.<br>If you think scientists are all evil tricksters then go talk to an old farmer or someone that has been involved with a ski resort for decades.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " debate " does n't exist , it 's just PR firms and confidence tricksters making money by telling people what they want to hear.The scandals here are as relevant as thinking that whatever a police photographer paid for lunch after taking a photo of a crime scene has any bearing on the murder they photographed.If you think scientists are all evil tricksters then go talk to an old farmer or someone that has been involved with a ski resort for decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "debate" doesn't exist, it's just PR firms and confidence tricksters making money by telling people what they want to hear.The scandals here are as relevant as thinking that whatever a police photographer paid for lunch after taking a photo of a crime scene has any bearing on the murder they photographed.If you think scientists are all evil tricksters then go talk to an old farmer or someone that has been involved with a ski resort for decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164060</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Paua Fritter</author>
	<datestamp>1266336660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995" headline is simply false. That's not what Professor Jones said at all, and in fact if you'd bothered to read the article you linked to, you'd know that.</p><p>Actually it <i>has</i> warmed, but he said the warming was not statistically significant at the 95\% confidence level. I assume most people on Slashdot will know what that means, even if the headline writer at the Daily Mail (and you) do not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits : There has been no global warming since 1995 " headline is simply false .
That 's not what Professor Jones said at all , and in fact if you 'd bothered to read the article you linked to , you 'd know that.Actually it has warmed , but he said the warming was not statistically significant at the 95 \ % confidence level .
I assume most people on Slashdot will know what that means , even if the headline writer at the Daily Mail ( and you ) do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995" headline is simply false.
That's not what Professor Jones said at all, and in fact if you'd bothered to read the article you linked to, you'd know that.Actually it has warmed, but he said the warming was not statistically significant at the 95\% confidence level.
I assume most people on Slashdot will know what that means, even if the headline writer at the Daily Mail (and you) do not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31173490</id>
	<title>Re:weather is different than climate</title>
	<author>abionnnn</author>
	<datestamp>1265053500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right!</p><p>It's climate when it's warming and it's weather when it's cooling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right ! It 's climate when it 's warming and it 's weather when it 's cooling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right!It's climate when it's warming and it's weather when it's cooling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164376</id>
	<title>Re:I think it's Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, yes! One of those sides is disregarding the truth for political ends. I think we can all agree on that.</p><p>Now, let's have fun deciding which side it is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yes !
One of those sides is disregarding the truth for political ends .
I think we can all agree on that.Now , let 's have fun deciding which side it is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yes!
One of those sides is disregarding the truth for political ends.
I think we can all agree on that.Now, let's have fun deciding which side it is!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168990</id>
	<title>Re:Sherlock Holmes</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265039280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Global Warming strikes me as having way too many parallels to a religion to accept it at face value. I used to work with a environmentalist who was one of its ministers, in fact. It has its own apocalyptic scenario, its true believers can retroactively adjust their arguments to account for any contradictory data, and it even has its own Pope (Al Gore).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Global Warming strikes me as having way too many parallels to a religion to accept it at face value .
I used to work with a environmentalist who was one of its ministers , in fact .
It has its own apocalyptic scenario , its true believers can retroactively adjust their arguments to account for any contradictory data , and it even has its own Pope ( Al Gore ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global Warming strikes me as having way too many parallels to a religion to accept it at face value.
I used to work with a environmentalist who was one of its ministers, in fact.
It has its own apocalyptic scenario, its true believers can retroactively adjust their arguments to account for any contradictory data, and it even has its own Pope (Al Gore).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164098</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1266336900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The IPCC did royally frak up on the himalayan glaciers, that is indisputable.  However, the DailyMail distorted the issue <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-Phil-Jones-really-say-global-warming-ended-in-1995.html" title="skepticalscience.com">to its own ends.</a> [skepticalscience.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The IPCC did royally frak up on the himalayan glaciers , that is indisputable .
However , the DailyMail distorted the issue to its own ends .
[ skepticalscience.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IPCC did royally frak up on the himalayan glaciers, that is indisputable.
However, the DailyMail distorted the issue to its own ends.
[skepticalscience.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164878</id>
	<title>Nice try</title>
	<author>thatskinnyguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266342120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, DC, for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming</p></div><p>Like last week? That came from the West.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington , DC , for instance , is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warmingLike last week ?
That came from the West .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, DC, for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warmingLike last week?
That came from the West.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164192</id>
	<title>Re:Or not</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1266337440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read in a children's science book written 20 years ago about how global warming could make places like Africa more temperate. It even had the map of predicted temperature change, showing large swaths cooling and others warming.</p><p>This has been known for a long time. The only reason scientists are reminding others of it now is because of all the blowhards over at Fox et.al that are too stupid to comprehend the difference between global climate and local weather (with a healthy dose of long-term trends vs. short-term outliers).</p><p>This stuff really isn't that complicated. Most people are taught the basics of climate in like 6th grade. The only way somebody couldn't understand it is if they were abjectly stupid, or had an agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read in a children 's science book written 20 years ago about how global warming could make places like Africa more temperate .
It even had the map of predicted temperature change , showing large swaths cooling and others warming.This has been known for a long time .
The only reason scientists are reminding others of it now is because of all the blowhards over at Fox et.al that are too stupid to comprehend the difference between global climate and local weather ( with a healthy dose of long-term trends vs. short-term outliers ) .This stuff really is n't that complicated .
Most people are taught the basics of climate in like 6th grade .
The only way somebody could n't understand it is if they were abjectly stupid , or had an agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read in a children's science book written 20 years ago about how global warming could make places like Africa more temperate.
It even had the map of predicted temperature change, showing large swaths cooling and others warming.This has been known for a long time.
The only reason scientists are reminding others of it now is because of all the blowhards over at Fox et.al that are too stupid to comprehend the difference between global climate and local weather (with a healthy dose of long-term trends vs. short-term outliers).This stuff really isn't that complicated.
Most people are taught the basics of climate in like 6th grade.
The only way somebody couldn't understand it is if they were abjectly stupid, or had an agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164532</id>
	<title>/.'s new right bend is terrifying to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266339540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please, "what's-in-it-for-me?-republicans": please move along and stop polluting my slashdot.  Deny global warming all you want to 'prove' us libtards wrong.  Whatever makes you feel better, just do it <b>somewhere else</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , " what 's-in-it-for-me ? -republicans " : please move along and stop polluting my slashdot .
Deny global warming all you want to 'prove ' us libtards wrong .
Whatever makes you feel better , just do it somewhere else</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, "what's-in-it-for-me?-republicans": please move along and stop polluting my slashdot.
Deny global warming all you want to 'prove' us libtards wrong.
Whatever makes you feel better, just do it somewhere else</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164000</id>
	<title>Sometimes it seems pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266336360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A guy I know ran with this today and was going on and on about it, going off about how climate-change advocates were such idiots and how this was a huge slap in the face for them, etc etc. He tried to sound really educated about it, talking laws of thermodynamics and saturation of 14.77 micron absorbtion and so on. I countered all his points but he wouldn't let up, of course selectively responding to the stuff I countered with and bringing up some new zany thing each time. I ran out of energy to deal with him, and was simply reminded of why I never really liked the guy.</p><p>It's unfortunate to let him have the last word, as of course all his fan-club will read the thread (I confess... this was on Facebook) and of course they will all just see it as a victory and continue to reinforce each others' delusion... but I really don't see how I could ever change his or any of their minds on the subject. My only real hope is that all these curmudgeons with their lazy conservative and antiquated views on things will eventually die off in time for the newer generation of educated youth to step in and hopefully turn things around in time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A guy I know ran with this today and was going on and on about it , going off about how climate-change advocates were such idiots and how this was a huge slap in the face for them , etc etc .
He tried to sound really educated about it , talking laws of thermodynamics and saturation of 14.77 micron absorbtion and so on .
I countered all his points but he would n't let up , of course selectively responding to the stuff I countered with and bringing up some new zany thing each time .
I ran out of energy to deal with him , and was simply reminded of why I never really liked the guy.It 's unfortunate to let him have the last word , as of course all his fan-club will read the thread ( I confess... this was on Facebook ) and of course they will all just see it as a victory and continue to reinforce each others ' delusion... but I really do n't see how I could ever change his or any of their minds on the subject .
My only real hope is that all these curmudgeons with their lazy conservative and antiquated views on things will eventually die off in time for the newer generation of educated youth to step in and hopefully turn things around in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A guy I know ran with this today and was going on and on about it, going off about how climate-change advocates were such idiots and how this was a huge slap in the face for them, etc etc.
He tried to sound really educated about it, talking laws of thermodynamics and saturation of 14.77 micron absorbtion and so on.
I countered all his points but he wouldn't let up, of course selectively responding to the stuff I countered with and bringing up some new zany thing each time.
I ran out of energy to deal with him, and was simply reminded of why I never really liked the guy.It's unfortunate to let him have the last word, as of course all his fan-club will read the thread (I confess... this was on Facebook) and of course they will all just see it as a victory and continue to reinforce each others' delusion... but I really don't see how I could ever change his or any of their minds on the subject.
My only real hope is that all these curmudgeons with their lazy conservative and antiquated views on things will eventually die off in time for the newer generation of educated youth to step in and hopefully turn things around in time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167042</id>
	<title>Phenomenological adjustments of constants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As for the physics itself, I worked out quite a good deal, and it was sensible. It was worked out and verified by other people later. I decided, though, that I had so many parameters that I had to adjust - too much "phenomenological adjustment of constants" to make everything fit - that I couldn't be sure it was very useful."<br>Richard P. Feynman</p><p>At the moment i hold the same position as Feynman had about his physics, regarding AGW. It does make sense, but i think that the eevidence is not entirely convincing. You Know the claims(we are all doomed) are quiet extraordinary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As for the physics itself , I worked out quite a good deal , and it was sensible .
It was worked out and verified by other people later .
I decided , though , that I had so many parameters that I had to adjust - too much " phenomenological adjustment of constants " to make everything fit - that I could n't be sure it was very useful .
" Richard P. FeynmanAt the moment i hold the same position as Feynman had about his physics , regarding AGW .
It does make sense , but i think that the eevidence is not entirely convincing .
You Know the claims ( we are all doomed ) are quiet extraordinary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As for the physics itself, I worked out quite a good deal, and it was sensible.
It was worked out and verified by other people later.
I decided, though, that I had so many parameters that I had to adjust - too much "phenomenological adjustment of constants" to make everything fit - that I couldn't be sure it was very useful.
"Richard P. FeynmanAt the moment i hold the same position as Feynman had about his physics, regarding AGW.
It does make sense, but i think that the eevidence is not entirely convincing.
You Know the claims(we are all doomed) are quiet extraordinary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166062</id>
	<title>Points</title>
	<author>thetekwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1265055540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  It snowed 3 inches in South Alabama this weekend less than 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico.<br>2.  Temperature has more to do with the SUN -- our source of HEAT.<br>3.  Volcano eruptions go up, temperatures go down.  Volcano eruptions don't happen, temperatures go up.<br>4.  Scientists are refusing to release their raw data on climate change.<br>5.  "Global Warming" is a buzzword to get funding from the NSF.<br>6.  If you have to use the word "believe" in a scientific discussion, you shouldn't be talking about it.</p><p>If you don't know what I'm talking about, go look it up.  Do some research on your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
It snowed 3 inches in South Alabama this weekend less than 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico.2 .
Temperature has more to do with the SUN -- our source of HEAT.3 .
Volcano eruptions go up , temperatures go down .
Volcano eruptions do n't happen , temperatures go up.4 .
Scientists are refusing to release their raw data on climate change.5 .
" Global Warming " is a buzzword to get funding from the NSF.6 .
If you have to use the word " believe " in a scientific discussion , you should n't be talking about it.If you do n't know what I 'm talking about , go look it up .
Do some research on your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
It snowed 3 inches in South Alabama this weekend less than 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico.2.
Temperature has more to do with the SUN -- our source of HEAT.3.
Volcano eruptions go up, temperatures go down.
Volcano eruptions don't happen, temperatures go up.4.
Scientists are refusing to release their raw data on climate change.5.
"Global Warming" is a buzzword to get funding from the NSF.6.
If you have to use the word "believe" in a scientific discussion, you shouldn't be talking about it.If you don't know what I'm talking about, go look it up.
Do some research on your own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164132</id>
	<title>Nothing New...</title>
	<author>goobenet</author>
	<datestamp>1266337080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Climate Change is real... This climate is called WINTER. The next change we'll experience is called SPRING...

Move along Folks, nothing to see here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate Change is real... This climate is called WINTER .
The next change we 'll experience is called SPRING.. . Move along Folks , nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate Change is real... This climate is called WINTER.
The next change we'll experience is called SPRING...

Move along Folks, nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164796</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266341580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya, no global warming since 1995, but in the last 15 years the island of Sagar has been losing ground to rising oceans. If you want a citation check the post above, &amp; there's also a story about it on npr.org</p><p>The debate among scientists has NEVER been about IF the planet is getting warmer. The debate has been how fast it is actually warming, and how much of that is caused by humans as opposed to the natural warming cycle. We KNOW it's getting warmer, and has been doing so since the end of the last Ice Age (which we're technically still not quite out of yet).</p><p>I really don't know fuck-all about Himalayan glaciers. Never been there. Seen some nice pictures. Whee.<br>But I HAVE seen the glaciers in North America. Or at least what's left of them. I've looked at the actual photos taken in Glacier National Park a good number of years ago, and stood on that same exact spot within the last 5 years... any body who tries to say the glaciers aren't receding needs to do the same.</p><p>I'm not a total moron, so I understand that <i>weather</i> is not necessarily an indicator of the <i>climate</i>. Which is why Sagar Island (and others) are such a good data point. Sea level is the same around the planet, it's not higher in some spots than others... and when the sea level goes up, it's because of one thing... more water in the oceans. And there are only two places to get more water... glaciers and off-planet.</p><p>So unless you're saying that aliens have been using the earth to dump extraterrestrial water, you need to shut the fuck up &amp; spend your time getting an education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya , no global warming since 1995 , but in the last 15 years the island of Sagar has been losing ground to rising oceans .
If you want a citation check the post above , &amp; there 's also a story about it on npr.orgThe debate among scientists has NEVER been about IF the planet is getting warmer .
The debate has been how fast it is actually warming , and how much of that is caused by humans as opposed to the natural warming cycle .
We KNOW it 's getting warmer , and has been doing so since the end of the last Ice Age ( which we 're technically still not quite out of yet ) .I really do n't know fuck-all about Himalayan glaciers .
Never been there .
Seen some nice pictures .
Whee.But I HAVE seen the glaciers in North America .
Or at least what 's left of them .
I 've looked at the actual photos taken in Glacier National Park a good number of years ago , and stood on that same exact spot within the last 5 years... any body who tries to say the glaciers are n't receding needs to do the same.I 'm not a total moron , so I understand that weather is not necessarily an indicator of the climate .
Which is why Sagar Island ( and others ) are such a good data point .
Sea level is the same around the planet , it 's not higher in some spots than others... and when the sea level goes up , it 's because of one thing... more water in the oceans .
And there are only two places to get more water... glaciers and off-planet.So unless you 're saying that aliens have been using the earth to dump extraterrestrial water , you need to shut the fuck up &amp; spend your time getting an education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya, no global warming since 1995, but in the last 15 years the island of Sagar has been losing ground to rising oceans.
If you want a citation check the post above, &amp; there's also a story about it on npr.orgThe debate among scientists has NEVER been about IF the planet is getting warmer.
The debate has been how fast it is actually warming, and how much of that is caused by humans as opposed to the natural warming cycle.
We KNOW it's getting warmer, and has been doing so since the end of the last Ice Age (which we're technically still not quite out of yet).I really don't know fuck-all about Himalayan glaciers.
Never been there.
Seen some nice pictures.
Whee.But I HAVE seen the glaciers in North America.
Or at least what's left of them.
I've looked at the actual photos taken in Glacier National Park a good number of years ago, and stood on that same exact spot within the last 5 years... any body who tries to say the glaciers aren't receding needs to do the same.I'm not a total moron, so I understand that weather is not necessarily an indicator of the climate.
Which is why Sagar Island (and others) are such a good data point.
Sea level is the same around the planet, it's not higher in some spots than others... and when the sea level goes up, it's because of one thing... more water in the oceans.
And there are only two places to get more water... glaciers and off-planet.So unless you're saying that aliens have been using the earth to dump extraterrestrial water, you need to shut the fuck up &amp; spend your time getting an education.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164802</id>
	<title>Re:Or not</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266341640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel stupid even responding these idiotic claims but I'll do it anyway.</p><p>Last year the pacific northwest got record snow.  Why?  Because of a freak cold front which brought in far more arctic air.   We normally get *rain* but the shift in weather patterns brought about unusually cold air.  It's normally too warm to snow.   Any extra warming will cause the temperature to rise well above freezing.  This is why I've been able to go for bike rides in a T-Shirt and Shorts this winter.</p><p>Meanwhile you have the east coast.  The east coast is subject to dramatically different temperatures during the winter.  What is normally very very cold. Bone chilling cold warmed up enough to hit the sweet spot.</p><p>So yes.   Warming can cause reduced snow fall AND increased snow fall based on what temperature the warming starts from.   For instance Antartica should expect an INCREASE in snow fall since its winter temperatures are so far below freezing that very little moisture can stay in the air.</p><p>If the optimal snow fall range is -10C to 0C but anything over 0C results in rain then even a retarted chimpanzee can understand why warming can change the average temperature outside of the "snow range".</p><p>This principle is even known by school children without understanding the principle.  "We're never going to have a snow day!  It always rains when it's too warm and then is clear when it's cold enough!"   I can't count how many times in my life I've lamented this fact.  "If only all this rain was here yesterday when it was cold enough we would have a snow day!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel stupid even responding these idiotic claims but I 'll do it anyway.Last year the pacific northwest got record snow .
Why ? Because of a freak cold front which brought in far more arctic air .
We normally get * rain * but the shift in weather patterns brought about unusually cold air .
It 's normally too warm to snow .
Any extra warming will cause the temperature to rise well above freezing .
This is why I 've been able to go for bike rides in a T-Shirt and Shorts this winter.Meanwhile you have the east coast .
The east coast is subject to dramatically different temperatures during the winter .
What is normally very very cold .
Bone chilling cold warmed up enough to hit the sweet spot.So yes .
Warming can cause reduced snow fall AND increased snow fall based on what temperature the warming starts from .
For instance Antartica should expect an INCREASE in snow fall since its winter temperatures are so far below freezing that very little moisture can stay in the air.If the optimal snow fall range is -10C to 0C but anything over 0C results in rain then even a retarted chimpanzee can understand why warming can change the average temperature outside of the " snow range " .This principle is even known by school children without understanding the principle .
" We 're never going to have a snow day !
It always rains when it 's too warm and then is clear when it 's cold enough !
" I ca n't count how many times in my life I 've lamented this fact .
" If only all this rain was here yesterday when it was cold enough we would have a snow day !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel stupid even responding these idiotic claims but I'll do it anyway.Last year the pacific northwest got record snow.
Why?  Because of a freak cold front which brought in far more arctic air.
We normally get *rain* but the shift in weather patterns brought about unusually cold air.
It's normally too warm to snow.
Any extra warming will cause the temperature to rise well above freezing.
This is why I've been able to go for bike rides in a T-Shirt and Shorts this winter.Meanwhile you have the east coast.
The east coast is subject to dramatically different temperatures during the winter.
What is normally very very cold.
Bone chilling cold warmed up enough to hit the sweet spot.So yes.
Warming can cause reduced snow fall AND increased snow fall based on what temperature the warming starts from.
For instance Antartica should expect an INCREASE in snow fall since its winter temperatures are so far below freezing that very little moisture can stay in the air.If the optimal snow fall range is -10C to 0C but anything over 0C results in rain then even a retarted chimpanzee can understand why warming can change the average temperature outside of the "snow range".This principle is even known by school children without understanding the principle.
"We're never going to have a snow day!
It always rains when it's too warm and then is clear when it's cold enough!
"   I can't count how many times in my life I've lamented this fact.
"If only all this rain was here yesterday when it was cold enough we would have a snow day!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168670</id>
	<title>Science?</title>
	<author>sparhawktn</author>
	<datestamp>1265038020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no science for this myth of global warming and just calling it a new name doesn't make it right either.  There is no way to take the data and say what the Earth's normal temperature should be.  The only climate change we have is called SEASONS and every year it can be different.  There Earth drifts a little bit closer to the Sun, a lot of volcanic activity, massive forest fires all of these have happened in the past affecting the climate and the Earth did pretty well to recover.

For all of you so called global warming "scientists" out there drinking the blue cool aid and getting 10 seconds of fame on some news shows you are idiots now and forever more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no science for this myth of global warming and just calling it a new name does n't make it right either .
There is no way to take the data and say what the Earth 's normal temperature should be .
The only climate change we have is called SEASONS and every year it can be different .
There Earth drifts a little bit closer to the Sun , a lot of volcanic activity , massive forest fires all of these have happened in the past affecting the climate and the Earth did pretty well to recover .
For all of you so called global warming " scientists " out there drinking the blue cool aid and getting 10 seconds of fame on some news shows you are idiots now and forever more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no science for this myth of global warming and just calling it a new name doesn't make it right either.
There is no way to take the data and say what the Earth's normal temperature should be.
The only climate change we have is called SEASONS and every year it can be different.
There Earth drifts a little bit closer to the Sun, a lot of volcanic activity, massive forest fires all of these have happened in the past affecting the climate and the Earth did pretty well to recover.
For all of you so called global warming "scientists" out there drinking the blue cool aid and getting 10 seconds of fame on some news shows you are idiots now and forever more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164302</id>
	<title>Re:weather is different than climate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And anyway it doesn't say anything about human-caused warming since we know the planet has gone through many warming and cooling cycles naturally.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm really glad you pointed this out. I only wish all these ridiculous climatologists (the very people who discovered this fact!) would realize that the existence of natural cooling and warming cycles means it is impossible that humans could cause a warming cycle. I mean, the two things are clearly mutually exclusive!  Silly climatologists! If only they listened to Slashdotters...

</p><p>I'm not sure if that's the argument you're trying to make -- I apologize, if not -- but it is a very common one that (Earth undergoes natural climate cycles) -&gt; !(Humans are causing global warming.) It's the exact same kind of reasoning that created the LOOK SNOW! -&gt; !Global warming argument. This is indeed only a smidgen of evidence being added to the massive corpus of ACC -- by itself, it means nothing. But unfortunately, even if we had time to change things, there is no amount of proof that will convince that majority of deniers -- because no matter what happens, even if the physical evidence becomes overwhelmingly obvious to laypersons, they will just blame natural cycles and claim that it's probably a good thing anyway, in total ignorance of the degree of social problems it would cause. Anybody who disagrees will be accused of faking data or being involved in a massive global conspiracy to make money (nevermind that, say, Exxon makes more profit in one year than the entire budget of all climatologists in ten), and nobody will pay attention when independent audits confirm that nothing whatsoever untoward occurred, as they did with the East Anglia email incident. Hyperbolic public accusations are news, serious exonerations are not, and people will go on repeating discredited accusations until the end of the world.

</p><p>It's a sad state of affairs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And anyway it does n't say anything about human-caused warming since we know the planet has gone through many warming and cooling cycles naturally.I 'm really glad you pointed this out .
I only wish all these ridiculous climatologists ( the very people who discovered this fact !
) would realize that the existence of natural cooling and warming cycles means it is impossible that humans could cause a warming cycle .
I mean , the two things are clearly mutually exclusive !
Silly climatologists !
If only they listened to Slashdotters.. . I 'm not sure if that 's the argument you 're trying to make -- I apologize , if not -- but it is a very common one that ( Earth undergoes natural climate cycles ) - &gt; !
( Humans are causing global warming .
) It 's the exact same kind of reasoning that created the LOOK SNOW !
- &gt; ! Global warming argument .
This is indeed only a smidgen of evidence being added to the massive corpus of ACC -- by itself , it means nothing .
But unfortunately , even if we had time to change things , there is no amount of proof that will convince that majority of deniers -- because no matter what happens , even if the physical evidence becomes overwhelmingly obvious to laypersons , they will just blame natural cycles and claim that it 's probably a good thing anyway , in total ignorance of the degree of social problems it would cause .
Anybody who disagrees will be accused of faking data or being involved in a massive global conspiracy to make money ( nevermind that , say , Exxon makes more profit in one year than the entire budget of all climatologists in ten ) , and nobody will pay attention when independent audits confirm that nothing whatsoever untoward occurred , as they did with the East Anglia email incident .
Hyperbolic public accusations are news , serious exonerations are not , and people will go on repeating discredited accusations until the end of the world .
It 's a sad state of affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And anyway it doesn't say anything about human-caused warming since we know the planet has gone through many warming and cooling cycles naturally.I'm really glad you pointed this out.
I only wish all these ridiculous climatologists (the very people who discovered this fact!
) would realize that the existence of natural cooling and warming cycles means it is impossible that humans could cause a warming cycle.
I mean, the two things are clearly mutually exclusive!
Silly climatologists!
If only they listened to Slashdotters...

I'm not sure if that's the argument you're trying to make -- I apologize, if not -- but it is a very common one that (Earth undergoes natural climate cycles) -&gt; !
(Humans are causing global warming.
) It's the exact same kind of reasoning that created the LOOK SNOW!
-&gt; !Global warming argument.
This is indeed only a smidgen of evidence being added to the massive corpus of ACC -- by itself, it means nothing.
But unfortunately, even if we had time to change things, there is no amount of proof that will convince that majority of deniers -- because no matter what happens, even if the physical evidence becomes overwhelmingly obvious to laypersons, they will just blame natural cycles and claim that it's probably a good thing anyway, in total ignorance of the degree of social problems it would cause.
Anybody who disagrees will be accused of faking data or being involved in a massive global conspiracy to make money (nevermind that, say, Exxon makes more profit in one year than the entire budget of all climatologists in ten), and nobody will pay attention when independent audits confirm that nothing whatsoever untoward occurred, as they did with the East Anglia email incident.
Hyperbolic public accusations are news, serious exonerations are not, and people will go on repeating discredited accusations until the end of the world.
It's a sad state of affairs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165454</id>
	<title>More Snow == YAY!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More snow is good. Living in Alaska I appreciate skiing and other snow sports a lot.<br>And I don't mind shoveling it or driving in it either.</p><p>Maybe the out of towners will complain less and drive better too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More snow is good .
Living in Alaska I appreciate skiing and other snow sports a lot.And I do n't mind shoveling it or driving in it either.Maybe the out of towners will complain less and drive better too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More snow is good.
Living in Alaska I appreciate skiing and other snow sports a lot.And I don't mind shoveling it or driving in it either.Maybe the out of towners will complain less and drive better too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166606</id>
	<title>Re:Sometimes it seems pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly?</p><p>So... you are at least as convinced as 'that guy' that you are *right* but lack the tenacity to persue the argument until mutual understanding is achieved?  Your the Lazy One!  Hahaha!  AND you're lamenting defeat!  Really-really funny!</p><p>"You reach a conclusion when you're tired of thinking"</p><p>The 'Educated Youth' are just the "curmudgeons" of Tomorrow - and as far as I can tell, generation Y is far lazier than gen-X... or those who came before.</p><p>How do young people full of dreams and passion turn into Zombies?  Eat The Party Politics - as you have clearly been doing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly ? So... you are at least as convinced as 'that guy ' that you are * right * but lack the tenacity to persue the argument until mutual understanding is achieved ?
Your the Lazy One !
Hahaha ! AND you 're lamenting defeat !
Really-really funny !
" You reach a conclusion when you 're tired of thinking " The 'Educated Youth ' are just the " curmudgeons " of Tomorrow - and as far as I can tell , generation Y is far lazier than gen-X... or those who came before.How do young people full of dreams and passion turn into Zombies ?
Eat The Party Politics - as you have clearly been doing : -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly?So... you are at least as convinced as 'that guy' that you are *right* but lack the tenacity to persue the argument until mutual understanding is achieved?
Your the Lazy One!
Hahaha!  AND you're lamenting defeat!
Really-really funny!
"You reach a conclusion when you're tired of thinking"The 'Educated Youth' are just the "curmudgeons" of Tomorrow - and as far as I can tell, generation Y is far lazier than gen-X... or those who came before.How do young people full of dreams and passion turn into Zombies?
Eat The Party Politics - as you have clearly been doing :-D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172150</id>
	<title>It's all about the money</title>
	<author>orient</author>
	<datestamp>1265049420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When there are money to be made from denying the reality, somebody will be there claiming the egg is a perfect cube.
<br> <br>
It's doesn't really matter if the climate is warming or not, it matters that somebody makes money from burning fossil fuels and they will advocate against the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and somebody makes money from creating "green" technologies and they will advocate pro the reduction of greenhouse gas emission.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When there are money to be made from denying the reality , somebody will be there claiming the egg is a perfect cube .
It 's does n't really matter if the climate is warming or not , it matters that somebody makes money from burning fossil fuels and they will advocate against the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and somebody makes money from creating " green " technologies and they will advocate pro the reduction of greenhouse gas emission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When there are money to be made from denying the reality, somebody will be there claiming the egg is a perfect cube.
It's doesn't really matter if the climate is warming or not, it matters that somebody makes money from burning fossil fuels and they will advocate against the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and somebody makes money from creating "green" technologies and they will advocate pro the reduction of greenhouse gas emission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168282</id>
	<title>One isolated event proving or disproving a theory</title>
	<author>gatkinso</author>
	<datestamp>1265036280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*facepalm*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* facepalm *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*facepalm*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179832</id>
	<title>Re:Makes no difference</title>
	<author>OnomatopoeiaSound</author>
	<datestamp>1265040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, ya. The data is out there. In my little neck of the woods all the data from weatherstations about... 50 years back or so all show a general increase in the temperature and decrease in precipitation that is consistent for the theory of global warming (at least in my climate). I know that 50 years is small in the scheme of things but the data is there. And I also know that global warming would increase the precipitation in other areas, but in my section of the world we tend to a drier climate so it will decrease overall. Snow will generally increase a bit overall as warmer air holds more water than cold air.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , ya .
The data is out there .
In my little neck of the woods all the data from weatherstations about... 50 years back or so all show a general increase in the temperature and decrease in precipitation that is consistent for the theory of global warming ( at least in my climate ) .
I know that 50 years is small in the scheme of things but the data is there .
And I also know that global warming would increase the precipitation in other areas , but in my section of the world we tend to a drier climate so it will decrease overall .
Snow will generally increase a bit overall as warmer air holds more water than cold air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, ya.
The data is out there.
In my little neck of the woods all the data from weatherstations about... 50 years back or so all show a general increase in the temperature and decrease in precipitation that is consistent for the theory of global warming (at least in my climate).
I know that 50 years is small in the scheme of things but the data is there.
And I also know that global warming would increase the precipitation in other areas, but in my section of the world we tend to a drier climate so it will decrease overall.
Snow will generally increase a bit overall as warmer air holds more water than cold air.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164736</id>
	<title>Makes no difference</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1266341160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".</p></div><p>It makes absolutely no difference how scientists appear to have acted because their results can be objectively checked. If Greenpeace paid me to say that e=mc^2, it wouldn't change the correctness of the theory one bit.</p><p>If scientists falsified temperature data it would be trivially easy to check. The data is available from the national weather services to anyone willing to sign the agreements and pay the fees. Anyone can watch the watchers. Yet all we get are discussions of "appearances" and insinuations.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now... this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding.</p></div><p>There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. In fact, if you read up the thread you'll find a petition that claims to represent 31,000 working (in other words, funded) scientists who run counter to the "group think." Can't have it both ways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When your " peers " appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny , actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published ( including threats to publishers ) , and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data , I 'd say we need to ask " Who Watches the Watchers " .It makes absolutely no difference how scientists appear to have acted because their results can be objectively checked .
If Greenpeace paid me to say that e = mc ^ 2 , it would n't change the correctness of the theory one bit.If scientists falsified temperature data it would be trivially easy to check .
The data is available from the national weather services to anyone willing to sign the agreements and pay the fees .
Anyone can watch the watchers .
Yet all we get are discussions of " appearances " and insinuations.Now... this does n't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding.There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case .
In fact , if you read up the thread you 'll find a petition that claims to represent 31,000 working ( in other words , funded ) scientists who run counter to the " group think .
" Ca n't have it both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When your "peers" appear to have been actively engaged in hiding their data from public scrutiny, actively engaged in quashing any dissenting papers from getting published (including threats to publishers), and have appeared to have outright lied about positions and movements of temp recording data, I'd say we need to ask "Who Watches the Watchers".It makes absolutely no difference how scientists appear to have acted because their results can be objectively checked.
If Greenpeace paid me to say that e=mc^2, it wouldn't change the correctness of the theory one bit.If scientists falsified temperature data it would be trivially easy to check.
The data is available from the national weather services to anyone willing to sign the agreements and pay the fees.
Anyone can watch the watchers.
Yet all we get are discussions of "appearances" and insinuations.Now... this doesn't even address the insidious side effect of this behavior... that no new research in to theories which are counter to the current group think get funding.There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case.
In fact, if you read up the thread you'll find a petition that claims to represent 31,000 working (in other words, funded) scientists who run counter to the "group think.
" Can't have it both ways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</id>
	<title>The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>dcavanaugh</author>
	<datestamp>1266335280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html" title="dailymail.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995</a> [dailymail.co.uk]</p><p>At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8468358.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits : There has been no global warming since 1995 [ dailymail.co.uk ] At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.UN climate body admits 'mistake ' on Himalayan glaciers [ bbc.co.uk ] How many more " mistakes " , falsifications , and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [dailymail.co.uk]At least now we know why they were illegally denying FOI requests for their data.UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers [bbc.co.uk]How many more "mistakes", falsifications, and fabrications need to be exposed before this scam goes buh-bye?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166126</id>
	<title>Anti-Intellectuals Easiest To Fool</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1265056320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Anti-intellectual is the easiest to stir up into a fervour, simply state that something threatens their rut and they will ignore all facts and all common sense in their mad crusade to destroy whatever they have perceived as a threat.<br> <br>

Oddly enough, you accuse Scientists of fear mongering when the media driving the anti-intellectual movement uses the exact same method and gets away with it.<br> <br>

The ages old "X will raise taxes" is the most widely used anti-climate change argument, also the most transparent and entirely based on fear mongering. Yet the somnabulant public tends to buy this like it's going out of fashion. Remember, most of this centuries tragedies were caused by one person saying that another group was destroying their livelihood, it's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big\_lie" title="wikipedia.org">big lie</a> [wikipedia.org] that never gets questioned.<br> <br>

Does mentioning the Big lie, count as Godwins Law?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Anti-intellectual is the easiest to stir up into a fervour , simply state that something threatens their rut and they will ignore all facts and all common sense in their mad crusade to destroy whatever they have perceived as a threat .
Oddly enough , you accuse Scientists of fear mongering when the media driving the anti-intellectual movement uses the exact same method and gets away with it .
The ages old " X will raise taxes " is the most widely used anti-climate change argument , also the most transparent and entirely based on fear mongering .
Yet the somnabulant public tends to buy this like it 's going out of fashion .
Remember , most of this centuries tragedies were caused by one person saying that another group was destroying their livelihood , it 's a big lie [ wikipedia.org ] that never gets questioned .
Does mentioning the Big lie , count as Godwins Law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Anti-intellectual is the easiest to stir up into a fervour, simply state that something threatens their rut and they will ignore all facts and all common sense in their mad crusade to destroy whatever they have perceived as a threat.
Oddly enough, you accuse Scientists of fear mongering when the media driving the anti-intellectual movement uses the exact same method and gets away with it.
The ages old "X will raise taxes" is the most widely used anti-climate change argument, also the most transparent and entirely based on fear mongering.
Yet the somnabulant public tends to buy this like it's going out of fashion.
Remember, most of this centuries tragedies were caused by one person saying that another group was destroying their livelihood, it's a big lie [wikipedia.org] that never gets questioned.
Does mentioning the Big lie, count as Godwins Law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164390</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266338760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One scientist tries to explain that global warming is a trend over many decades rather than 10-15 years, the other makes a mistake in his research. Where are the falsifications/fabrications you speak of?</htmltext>
<tokenext>One scientist tries to explain that global warming is a trend over many decades rather than 10-15 years , the other makes a mistake in his research .
Where are the falsifications/fabrications you speak of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One scientist tries to explain that global warming is a trend over many decades rather than 10-15 years, the other makes a mistake in his research.
Where are the falsifications/fabrications you speak of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170054</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>chris mazuc</author>
	<datestamp>1265042820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ask stupid questions, you don't have to be smart to answer them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ask stupid questions , you do n't have to be smart to answer them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ask stupid questions, you don't have to be smart to answer them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165686</id>
	<title>Great News!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266347640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Vancouver can host the winter olympics then!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Vancouver can host the winter olympics then !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Vancouver can host the winter olympics then!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165672</id>
	<title>Re:Intellectuals Easiest To Hypnotize</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1266347640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Highly skeptical. Citations needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Highly skeptical .
Citations needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Highly skeptical.
Citations needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168052</id>
	<title>Re:The future matters more than the past</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The climate is always changing, whether it be due to human activity or otherwise. To think we can stop it is just foolish and egocentric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate is always changing , whether it be due to human activity or otherwise .
To think we can stop it is just foolish and egocentric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate is always changing, whether it be due to human activity or otherwise.
To think we can stop it is just foolish and egocentric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164066</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>aussie\_a</author>
	<datestamp>1266336720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [dailymail.co.uk]</p></div><p>I'm going to have to take issue with the credibility of any source that uses the suffix "gate" in a scandal that doesn't have "water" before it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits : There has been no global warming since 1995 [ dailymail.co.uk ] I 'm going to have to take issue with the credibility of any source that uses the suffix " gate " in a scandal that does n't have " water " before it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [dailymail.co.uk]I'm going to have to take issue with the credibility of any source that uses the suffix "gate" in a scandal that doesn't have "water" before it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166450</id>
	<title>Religion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whether or not it's already happening in any measurable way today, I think we can all agree that it *could* happen in the future, so we (as a country, and a global society, and a species) need to be careful that it doesn't.</p></div><p>Accept the lord or yee shall suffer the fate of eternal hellfire.</p><p>The problem is that being "careful that it doesn't" means halting industry in its tracks; not a very popular proposition in the current economy (or any economy).<br>You're also asking humanity to plan for something which *may* be 50 years out, something people have shown themselves to be very poor at doing.<br>This isn't "Oh look, an asteroid headed straight for us" it's "If we don't drop everything and kill millions of people, billions will die... maybe in 50-100 years".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not it 's already happening in any measurable way today , I think we can all agree that it * could * happen in the future , so we ( as a country , and a global society , and a species ) need to be careful that it does n't.Accept the lord or yee shall suffer the fate of eternal hellfire.The problem is that being " careful that it does n't " means halting industry in its tracks ; not a very popular proposition in the current economy ( or any economy ) .You 're also asking humanity to plan for something which * may * be 50 years out , something people have shown themselves to be very poor at doing.This is n't " Oh look , an asteroid headed straight for us " it 's " If we do n't drop everything and kill millions of people , billions will die... maybe in 50-100 years " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not it's already happening in any measurable way today, I think we can all agree that it *could* happen in the future, so we (as a country, and a global society, and a species) need to be careful that it doesn't.Accept the lord or yee shall suffer the fate of eternal hellfire.The problem is that being "careful that it doesn't" means halting industry in its tracks; not a very popular proposition in the current economy (or any economy).You're also asking humanity to plan for something which *may* be 50 years out, something people have shown themselves to be very poor at doing.This isn't "Oh look, an asteroid headed straight for us" it's "If we don't drop everything and kill millions of people, billions will die... maybe in 50-100 years".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167538</id>
	<title>Re:Warmer years have more snow storms.</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1265029920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Posted again below.  Didn't see yours.  Good catch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Posted again below .
Did n't see yours .
Good catch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posted again below.
Didn't see yours.
Good catch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738</id>
	<title>Or not</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1266334560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't make this argument when it didn't snow much last few years, did they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't make this argument when it did n't snow much last few years , did they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't make this argument when it didn't snow much last few years, did they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166954</id>
	<title>Re:Science or Religion?</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1265023080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well Climatologist are not computer scientist, so they are clearly not qualified to write a climate simulation. Computer scientists are not climatologists so they are clearly not qualified to write a climate simulation. So who can  write a climate simulation. Well Al Gore is not a climatologist yet people seem to think his option on the matter at hand is important, there fore the only person who is qualified to write climate software is Al Gore!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Climatologist are not computer scientist , so they are clearly not qualified to write a climate simulation .
Computer scientists are not climatologists so they are clearly not qualified to write a climate simulation .
So who can write a climate simulation .
Well Al Gore is not a climatologist yet people seem to think his option on the matter at hand is important , there fore the only person who is qualified to write climate software is Al Gore !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Climatologist are not computer scientist, so they are clearly not qualified to write a climate simulation.
Computer scientists are not climatologists so they are clearly not qualified to write a climate simulation.
So who can  write a climate simulation.
Well Al Gore is not a climatologist yet people seem to think his option on the matter at hand is important, there fore the only person who is qualified to write climate software is Al Gore!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164676</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1266340680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure its standard terminology, but how the hell do you have "Eastern" Antarctica?  East and West go in a circle at the poles...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure its standard terminology , but how the hell do you have " Eastern " Antarctica ?
East and West go in a circle at the poles.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure its standard terminology, but how the hell do you have "Eastern" Antarctica?
East and West go in a circle at the poles...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166898</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>RML</author>
	<datestamp>1265022420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html" title="dailymail.co.uk">Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995</a> [dailymail.co.uk] </p></div><p>Imagine I have a coin that I know from past experience is double-headed; it comes up heads 100\% of the time. If I only consider my most recent flip, that's not enough data to prove that it was weighted for that flip. That doesn't mean it wasn't weighted for that flip. Of course it was weighted for that flip, it's weighted for every flip. But I didn't consider enough flips to prove it.</p><p>In an analogous way, considering the data since 1995 is not enough to prove that the earth has been warming. That doesn't mean the earth hasn't been warming since 1995, it means that you're not considering enough of the data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits : There has been no global warming since 1995 [ dailymail.co.uk ] Imagine I have a coin that I know from past experience is double-headed ; it comes up heads 100 \ % of the time .
If I only consider my most recent flip , that 's not enough data to prove that it was weighted for that flip .
That does n't mean it was n't weighted for that flip .
Of course it was weighted for that flip , it 's weighted for every flip .
But I did n't consider enough flips to prove it.In an analogous way , considering the data since 1995 is not enough to prove that the earth has been warming .
That does n't mean the earth has n't been warming since 1995 , it means that you 're not considering enough of the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [dailymail.co.uk] Imagine I have a coin that I know from past experience is double-headed; it comes up heads 100\% of the time.
If I only consider my most recent flip, that's not enough data to prove that it was weighted for that flip.
That doesn't mean it wasn't weighted for that flip.
Of course it was weighted for that flip, it's weighted for every flip.
But I didn't consider enough flips to prove it.In an analogous way, considering the data since 1995 is not enough to prove that the earth has been warming.
That doesn't mean the earth hasn't been warming since 1995, it means that you're not considering enough of the data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164580</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1266339840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My country (Canada, clouded in shame) declared 4 years ago that the time for studying climate change was over, and that it was now time for action.   The action was to fire all of the climate scientists that disagreed with idiot^hlogy of the government.   Your title is eerily reminiscent of that BS.  [ ref John Baird, Minister of Environment, Canada, 2006-2007  ].</p><p>Everything that ever lived deposited its stored carbon into the ground.   Now we are releasing it into the atmosphere at levels unprecedented in the history of human civilization.   Does it actually take a scientist, that is somebody whose plodding methodology makes lawyers look like they are actually alive, to notice this is a road to nowhere?</p><p>I have next to zero expertise in evolution, paeleontology (see, I can't even spell it) etc...   I do know that people, with roughly identical abilities to us have been hanging around for at least 100000 years, yet there is next to no trace of their accomplishments until the last 10\% of that time.   That time roughly approximates a narrowly stable climate which permitted the rise of farming and the subsequent developments we have all grown to love.</p><p>I get that some people want to believe the end is near - it fits both a fatalistic or theocratic disposition.</p><p>I get that some people want to believe there is no problem - it fits both an optimistic or ignorant disposition.</p><p>What I don't get is how those that fit neither have stuffed their heads so far up their asses as to believe the world is an endless sink for everything they want to dump in it; and somehow believe there will be no repercussions.</p><p>I don't want to save the world, but I wouldn't mind if my kids (and maybe their kids) got to enjoy a little of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My country ( Canada , clouded in shame ) declared 4 years ago that the time for studying climate change was over , and that it was now time for action .
The action was to fire all of the climate scientists that disagreed with idiot ^ hlogy of the government .
Your title is eerily reminiscent of that BS .
[ ref John Baird , Minister of Environment , Canada , 2006-2007 ] .Everything that ever lived deposited its stored carbon into the ground .
Now we are releasing it into the atmosphere at levels unprecedented in the history of human civilization .
Does it actually take a scientist , that is somebody whose plodding methodology makes lawyers look like they are actually alive , to notice this is a road to nowhere ? I have next to zero expertise in evolution , paeleontology ( see , I ca n't even spell it ) etc... I do know that people , with roughly identical abilities to us have been hanging around for at least 100000 years , yet there is next to no trace of their accomplishments until the last 10 \ % of that time .
That time roughly approximates a narrowly stable climate which permitted the rise of farming and the subsequent developments we have all grown to love.I get that some people want to believe the end is near - it fits both a fatalistic or theocratic disposition.I get that some people want to believe there is no problem - it fits both an optimistic or ignorant disposition.What I do n't get is how those that fit neither have stuffed their heads so far up their asses as to believe the world is an endless sink for everything they want to dump in it ; and somehow believe there will be no repercussions.I do n't want to save the world , but I would n't mind if my kids ( and maybe their kids ) got to enjoy a little of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My country (Canada, clouded in shame) declared 4 years ago that the time for studying climate change was over, and that it was now time for action.
The action was to fire all of the climate scientists that disagreed with idiot^hlogy of the government.
Your title is eerily reminiscent of that BS.
[ ref John Baird, Minister of Environment, Canada, 2006-2007  ].Everything that ever lived deposited its stored carbon into the ground.
Now we are releasing it into the atmosphere at levels unprecedented in the history of human civilization.
Does it actually take a scientist, that is somebody whose plodding methodology makes lawyers look like they are actually alive, to notice this is a road to nowhere?I have next to zero expertise in evolution, paeleontology (see, I can't even spell it) etc...   I do know that people, with roughly identical abilities to us have been hanging around for at least 100000 years, yet there is next to no trace of their accomplishments until the last 10\% of that time.
That time roughly approximates a narrowly stable climate which permitted the rise of farming and the subsequent developments we have all grown to love.I get that some people want to believe the end is near - it fits both a fatalistic or theocratic disposition.I get that some people want to believe there is no problem - it fits both an optimistic or ignorant disposition.What I don't get is how those that fit neither have stuffed their heads so far up their asses as to believe the world is an endless sink for everything they want to dump in it; and somehow believe there will be no repercussions.I don't want to save the world, but I wouldn't mind if my kids (and maybe their kids) got to enjoy a little of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164198</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266337500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the relevant Phil Jones quote, from <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm/" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm/</a> [bbc.co.uk]. Decide if Dailymail (a highly politicized news source, similar to Fox News in the US) reports it honestly.<br> <br>

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"<br> <br>

Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95\% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."<br> <br>

And later,<br> <br>

"How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"<br> <br>

Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the relevant Phil Jones quote , from http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm/ [ bbc.co.uk ] .
Decide if Dailymail ( a highly politicized news source , similar to Fox News in the US ) reports it honestly .
" Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming ?
" Jones : " Yes , but only just .
I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009 .
This trend ( 0.12C per decade ) is positive , but not significant at the 95 \ % significance level .
The positive trend is quite close to the significance level .
Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods , and much less likely for shorter periods .
" And later , " How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible ?
" Jones : " I 'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed .
As to the second question , I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there 's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the relevant Phil Jones quote, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm/ [bbc.co.uk].
Decide if Dailymail (a highly politicized news source, similar to Fox News in the US) reports it honestly.
"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
" 

Jones: "Yes, but only just.
I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009.
This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95\% significance level.
The positive trend is quite close to the significance level.
Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
" 

And later, 

"How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
" 

Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed.
As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164128</id>
	<title>Creative attribution</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1266337080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<b>EVERYTHING</b> can be rationalized as something that can happen with global warming.
</p><p>
<b>Everything</b> and anything, no matter how absurd that happens, can be used to substantiate
rogue pseudo-theories like global warming, which are intentionally vague, and fail to make specific falsifiable predictions about what should happen and what should not happen and when.
</p><p>
If it were a real scientific theory, there would be no room for <b>ad hoc</b> explanations as events occur, that they somehow "further solidify" the proposition.
If <b>global warming</b> were proper valid theory, these things would already have been predicted as things that would happen, as results of the theory.
</p><p>
Global warming can mean colder winters and less heat during summers.
</p><p>
Global warming can mean oceans freezing.
</p><p>
Global warming can mean an ice age.
</p><p>
Global warming can mean hell freezes.
</p><p>
Global warming can mean record low temperatures
</p><p>
Global warming can mean higher crime rates
</p><p>
Global warming can mean more sex
</p><p>
Global warming can mean higher unemployment
</p><p>
Global warming can mean more recessions
</p><p>
Global warming can mean more housing meltdowns
</p><p>
Global warming can mean higher gas prices
</p><p>
Global warming can mean more militant terrorists
</p><p>
Global warming can mean more wars
</p><p>
Global warming can mean nuclear proliferation
</p><p>
Global warming can mean more violence in schools
</p><p>
Global warming can mean pigs fly.
</p><p>
Global warming can mean earth spontaneously implodes.
</p><p>
Global warming can mean more blackholes
</p><p>
Global warming can mean more attention from extraterrestrials
</p><p>
Global warming can mean increased cockroach populations
</p><p>
Global warming can mean monkeys conquer humans for world domination
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EVERYTHING can be rationalized as something that can happen with global warming .
Everything and anything , no matter how absurd that happens , can be used to substantiate rogue pseudo-theories like global warming , which are intentionally vague , and fail to make specific falsifiable predictions about what should happen and what should not happen and when .
If it were a real scientific theory , there would be no room for ad hoc explanations as events occur , that they somehow " further solidify " the proposition .
If global warming were proper valid theory , these things would already have been predicted as things that would happen , as results of the theory .
Global warming can mean colder winters and less heat during summers .
Global warming can mean oceans freezing .
Global warming can mean an ice age .
Global warming can mean hell freezes .
Global warming can mean record low temperatures Global warming can mean higher crime rates Global warming can mean more sex Global warming can mean higher unemployment Global warming can mean more recessions Global warming can mean more housing meltdowns Global warming can mean higher gas prices Global warming can mean more militant terrorists Global warming can mean more wars Global warming can mean nuclear proliferation Global warming can mean more violence in schools Global warming can mean pigs fly .
Global warming can mean earth spontaneously implodes .
Global warming can mean more blackholes Global warming can mean more attention from extraterrestrials Global warming can mean increased cockroach populations Global warming can mean monkeys conquer humans for world domination</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
EVERYTHING can be rationalized as something that can happen with global warming.
Everything and anything, no matter how absurd that happens, can be used to substantiate
rogue pseudo-theories like global warming, which are intentionally vague, and fail to make specific falsifiable predictions about what should happen and what should not happen and when.
If it were a real scientific theory, there would be no room for ad hoc explanations as events occur, that they somehow "further solidify" the proposition.
If global warming were proper valid theory, these things would already have been predicted as things that would happen, as results of the theory.
Global warming can mean colder winters and less heat during summers.
Global warming can mean oceans freezing.
Global warming can mean an ice age.
Global warming can mean hell freezes.
Global warming can mean record low temperatures

Global warming can mean higher crime rates

Global warming can mean more sex

Global warming can mean higher unemployment

Global warming can mean more recessions

Global warming can mean more housing meltdowns

Global warming can mean higher gas prices

Global warming can mean more militant terrorists

Global warming can mean more wars

Global warming can mean nuclear proliferation

Global warming can mean more violence in schools

Global warming can mean pigs fly.
Global warming can mean earth spontaneously implodes.
Global warming can mean more blackholes

Global warming can mean more attention from extraterrestrials

Global warming can mean increased cockroach populations

Global warming can mean monkeys conquer humans for world domination
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31171630</id>
	<title>There are other climate models that say less snow</title>
	<author>Quila</author>
	<datestamp>1265047860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that Global Warming has a model to predict pretty much anything.</p><p>The different models together predict pretty much everything, often contradictory, so whenever anything happens you just trot out the appropriate predictive model to prove Global Warming is right.</p><p>And hope people forget you used a contradictory model six months ago to explain something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that Global Warming has a model to predict pretty much anything.The different models together predict pretty much everything , often contradictory , so whenever anything happens you just trot out the appropriate predictive model to prove Global Warming is right.And hope people forget you used a contradictory model six months ago to explain something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that Global Warming has a model to predict pretty much anything.The different models together predict pretty much everything, often contradictory, so whenever anything happens you just trot out the appropriate predictive model to prove Global Warming is right.And hope people forget you used a contradictory model six months ago to explain something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167010</id>
	<title>Re:The time for debate is over...</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1265023740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So because some people have made mistakes or pushed propaganda, the whole theory must be a scam? But people on the other side of the argument have done similar things, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So because some people have made mistakes or pushed propaganda , the whole theory must be a scam ?
But people on the other side of the argument have done similar things , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So because some people have made mistakes or pushed propaganda, the whole theory must be a scam?
But people on the other side of the argument have done similar things, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167188</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming means More Weather</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1265025720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far, we have not managed to invent clothes for our food supply.  We have green houses here and there, but I have yet to see greenhouses of the scale needed for massive farming.</p><p>It's not [a lack of] human inventiveness that will kill humanity, it is starvation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , we have not managed to invent clothes for our food supply .
We have green houses here and there , but I have yet to see greenhouses of the scale needed for massive farming.It 's not [ a lack of ] human inventiveness that will kill humanity , it is starvation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, we have not managed to invent clothes for our food supply.
We have green houses here and there, but I have yet to see greenhouses of the scale needed for massive farming.It's not [a lack of] human inventiveness that will kill humanity, it is starvation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31174626</id>
	<title>Re:more short term snow = more long term snow</title>
	<author>JTsyo</author>
	<datestamp>1265057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not when we burn more coal to stay warm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>not when we burn more coal to stay warm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not when we burn more coal to stay warm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200</id>
	<title>What we dont know....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266337500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bigger question everyone fails to ask... Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans?  Most likely not!  So why not change for that reason alone, regardless if climate change is true or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bigger question everyone fails to ask... Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans ?
Most likely not !
So why not change for that reason alone , regardless if climate change is true or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bigger question everyone fails to ask... Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans?
Most likely not!
So why not change for that reason alone, regardless if climate change is true or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167796</id>
	<title>Upside down. Inside out.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow</p></div><p>
Yes, and adding water to things makes them more dry.<br>
More sunlight means more darkness.<br>
More gravity causes things to float off into space.<br>
etc. etc.<br> <br>
<strong>What a load of shite!</strong></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow Yes , and adding water to things makes them more dry .
More sunlight means more darkness .
More gravity causes things to float off into space .
etc. etc .
What a load of shite !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow
Yes, and adding water to things makes them more dry.
More sunlight means more darkness.
More gravity causes things to float off into space.
etc. etc.
What a load of shite!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169768</id>
	<title>Trust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The basic problem now is trust.</p><p>Plausable answers can be provided to any given weather phenominon, with regard to climate change.  The problem is the British research group were lying - distorting and hiding data.  You can be as plausable as you like; if people don't trust you, it just doesn't matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic problem now is trust.Plausable answers can be provided to any given weather phenominon , with regard to climate change .
The problem is the British research group were lying - distorting and hiding data .
You can be as plausable as you like ; if people do n't trust you , it just does n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The basic problem now is trust.Plausable answers can be provided to any given weather phenominon, with regard to climate change.
The problem is the British research group were lying - distorting and hiding data.
You can be as plausable as you like; if people don't trust you, it just doesn't matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169216</id>
	<title>Re:What we dont know....</title>
	<author>dunezone</author>
	<datestamp>1265040060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We inject crap into our rivers and lakes which we wouldn't drink from if its not cleaned first. We drive our cars around all day long injecting crap into the atmosphere but breath the air without cleaning it first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We inject crap into our rivers and lakes which we would n't drink from if its not cleaned first .
We drive our cars around all day long injecting crap into the atmosphere but breath the air without cleaning it first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We inject crap into our rivers and lakes which we wouldn't drink from if its not cleaned first.
We drive our cars around all day long injecting crap into the atmosphere but breath the air without cleaning it first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166322</id>
	<title>Re:Meanwhile</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1265015880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not allowed to cherry-pick either.  The 'G' in AGW means "global".  You need to consider results for the globe as a whole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not allowed to cherry-pick either .
The 'G ' in AGW means " global " .
You need to consider results for the globe as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not allowed to cherry-pick either.
The 'G' in AGW means "global".
You need to consider results for the globe as a whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31180802</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming may lead to BIG Chill....</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1265051100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is plausable I suppose, but one thing seems hard to reconcile.  If the CO2 levels peaked at much higher levels than they are now right before the 100K year long ice age, what happened to all that CO2.  It was resequested, I suppose, but by what?  By freezing and sinking to the bottom of the oceans?  Is that possible?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is plausable I suppose , but one thing seems hard to reconcile .
If the CO2 levels peaked at much higher levels than they are now right before the 100K year long ice age , what happened to all that CO2 .
It was resequested , I suppose , but by what ?
By freezing and sinking to the bottom of the oceans ?
Is that possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is plausable I suppose, but one thing seems hard to reconcile.
If the CO2 levels peaked at much higher levels than they are now right before the 100K year long ice age, what happened to all that CO2.
It was resequested, I suppose, but by what?
By freezing and sinking to the bottom of the oceans?
Is that possible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31184244</id>
	<title>Re:Conspiracy Theories</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1266507960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe."</p><p>Because they refuse to release or "lose" their raw data.<br>Because there has been no "Statistically Significant" global warming for the past 15 years. (Phil Jones)<br>Because the press has touted some Global Warming "science" as peer reviewed, when it hasn't.<br>Because a climatologist that says there is Global warming and he can prove it will get money, but I've yet to hear of a climatologist get funding for showing there is no problem.<br>Because the solutions have minor predicted results, but require enormous upheaval in the way we do things and enormous cost.<br><a href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved\_no\_climate\_crisis.html" title="scienceand...policy.org">http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved\_no\_climate\_crisis.html</a> [scienceand...policy.org]</p><p>Because those who are claiming it's an emergency, don't act like it's an emergency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe .
" Because they refuse to release or " lose " their raw data.Because there has been no " Statistically Significant " global warming for the past 15 years .
( Phil Jones ) Because the press has touted some Global Warming " science " as peer reviewed , when it has n't.Because a climatologist that says there is Global warming and he can prove it will get money , but I 've yet to hear of a climatologist get funding for showing there is no problem.Because the solutions have minor predicted results , but require enormous upheaval in the way we do things and enormous cost.http : //scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved \ _no \ _climate \ _crisis.html [ scienceand...policy.org ] Because those who are claiming it 's an emergency , do n't act like it 's an emergency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe.
"Because they refuse to release or "lose" their raw data.Because there has been no "Statistically Significant" global warming for the past 15 years.
(Phil Jones)Because the press has touted some Global Warming "science" as peer reviewed, when it hasn't.Because a climatologist that says there is Global warming and he can prove it will get money, but I've yet to hear of a climatologist get funding for showing there is no problem.Because the solutions have minor predicted results, but require enormous upheaval in the way we do things and enormous cost.http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved\_no\_climate\_crisis.html [scienceand...policy.org]Because those who are claiming it's an emergency, don't act like it's an emergency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166210</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31183784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31184244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31173474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31174626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31173130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31180802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31180744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31199760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31176480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31180210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31171364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31174598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2146227_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31173490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31180802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31173490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31173474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31199760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31174598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31183784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31176480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164258
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164406
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164260
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167852
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164658
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168760
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165350
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166036
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166108
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166608
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164736
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164300
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164558
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167696
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164526
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164572
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166236
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165032
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169228
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166954
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164966
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172960
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31180210
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169770
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170054
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31173130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164330
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31174626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31179780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31180744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31172772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31170058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31165006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31169014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31163996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31167188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31164036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2146227.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31166210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31171364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31168716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2146227.31184244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
