<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_2346202</id>
	<title>Utah Assembly Passes Resolution Denying Climate Change</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266326040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>cowtamer writes <i>"The Utah State Assembly has passed a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/utah-climate-alarmists">resolution decrying climate change alarmists</a> and urging  '...the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its "Endangerment Finding" and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of climate data  and global warming science can be substantiated.' Here is the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillamd/hjr012.htm">full text of  H.J.R 12</a>."</i> The resolution has no force of law. The Guardian article includes juicy tidbits from its original, far more colorful, version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>cowtamer writes " The Utah State Assembly has passed a resolution decrying climate change alarmists and urging '...the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its " Endangerment Finding " and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated .
' Here is the full text of H.J.R 12 .
" The resolution has no force of law .
The Guardian article includes juicy tidbits from its original , far more colorful , version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cowtamer writes "The Utah State Assembly has passed a resolution decrying climate change alarmists and urging  '...the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its "Endangerment Finding" and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of climate data  and global warming science can be substantiated.
' Here is the full text of  H.J.R 12.
" The resolution has no force of law.
The Guardian article includes juicy tidbits from its original, far more colorful, version.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168926</id>
	<title>All that work for nothing</title>
	<author>benwiggy</author>
	<datestamp>1265039040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Until climate change is proved conclusively, we might just be reducing our emissions and pollutants, consuming energy efficiently and decreasing our dependence upon dwindling natural resources in politically unstable regions for NOTHING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Until climate change is proved conclusively , we might just be reducing our emissions and pollutants , consuming energy efficiently and decreasing our dependence upon dwindling natural resources in politically unstable regions for NOTHING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Until climate change is proved conclusively, we might just be reducing our emissions and pollutants, consuming energy efficiently and decreasing our dependence upon dwindling natural resources in politically unstable regions for NOTHING.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169372</id>
	<title>Not a big surprise</title>
	<author>PenguinGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265040660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Utah and this is par for the course.  Utah is one of the, if not THE, reddest state in the US.  The 'people' who elect these clowns can't see outside of their own state and so don't think anything is wrong.</p><p>Makes me glad I am leaving...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Utah and this is par for the course .
Utah is one of the , if not THE , reddest state in the US .
The 'people ' who elect these clowns ca n't see outside of their own state and so do n't think anything is wrong.Makes me glad I am leaving.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Utah and this is par for the course.
Utah is one of the, if not THE, reddest state in the US.
The 'people' who elect these clowns can't see outside of their own state and so don't think anything is wrong.Makes me glad I am leaving...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171486</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>chris mazuc</author>
	<datestamp>1265047440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, some of us just remember the same crap in the 70s about how the world would be in a new ice age by now.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;173/3992/138" title="sciencemag.org">Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate</a> [sciencemag.org] is the only peer reviewed paper I am aware of that said anything about an ice age. So that makes 1 paper for GC and thousands of papers for GW. Are you aware of any other peer reviewed papers supporting GC? I don't have access to the articles that cite this one to see if they make the same kind of claims, however the abstracts do not.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We also remember very good science being ripped up because the data was falsefied or poorly collected.</p></div><p>Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof. I am curious as to what you are attempting to reference.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When you're a sheep, I don't respect your opinion.</p> </div><p>Insulting your readers is truly the sign of a towering intellect.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Skeptics I have time for. Convince a skeptic, and you'll have won an actual battle.</p></div><p>Consider me skeptical.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , some of us just remember the same crap in the 70s about how the world would be in a new ice age by now .
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols : Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate [ sciencemag.org ] is the only peer reviewed paper I am aware of that said anything about an ice age .
So that makes 1 paper for GC and thousands of papers for GW .
Are you aware of any other peer reviewed papers supporting GC ?
I do n't have access to the articles that cite this one to see if they make the same kind of claims , however the abstracts do not.We also remember very good science being ripped up because the data was falsefied or poorly collected.Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof .
I am curious as to what you are attempting to reference.When you 're a sheep , I do n't respect your opinion .
Insulting your readers is truly the sign of a towering intellect.Skeptics I have time for .
Convince a skeptic , and you 'll have won an actual battle.Consider me skeptical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, some of us just remember the same crap in the 70s about how the world would be in a new ice age by now.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate [sciencemag.org] is the only peer reviewed paper I am aware of that said anything about an ice age.
So that makes 1 paper for GC and thousands of papers for GW.
Are you aware of any other peer reviewed papers supporting GC?
I don't have access to the articles that cite this one to see if they make the same kind of claims, however the abstracts do not.We also remember very good science being ripped up because the data was falsefied or poorly collected.Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof.
I am curious as to what you are attempting to reference.When you're a sheep, I don't respect your opinion.
Insulting your readers is truly the sign of a towering intellect.Skeptics I have time for.
Convince a skeptic, and you'll have won an actual battle.Consider me skeptical.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31201924</id>
	<title>Re:My test for these states...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266607260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The University of Utah is ranked as one of the top 100 universities in the world. http://www.ulinks.com/topuniversities.htm</p><p>The U was also the fourth node of this crazy little thing called the internet. Maybe you've heard of it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The University of Utah is ranked as one of the top 100 universities in the world .
http : //www.ulinks.com/topuniversities.htmThe U was also the fourth node of this crazy little thing called the internet .
Maybe you 've heard of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The University of Utah is ranked as one of the top 100 universities in the world.
http://www.ulinks.com/topuniversities.htmThe U was also the fourth node of this crazy little thing called the internet.
Maybe you've heard of it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170108</id>
	<title>My test for these states...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you name a top tier college or university in Utah?</p><p>There you have it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you name a top tier college or university in Utah ? There you have it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you name a top tier college or university in Utah?There you have it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169022</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1265039400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you!!</p><p>The problem is that the vast majority of the "debate" is political.  The ridiculousness is driven by several different factions, most of which cling to one end of the spectrum or another.  In no particular order and with poorly-contrived names:</p><p>The left economists.  These are the guys who try to use climate change as a front to push their own brand of economic and social idealism, and/or take swipes at the economic and social setups of countries they have distaste for (particularly the US, Canada, Western Europe, and other industrialized "western" countries).  They will often favor things like high carbon taxes and social restrictions intended to hit large companies and those they see as "rich" in order to exact "social justice".  These groups will often ignore other industrialized polluting countries (coughChinacough) because (at least in theory) they more closely match their desired socioeconomic structure and/or simply tend to oppose said "western" countries.</p><p>The oil barons.  Really, this applies to the fossil fuel industry as a whole, and those who manufacture things that use said fossil fuels (like car companies).  The mindset appears to be little more than "well, we have it now and it works, so why worry?"  They're also the ones who oppose even modest efficiency improvements because they would "cost too much".  Has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because the status quo ensures good quarterly profits.</p><p>The gluttons and the ignorant.  These are the ones who completely deny that anything could be wrong simply because they can't process or understand that anything <i>could</i> be so.  The glutton subset will even conspicuously waste resources just out of spite (run A/C with the windows open, deliberately buy the car with the lowest fuel efficiency, leave all the lights on, etc).  May often be scientifically illiterate.  May even claim that "God wouldn't let anything bad happen".</p><p>The simple politicists.  These are found on both ends of the spectrum, and can be identified by supporting or opposing climate/energy-related ideas not on anything even remotely related, but rather because those they view as their political opposites support something else.  Examples would be Republicans who oppose a given measure simply because Democrats came up with it, or those who reject proposals as "dirty hippie liberal flaming commie" ideas.</p><p>The anti-technologists.  These are the super-environmentalists who view pretty much any kind of technology (even "green" tech) as somehow being inherently bad or evil.  Alternatively, they may hold that man's ideal state is "living in harmony with nature", essentially equivalent to a pre-industrial agrarian society.  The irony is quite amusing given how reliant they tend to be on such technology, and how ingorant they are about the grim realities of living in their ideal society.  These groups will typically find a reason to oppose <i>any</i> proposed fix or improvement, usually on some crazy/irrational basis.  "Clean" coal?  "Still makes CO2".  Hydroelectric?  "Kills fish".  Geothermal?  "Causes earthquakes".  Wind?  "Kills birds".  Solar? "Disturbs animal habitats".  Nuclear?  "ZOMG radiation!!1!"  And so on.  Their ideal is to force restrictions and sacrifices to make everyone atone for the "sins" of technology.</p><p>Anti-humanists.  Similar to the previous, but usually holding that humans themselves are inherently bad and evil.  This set may often intersect with the set of PETA.  Will usually favor drastic, self-imposed reductions in the human population, if not voluntary extinction.  Holds little regard for human life other than their own, and strangely unwilling to lead the way with their own proposals.</p><p>The hipster environmentalist.  This type will typically cling to anything purporting to be "green", whether it actually is or not, because it makes them look "environmentally conscious".  Politicians in this group will support purportedly "green" projects if they eithe appeal to the voter base or bring in federal funds.  Se</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you !
! The problem is that the vast majority of the " debate " is political .
The ridiculousness is driven by several different factions , most of which cling to one end of the spectrum or another .
In no particular order and with poorly-contrived names : The left economists .
These are the guys who try to use climate change as a front to push their own brand of economic and social idealism , and/or take swipes at the economic and social setups of countries they have distaste for ( particularly the US , Canada , Western Europe , and other industrialized " western " countries ) .
They will often favor things like high carbon taxes and social restrictions intended to hit large companies and those they see as " rich " in order to exact " social justice " .
These groups will often ignore other industrialized polluting countries ( coughChinacough ) because ( at least in theory ) they more closely match their desired socioeconomic structure and/or simply tend to oppose said " western " countries.The oil barons .
Really , this applies to the fossil fuel industry as a whole , and those who manufacture things that use said fossil fuels ( like car companies ) .
The mindset appears to be little more than " well , we have it now and it works , so why worry ?
" They 're also the ones who oppose even modest efficiency improvements because they would " cost too much " .
Has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because the status quo ensures good quarterly profits.The gluttons and the ignorant .
These are the ones who completely deny that anything could be wrong simply because they ca n't process or understand that anything could be so .
The glutton subset will even conspicuously waste resources just out of spite ( run A/C with the windows open , deliberately buy the car with the lowest fuel efficiency , leave all the lights on , etc ) .
May often be scientifically illiterate .
May even claim that " God would n't let anything bad happen " .The simple politicists .
These are found on both ends of the spectrum , and can be identified by supporting or opposing climate/energy-related ideas not on anything even remotely related , but rather because those they view as their political opposites support something else .
Examples would be Republicans who oppose a given measure simply because Democrats came up with it , or those who reject proposals as " dirty hippie liberal flaming commie " ideas.The anti-technologists .
These are the super-environmentalists who view pretty much any kind of technology ( even " green " tech ) as somehow being inherently bad or evil .
Alternatively , they may hold that man 's ideal state is " living in harmony with nature " , essentially equivalent to a pre-industrial agrarian society .
The irony is quite amusing given how reliant they tend to be on such technology , and how ingorant they are about the grim realities of living in their ideal society .
These groups will typically find a reason to oppose any proposed fix or improvement , usually on some crazy/irrational basis .
" Clean " coal ?
" Still makes CO2 " .
Hydroelectric ? " Kills fish " .
Geothermal ? " Causes earthquakes " .
Wind ? " Kills birds " .
Solar ? " Disturbs animal habitats " .
Nuclear ? " ZOMG radiation ! ! 1 !
" And so on .
Their ideal is to force restrictions and sacrifices to make everyone atone for the " sins " of technology.Anti-humanists .
Similar to the previous , but usually holding that humans themselves are inherently bad and evil .
This set may often intersect with the set of PETA .
Will usually favor drastic , self-imposed reductions in the human population , if not voluntary extinction .
Holds little regard for human life other than their own , and strangely unwilling to lead the way with their own proposals.The hipster environmentalist .
This type will typically cling to anything purporting to be " green " , whether it actually is or not , because it makes them look " environmentally conscious " .
Politicians in this group will support purportedly " green " projects if they eithe appeal to the voter base or bring in federal funds .
Se</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!
!The problem is that the vast majority of the "debate" is political.
The ridiculousness is driven by several different factions, most of which cling to one end of the spectrum or another.
In no particular order and with poorly-contrived names:The left economists.
These are the guys who try to use climate change as a front to push their own brand of economic and social idealism, and/or take swipes at the economic and social setups of countries they have distaste for (particularly the US, Canada, Western Europe, and other industrialized "western" countries).
They will often favor things like high carbon taxes and social restrictions intended to hit large companies and those they see as "rich" in order to exact "social justice".
These groups will often ignore other industrialized polluting countries (coughChinacough) because (at least in theory) they more closely match their desired socioeconomic structure and/or simply tend to oppose said "western" countries.The oil barons.
Really, this applies to the fossil fuel industry as a whole, and those who manufacture things that use said fossil fuels (like car companies).
The mindset appears to be little more than "well, we have it now and it works, so why worry?
"  They're also the ones who oppose even modest efficiency improvements because they would "cost too much".
Has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because the status quo ensures good quarterly profits.The gluttons and the ignorant.
These are the ones who completely deny that anything could be wrong simply because they can't process or understand that anything could be so.
The glutton subset will even conspicuously waste resources just out of spite (run A/C with the windows open, deliberately buy the car with the lowest fuel efficiency, leave all the lights on, etc).
May often be scientifically illiterate.
May even claim that "God wouldn't let anything bad happen".The simple politicists.
These are found on both ends of the spectrum, and can be identified by supporting or opposing climate/energy-related ideas not on anything even remotely related, but rather because those they view as their political opposites support something else.
Examples would be Republicans who oppose a given measure simply because Democrats came up with it, or those who reject proposals as "dirty hippie liberal flaming commie" ideas.The anti-technologists.
These are the super-environmentalists who view pretty much any kind of technology (even "green" tech) as somehow being inherently bad or evil.
Alternatively, they may hold that man's ideal state is "living in harmony with nature", essentially equivalent to a pre-industrial agrarian society.
The irony is quite amusing given how reliant they tend to be on such technology, and how ingorant they are about the grim realities of living in their ideal society.
These groups will typically find a reason to oppose any proposed fix or improvement, usually on some crazy/irrational basis.
"Clean" coal?
"Still makes CO2".
Hydroelectric?  "Kills fish".
Geothermal?  "Causes earthquakes".
Wind?  "Kills birds".
Solar? "Disturbs animal habitats".
Nuclear?  "ZOMG radiation!!1!
"  And so on.
Their ideal is to force restrictions and sacrifices to make everyone atone for the "sins" of technology.Anti-humanists.
Similar to the previous, but usually holding that humans themselves are inherently bad and evil.
This set may often intersect with the set of PETA.
Will usually favor drastic, self-imposed reductions in the human population, if not voluntary extinction.
Holds little regard for human life other than their own, and strangely unwilling to lead the way with their own proposals.The hipster environmentalist.
This type will typically cling to anything purporting to be "green", whether it actually is or not, because it makes them look "environmentally conscious".
Politicians in this group will support purportedly "green" projects if they eithe appeal to the voter base or bring in federal funds.
Se</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31187088</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>deananderson</author>
	<datestamp>1266519300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very well said. A couple of points:</p><p>Some of the climate scientists are accused of covering up contrary data, deleting emails, etc.  This doesn't look good for the science.  Its not just the crackpots who aren't adhering to standards of truth. The presence of crackpots doesn't justify a cover up of contrary data.  This is a cancer that affects science as well.  I think problem is systemic because it is experienced by scientists and society alike.</p><p>I see this problem as a combined effect of the relativism you mention, but also the internet, where any "opinion" is asserted as fact.  I've seen this over and over again.  Some call it the wikipedia effect (e.g. 20000 polar bears).  I see the effect being mocked in car commercials recently, even.  (a certain car manufacturer has a commercial running recently with a story about the models purchased by George Washington. At the end it says "that's what it said on the internet").  But the lack of rationality and lack of "factuality" and lack of truth is a serious problem that has to change and change quickly.  A complex planet-affecting society cannot be run by idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very well said .
A couple of points : Some of the climate scientists are accused of covering up contrary data , deleting emails , etc .
This does n't look good for the science .
Its not just the crackpots who are n't adhering to standards of truth .
The presence of crackpots does n't justify a cover up of contrary data .
This is a cancer that affects science as well .
I think problem is systemic because it is experienced by scientists and society alike.I see this problem as a combined effect of the relativism you mention , but also the internet , where any " opinion " is asserted as fact .
I 've seen this over and over again .
Some call it the wikipedia effect ( e.g .
20000 polar bears ) .
I see the effect being mocked in car commercials recently , even .
( a certain car manufacturer has a commercial running recently with a story about the models purchased by George Washington .
At the end it says " that 's what it said on the internet " ) .
But the lack of rationality and lack of " factuality " and lack of truth is a serious problem that has to change and change quickly .
A complex planet-affecting society can not be run by idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very well said.
A couple of points:Some of the climate scientists are accused of covering up contrary data, deleting emails, etc.
This doesn't look good for the science.
Its not just the crackpots who aren't adhering to standards of truth.
The presence of crackpots doesn't justify a cover up of contrary data.
This is a cancer that affects science as well.
I think problem is systemic because it is experienced by scientists and society alike.I see this problem as a combined effect of the relativism you mention, but also the internet, where any "opinion" is asserted as fact.
I've seen this over and over again.
Some call it the wikipedia effect (e.g.
20000 polar bears).
I see the effect being mocked in car commercials recently, even.
(a certain car manufacturer has a commercial running recently with a story about the models purchased by George Washington.
At the end it says "that's what it said on the internet").
But the lack of rationality and lack of "factuality" and lack of truth is a serious problem that has to change and change quickly.
A complex planet-affecting society cannot be run by idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168858</id>
	<title>National Security Issue</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1265038800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if global warming was completely made up, why isn't the U.S. embarking on a Manhattan style program to get ourselves off of foreign oil?</p><p>Conservation, renewables, "drill baby drill"... ANYTHING is better than pumping oil from governments like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela.  While (some of) their leaders might in public say they are our friends, the majority of their citizens HATE OUR GUTS and want to kill us.  Why are we giving them money?</p><p>Look, I have complained before about the Israeli lobby owning U.S. foreign policy.  Our unqualified support of Israel, in itself, is not "bad"; they are a true democracy in a very bad neighborhood.  They produce more scientific discoveries and have done more for the world than all of the arab nations have and probably ever will*.  But then why do we shoot ourselves IN THE HEAD by pumping hundreds of billions of dollars to these corrupt, ignorant and backwards societies (there I've said it).  Either support Israel to the hilt and get off of our addiction to foreign oil or do what China does and work for our naked self-interest (oil) suck up to these bastards and sell the Israelis down the river.  We can't have it both ways without spending hundreds of billions of additional dollars in military expenditures and getting involved in wars... oh wait.</p><p>Kinda makes you wonder if previous administrations (mainly Bush 41+43 but who knows, maybe Clinton too) have been bought out.</p><p>*If you doubt how important jews have been to world civilization, here's a joke(?) that claims the three most important figures IN HISTORY were jews.  (and no, I'm not jewish).</p><p>- Einstein (science)<br>- Marx (political thinking)</p><p>You can guess the last one.  Let's just say his name begins with a "J".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if global warming was completely made up , why is n't the U.S. embarking on a Manhattan style program to get ourselves off of foreign oil ? Conservation , renewables , " drill baby drill " ... ANYTHING is better than pumping oil from governments like Saudi Arabia , Iran , Venezuela .
While ( some of ) their leaders might in public say they are our friends , the majority of their citizens HATE OUR GUTS and want to kill us .
Why are we giving them money ? Look , I have complained before about the Israeli lobby owning U.S. foreign policy .
Our unqualified support of Israel , in itself , is not " bad " ; they are a true democracy in a very bad neighborhood .
They produce more scientific discoveries and have done more for the world than all of the arab nations have and probably ever will * .
But then why do we shoot ourselves IN THE HEAD by pumping hundreds of billions of dollars to these corrupt , ignorant and backwards societies ( there I 've said it ) .
Either support Israel to the hilt and get off of our addiction to foreign oil or do what China does and work for our naked self-interest ( oil ) suck up to these bastards and sell the Israelis down the river .
We ca n't have it both ways without spending hundreds of billions of additional dollars in military expenditures and getting involved in wars... oh wait.Kinda makes you wonder if previous administrations ( mainly Bush 41 + 43 but who knows , maybe Clinton too ) have been bought out .
* If you doubt how important jews have been to world civilization , here 's a joke ( ?
) that claims the three most important figures IN HISTORY were jews .
( and no , I 'm not jewish ) .- Einstein ( science ) - Marx ( political thinking ) You can guess the last one .
Let 's just say his name begins with a " J " .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if global warming was completely made up, why isn't the U.S. embarking on a Manhattan style program to get ourselves off of foreign oil?Conservation, renewables, "drill baby drill"... ANYTHING is better than pumping oil from governments like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela.
While (some of) their leaders might in public say they are our friends, the majority of their citizens HATE OUR GUTS and want to kill us.
Why are we giving them money?Look, I have complained before about the Israeli lobby owning U.S. foreign policy.
Our unqualified support of Israel, in itself, is not "bad"; they are a true democracy in a very bad neighborhood.
They produce more scientific discoveries and have done more for the world than all of the arab nations have and probably ever will*.
But then why do we shoot ourselves IN THE HEAD by pumping hundreds of billions of dollars to these corrupt, ignorant and backwards societies (there I've said it).
Either support Israel to the hilt and get off of our addiction to foreign oil or do what China does and work for our naked self-interest (oil) suck up to these bastards and sell the Israelis down the river.
We can't have it both ways without spending hundreds of billions of additional dollars in military expenditures and getting involved in wars... oh wait.Kinda makes you wonder if previous administrations (mainly Bush 41+43 but who knows, maybe Clinton too) have been bought out.
*If you doubt how important jews have been to world civilization, here's a joke(?
) that claims the three most important figures IN HISTORY were jews.
(and no, I'm not jewish).- Einstein (science)- Marx (political thinking)You can guess the last one.
Let's just say his name begins with a "J".
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31177300</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1265024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've even sent out a new argument: "CO2 ain't that bad, plants consume it!" So if they can't convince people that AGW is nonexistent, they go for trying to prove that one of the prime suspects is benign or even beneficial, as if that would somehow outweigh the consequences.</p><p>But then again, logic means nothing to them, as long as they can deceive the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've even sent out a new argument : " CO2 ai n't that bad , plants consume it !
" So if they ca n't convince people that AGW is nonexistent , they go for trying to prove that one of the prime suspects is benign or even beneficial , as if that would somehow outweigh the consequences.But then again , logic means nothing to them , as long as they can deceive the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've even sent out a new argument: "CO2 ain't that bad, plants consume it!
" So if they can't convince people that AGW is nonexistent, they go for trying to prove that one of the prime suspects is benign or even beneficial, as if that would somehow outweigh the consequences.But then again, logic means nothing to them, as long as they can deceive the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170584</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1265044740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone has ulterior motives.</p><p>The people doing the Global Warming science are based in universities and want to continue to receive funding.</p><p>The people doing anti-Global Warming work are based in Energy companies and want to continue to make record profits.</p><p>Which one do you think is more likely to color your results?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone has ulterior motives.The people doing the Global Warming science are based in universities and want to continue to receive funding.The people doing anti-Global Warming work are based in Energy companies and want to continue to make record profits.Which one do you think is more likely to color your results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone has ulterior motives.The people doing the Global Warming science are based in universities and want to continue to receive funding.The people doing anti-Global Warming work are based in Energy companies and want to continue to make record profits.Which one do you think is more likely to color your results?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169402</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1265040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you care about science, you should give a few years to analyze the data before throwing out those numbers. Statistical significance will increase over time. We can say a lot more about 1980-2000 than we can about 1990-2010, because we have the benefit of 10 years of data analysis.</p><p>Climate science is about the long haul. 15 years is a drop in the bucket. The Earth has been continuously warming, there is no doubt about that.</p><p>The models are wrong. Big deal. That doesn't make the planet cooler. It just means we're unclear about the causes. (Which is all you global warming deniers want, isn't it? Can't you just attack the science based on the actual fact that root causes of warming are difficult to pin down and not outright lie and claim that the planet is not significantly warming?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you care about science , you should give a few years to analyze the data before throwing out those numbers .
Statistical significance will increase over time .
We can say a lot more about 1980-2000 than we can about 1990-2010 , because we have the benefit of 10 years of data analysis.Climate science is about the long haul .
15 years is a drop in the bucket .
The Earth has been continuously warming , there is no doubt about that.The models are wrong .
Big deal .
That does n't make the planet cooler .
It just means we 're unclear about the causes .
( Which is all you global warming deniers want , is n't it ?
Ca n't you just attack the science based on the actual fact that root causes of warming are difficult to pin down and not outright lie and claim that the planet is not significantly warming ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you care about science, you should give a few years to analyze the data before throwing out those numbers.
Statistical significance will increase over time.
We can say a lot more about 1980-2000 than we can about 1990-2010, because we have the benefit of 10 years of data analysis.Climate science is about the long haul.
15 years is a drop in the bucket.
The Earth has been continuously warming, there is no doubt about that.The models are wrong.
Big deal.
That doesn't make the planet cooler.
It just means we're unclear about the causes.
(Which is all you global warming deniers want, isn't it?
Can't you just attack the science based on the actual fact that root causes of warming are difficult to pin down and not outright lie and claim that the planet is not significantly warming?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31177554</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no single main argument. Money-based incentives are definitely mentioned for INDIVIDUAL cases -- and rightly so. When scientists working for the association of petroleum producers make findings that are much more favorable to use of crude oil over alternatives (compared to average of other studies), yes, it is reasonably to question how unbiased the research is.<br>But the general all-sweeping accusations are silly, possibly from both sides.</p><p>For the Global Warming Denial - syndrome, no universal theory of conspiracy is needed. Nutcases seem to grow in trees, much like nuts do. New idiots are born each day; some grow up as teabaggers, others as religious loonies, others as fairy-dust-pot-hippies. Fundamental flaw in individuals brains may be the same, but expressions thereof vary widely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no single main argument .
Money-based incentives are definitely mentioned for INDIVIDUAL cases -- and rightly so .
When scientists working for the association of petroleum producers make findings that are much more favorable to use of crude oil over alternatives ( compared to average of other studies ) , yes , it is reasonably to question how unbiased the research is.But the general all-sweeping accusations are silly , possibly from both sides.For the Global Warming Denial - syndrome , no universal theory of conspiracy is needed .
Nutcases seem to grow in trees , much like nuts do .
New idiots are born each day ; some grow up as teabaggers , others as religious loonies , others as fairy-dust-pot-hippies .
Fundamental flaw in individuals brains may be the same , but expressions thereof vary widely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no single main argument.
Money-based incentives are definitely mentioned for INDIVIDUAL cases -- and rightly so.
When scientists working for the association of petroleum producers make findings that are much more favorable to use of crude oil over alternatives (compared to average of other studies), yes, it is reasonably to question how unbiased the research is.But the general all-sweeping accusations are silly, possibly from both sides.For the Global Warming Denial - syndrome, no universal theory of conspiracy is needed.
Nutcases seem to grow in trees, much like nuts do.
New idiots are born each day; some grow up as teabaggers, others as religious loonies, others as fairy-dust-pot-hippies.
Fundamental flaw in individuals brains may be the same, but expressions thereof vary widely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168588</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>etherDave</author>
	<datestamp>1265037600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'I think this problem is a symptom of our terrible science education in our schools.'

I live in Utah, and this areas actually has one of the highest per-capita population of physics undergraduates in the nation (due to the existence of three large universities with unusually large physics programs and the low population of the state).
The sciences are strong in Utah, but nobody with any political power listens to us, because the money is in things like strip-mining and oil and such.  Plus they gerrymander the heck out of the colleges.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'I think this problem is a symptom of our terrible science education in our schools .
' I live in Utah , and this areas actually has one of the highest per-capita population of physics undergraduates in the nation ( due to the existence of three large universities with unusually large physics programs and the low population of the state ) .
The sciences are strong in Utah , but nobody with any political power listens to us , because the money is in things like strip-mining and oil and such .
Plus they gerrymander the heck out of the colleges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'I think this problem is a symptom of our terrible science education in our schools.
'

I live in Utah, and this areas actually has one of the highest per-capita population of physics undergraduates in the nation (due to the existence of three large universities with unusually large physics programs and the low population of the state).
The sciences are strong in Utah, but nobody with any political power listens to us, because the money is in things like strip-mining and oil and such.
Plus they gerrymander the heck out of the colleges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171604</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1265047800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scientific method involves debate, but only the evidence is allowed to participate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scientific method involves debate , but only the evidence is allowed to participate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scientific method involves debate, but only the evidence is allowed to participate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168390</id>
	<title>It's religion folks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can pretty much tell what people believe about climate change by knowing their political affiliation.  The number of people who have taken the trouble to look into the basic physics of climate change is very tiny.</p><p>The climate blogosphere is mostly a festering cesspool of invective, dis-information, criminal lack of logic and just plain bad science.</p><p>In spite of what Al Gore says, the science is far from settled.  (I'm willing to swing either way once someone proves or disproves the basic mechanism behind Hansen's positive feedback theory.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can pretty much tell what people believe about climate change by knowing their political affiliation .
The number of people who have taken the trouble to look into the basic physics of climate change is very tiny.The climate blogosphere is mostly a festering cesspool of invective , dis-information , criminal lack of logic and just plain bad science.In spite of what Al Gore says , the science is far from settled .
( I 'm willing to swing either way once someone proves or disproves the basic mechanism behind Hansen 's positive feedback theory .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can pretty much tell what people believe about climate change by knowing their political affiliation.
The number of people who have taken the trouble to look into the basic physics of climate change is very tiny.The climate blogosphere is mostly a festering cesspool of invective, dis-information, criminal lack of logic and just plain bad science.In spite of what Al Gore says, the science is far from settled.
(I'm willing to swing either way once someone proves or disproves the basic mechanism behind Hansen's positive feedback theory.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172064</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>sp3d2orbit</author>
	<datestamp>1265049120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entire debate is a waste of time and irrelevant. Climate change will happen whether or not we give the government 100\% control over carbon emissions. The time for prevention was 100 years ago -- now we need to find ways to adapt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire debate is a waste of time and irrelevant .
Climate change will happen whether or not we give the government 100 \ % control over carbon emissions .
The time for prevention was 100 years ago -- now we need to find ways to adapt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire debate is a waste of time and irrelevant.
Climate change will happen whether or not we give the government 100\% control over carbon emissions.
The time for prevention was 100 years ago -- now we need to find ways to adapt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168516</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants,</p> </div><p>I'm sorry, but isn't the main argument against AGW "skeptics" that they are all working for "big oil"?  And now you are claiming that it's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce "science" that will ultimately give government more power.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It is a massive double standard!</p></div><p>I couldn't have said it better!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants , I 'm sorry , but is n't the main argument against AGW " skeptics " that they are all working for " big oil " ?
And now you are claiming that it 's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce " science " that will ultimately give government more power.It is a massive double standard ! I could n't have said it better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants, I'm sorry, but isn't the main argument against AGW "skeptics" that they are all working for "big oil"?
And now you are claiming that it's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce "science" that will ultimately give government more power.It is a massive double standard!I couldn't have said it better!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171854</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>baxissimo</author>
	<datestamp>1265048460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was too young in the 70's to remember the ice age predictions.   But I do consider the fact that I don't remember anything about it from the 80's as a good indication that it was a much feebler and uncertain prediction than the current predictions of warming.  Steven Schneider in his book mentions that he was one of the people who published in a paper in the 70's stating that human activities might trigger an ice age.  But there was absolutely no certainty behind the statement.  This was back when they first discovered that aerosols like sulfates could have a cooling effect, but they still had very little data about the magnitude of that cooling, and it wasn't clear then if it was greater or less than the warming caused by greenhouse gasses.   So his statement was more like IF the aerosol cooling turns out to be big, THEN we may be headed for another ice age.
<p>
I think by the 80's they were pretty certain that the cooling effect wasn't sufficient to overwhelm the warming, and since then, for the past four decades, we've had increasing certainty in warming.
</p><p>
And here's <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm" title="skepticalscience.com">another rebuttal</a> [skepticalscience.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was too young in the 70 's to remember the ice age predictions .
But I do consider the fact that I do n't remember anything about it from the 80 's as a good indication that it was a much feebler and uncertain prediction than the current predictions of warming .
Steven Schneider in his book mentions that he was one of the people who published in a paper in the 70 's stating that human activities might trigger an ice age .
But there was absolutely no certainty behind the statement .
This was back when they first discovered that aerosols like sulfates could have a cooling effect , but they still had very little data about the magnitude of that cooling , and it was n't clear then if it was greater or less than the warming caused by greenhouse gasses .
So his statement was more like IF the aerosol cooling turns out to be big , THEN we may be headed for another ice age .
I think by the 80 's they were pretty certain that the cooling effect was n't sufficient to overwhelm the warming , and since then , for the past four decades , we 've had increasing certainty in warming .
And here 's another rebuttal [ skepticalscience.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was too young in the 70's to remember the ice age predictions.
But I do consider the fact that I don't remember anything about it from the 80's as a good indication that it was a much feebler and uncertain prediction than the current predictions of warming.
Steven Schneider in his book mentions that he was one of the people who published in a paper in the 70's stating that human activities might trigger an ice age.
But there was absolutely no certainty behind the statement.
This was back when they first discovered that aerosols like sulfates could have a cooling effect, but they still had very little data about the magnitude of that cooling, and it wasn't clear then if it was greater or less than the warming caused by greenhouse gasses.
So his statement was more like IF the aerosol cooling turns out to be big, THEN we may be headed for another ice age.
I think by the 80's they were pretty certain that the cooling effect wasn't sufficient to overwhelm the warming, and since then, for the past four decades, we've had increasing certainty in warming.
And here's another rebuttal [skepticalscience.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872</id>
	<title>I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There hasn't been any statistically significant warming since at least 1995.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has n't been any statistically significant warming since at least 1995 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There hasn't been any statistically significant warming since at least 1995.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168874</id>
	<title>Guess they don't believe in evolution too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If somebody in that state got some brain and is not a redneck, raise a hand!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If somebody in that state got some brain and is not a redneck , raise a hand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If somebody in that state got some brain and is not a redneck, raise a hand!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169288</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>mwlewis</author>
	<datestamp>1265040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if global warming is absolutely false in every way, having more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does nothing positive for our air quality.</p></div><p>Maybe so, but does it do anything negative for our air quality?  In any case, plants sure seem to like increased CO2, so there's one positive benefit to increased CO2. There is plenty of pollution that we create, though in the US, at least, we've gotten a lot better about it.  CO2 is not pollution.  At least not at levels we're capable of creating in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if global warming is absolutely false in every way , having more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does nothing positive for our air quality.Maybe so , but does it do anything negative for our air quality ?
In any case , plants sure seem to like increased CO2 , so there 's one positive benefit to increased CO2 .
There is plenty of pollution that we create , though in the US , at least , we 've gotten a lot better about it .
CO2 is not pollution .
At least not at levels we 're capable of creating in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if global warming is absolutely false in every way, having more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does nothing positive for our air quality.Maybe so, but does it do anything negative for our air quality?
In any case, plants sure seem to like increased CO2, so there's one positive benefit to increased CO2.
There is plenty of pollution that we create, though in the US, at least, we've gotten a lot better about it.
CO2 is not pollution.
At least not at levels we're capable of creating in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168270</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop reading and trying to get sense of every word politician says. These sentence are not constructed to convey meaning but a feeling. Read it quickly, get your first impression. "Conservatives FTW, pwnd liberal eco-fags lol" This is the message. Do not try to dig deeper.<br> <br>
There are serious concerns about the IPCC and some of their faulty results but the people mentioned in this article are neither competent nor willing to address them. Just bark with them or against them, do not try to have articulate discussion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop reading and trying to get sense of every word politician says .
These sentence are not constructed to convey meaning but a feeling .
Read it quickly , get your first impression .
" Conservatives FTW , pwnd liberal eco-fags lol " This is the message .
Do not try to dig deeper .
There are serious concerns about the IPCC and some of their faulty results but the people mentioned in this article are neither competent nor willing to address them .
Just bark with them or against them , do not try to have articulate discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop reading and trying to get sense of every word politician says.
These sentence are not constructed to convey meaning but a feeling.
Read it quickly, get your first impression.
"Conservatives FTW, pwnd liberal eco-fags lol" This is the message.
Do not try to dig deeper.
There are serious concerns about the IPCC and some of their faulty results but the people mentioned in this article are neither competent nor willing to address them.
Just bark with them or against them, do not try to have articulate discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168626</id>
	<title>Re:Falling behind a little more each day.</title>
	<author>Patoski</author>
	<datestamp>1265037780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if global warming is a political sham and most of the "scientific" evidence has been fabricated, as it very well may be, at least it has spurned research into solar and wind technologies, for instance.</p></div><p>Assuming that is the case (i.e. man made global warming is statistically insignificant or totally false), don't you think that the same money could have been better spent in other areas of research instead of solving for a nonexistent problem?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if global warming is a political sham and most of the " scientific " evidence has been fabricated , as it very well may be , at least it has spurned research into solar and wind technologies , for instance.Assuming that is the case ( i.e .
man made global warming is statistically insignificant or totally false ) , do n't you think that the same money could have been better spent in other areas of research instead of solving for a nonexistent problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if global warming is a political sham and most of the "scientific" evidence has been fabricated, as it very well may be, at least it has spurned research into solar and wind technologies, for instance.Assuming that is the case (i.e.
man made global warming is statistically insignificant or totally false), don't you think that the same money could have been better spent in other areas of research instead of solving for a nonexistent problem?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168738</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1265038260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The last time I checked, the scientific method didn't include debate,</p></div><p>Yes it does.  It's called peer review and it has been lacking.  Unfortunately, similar to what happens too often in a debate, the scientists try to discredit those that criticize their work via the peer review process instead of criticizing the arguments that are produced.  This is what much of the CRU scandal was about.  They tried to silence their critics.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Obviously the majority of Utah's Assembly has no idea how science works</p></div><p>Given what I just said, we could say the same about you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I checked , the scientific method did n't include debate,Yes it does .
It 's called peer review and it has been lacking .
Unfortunately , similar to what happens too often in a debate , the scientists try to discredit those that criticize their work via the peer review process instead of criticizing the arguments that are produced .
This is what much of the CRU scandal was about .
They tried to silence their critics.Obviously the majority of Utah 's Assembly has no idea how science worksGiven what I just said , we could say the same about you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I checked, the scientific method didn't include debate,Yes it does.
It's called peer review and it has been lacking.
Unfortunately, similar to what happens too often in a debate, the scientists try to discredit those that criticize their work via the peer review process instead of criticizing the arguments that are produced.
This is what much of the CRU scandal was about.
They tried to silence their critics.Obviously the majority of Utah's Assembly has no idea how science worksGiven what I just said, we could say the same about you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171194</id>
	<title>Um, let's see...</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1265046660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A place with <a href="http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/energy/fossil\_fuels.htm" title="utah.gov">massive coal reserves</a> [utah.gov] is claiming that coal is the best way to produce power?</p><p>Hmmm. I think I see the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A place with massive coal reserves [ utah.gov ] is claiming that coal is the best way to produce power ? Hmmm .
I think I see the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A place with massive coal reserves [utah.gov] is claiming that coal is the best way to produce power?Hmmm.
I think I see the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169468</id>
	<title>Do you want a job?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I long since got as far away from US manufacturing as I can since it is imploding at a very fast rate. Do you honestly think that<br>china and india are going to impose CO2 limits on their growing manufacturing industry? If you said yes to that question you<br>are a fool. In fact the EPA regulating CO2 is only going to make matters worse. You impose C02 caps in the US and local<br>companies will only ship more manufacturing over the pond.  80 percent of china's power is produced in coal plants, do you<br>think our efforts to cap emissions in the US is going to have a positive effect? So yea feel good and regulate all you want, it<br>will only speed the implosion of our most important industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I long since got as far away from US manufacturing as I can since it is imploding at a very fast rate .
Do you honestly think thatchina and india are going to impose CO2 limits on their growing manufacturing industry ?
If you said yes to that question youare a fool .
In fact the EPA regulating CO2 is only going to make matters worse .
You impose C02 caps in the US and localcompanies will only ship more manufacturing over the pond .
80 percent of china 's power is produced in coal plants , do youthink our efforts to cap emissions in the US is going to have a positive effect ?
So yea feel good and regulate all you want , itwill only speed the implosion of our most important industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I long since got as far away from US manufacturing as I can since it is imploding at a very fast rate.
Do you honestly think thatchina and india are going to impose CO2 limits on their growing manufacturing industry?
If you said yes to that question youare a fool.
In fact the EPA regulating CO2 is only going to make matters worse.
You impose C02 caps in the US and localcompanies will only ship more manufacturing over the pond.
80 percent of china's power is produced in coal plants, do youthink our efforts to cap emissions in the US is going to have a positive effect?
So yea feel good and regulate all you want, itwill only speed the implosion of our most important industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171786</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>sp3d2orbit</author>
	<datestamp>1265048280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading books as a child in the 1980's that said the world would run out of oil in 1994. I also remember "Acid Rain" coming to destroy us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading books as a child in the 1980 's that said the world would run out of oil in 1994 .
I also remember " Acid Rain " coming to destroy us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading books as a child in the 1980's that said the world would run out of oil in 1994.
I also remember "Acid Rain" coming to destroy us all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167998</id>
	<title>Here it comes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the storm of posts saying how "stupid" Utah is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the storm of posts saying how " stupid " Utah is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the storm of posts saying how "stupid" Utah is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168190</id>
	<title>No double standard here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people in the business of government are there to benefit themselves, not you and me. This is evident by the fact that every year government costs more, not less, and every year govenrment aquires more power, never relinquishing it -- yet it is obvious that for all this continuous expansion, government isn't getting better.</p><p>Ultimately, every change government makes is for the benefit of those who control government. But don't fall into the trap of thinking they all play on the same team. Just as in a large corporation, there is malice to be found all the way up the corporate ladder. So there is no double standard at all here -- just normal everyday government, where the snakes fight among themselves for the power and money they've taken (or plan to take) from you and me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people in the business of government are there to benefit themselves , not you and me .
This is evident by the fact that every year government costs more , not less , and every year govenrment aquires more power , never relinquishing it -- yet it is obvious that for all this continuous expansion , government is n't getting better.Ultimately , every change government makes is for the benefit of those who control government .
But do n't fall into the trap of thinking they all play on the same team .
Just as in a large corporation , there is malice to be found all the way up the corporate ladder .
So there is no double standard at all here -- just normal everyday government , where the snakes fight among themselves for the power and money they 've taken ( or plan to take ) from you and me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people in the business of government are there to benefit themselves, not you and me.
This is evident by the fact that every year government costs more, not less, and every year govenrment aquires more power, never relinquishing it -- yet it is obvious that for all this continuous expansion, government isn't getting better.Ultimately, every change government makes is for the benefit of those who control government.
But don't fall into the trap of thinking they all play on the same team.
Just as in a large corporation, there is malice to be found all the way up the corporate ladder.
So there is no double standard at all here -- just normal everyday government, where the snakes fight among themselves for the power and money they've taken (or plan to take) from you and me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171716</id>
	<title>Climate change is not the whole problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human impact on the environment has multiple consequences. Climate change, while one of them, is not the whole of the issue. Let's look at the issues in order:</p><p>* Habitat loss. We are eliminating the amount of land in which natural species can live and breed. Just like you need room to roam outside your apartments, they need more land than you'd think. But we cut it up with roads and fences and find other ways to squeeze them out.</p><p>* Overpopulation. There are too many of us. If any other species grew this fast, and was this numerous at the size we are, we'd kill them off because they would be a cancer onto the earth.</p><p>* Land consumption. We are taking up too much land. Land is needed to remain in pristine state as a form of regulatory mechanism, whether forests absorbing carbon or fields of legumes replenishing nutrients. (There are too many instances to count.)</p><p>* Species depletion. We are overfishing, we have overhunted, and we have found other ways (habitat loss, toxic pollutants) to kill off other species. This means extinction and loss of segments of the food chain and ecosystem maintenance chains. That's like randomly deleting code from your kernel.</p><p>* Pollution. We may be dumping carbon in excess, but we are also dumping everything else: plastics, fertilizers, meds, solvents and toxic chemicals.</p><p>The root of our problem is overpopulation, specifically in the third world, and the habitat loss it creates. Drive an SUV if you must -- just leave 100 acres of forested land for the animals. Live in a big house if you must -- just surround it with a few miles of forest, prairie, desert or whatever's natural where you live. But not everyone can do that because not everyone has the money.</p><p>We then have two possible solutions:</p><p>(1) Reduce everyone to the same uniform level of poverty; equality.<br>(2) Let some be rich and reduce our population so that we can have fewer, but richer and smarter people; natural selection.</p><p>The latter is politically unpopular, and so we need a reason to do the former. Global warming because the political symbol designed to justify option #1 -- and that is why the right and anyone else with a working brain is opposing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human impact on the environment has multiple consequences .
Climate change , while one of them , is not the whole of the issue .
Let 's look at the issues in order : * Habitat loss .
We are eliminating the amount of land in which natural species can live and breed .
Just like you need room to roam outside your apartments , they need more land than you 'd think .
But we cut it up with roads and fences and find other ways to squeeze them out .
* Overpopulation .
There are too many of us .
If any other species grew this fast , and was this numerous at the size we are , we 'd kill them off because they would be a cancer onto the earth .
* Land consumption .
We are taking up too much land .
Land is needed to remain in pristine state as a form of regulatory mechanism , whether forests absorbing carbon or fields of legumes replenishing nutrients .
( There are too many instances to count .
) * Species depletion .
We are overfishing , we have overhunted , and we have found other ways ( habitat loss , toxic pollutants ) to kill off other species .
This means extinction and loss of segments of the food chain and ecosystem maintenance chains .
That 's like randomly deleting code from your kernel .
* Pollution .
We may be dumping carbon in excess , but we are also dumping everything else : plastics , fertilizers , meds , solvents and toxic chemicals.The root of our problem is overpopulation , specifically in the third world , and the habitat loss it creates .
Drive an SUV if you must -- just leave 100 acres of forested land for the animals .
Live in a big house if you must -- just surround it with a few miles of forest , prairie , desert or whatever 's natural where you live .
But not everyone can do that because not everyone has the money.We then have two possible solutions : ( 1 ) Reduce everyone to the same uniform level of poverty ; equality .
( 2 ) Let some be rich and reduce our population so that we can have fewer , but richer and smarter people ; natural selection.The latter is politically unpopular , and so we need a reason to do the former .
Global warming because the political symbol designed to justify option # 1 -- and that is why the right and anyone else with a working brain is opposing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human impact on the environment has multiple consequences.
Climate change, while one of them, is not the whole of the issue.
Let's look at the issues in order:* Habitat loss.
We are eliminating the amount of land in which natural species can live and breed.
Just like you need room to roam outside your apartments, they need more land than you'd think.
But we cut it up with roads and fences and find other ways to squeeze them out.
* Overpopulation.
There are too many of us.
If any other species grew this fast, and was this numerous at the size we are, we'd kill them off because they would be a cancer onto the earth.
* Land consumption.
We are taking up too much land.
Land is needed to remain in pristine state as a form of regulatory mechanism, whether forests absorbing carbon or fields of legumes replenishing nutrients.
(There are too many instances to count.
)* Species depletion.
We are overfishing, we have overhunted, and we have found other ways (habitat loss, toxic pollutants) to kill off other species.
This means extinction and loss of segments of the food chain and ecosystem maintenance chains.
That's like randomly deleting code from your kernel.
* Pollution.
We may be dumping carbon in excess, but we are also dumping everything else: plastics, fertilizers, meds, solvents and toxic chemicals.The root of our problem is overpopulation, specifically in the third world, and the habitat loss it creates.
Drive an SUV if you must -- just leave 100 acres of forested land for the animals.
Live in a big house if you must -- just surround it with a few miles of forest, prairie, desert or whatever's natural where you live.
But not everyone can do that because not everyone has the money.We then have two possible solutions:(1) Reduce everyone to the same uniform level of poverty; equality.
(2) Let some be rich and reduce our population so that we can have fewer, but richer and smarter people; natural selection.The latter is politically unpopular, and so we need a reason to do the former.
Global warming because the political symbol designed to justify option #1 -- and that is why the right and anyone else with a working brain is opposing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179126</id>
	<title>Re:Like a child with their fingers in their ears.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1265034960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes you are just like a child with their fingers in their ears and humming loudly.<br> <br>

Solar irradiance is stable and does not change on a large scale. There is a serious discrepancy between temperature increases and the lack of solar irradiance increases. So that lamp has little to do with it, because it's doing very little.<br> <br>

Please refer to actual solar irradiance readings from the <a href="http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/" title="mps.mpg.de">Max Planck institute</a> [mps.mpg.de] for further reading. Further more saying that your statement is a "fact" does not make it so, this is called a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare\_assertion\_fallacy" title="wikipedia.org">base assertion fallacy</a> [wikipedia.org] because it has no supporting evidence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes you are just like a child with their fingers in their ears and humming loudly .
Solar irradiance is stable and does not change on a large scale .
There is a serious discrepancy between temperature increases and the lack of solar irradiance increases .
So that lamp has little to do with it , because it 's doing very little .
Please refer to actual solar irradiance readings from the Max Planck institute [ mps.mpg.de ] for further reading .
Further more saying that your statement is a " fact " does not make it so , this is called a base assertion fallacy [ wikipedia.org ] because it has no supporting evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes you are just like a child with their fingers in their ears and humming loudly.
Solar irradiance is stable and does not change on a large scale.
There is a serious discrepancy between temperature increases and the lack of solar irradiance increases.
So that lamp has little to do with it, because it's doing very little.
Please refer to actual solar irradiance readings from the Max Planck institute [mps.mpg.de] for further reading.
Further more saying that your statement is a "fact" does not make it so, this is called a base assertion fallacy [wikipedia.org] because it has no supporting evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169060</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when has Chewie lived on Endor?  SPOILER:  Didn't you hear he's dead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when has Chewie lived on Endor ?
SPOILER : Did n't you hear he 's dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when has Chewie lived on Endor?
SPOILER:  Didn't you hear he's dead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31177618</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>agbinfo</author>
	<datestamp>1265025120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strangely, when I took my statistical analysis course, many people had trouble getting a C- and to be honest, the exams weren't that hard.</p><p>Now, everybody is commenting on statistical studies as if they were experts on the subject.</p><p>When did so many people become experts in statistics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strangely , when I took my statistical analysis course , many people had trouble getting a C- and to be honest , the exams were n't that hard.Now , everybody is commenting on statistical studies as if they were experts on the subject.When did so many people become experts in statistics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strangely, when I took my statistical analysis course, many people had trouble getting a C- and to be honest, the exams weren't that hard.Now, everybody is commenting on statistical studies as if they were experts on the subject.When did so many people become experts in statistics?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171702</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>phlinn</author>
	<datestamp>1265048040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the sake of argument:  Actually, there are a number of potential benefits to greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.  Crop yields, Cloud Cover, Preipitation:  These are all potentially beneficial, and are not an exhaustive list.  It's nice to pretend an argument is beyond the pale, but it is not known what the <b>net</b> effect of increasing CO2 concentrations would be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the sake of argument : Actually , there are a number of potential benefits to greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere .
Crop yields , Cloud Cover , Preipitation : These are all potentially beneficial , and are not an exhaustive list .
It 's nice to pretend an argument is beyond the pale , but it is not known what the net effect of increasing CO2 concentrations would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the sake of argument:  Actually, there are a number of potential benefits to greater CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Crop yields, Cloud Cover, Preipitation:  These are all potentially beneficial, and are not an exhaustive list.
It's nice to pretend an argument is beyond the pale, but it is not known what the net effect of increasing CO2 concentrations would be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168066</id>
	<title>Another shot fire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the conservatives' War On Science</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the conservatives ' War On Science</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the conservatives' War On Science</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167902</id>
	<title>Candidates for the Canute Award</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1265034060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure that they can deny the existence of global warming. I'm also equally sure that global warming is not worried about their denial. They might as well have tried to legislate about the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference. But seriously, what are the consequences of this vote? Well, apart from making the Utah state legislature look silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that they can deny the existence of global warming .
I 'm also equally sure that global warming is not worried about their denial .
They might as well have tried to legislate about the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference .
But seriously , what are the consequences of this vote ?
Well , apart from making the Utah state legislature look silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that they can deny the existence of global warming.
I'm also equally sure that global warming is not worried about their denial.
They might as well have tried to legislate about the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference.
But seriously, what are the consequences of this vote?
Well, apart from making the Utah state legislature look silly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168376</id>
	<title>Was this the same august body....</title>
	<author>rclandrum</author>
	<datestamp>1265036700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that almost passed the bill setting the value of pi to 3?<br> <br>

Also from the educated state of Utah comes the following:<br> <br>

- It is illegal NOT to drink milk.<br> <br>

- It is a felony to persistently tread on the cracks between paving stones on the sidewalk of a state highway.<br> <br>

- It is against the law to fish from horseback.<br> <br>

- No one may have sex in the back of an ambulance if it is responding to an emergency call. (I would love to know the story that prompted the passing of this law).<br> <br>

Lest we laugh too hard at Utah, you can easily find stupid laws on the books in every state.  Makes me wonder exactly how serious they were being when they passed them.  I can just imagine a couple of reps tossing around ideas for hilarious new laws. "Hey Bob, I got one - let's outlaw global warming!  Problem solved!".</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that almost passed the bill setting the value of pi to 3 ?
Also from the educated state of Utah comes the following : - It is illegal NOT to drink milk .
- It is a felony to persistently tread on the cracks between paving stones on the sidewalk of a state highway .
- It is against the law to fish from horseback .
- No one may have sex in the back of an ambulance if it is responding to an emergency call .
( I would love to know the story that prompted the passing of this law ) .
Lest we laugh too hard at Utah , you can easily find stupid laws on the books in every state .
Makes me wonder exactly how serious they were being when they passed them .
I can just imagine a couple of reps tossing around ideas for hilarious new laws .
" Hey Bob , I got one - let 's outlaw global warming !
Problem solved !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that almost passed the bill setting the value of pi to 3?
Also from the educated state of Utah comes the following: 

- It is illegal NOT to drink milk.
- It is a felony to persistently tread on the cracks between paving stones on the sidewalk of a state highway.
- It is against the law to fish from horseback.
- No one may have sex in the back of an ambulance if it is responding to an emergency call.
(I would love to know the story that prompted the passing of this law).
Lest we laugh too hard at Utah, you can easily find stupid laws on the books in every state.
Makes me wonder exactly how serious they were being when they passed them.
I can just imagine a couple of reps tossing around ideas for hilarious new laws.
"Hey Bob, I got one - let's outlaw global warming!
Problem solved!
".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168146</id>
	<title>In other words</title>
	<author>eclectro</author>
	<datestamp>1265035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climate change is gay.</p><p>Love,<br>Utah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate change is gay.Love,Utah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate change is gay.Love,Utah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171802</id>
	<title>Read the fine print.</title>
	<author>DieByWire</author>
	<datestamp>1265048340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure it will say pi = 3.0 in there someplace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it will say pi = 3.0 in there someplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it will say pi = 3.0 in there someplace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172420</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>Ray</author>
	<datestamp>1265050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't these the same bunch of yokels that think them younguns be havin' too much edjycashun and want to make K-12 into K-11? Big thinkers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't these the same bunch of yokels that think them younguns be havin ' too much edjycashun and want to make K-12 into K-11 ?
Big thinkers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't these the same bunch of yokels that think them younguns be havin' too much edjycashun and want to make K-12 into K-11?
Big thinkers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180116</id>
	<title>Re:This is what you get....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if global warming were proven beyond any reasonable doubt, I suspect we'd still see things like this.  Politicians serve the interests that get them elected.  Global warming is inconvinient to these interests.  Evolution has the exact same problems in legislatures.  Politicians don't get elected by facts, so more facts isn't going to change a damn thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if global warming were proven beyond any reasonable doubt , I suspect we 'd still see things like this .
Politicians serve the interests that get them elected .
Global warming is inconvinient to these interests .
Evolution has the exact same problems in legislatures .
Politicians do n't get elected by facts , so more facts is n't going to change a damn thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if global warming were proven beyond any reasonable doubt, I suspect we'd still see things like this.
Politicians serve the interests that get them elected.
Global warming is inconvinient to these interests.
Evolution has the exact same problems in legislatures.
Politicians don't get elected by facts, so more facts isn't going to change a damn thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167912</id>
	<title>I just don't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not that I don't believe in climate change.  I just don't care enough to approve of measures that inconvenience me.  I realize this sounds like trolling, but I think a lot of people share my sentiment.  The effect of climate change doesn't personally effect me, edicts by the EPA do.  I wouldn't be so quick to label everyone who apposes enviromental measures as an anti-science quack.  It is more likaly to just be self interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not that I do n't believe in climate change .
I just do n't care enough to approve of measures that inconvenience me .
I realize this sounds like trolling , but I think a lot of people share my sentiment .
The effect of climate change does n't personally effect me , edicts by the EPA do .
I would n't be so quick to label everyone who apposes enviromental measures as an anti-science quack .
It is more likaly to just be self interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not that I don't believe in climate change.
I just don't care enough to approve of measures that inconvenience me.
I realize this sounds like trolling, but I think a lot of people share my sentiment.
The effect of climate change doesn't personally effect me, edicts by the EPA do.
I wouldn't be so quick to label everyone who apposes enviromental measures as an anti-science quack.
It is more likaly to just be self interest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171896</id>
	<title>We ought not to use word "Science"</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1265048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We shouldn't use the term "Science" as a blanket term to describe any method of investigation.  Doing that discredits what I consider legitimate science in the eyes of the un-differentiating public.  </p><p>Although the "Science" of global climate change is filled with computer models, hypothesis and conjecture, it is mostly devoid controlled experimentation.  Controlled experimentation is, in my opinion, the difference between science and other forms of investigation.  You need controlled experimentation to gather information about the certainty and applicability of you conclusions.  Without controlled experimentation it is impossible to differentiate causality from mere correlation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should n't use the term " Science " as a blanket term to describe any method of investigation .
Doing that discredits what I consider legitimate science in the eyes of the un-differentiating public .
Although the " Science " of global climate change is filled with computer models , hypothesis and conjecture , it is mostly devoid controlled experimentation .
Controlled experimentation is , in my opinion , the difference between science and other forms of investigation .
You need controlled experimentation to gather information about the certainty and applicability of you conclusions .
Without controlled experimentation it is impossible to differentiate causality from mere correlation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We shouldn't use the term "Science" as a blanket term to describe any method of investigation.
Doing that discredits what I consider legitimate science in the eyes of the un-differentiating public.
Although the "Science" of global climate change is filled with computer models, hypothesis and conjecture, it is mostly devoid controlled experimentation.
Controlled experimentation is, in my opinion, the difference between science and other forms of investigation.
You need controlled experimentation to gather information about the certainty and applicability of you conclusions.
Without controlled experimentation it is impossible to differentiate causality from mere correlation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167900</id>
	<title>Utah matters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad that Utah thinks that anybody cares what they have to say. It's cute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad that Utah thinks that anybody cares what they have to say .
It 's cute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad that Utah thinks that anybody cares what they have to say.
It's cute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169292</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, but in ages past, this planet was also unsuitable for human life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , but in ages past , this planet was also unsuitable for human life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, but in ages past, this planet was also unsuitable for human life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168396</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>durrr</author>
	<datestamp>1265036820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your post summarizes all that i hate when it comes to enviromental drama.<br>
Suddenly every crackpot shows their professsional opinion by cooking up their "even if A and B we still should C because D" reasons that are factually so wrong that it makes the bible look good.<br> <br>
Lets start with the effects of CO2 on asthma: which are none, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere will remain approximately the same, and co2 isn't known to make astmha worse, which brings us to the next point. The oxygen content of the atmosphere is approximately 21\%, the amospheric percentage of CO2 is 0.0387\%. Even if we were to increase atmospheric CO2 ten times you'd still be exhaling out air with a further ten times higher co2 content. The current manmade increase of co2 is something along the line of 20-50\%. As far as any mammalian respiratory system is concerned there have been no change whatsoever when it comes to co2 in the atmosphere. But apparently you think this is a problem so big that it's worth destroying or severely crippling the global economy to prevent it.<br> <br>

If you worry about asthmatics then i suggest you support reducing "ordinary" pollution, something a lot easier to do as you just need to install particle filters and get the combustion efficiency up, whereas for a co2 reduction you simply can't do the combustion at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post summarizes all that i hate when it comes to enviromental drama .
Suddenly every crackpot shows their professsional opinion by cooking up their " even if A and B we still should C because D " reasons that are factually so wrong that it makes the bible look good .
Lets start with the effects of CO2 on asthma : which are none , the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere will remain approximately the same , and co2 is n't known to make astmha worse , which brings us to the next point .
The oxygen content of the atmosphere is approximately 21 \ % , the amospheric percentage of CO2 is 0.0387 \ % .
Even if we were to increase atmospheric CO2 ten times you 'd still be exhaling out air with a further ten times higher co2 content .
The current manmade increase of co2 is something along the line of 20-50 \ % .
As far as any mammalian respiratory system is concerned there have been no change whatsoever when it comes to co2 in the atmosphere .
But apparently you think this is a problem so big that it 's worth destroying or severely crippling the global economy to prevent it .
If you worry about asthmatics then i suggest you support reducing " ordinary " pollution , something a lot easier to do as you just need to install particle filters and get the combustion efficiency up , whereas for a co2 reduction you simply ca n't do the combustion at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post summarizes all that i hate when it comes to enviromental drama.
Suddenly every crackpot shows their professsional opinion by cooking up their "even if A and B we still should C because D" reasons that are factually so wrong that it makes the bible look good.
Lets start with the effects of CO2 on asthma: which are none, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere will remain approximately the same, and co2 isn't known to make astmha worse, which brings us to the next point.
The oxygen content of the atmosphere is approximately 21\%, the amospheric percentage of CO2 is 0.0387\%.
Even if we were to increase atmospheric CO2 ten times you'd still be exhaling out air with a further ten times higher co2 content.
The current manmade increase of co2 is something along the line of 20-50\%.
As far as any mammalian respiratory system is concerned there have been no change whatsoever when it comes to co2 in the atmosphere.
But apparently you think this is a problem so big that it's worth destroying or severely crippling the global economy to prevent it.
If you worry about asthmatics then i suggest you support reducing "ordinary" pollution, something a lot easier to do as you just need to install particle filters and get the combustion efficiency up, whereas for a co2 reduction you simply can't do the combustion at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169316</id>
	<title>Sigh</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1265040420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the kdawsonification of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. continues. Please don't let this place become another DailyTech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the kdawsonification of / .
continues. Please do n't let this place become another DailyTech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the kdawsonification of /.
continues. Please don't let this place become another DailyTech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171310</id>
	<title>for and against</title>
	<author>whistlingtony</author>
	<datestamp>1265046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, this is important... I'm seeing a lot of arguing.</p><p>The science here is pretty basic, really. We're pumping out a lot of CO2, and it's causing a greenhouse effect. The earth as a whole is getting warmer, and it's weirding things out a little. We're worried about it. It's a complicated system that we're dealing with, and the math isn't straightforward.  We can predict climate level stuff over the long haul, but short term predictions are useless, because weather is just way to complicated.</p><p>There seem to be a lot of naysayers. Lets really look at this though....</p><p>FOR:<br>CO2 is a greenhouse gas. we produce a lot of it. Not much to question here. These are facts.</p><p>AGAINST:<br>Man can't affect the environment!  Debunked. Remember the hole in the freak'in ozone layer? It doesn't get a lot of press, but we did that. Or go to LA during a smog alert and breath deeply... Or look at the giant mound of plastic bits the size of Texas in the ocean, or look at the fish stocks running out on the coasts, or... Etc etc etc.</p><p>We don't produce enough! We're just a drop in the bucket compared to what Mom Nature spits out, so we can't be having an effect. Debunked. Yes, mom nature puts out a lot of CO2. And theoretically that has systems in place to deal with it. Our extra does not. Oh, and it's cumulative addition... The extra takes a LONG time to be gotten rid of.  Think it's not a big deal? Eat an extra candy bar every day. It's only 300 calories... Compared to the 3000 you're already eating, no big deal right? Yeah, but if you don't work extra to get rid of it, you'll gain about 25lbs in a year.</p><p>Follow the money! Climate researchers are just trying to get grants!  Yes.... grants... what a wonderful way to get money, to constantly scrap and scrimp. Those researchers are just trying to live it up. Not like the companies that are desperately trying to not get regulated, and have Hooker and Blow money to spare. Seriously.... Debunked.</p><p>We're coming out of an ice age!  Yes, we are. This is the only criticism I've seen so far that has real merit. Yes, it's supposed to be getting warmer, but NOT THIS FAST. Remeber that the shift in ice ages takes a LOOOOOOOOOONG time. Seeing rapid warming inside of decades is NOT supposed to happen. And it is kind of weird how it started speeding up right around the time humans started burning coal en masse. yeah, yeah, correlation, causation. If it's not us, and it's not the earth, do we blame martians? Debunked.</p><p>What would disprove it?  debunked. Uhm... mean temperatures getting colder over a decade? Mean temperatures staying even over a decade. Mean temperatures rising VEEEEEEERY slightly, but not so much? Funny, it hasn't done any of those.</p><p>I'm just not sure!  And the coal and oil companies have paid good money to sow those seeds of doubt.</p><p>We don't know enough!  And to some, we never will. Seriously, we do know enough. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat in the atmosphere instead of letting it radiate out into space. That is pretty basic. We know this. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2. We know this. Burning a couple million years worth of dead plants in a few centuries overwhelms the natural CO2 balancing systems that are in place. We know this too.</p><p>So, what other doubts do you have?</p><p>-Tony</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , this is important... I 'm seeing a lot of arguing.The science here is pretty basic , really .
We 're pumping out a lot of CO2 , and it 's causing a greenhouse effect .
The earth as a whole is getting warmer , and it 's weirding things out a little .
We 're worried about it .
It 's a complicated system that we 're dealing with , and the math is n't straightforward .
We can predict climate level stuff over the long haul , but short term predictions are useless , because weather is just way to complicated.There seem to be a lot of naysayers .
Lets really look at this though....FOR : CO2 is a greenhouse gas .
we produce a lot of it .
Not much to question here .
These are facts.AGAINST : Man ca n't affect the environment !
Debunked. Remember the hole in the freak'in ozone layer ?
It does n't get a lot of press , but we did that .
Or go to LA during a smog alert and breath deeply... Or look at the giant mound of plastic bits the size of Texas in the ocean , or look at the fish stocks running out on the coasts , or... Etc etc etc.We do n't produce enough !
We 're just a drop in the bucket compared to what Mom Nature spits out , so we ca n't be having an effect .
Debunked. Yes , mom nature puts out a lot of CO2 .
And theoretically that has systems in place to deal with it .
Our extra does not .
Oh , and it 's cumulative addition... The extra takes a LONG time to be gotten rid of .
Think it 's not a big deal ?
Eat an extra candy bar every day .
It 's only 300 calories... Compared to the 3000 you 're already eating , no big deal right ?
Yeah , but if you do n't work extra to get rid of it , you 'll gain about 25lbs in a year.Follow the money !
Climate researchers are just trying to get grants !
Yes.... grants... what a wonderful way to get money , to constantly scrap and scrimp .
Those researchers are just trying to live it up .
Not like the companies that are desperately trying to not get regulated , and have Hooker and Blow money to spare .
Seriously.... Debunked.We 're coming out of an ice age !
Yes , we are .
This is the only criticism I 've seen so far that has real merit .
Yes , it 's supposed to be getting warmer , but NOT THIS FAST .
Remeber that the shift in ice ages takes a LOOOOOOOOOONG time .
Seeing rapid warming inside of decades is NOT supposed to happen .
And it is kind of weird how it started speeding up right around the time humans started burning coal en masse .
yeah , yeah , correlation , causation .
If it 's not us , and it 's not the earth , do we blame martians ?
Debunked.What would disprove it ?
debunked. Uhm... mean temperatures getting colder over a decade ?
Mean temperatures staying even over a decade .
Mean temperatures rising VEEEEEEERY slightly , but not so much ?
Funny , it has n't done any of those.I 'm just not sure !
And the coal and oil companies have paid good money to sow those seeds of doubt.We do n't know enough !
And to some , we never will .
Seriously , we do know enough .
CO2 is a greenhouse gas .
It traps heat in the atmosphere instead of letting it radiate out into space .
That is pretty basic .
We know this .
Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 .
We know this .
Burning a couple million years worth of dead plants in a few centuries overwhelms the natural CO2 balancing systems that are in place .
We know this too.So , what other doubts do you have ? -Tony</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, this is important... I'm seeing a lot of arguing.The science here is pretty basic, really.
We're pumping out a lot of CO2, and it's causing a greenhouse effect.
The earth as a whole is getting warmer, and it's weirding things out a little.
We're worried about it.
It's a complicated system that we're dealing with, and the math isn't straightforward.
We can predict climate level stuff over the long haul, but short term predictions are useless, because weather is just way to complicated.There seem to be a lot of naysayers.
Lets really look at this though....FOR:CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
we produce a lot of it.
Not much to question here.
These are facts.AGAINST:Man can't affect the environment!
Debunked. Remember the hole in the freak'in ozone layer?
It doesn't get a lot of press, but we did that.
Or go to LA during a smog alert and breath deeply... Or look at the giant mound of plastic bits the size of Texas in the ocean, or look at the fish stocks running out on the coasts, or... Etc etc etc.We don't produce enough!
We're just a drop in the bucket compared to what Mom Nature spits out, so we can't be having an effect.
Debunked. Yes, mom nature puts out a lot of CO2.
And theoretically that has systems in place to deal with it.
Our extra does not.
Oh, and it's cumulative addition... The extra takes a LONG time to be gotten rid of.
Think it's not a big deal?
Eat an extra candy bar every day.
It's only 300 calories... Compared to the 3000 you're already eating, no big deal right?
Yeah, but if you don't work extra to get rid of it, you'll gain about 25lbs in a year.Follow the money!
Climate researchers are just trying to get grants!
Yes.... grants... what a wonderful way to get money, to constantly scrap and scrimp.
Those researchers are just trying to live it up.
Not like the companies that are desperately trying to not get regulated, and have Hooker and Blow money to spare.
Seriously.... Debunked.We're coming out of an ice age!
Yes, we are.
This is the only criticism I've seen so far that has real merit.
Yes, it's supposed to be getting warmer, but NOT THIS FAST.
Remeber that the shift in ice ages takes a LOOOOOOOOOONG time.
Seeing rapid warming inside of decades is NOT supposed to happen.
And it is kind of weird how it started speeding up right around the time humans started burning coal en masse.
yeah, yeah, correlation, causation.
If it's not us, and it's not the earth, do we blame martians?
Debunked.What would disprove it?
debunked. Uhm... mean temperatures getting colder over a decade?
Mean temperatures staying even over a decade.
Mean temperatures rising VEEEEEEERY slightly, but not so much?
Funny, it hasn't done any of those.I'm just not sure!
And the coal and oil companies have paid good money to sow those seeds of doubt.We don't know enough!
And to some, we never will.
Seriously, we do know enough.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
It traps heat in the atmosphere instead of letting it radiate out into space.
That is pretty basic.
We know this.
Burning fossil fuels releases CO2.
We know this.
Burning a couple million years worth of dead plants in a few centuries overwhelms the natural CO2 balancing systems that are in place.
We know this too.So, what other doubts do you have?-Tony</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168382</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Ramley</author>
	<datestamp>1265036700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to <b>halt</b> carbon dioxide reduction policies?  I mean, <i>modify</i> them, sure...but why completely halt them?  Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.  Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...</p><p>People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming.  What's up with that?  Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")</p></div><p>I tend to agree with these thoughts. Although I am not a climate scientist of any sort, it stands to reason (IMHO) that there is no conclusive evidence of any kind strong enough to sway this argument to either side. There is an amazing amount of arguing for both sides, and a lot of "truths" coming out about who fudged results, etc.</p><p>This simply tells me that there is much more study needed, and perhaps better methods of study.</p><p>It seems horribly irresponsible to propose massive spending and potential changing of entire economies based on something so seemingly inconclusive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not , why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies ?
I mean , modify them , sure...but why completely halt them ?
Global warming being real or not , there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere .
Regardless of how much this affects our planet , you ca n't honestly tell me that it 's a GOOD thing...People always seem to follow one extreme ( " We 're ruining our planet !
" ) or the other ( " We are n't doing anything to the planet !
" ) when it comes to global warming .
What 's up with that ?
Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ( " We pollute too much , but we are n't dooming ourselves .
" ) I tend to agree with these thoughts .
Although I am not a climate scientist of any sort , it stands to reason ( IMHO ) that there is no conclusive evidence of any kind strong enough to sway this argument to either side .
There is an amazing amount of arguing for both sides , and a lot of " truths " coming out about who fudged results , etc.This simply tells me that there is much more study needed , and perhaps better methods of study.It seems horribly irresponsible to propose massive spending and potential changing of entire economies based on something so seemingly inconclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies?
I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them?
Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.
Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!
") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!
") when it comes to global warming.
What's up with that?
Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.
")I tend to agree with these thoughts.
Although I am not a climate scientist of any sort, it stands to reason (IMHO) that there is no conclusive evidence of any kind strong enough to sway this argument to either side.
There is an amazing amount of arguing for both sides, and a lot of "truths" coming out about who fudged results, etc.This simply tells me that there is much more study needed, and perhaps better methods of study.It seems horribly irresponsible to propose massive spending and potential changing of entire economies based on something so seemingly inconclusive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170188</id>
	<title>Article title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely the title of this article should be "Utah Assembly Passes Resolution Declaring Utah Retarded"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely the title of this article should be " Utah Assembly Passes Resolution Declaring Utah Retarded " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely the title of this article should be "Utah Assembly Passes Resolution Declaring Utah Retarded"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180710</id>
	<title>Re:Tags</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1265050140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes sense about politicians deciding on scientific matters?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes sense about politicians deciding on scientific matters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes sense about politicians deciding on scientific matters?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167946</id>
	<title>1 of 3</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1265034300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The other resolutions they approved were one denying evolution and another reassuring that Earth is flat and the center of the universe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other resolutions they approved were one denying evolution and another reassuring that Earth is flat and the center of the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other resolutions they approved were one denying evolution and another reassuring that Earth is flat and the center of the universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168256</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>polar red</author>
	<datestamp>1265036100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims, while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims. In this case, claiming that the other side is on the "gravy train" isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet there is no way to disprove it either.</p></div><p>That's exactly my thought as well; and i would even go a bit further:<br>1/ the greenhouse effect is proven; without the Greenhouse-effect it would be nearly 20C colder on average, and CO2 is one of the gases responsible.<br>2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold.<br>3/ because of (1) and (2), 'NOT AGW' should be proven, because no further warming would mean a strange cut-off point for the greenhouse effect of CO2, and that would mean we need an extraordinary explanation for 'NOT-AGW'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims , while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims .
In this case , claiming that the other side is on the " gravy train " is n't supported by any evidence at all , and yet there is no way to disprove it either.That 's exactly my thought as well ; and i would even go a bit further : 1/ the greenhouse effect is proven ; without the Greenhouse-effect it would be nearly 20C colder on average , and CO2 is one of the gases responsible.2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution , in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold.3/ because of ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) , 'NOT AGW ' should be proven , because no further warming would mean a strange cut-off point for the greenhouse effect of CO2 , and that would mean we need an extraordinary explanation for 'NOT-AGW' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims, while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims.
In this case, claiming that the other side is on the "gravy train" isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet there is no way to disprove it either.That's exactly my thought as well; and i would even go a bit further:1/ the greenhouse effect is proven; without the Greenhouse-effect it would be nearly 20C colder on average, and CO2 is one of the gases responsible.2/ CO2 levels has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution, in fact we can calculate how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere by looking at the amount of oil and gas sold.3/ because of (1) and (2), 'NOT AGW' should be proven, because no further warming would mean a strange cut-off point for the greenhouse effect of CO2, and that would mean we need an extraordinary explanation for 'NOT-AGW'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170184</id>
	<title>Re:Falling behind a little more each day.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1265043360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could see it that way. Or you could say that European and Asian governments have done a better job of indoctrinating their people and few think for themselves. I'd rather have a population that is skeptical than blindly follows whatever they're told.</p><p>I do agree that the educational system in some ways is better in Asia and only marginally better in Europe. But that's because of teacher's unions, poorly run education boards, this absurd believe that throwing more money at the system will fix everything. The fact that so many asians, and foreigners in general excel in the American school system demonstrates that bigger problems are parenting and popular culture.</p><p>But don't worry, Asia is slipping too and Europe has already been on a long decline. It's only a handful of European nations that outperform the US in education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could see it that way .
Or you could say that European and Asian governments have done a better job of indoctrinating their people and few think for themselves .
I 'd rather have a population that is skeptical than blindly follows whatever they 're told.I do agree that the educational system in some ways is better in Asia and only marginally better in Europe .
But that 's because of teacher 's unions , poorly run education boards , this absurd believe that throwing more money at the system will fix everything .
The fact that so many asians , and foreigners in general excel in the American school system demonstrates that bigger problems are parenting and popular culture.But do n't worry , Asia is slipping too and Europe has already been on a long decline .
It 's only a handful of European nations that outperform the US in education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could see it that way.
Or you could say that European and Asian governments have done a better job of indoctrinating their people and few think for themselves.
I'd rather have a population that is skeptical than blindly follows whatever they're told.I do agree that the educational system in some ways is better in Asia and only marginally better in Europe.
But that's because of teacher's unions, poorly run education boards, this absurd believe that throwing more money at the system will fix everything.
The fact that so many asians, and foreigners in general excel in the American school system demonstrates that bigger problems are parenting and popular culture.But don't worry, Asia is slipping too and Europe has already been on a long decline.
It's only a handful of European nations that outperform the US in education.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168910</id>
	<title>Iraqi Minister of Defense working in Utah?</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1265038980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't seen distortions of reality this large since the Iraqi Minister of Defense.

I mean, WOW, just wow. These people are really making their state proud.

Doesn't Utah rank LAST when it comes to per-student spending? Maybe they're getting what they paid for. <em>(psst next time spend more classroom time on science and math)</em>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen distortions of reality this large since the Iraqi Minister of Defense .
I mean , WOW , just wow .
These people are really making their state proud .
Does n't Utah rank LAST when it comes to per-student spending ?
Maybe they 're getting what they paid for .
( psst next time spend more classroom time on science and math ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen distortions of reality this large since the Iraqi Minister of Defense.
I mean, WOW, just wow.
These people are really making their state proud.
Doesn't Utah rank LAST when it comes to per-student spending?
Maybe they're getting what they paid for.
(psst next time spend more classroom time on science and math).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171320</id>
	<title>So, will they give Mother Nature a ticket</title>
	<author>cylcyl</author>
	<datestamp>1265046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For violating the law? Or to the scientist for reporting the violation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For violating the law ?
Or to the scientist for reporting the violation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For violating the law?
Or to the scientist for reporting the violation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179722</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>Roxton</author>
	<datestamp>1265039820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>After all, if all Truth is relative, then why not pick an easy and comfortable Truth.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's exactly the right question.  Once you acknowledge the arbitrariness of various views, you can ask yourself this question and quickly come to the conclusion that single-mindedly choosing one (especially an easy, comfortable, convenient one) is morally bankrupt.  It's very important in human moral development to get into the space where you can make that judgment.</p><p>It seems to me that you weren't comfortable with making that judgment, so you decided revert to a more comfortable zone, appealing to ancient authority.  Boo.</p><p>Absolute truth exists, but is of remarkably limited utility.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , if all Truth is relative , then why not pick an easy and comfortable Truth.That 's exactly the right question .
Once you acknowledge the arbitrariness of various views , you can ask yourself this question and quickly come to the conclusion that single-mindedly choosing one ( especially an easy , comfortable , convenient one ) is morally bankrupt .
It 's very important in human moral development to get into the space where you can make that judgment.It seems to me that you were n't comfortable with making that judgment , so you decided revert to a more comfortable zone , appealing to ancient authority .
Boo.Absolute truth exists , but is of remarkably limited utility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, if all Truth is relative, then why not pick an easy and comfortable Truth.That's exactly the right question.
Once you acknowledge the arbitrariness of various views, you can ask yourself this question and quickly come to the conclusion that single-mindedly choosing one (especially an easy, comfortable, convenient one) is morally bankrupt.
It's very important in human moral development to get into the space where you can make that judgment.It seems to me that you weren't comfortable with making that judgment, so you decided revert to a more comfortable zone, appealing to ancient authority.
Boo.Absolute truth exists, but is of remarkably limited utility.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1265039760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, some of us just remember the same crap in the 70s about how the world would be in a new ice age by now.</p><p>We also remember very good science being ripped up because the data was falsefied or poorly collected.</p><p>When you're a sheep, I don't respect your opinion.  Skeptics I have time for.  Convince a skeptic, and you'll have won an actual battle.  Convince a politician who wants votes and sees the sheep voters following your opinion already and you've accomplished little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , some of us just remember the same crap in the 70s about how the world would be in a new ice age by now.We also remember very good science being ripped up because the data was falsefied or poorly collected.When you 're a sheep , I do n't respect your opinion .
Skeptics I have time for .
Convince a skeptic , and you 'll have won an actual battle .
Convince a politician who wants votes and sees the sheep voters following your opinion already and you 've accomplished little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, some of us just remember the same crap in the 70s about how the world would be in a new ice age by now.We also remember very good science being ripped up because the data was falsefied or poorly collected.When you're a sheep, I don't respect your opinion.
Skeptics I have time for.
Convince a skeptic, and you'll have won an actual battle.
Convince a politician who wants votes and sees the sheep voters following your opinion already and you've accomplished little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1265038740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.</p></div><p>You do realize you're just making that up?  And that if the past 15 years showed marginally significant warming you'd be trumpeting it as "proof" that GW/CC was a "fact"?  This is what bugs scientists about the AGW crowd:  you use quite different standards for confirming and disconfirming evidence.  The anti-AGW crowd do the same thing.  I've been on both sides of the fence as I've learned more about the evidence, and neither is a particularly comfortable place for a scientist, as one gets continually pushed by anti-scientific individuals who introduce absolute irrelevancies, like the dangers to the ecology or the economy if their preferred belief happens to be true.</p><p>One useful way of determining you are dealing the an anti-scientist is that they mix introduce claims about the effects of GW/CC (or carbon dioxide reduction policies) as if they were arguments for or against GW/CC.  As soon as someone does that, you know they aren't interested in science, but in politics and power.</p><p>With regard to Phil Jones' statement:  <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html" title="noaa.gov">an estimated rate of 0.13 C per decade</a> [noaa.gov] would lead one to expect 0.2 C in 15 years.  Instead, the rate is statistically equivalent to zero.  That's interesting, but a more interesting question is:  what is the highest rate that the observed trend is consistent with?</p><p>If it is higher than 0.13 C then the models are not in trouble.  If it is not, then the models are.</p><p>But you cannot say at the same time that an observed rate that is consistent with the models over 15 years is confirmatory, and that an observed rate that is inconsistent with the models over 15 years is not disconfirmatory.</p><p>Not if you care about science, anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.You do realize you 're just making that up ?
And that if the past 15 years showed marginally significant warming you 'd be trumpeting it as " proof " that GW/CC was a " fact " ?
This is what bugs scientists about the AGW crowd : you use quite different standards for confirming and disconfirming evidence .
The anti-AGW crowd do the same thing .
I 've been on both sides of the fence as I 've learned more about the evidence , and neither is a particularly comfortable place for a scientist , as one gets continually pushed by anti-scientific individuals who introduce absolute irrelevancies , like the dangers to the ecology or the economy if their preferred belief happens to be true.One useful way of determining you are dealing the an anti-scientist is that they mix introduce claims about the effects of GW/CC ( or carbon dioxide reduction policies ) as if they were arguments for or against GW/CC .
As soon as someone does that , you know they are n't interested in science , but in politics and power.With regard to Phil Jones ' statement : an estimated rate of 0.13 C per decade [ noaa.gov ] would lead one to expect 0.2 C in 15 years .
Instead , the rate is statistically equivalent to zero .
That 's interesting , but a more interesting question is : what is the highest rate that the observed trend is consistent with ? If it is higher than 0.13 C then the models are not in trouble .
If it is not , then the models are.But you can not say at the same time that an observed rate that is consistent with the models over 15 years is confirmatory , and that an observed rate that is inconsistent with the models over 15 years is not disconfirmatory.Not if you care about science , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.You do realize you're just making that up?
And that if the past 15 years showed marginally significant warming you'd be trumpeting it as "proof" that GW/CC was a "fact"?
This is what bugs scientists about the AGW crowd:  you use quite different standards for confirming and disconfirming evidence.
The anti-AGW crowd do the same thing.
I've been on both sides of the fence as I've learned more about the evidence, and neither is a particularly comfortable place for a scientist, as one gets continually pushed by anti-scientific individuals who introduce absolute irrelevancies, like the dangers to the ecology or the economy if their preferred belief happens to be true.One useful way of determining you are dealing the an anti-scientist is that they mix introduce claims about the effects of GW/CC (or carbon dioxide reduction policies) as if they were arguments for or against GW/CC.
As soon as someone does that, you know they aren't interested in science, but in politics and power.With regard to Phil Jones' statement:  an estimated rate of 0.13 C per decade [noaa.gov] would lead one to expect 0.2 C in 15 years.
Instead, the rate is statistically equivalent to zero.
That's interesting, but a more interesting question is:  what is the highest rate that the observed trend is consistent with?If it is higher than 0.13 C then the models are not in trouble.
If it is not, then the models are.But you cannot say at the same time that an observed rate that is consistent with the models over 15 years is confirmatory, and that an observed rate that is inconsistent with the models over 15 years is not disconfirmatory.Not if you care about science, anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174040</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1265055360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather convince a politician than a skeptic.</p><p>You know, seeing as those morons are the ones WRITING THE FRACKING LAW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather convince a politician than a skeptic.You know , seeing as those morons are the ones WRITING THE FRACKING LAW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather convince a politician than a skeptic.You know, seeing as those morons are the ones WRITING THE FRACKING LAW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168920</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>JaredOfEuropa</author>
	<datestamp>1265039040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies?</p></div></blockquote><p>

It depends on what those policies look like.  I can think of a few proposals that will seriously hurt certain industries (and I don't mean oil industries).
<br> <br>
Personally I don't believe in man-made global warming.  But that's all it is, a <i>belief</i>. I'm no expert, but I am enough of a scientist to be fairly certain that the experts aren't certain on this either, and that the climate debate has very little to do with science.  It's more like a religion, on both sides.<br>
Even so, I support certain measures such as research into viable alternative energy sources, including nuclear and fusion, or energy-saving technology.  Those seem like clear winners no matter what side you are on: cleaner air, less money spent on fuel, lower CO2 emissions, less dependency on import of fossil fuels, high-tech research and production jobs, etc.  I'll tell you what is not effective: plowing another trillion dollars into Africa, as proposed in Kopenhagen.  What the hell was that about?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not , why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies ?
It depends on what those policies look like .
I can think of a few proposals that will seriously hurt certain industries ( and I do n't mean oil industries ) .
Personally I do n't believe in man-made global warming .
But that 's all it is , a belief .
I 'm no expert , but I am enough of a scientist to be fairly certain that the experts are n't certain on this either , and that the climate debate has very little to do with science .
It 's more like a religion , on both sides .
Even so , I support certain measures such as research into viable alternative energy sources , including nuclear and fusion , or energy-saving technology .
Those seem like clear winners no matter what side you are on : cleaner air , less money spent on fuel , lower CO2 emissions , less dependency on import of fossil fuels , high-tech research and production jobs , etc .
I 'll tell you what is not effective : plowing another trillion dollars into Africa , as proposed in Kopenhagen .
What the hell was that about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies?
It depends on what those policies look like.
I can think of a few proposals that will seriously hurt certain industries (and I don't mean oil industries).
Personally I don't believe in man-made global warming.
But that's all it is, a belief.
I'm no expert, but I am enough of a scientist to be fairly certain that the experts aren't certain on this either, and that the climate debate has very little to do with science.
It's more like a religion, on both sides.
Even so, I support certain measures such as research into viable alternative energy sources, including nuclear and fusion, or energy-saving technology.
Those seem like clear winners no matter what side you are on: cleaner air, less money spent on fuel, lower CO2 emissions, less dependency on import of fossil fuels, high-tech research and production jobs, etc.
I'll tell you what is not effective: plowing another trillion dollars into Africa, as proposed in Kopenhagen.
What the hell was that about?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</id>
	<title>Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the science around climate change deserves scrutiny and probing, this probing should probably be done by scientists, not legislators.  The last time I checked, the scientific method didn't include debate, Robert's Rules of Order or passage by majority.  Freeman Dyson makes some interesting points against climate change in this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html" title="nytimes.com">NY Times Article</a> [nytimes.com].  If you agree with him or not, at least he's engaging in scentific skepticism over uninformed legislation.</p><p>Obviously the majority of Utah's Assembly has no idea how science works, as it takes a majority to pass an obviously useless law.  It's too bad that method doesn't work or the Utah State Assembly could go ahead and legislate the Higgs-Boson into existence right there in the chambers.  I think this problem is a symptom of our terrible science education in our schools. Perhaps they could go ahead and legislate some scientific thinking into themselves while they're redefining physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the science around climate change deserves scrutiny and probing , this probing should probably be done by scientists , not legislators .
The last time I checked , the scientific method did n't include debate , Robert 's Rules of Order or passage by majority .
Freeman Dyson makes some interesting points against climate change in this NY Times Article [ nytimes.com ] .
If you agree with him or not , at least he 's engaging in scentific skepticism over uninformed legislation.Obviously the majority of Utah 's Assembly has no idea how science works , as it takes a majority to pass an obviously useless law .
It 's too bad that method does n't work or the Utah State Assembly could go ahead and legislate the Higgs-Boson into existence right there in the chambers .
I think this problem is a symptom of our terrible science education in our schools .
Perhaps they could go ahead and legislate some scientific thinking into themselves while they 're redefining physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the science around climate change deserves scrutiny and probing, this probing should probably be done by scientists, not legislators.
The last time I checked, the scientific method didn't include debate, Robert's Rules of Order or passage by majority.
Freeman Dyson makes some interesting points against climate change in this NY Times Article [nytimes.com].
If you agree with him or not, at least he's engaging in scentific skepticism over uninformed legislation.Obviously the majority of Utah's Assembly has no idea how science works, as it takes a majority to pass an obviously useless law.
It's too bad that method doesn't work or the Utah State Assembly could go ahead and legislate the Higgs-Boson into existence right there in the chambers.
I think this problem is a symptom of our terrible science education in our schools.
Perhaps they could go ahead and legislate some scientific thinking into themselves while they're redefining physics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168482</id>
	<title>Legislating your own reality</title>
	<author>diodeus</author>
	<datestamp>1265037120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New legislation: pi = 3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New legislation : pi = 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New legislation: pi = 3</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169734</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because abridging the right to dump toxic gases into the atmosphere for free makes baby Jeebus cry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because abridging the right to dump toxic gases into the atmosphere for free makes baby Jeebus cry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because abridging the right to dump toxic gases into the atmosphere for free makes baby Jeebus cry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168574</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, I don't know where anyone got this terminology: "Utah State Assembly". There ain't no such animal; I think California uses that phraseology.</p><p>Second, of course the Utah legislators aren't trying to legislate scientific facts; they're just expressing their attitudes toward what <i>ought to be done</i> about "global warming".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I do n't know where anyone got this terminology : " Utah State Assembly " .
There ai n't no such animal ; I think California uses that phraseology.Second , of course the Utah legislators are n't trying to legislate scientific facts ; they 're just expressing their attitudes toward what ought to be done about " global warming " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I don't know where anyone got this terminology: "Utah State Assembly".
There ain't no such animal; I think California uses that phraseology.Second, of course the Utah legislators aren't trying to legislate scientific facts; they're just expressing their attitudes toward what ought to be done about "global warming".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170998</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1265046060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Of course, the vast majority of scientists are trying to deceive us. The oil companies are right, but they don't have enough money to fight the global coalition of evil scientists. We all know environmentalists are extremely wealthy and they will buy the scientific community to say whatever fits their evil, hidden agenda. Of course, nobody knows what's this "agenda" we're talking about but that doesn't matter. It's evil.
</p><p>
The poor oil companies don't have a chance.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the vast majority of scientists are trying to deceive us .
The oil companies are right , but they do n't have enough money to fight the global coalition of evil scientists .
We all know environmentalists are extremely wealthy and they will buy the scientific community to say whatever fits their evil , hidden agenda .
Of course , nobody knows what 's this " agenda " we 're talking about but that does n't matter .
It 's evil .
The poor oil companies do n't have a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Of course, the vast majority of scientists are trying to deceive us.
The oil companies are right, but they don't have enough money to fight the global coalition of evil scientists.
We all know environmentalists are extremely wealthy and they will buy the scientific community to say whatever fits their evil, hidden agenda.
Of course, nobody knows what's this "agenda" we're talking about but that doesn't matter.
It's evil.
The poor oil companies don't have a chance.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168104</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same things can be said against the people on the other side of the global warming fence. Very few of them are actually climatologists and none that are scientists are legislators. Last I heard Al Gore was a lawyer by training not a scientist. The fact of the matter is that legislation is being used in an attempt to advocate the pro-global warming side of the issue. So those who have a differing opinion can hardly be blamed for using the same tactic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same things can be said against the people on the other side of the global warming fence .
Very few of them are actually climatologists and none that are scientists are legislators .
Last I heard Al Gore was a lawyer by training not a scientist .
The fact of the matter is that legislation is being used in an attempt to advocate the pro-global warming side of the issue .
So those who have a differing opinion can hardly be blamed for using the same tactic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same things can be said against the people on the other side of the global warming fence.
Very few of them are actually climatologists and none that are scientists are legislators.
Last I heard Al Gore was a lawyer by training not a scientist.
The fact of the matter is that legislation is being used in an attempt to advocate the pro-global warming side of the issue.
So those who have a differing opinion can hardly be blamed for using the same tactic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1265034600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.</p><p>People have trouble comprehending anything that takes longer than 20 years to prove, that's the problem. Innate flaw in our psychological makeup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.People have trouble comprehending anything that takes longer than 20 years to prove , that 's the problem .
Innate flaw in our psychological makeup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.People have trouble comprehending anything that takes longer than 20 years to prove, that's the problem.
Innate flaw in our psychological makeup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169570</id>
	<title>Truly unfortunate partisan system.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like if someone (Al Gore) brings attention to the climate, immediately, it's perceived (in the states) as a political issue. By "winning" the argument, you defeat the democrats and therefore "win". (nevermind that in reality we all loose, as oceans rise, etc..)</p><p>I saw an interview with Al Gore on Larry King awhile ago, Larry was trying to goad Al Gore into saying bad things about his political opponents, meanwhile, Al Gore was trying every possible thing to evade the political questions and keep the discussion focused on the climate.</p><p>The rest of the world hasn't taken such a duality approach to the climate, the rest of the world seems to be aware that if the environment looses, we all loose.</p><p>Why can't Americans see this rather obvious truth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like if someone ( Al Gore ) brings attention to the climate , immediately , it 's perceived ( in the states ) as a political issue .
By " winning " the argument , you defeat the democrats and therefore " win " .
( nevermind that in reality we all loose , as oceans rise , etc.. ) I saw an interview with Al Gore on Larry King awhile ago , Larry was trying to goad Al Gore into saying bad things about his political opponents , meanwhile , Al Gore was trying every possible thing to evade the political questions and keep the discussion focused on the climate.The rest of the world has n't taken such a duality approach to the climate , the rest of the world seems to be aware that if the environment looses , we all loose.Why ca n't Americans see this rather obvious truth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like if someone (Al Gore) brings attention to the climate, immediately, it's perceived (in the states) as a political issue.
By "winning" the argument, you defeat the democrats and therefore "win".
(nevermind that in reality we all loose, as oceans rise, etc..)I saw an interview with Al Gore on Larry King awhile ago, Larry was trying to goad Al Gore into saying bad things about his political opponents, meanwhile, Al Gore was trying every possible thing to evade the political questions and keep the discussion focused on the climate.The rest of the world hasn't taken such a duality approach to the climate, the rest of the world seems to be aware that if the environment looses, we all loose.Why can't Americans see this rather obvious truth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172566</id>
	<title>Beach Front Property</title>
	<author>Baavgai</author>
	<datestamp>1265050680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is obviously a Lex Luthor like ploy to benefit from oceans rising.  Utah gets the nod for both long term planning and evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is obviously a Lex Luthor like ploy to benefit from oceans rising .
Utah gets the nod for both long term planning and evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is obviously a Lex Luthor like ploy to benefit from oceans rising.
Utah gets the nod for both long term planning and evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31184614</id>
	<title>Climate change is junk science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266509400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two sets of scientists can look at all of the data and both can come up with different results.</p><p>Climate change has been proven <b>and</b> disproven using the same data over and over again.  Both sides omit data that does not support their hypothesis.  Only problem is that the "humans are destroying the planet" crowd resort to name calling and whining <i>that you are trying to destroy us all</i>.</p><p>Before any of you go off on me, should we clean up our planet?  Yes, it's the only one we got.  Do we need cleaner forms of energy? Yea, we already have it, it's called nuclear energy and they can neutralize the waste, so this is not an argument against using it.  I've known people who work in nuclear plants all over the world for more that 25 years, most of the arguments against it don't hold any water.</p><p>If either side were right about the percentage changes we should be seeing we would already be dead.  The compound mixtures in our atmosphere are very precise.  If any one of these were to go out of balance, no life on Earth.  So, can this bunch of fleas we call "humans" really do anything other than irritate our host?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two sets of scientists can look at all of the data and both can come up with different results.Climate change has been proven and disproven using the same data over and over again .
Both sides omit data that does not support their hypothesis .
Only problem is that the " humans are destroying the planet " crowd resort to name calling and whining that you are trying to destroy us all.Before any of you go off on me , should we clean up our planet ?
Yes , it 's the only one we got .
Do we need cleaner forms of energy ?
Yea , we already have it , it 's called nuclear energy and they can neutralize the waste , so this is not an argument against using it .
I 've known people who work in nuclear plants all over the world for more that 25 years , most of the arguments against it do n't hold any water.If either side were right about the percentage changes we should be seeing we would already be dead .
The compound mixtures in our atmosphere are very precise .
If any one of these were to go out of balance , no life on Earth .
So , can this bunch of fleas we call " humans " really do anything other than irritate our host ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two sets of scientists can look at all of the data and both can come up with different results.Climate change has been proven and disproven using the same data over and over again.
Both sides omit data that does not support their hypothesis.
Only problem is that the "humans are destroying the planet" crowd resort to name calling and whining that you are trying to destroy us all.Before any of you go off on me, should we clean up our planet?
Yes, it's the only one we got.
Do we need cleaner forms of energy?
Yea, we already have it, it's called nuclear energy and they can neutralize the waste, so this is not an argument against using it.
I've known people who work in nuclear plants all over the world for more that 25 years, most of the arguments against it don't hold any water.If either side were right about the percentage changes we should be seeing we would already be dead.
The compound mixtures in our atmosphere are very precise.
If any one of these were to go out of balance, no life on Earth.
So, can this bunch of fleas we call "humans" really do anything other than irritate our host?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31245570</id>
	<title>This is probably driven by business interests</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  Utah -- specifically the salt lake, davis, and weber county areas -- are plagued with some of the worst air quality conditions in the country.  There's a lot of debate over the causes, but the two largest contributors are commuters and nearby refineries / factories.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Supposing the factories/refineries are the largest contributors, it would be in their [short-term] best interests to derail any discussion of global warming or risk being more heavily regulated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utah -- specifically the salt lake , davis , and weber county areas -- are plagued with some of the worst air quality conditions in the country .
There 's a lot of debate over the causes , but the two largest contributors are commuters and nearby refineries / factories .
    Supposing the factories/refineries are the largest contributors , it would be in their [ short-term ] best interests to derail any discussion of global warming or risk being more heavily regulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Utah -- specifically the salt lake, davis, and weber county areas -- are plagued with some of the worst air quality conditions in the country.
There's a lot of debate over the causes, but the two largest contributors are commuters and nearby refineries / factories.
    Supposing the factories/refineries are the largest contributors, it would be in their [short-term] best interests to derail any discussion of global warming or risk being more heavily regulated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169982</id>
	<title>The Utah State Assembly knows best...</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1265042640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Utah State Assembly knows best, after all, if politicians are not the defacto-experts in the subject of 'hot air' then who is? Just because all the 'laymen scientist' on this particular topic have reams of collected data that directly contradicts the 'new policy' doesn't make their theory any more correct.&lt;/sarcasm&gt; <p>

Leave it to the politicians to 'prove a negative' simply by virtue of not understanding the subject matter completely. Which begs the question, should we then have a 'licensing system' to 'steer the Government', similar to driving a car? One that requires the comprehension of things like the laws of physics? Oh wait, never mind, the Government would be responsible for administering that program too...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Utah State Assembly knows best , after all , if politicians are not the defacto-experts in the subject of 'hot air ' then who is ?
Just because all the 'laymen scientist ' on this particular topic have reams of collected data that directly contradicts the 'new policy ' does n't make their theory any more correct .
Leave it to the politicians to 'prove a negative ' simply by virtue of not understanding the subject matter completely .
Which begs the question , should we then have a 'licensing system ' to 'steer the Government ' , similar to driving a car ?
One that requires the comprehension of things like the laws of physics ?
Oh wait , never mind , the Government would be responsible for administering that program too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Utah State Assembly knows best, after all, if politicians are not the defacto-experts in the subject of 'hot air' then who is?
Just because all the 'laymen scientist' on this particular topic have reams of collected data that directly contradicts the 'new policy' doesn't make their theory any more correct.
Leave it to the politicians to 'prove a negative' simply by virtue of not understanding the subject matter completely.
Which begs the question, should we then have a 'licensing system' to 'steer the Government', similar to driving a car?
One that requires the comprehension of things like the laws of physics?
Oh wait, never mind, the Government would be responsible for administering that program too...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170624</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Accusations like these are typically made by those who are projecting their own feelings on others. That is, those with strong financial motivations typically accuse others of similar biases. In extreme cases they can not conceive that some people are have non financial motivations.</p><p>On the other hand its not a bad idea to remove politicians from the discussion. Lets get the NIST to do an definitive study.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Accusations like these are typically made by those who are projecting their own feelings on others .
That is , those with strong financial motivations typically accuse others of similar biases .
In extreme cases they can not conceive that some people are have non financial motivations.On the other hand its not a bad idea to remove politicians from the discussion .
Lets get the NIST to do an definitive study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Accusations like these are typically made by those who are projecting their own feelings on others.
That is, those with strong financial motivations typically accuse others of similar biases.
In extreme cases they can not conceive that some people are have non financial motivations.On the other hand its not a bad idea to remove politicians from the discussion.
Lets get the NIST to do an definitive study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168090</id>
	<title>Utah is essentially hamrless too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings"</p><p>Yea, ok... I'll just hold my breath then and let it build up in my blood.  No need to exhale it since it's harmless.  Then after that, I'll just pipe the exaughst from a car into my home.  That won't kill me or anything since it is harmless.  Also... why did I just waste money on a detector for it for my home? it's harmless.  GAWWW I GOT SCREWED.  I'm so glad the home state of mormanism sorted that out for me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Carbon dioxide is " essentially harmless " to human beings " Yea , ok... I 'll just hold my breath then and let it build up in my blood .
No need to exhale it since it 's harmless .
Then after that , I 'll just pipe the exaughst from a car into my home .
That wo n't kill me or anything since it is harmless .
Also... why did I just waste money on a detector for it for my home ?
it 's harmless .
GAWWW I GOT SCREWED .
I 'm so glad the home state of mormanism sorted that out for me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings"Yea, ok... I'll just hold my breath then and let it build up in my blood.
No need to exhale it since it's harmless.
Then after that, I'll just pipe the exaughst from a car into my home.
That won't kill me or anything since it is harmless.
Also... why did I just waste money on a detector for it for my home?
it's harmless.
GAWWW I GOT SCREWED.
I'm so glad the home state of mormanism sorted that out for me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169236</id>
	<title>Re:Falling behind a little more each day.</title>
	<author>Calsar</author>
	<datestamp>1265040120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Religion has been on the decline in the United Statues for several decades. At the same time the perception is that the US research has declined over the same period.  Religion in Asia is on a sharp upswing and is all but dead in Europe.  I'm not seeing a correlation between religion and research.</p><p>Research into solar and wind is good.  However, how much money has been wasted on a problem that is not well understood?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Religion has been on the decline in the United Statues for several decades .
At the same time the perception is that the US research has declined over the same period .
Religion in Asia is on a sharp upswing and is all but dead in Europe .
I 'm not seeing a correlation between religion and research.Research into solar and wind is good .
However , how much money has been wasted on a problem that is not well understood ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religion has been on the decline in the United Statues for several decades.
At the same time the perception is that the US research has declined over the same period.
Religion in Asia is on a sharp upswing and is all but dead in Europe.
I'm not seeing a correlation between religion and research.Research into solar and wind is good.
However, how much money has been wasted on a problem that is not well understood?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168032</id>
	<title>This is what you get....</title>
	<author>mubes</author>
	<datestamp>1265034780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....for carrying out questionable science.</p><p>The effect of the recent IPCC Glacier mis-statements and the University of East Anglia 'mistakes' is to give people who would 'like it to not be so' to have a grain of sand around which to crystallize.</p><p>I make no claim as to if climate change is upon us or not, but it is ESSENTIAL that the science is revisited and made rock solid (or completely disproven)....in the meantime we have to progress on a path of caution -- which effectively means continuing to reduce carbon emissions IN CASE they are causing the problem...putting our collective fingers in our ears and singing la-lala-la isn't going to solve anything.</p><p>Jeez, politicians have enough difficulty making sensible decisions already, we're not exactly helping by not giving them accurate information on which to make those decisions, are we???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....for carrying out questionable science.The effect of the recent IPCC Glacier mis-statements and the University of East Anglia 'mistakes ' is to give people who would 'like it to not be so ' to have a grain of sand around which to crystallize.I make no claim as to if climate change is upon us or not , but it is ESSENTIAL that the science is revisited and made rock solid ( or completely disproven ) ....in the meantime we have to progress on a path of caution -- which effectively means continuing to reduce carbon emissions IN CASE they are causing the problem...putting our collective fingers in our ears and singing la-lala-la is n't going to solve anything.Jeez , politicians have enough difficulty making sensible decisions already , we 're not exactly helping by not giving them accurate information on which to make those decisions , are we ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....for carrying out questionable science.The effect of the recent IPCC Glacier mis-statements and the University of East Anglia 'mistakes' is to give people who would 'like it to not be so' to have a grain of sand around which to crystallize.I make no claim as to if climate change is upon us or not, but it is ESSENTIAL that the science is revisited and made rock solid (or completely disproven)....in the meantime we have to progress on a path of caution -- which effectively means continuing to reduce carbon emissions IN CASE they are causing the problem...putting our collective fingers in our ears and singing la-lala-la isn't going to solve anything.Jeez, politicians have enough difficulty making sensible decisions already, we're not exactly helping by not giving them accurate information on which to make those decisions, are we??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172098</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>sp3d2orbit</author>
	<datestamp>1265049180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also proven:</p><p>4/ nothing will stop global warming short of a return the stone age.</p><p>Giving the government control over the carbon economy will do nothing to stop global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also proven : 4/ nothing will stop global warming short of a return the stone age.Giving the government control over the carbon economy will do nothing to stop global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also proven:4/ nothing will stop global warming short of a return the stone age.Giving the government control over the carbon economy will do nothing to stop global warming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172856</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1265051460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There hasn't been statistically significant cooling nor staying-the-same either. In other words there was no statistically significant climate at all. Not until you go back to 1994 or so. Guess what...</htmltext>
<tokenext>There has n't been statistically significant cooling nor staying-the-same either .
In other words there was no statistically significant climate at all .
Not until you go back to 1994 or so .
Guess what.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There hasn't been statistically significant cooling nor staying-the-same either.
In other words there was no statistically significant climate at all.
Not until you go back to 1994 or so.
Guess what...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173302</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1265052900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is less about science and more about state's rights.  They are just piggybacking on the current trendiness of climate change denialism to make a power grab.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is less about science and more about state 's rights .
They are just piggybacking on the current trendiness of climate change denialism to make a power grab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is less about science and more about state's rights.
They are just piggybacking on the current trendiness of climate change denialism to make a power grab.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169614</id>
	<title>Re:Falling behind a little more each day.</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265041440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cutting-edge research these days happens in Europe and Asia, where religion is put in its place, and education is paramount. Even if global warming is a political sham and most of the "scientific" evidence has been fabricated, as it very well may be, at least it has spurned research into solar and wind technologies, for instance.</p></div><p>In that case, religion hasn't been put in its place. The so-called scientists would be Environmentalists rather than Christians, but the result is the same, the sacrifice of humanity's well-being for some ideology. How many people would be put into poverty for an ideal? At least hundreds of millions, maybe more. How many people would die because of this? Millions every year. Slightly better (since most of the real research would have happened anyway) solar and wind power generation technologies won't compensate.<br> <br>

And what would happen in the future, if we do foolish things now because global warming was a scam? Why wouldn't we repeat this with other environmental threats? There are plenty of them out there.<br> <br>

And remember the above is conditional on global warming being a scam. If it's a real danger that we can determine with ample evidence will cause tremendous problems for us, and humanity's response is rational and measured, balancing the needs of the environment with other important needs (like maintaining and improving a technological society) then there is no issue. I simply can't tolerate the belief that human society and the well-being of its members doesn't matter. That we can harm ourselves greatly merely to keep the Earth's environment in some regime that just happens to be defined solely by the ephemeral state of things a few centuries ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cutting-edge research these days happens in Europe and Asia , where religion is put in its place , and education is paramount .
Even if global warming is a political sham and most of the " scientific " evidence has been fabricated , as it very well may be , at least it has spurned research into solar and wind technologies , for instance.In that case , religion has n't been put in its place .
The so-called scientists would be Environmentalists rather than Christians , but the result is the same , the sacrifice of humanity 's well-being for some ideology .
How many people would be put into poverty for an ideal ?
At least hundreds of millions , maybe more .
How many people would die because of this ?
Millions every year .
Slightly better ( since most of the real research would have happened anyway ) solar and wind power generation technologies wo n't compensate .
And what would happen in the future , if we do foolish things now because global warming was a scam ?
Why would n't we repeat this with other environmental threats ?
There are plenty of them out there .
And remember the above is conditional on global warming being a scam .
If it 's a real danger that we can determine with ample evidence will cause tremendous problems for us , and humanity 's response is rational and measured , balancing the needs of the environment with other important needs ( like maintaining and improving a technological society ) then there is no issue .
I simply ca n't tolerate the belief that human society and the well-being of its members does n't matter .
That we can harm ourselves greatly merely to keep the Earth 's environment in some regime that just happens to be defined solely by the ephemeral state of things a few centuries ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cutting-edge research these days happens in Europe and Asia, where religion is put in its place, and education is paramount.
Even if global warming is a political sham and most of the "scientific" evidence has been fabricated, as it very well may be, at least it has spurned research into solar and wind technologies, for instance.In that case, religion hasn't been put in its place.
The so-called scientists would be Environmentalists rather than Christians, but the result is the same, the sacrifice of humanity's well-being for some ideology.
How many people would be put into poverty for an ideal?
At least hundreds of millions, maybe more.
How many people would die because of this?
Millions every year.
Slightly better (since most of the real research would have happened anyway) solar and wind power generation technologies won't compensate.
And what would happen in the future, if we do foolish things now because global warming was a scam?
Why wouldn't we repeat this with other environmental threats?
There are plenty of them out there.
And remember the above is conditional on global warming being a scam.
If it's a real danger that we can determine with ample evidence will cause tremendous problems for us, and humanity's response is rational and measured, balancing the needs of the environment with other important needs (like maintaining and improving a technological society) then there is no issue.
I simply can't tolerate the belief that human society and the well-being of its members doesn't matter.
That we can harm ourselves greatly merely to keep the Earth's environment in some regime that just happens to be defined solely by the ephemeral state of things a few centuries ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174390</id>
	<title>So now it just fuck'em all?</title>
	<author>tuxgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265056560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is always 2 sides to any argument. The possibility of GW/CC is mostly theory at this point based on trends and observations noted over a nominal period of time performed by educated individuals in the scientific community. The anti-GW/CC crowd base their criteria on looking outside in winter and declaring hogwash because it's snowing in February in the northern hemisphere.</p><p>What's worse is something like this Utah bill, in that they merely call for more studies to occur before we do anything. Unfortunately the only study the skeptics ever do is navel gazing followed by bickering. These people are not scientists capable of any form intelligent study, or thought for that matter. They employ fiction writers to create their public announcements just like we hear everyday out of our government and government run agencies. All we ever hear is bullshit</p><p>Our options are pretty simple. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend all is just hunky dory and continue to blather and squabble over the existence of the boggy man. Alternatively, we can change our methods of dealing with our industrial feces in the event we are actually fucking up our planet beyond repair. Otherwise, how will we know when we have crossed the threshold to point of no return and then face extinction or move off planet?</p><p>One thing is certain, the action we don't take today, we leave for our children. Eventually someone will have to face the music, and it won't be a song they will appreciate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is always 2 sides to any argument .
The possibility of GW/CC is mostly theory at this point based on trends and observations noted over a nominal period of time performed by educated individuals in the scientific community .
The anti-GW/CC crowd base their criteria on looking outside in winter and declaring hogwash because it 's snowing in February in the northern hemisphere.What 's worse is something like this Utah bill , in that they merely call for more studies to occur before we do anything .
Unfortunately the only study the skeptics ever do is navel gazing followed by bickering .
These people are not scientists capable of any form intelligent study , or thought for that matter .
They employ fiction writers to create their public announcements just like we hear everyday out of our government and government run agencies .
All we ever hear is bullshitOur options are pretty simple .
We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend all is just hunky dory and continue to blather and squabble over the existence of the boggy man .
Alternatively , we can change our methods of dealing with our industrial feces in the event we are actually fucking up our planet beyond repair .
Otherwise , how will we know when we have crossed the threshold to point of no return and then face extinction or move off planet ? One thing is certain , the action we do n't take today , we leave for our children .
Eventually someone will have to face the music , and it wo n't be a song they will appreciate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is always 2 sides to any argument.
The possibility of GW/CC is mostly theory at this point based on trends and observations noted over a nominal period of time performed by educated individuals in the scientific community.
The anti-GW/CC crowd base their criteria on looking outside in winter and declaring hogwash because it's snowing in February in the northern hemisphere.What's worse is something like this Utah bill, in that they merely call for more studies to occur before we do anything.
Unfortunately the only study the skeptics ever do is navel gazing followed by bickering.
These people are not scientists capable of any form intelligent study, or thought for that matter.
They employ fiction writers to create their public announcements just like we hear everyday out of our government and government run agencies.
All we ever hear is bullshitOur options are pretty simple.
We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend all is just hunky dory and continue to blather and squabble over the existence of the boggy man.
Alternatively, we can change our methods of dealing with our industrial feces in the event we are actually fucking up our planet beyond repair.
Otherwise, how will we know when we have crossed the threshold to point of no return and then face extinction or move off planet?One thing is certain, the action we don't take today, we leave for our children.
Eventually someone will have to face the music, and it won't be a song they will appreciate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168200</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you been watching the Vancouver Olympics?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you been watching the Vancouver Olympics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you been watching the Vancouver Olympics?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169718</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1265041800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.People have trouble comprehending anything that takes longer than 20 years to prove, that's the problem. Innate flaw in our psychological makeup.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.People have trouble comprehending anything that takes longer than 20 years to prove , that 's the problem .
Innate flaw in our psychological makeup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.People have trouble comprehending anything that takes longer than 20 years to prove, that's the problem.
Innate flaw in our psychological makeup.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174094</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1265055600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you're a sheep, I don't respect your opinion.  Skeptics I have time for.  Convince a skeptic, and you'll have won an actual battle.  Convince a politician who wants votes and sees the sheep voters following your opinion already and you've accomplished little.</p></div><p>So is that your way of saying you only listen to people who don't agree with global warming? "Somebody screwed up forty years ago, and that's why I dismiss an entire field of research". It sounds like you are a real skeptic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you 're a sheep , I do n't respect your opinion .
Skeptics I have time for .
Convince a skeptic , and you 'll have won an actual battle .
Convince a politician who wants votes and sees the sheep voters following your opinion already and you 've accomplished little.So is that your way of saying you only listen to people who do n't agree with global warming ?
" Somebody screwed up forty years ago , and that 's why I dismiss an entire field of research " .
It sounds like you are a real skeptic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you're a sheep, I don't respect your opinion.
Skeptics I have time for.
Convince a skeptic, and you'll have won an actual battle.
Convince a politician who wants votes and sees the sheep voters following your opinion already and you've accomplished little.So is that your way of saying you only listen to people who don't agree with global warming?
"Somebody screwed up forty years ago, and that's why I dismiss an entire field of research".
It sounds like you are a real skeptic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172102</id>
	<title>Ah, political season in Utah...</title>
	<author>Target Practice</author>
	<datestamp>1265049240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Utah Legislative Session, or "Why I drink more in January and February"</p><p>This is just one bill in a flurry of anti-federal government blathering coming from Utah's capitol hill this session. We also decided we don't want any type of federal health care unless we OK it first, we're going to be able to make our own guns without federal regulation (so long as it can be carried by only one person), and issue guns to Utah residents without any sort of firearm license, and we want to do away with the twelfth grade to save some dough.</p><p>I saw a commenter here that said they sympathize with the desire for more scientific evidence. You're giving them far too much credit. Allow me to be clear that <i>these people don't care about scientific data</i>. Rep. Noel has stated publicly that he doesn't trust the federal government due to the death of his cousin in war; he is convinced that any sort of initiative to regulate air quality is a control tactic on the part of the federal government. I'm giving Utah another decade before it secedes from the Union and makes polygamy legal again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utah Legislative Session , or " Why I drink more in January and February " This is just one bill in a flurry of anti-federal government blathering coming from Utah 's capitol hill this session .
We also decided we do n't want any type of federal health care unless we OK it first , we 're going to be able to make our own guns without federal regulation ( so long as it can be carried by only one person ) , and issue guns to Utah residents without any sort of firearm license , and we want to do away with the twelfth grade to save some dough.I saw a commenter here that said they sympathize with the desire for more scientific evidence .
You 're giving them far too much credit .
Allow me to be clear that these people do n't care about scientific data .
Rep. Noel has stated publicly that he does n't trust the federal government due to the death of his cousin in war ; he is convinced that any sort of initiative to regulate air quality is a control tactic on the part of the federal government .
I 'm giving Utah another decade before it secedes from the Union and makes polygamy legal again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utah Legislative Session, or "Why I drink more in January and February"This is just one bill in a flurry of anti-federal government blathering coming from Utah's capitol hill this session.
We also decided we don't want any type of federal health care unless we OK it first, we're going to be able to make our own guns without federal regulation (so long as it can be carried by only one person), and issue guns to Utah residents without any sort of firearm license, and we want to do away with the twelfth grade to save some dough.I saw a commenter here that said they sympathize with the desire for more scientific evidence.
You're giving them far too much credit.
Allow me to be clear that these people don't care about scientific data.
Rep. Noel has stated publicly that he doesn't trust the federal government due to the death of his cousin in war; he is convinced that any sort of initiative to regulate air quality is a control tactic on the part of the federal government.
I'm giving Utah another decade before it secedes from the Union and makes polygamy legal again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170878</id>
	<title>Re:So if man makes 29 gigatons or so of CO2 per ye</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1265045760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So whats the rush to regulate it?  Oh, thats right money.  Money to the people who will game the system and then contribute to the "right" people.  Money to special interest groups who will fund 529s and such to support the "right" people.</p></div><p>That's exactly the motivation behind attempts to prevent regulation. Really, of all parts of this debate that seem the silliest, it's this one-sided skepticism of greed that annoys me most.</p><p>In your view, it is only scientists, entrepreneurs, and politicians who recognize GW that stand to benefit from this debate. Whereas entire industries such as petroleum, coal, manufacturing, etc and their teams of scientists, entrepreneurs, and incumbent politicians are not in the least motivated by greed. In your view somehow, despite earning profits greater than any in all of recorded history, these groups are simply preventing regulation that would interfere with their profit models out of purely selfless interests.  <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon\_earnings/" title="cnn.com">http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon\_earnings/</a> [cnn.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So whats the rush to regulate it ?
Oh , thats right money .
Money to the people who will game the system and then contribute to the " right " people .
Money to special interest groups who will fund 529s and such to support the " right " people.That 's exactly the motivation behind attempts to prevent regulation .
Really , of all parts of this debate that seem the silliest , it 's this one-sided skepticism of greed that annoys me most.In your view , it is only scientists , entrepreneurs , and politicians who recognize GW that stand to benefit from this debate .
Whereas entire industries such as petroleum , coal , manufacturing , etc and their teams of scientists , entrepreneurs , and incumbent politicians are not in the least motivated by greed .
In your view somehow , despite earning profits greater than any in all of recorded history , these groups are simply preventing regulation that would interfere with their profit models out of purely selfless interests .
http : //money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon \ _earnings/ [ cnn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So whats the rush to regulate it?
Oh, thats right money.
Money to the people who will game the system and then contribute to the "right" people.
Money to special interest groups who will fund 529s and such to support the "right" people.That's exactly the motivation behind attempts to prevent regulation.
Really, of all parts of this debate that seem the silliest, it's this one-sided skepticism of greed that annoys me most.In your view, it is only scientists, entrepreneurs, and politicians who recognize GW that stand to benefit from this debate.
Whereas entire industries such as petroleum, coal, manufacturing, etc and their teams of scientists, entrepreneurs, and incumbent politicians are not in the least motivated by greed.
In your view somehow, despite earning profits greater than any in all of recorded history, these groups are simply preventing regulation that would interfere with their profit models out of purely selfless interests.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon\_earnings/ [cnn.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169690</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>wanerious</author>
	<datestamp>1265041680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are some factors you're apparently unaware of.   The long-term trend over many decades is roughly 0.15C or so, but on the scale of a particular decade, roughly 4 main variables influence warming:  CO2 excess, El Nino cycles, solar radiance, and aerosol cooling (volcanoes, say).  Over the last 12 years we've had, in combination, a decrease in El Nino heating from a record 1998 (which is why many "skeptics" pick this year as a starting point) as well as a cooling cycle in solar radiation.  They both operate on roughly the same timescale.  Underneath that, the CO2 excess from humans contributes a fairly constant 0.2C per decade of warmth, which is why the last decade and a half have shown roughly flat temperature increases instead of the expected cooling.  If you look at the temperature plots, you can see this "wiggle" happening on a regular basis.  We'd then expect, over the next decade, to have rapidly increasing temperatures as all the warming factors are positive, then probably a flat profile after that.  The long-term trend, as shown in the plots, is still rising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some factors you 're apparently unaware of .
The long-term trend over many decades is roughly 0.15C or so , but on the scale of a particular decade , roughly 4 main variables influence warming : CO2 excess , El Nino cycles , solar radiance , and aerosol cooling ( volcanoes , say ) .
Over the last 12 years we 've had , in combination , a decrease in El Nino heating from a record 1998 ( which is why many " skeptics " pick this year as a starting point ) as well as a cooling cycle in solar radiation .
They both operate on roughly the same timescale .
Underneath that , the CO2 excess from humans contributes a fairly constant 0.2C per decade of warmth , which is why the last decade and a half have shown roughly flat temperature increases instead of the expected cooling .
If you look at the temperature plots , you can see this " wiggle " happening on a regular basis .
We 'd then expect , over the next decade , to have rapidly increasing temperatures as all the warming factors are positive , then probably a flat profile after that .
The long-term trend , as shown in the plots , is still rising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some factors you're apparently unaware of.
The long-term trend over many decades is roughly 0.15C or so, but on the scale of a particular decade, roughly 4 main variables influence warming:  CO2 excess, El Nino cycles, solar radiance, and aerosol cooling (volcanoes, say).
Over the last 12 years we've had, in combination, a decrease in El Nino heating from a record 1998 (which is why many "skeptics" pick this year as a starting point) as well as a cooling cycle in solar radiation.
They both operate on roughly the same timescale.
Underneath that, the CO2 excess from humans contributes a fairly constant 0.2C per decade of warmth, which is why the last decade and a half have shown roughly flat temperature increases instead of the expected cooling.
If you look at the temperature plots, you can see this "wiggle" happening on a regular basis.
We'd then expect, over the next decade, to have rapidly increasing temperatures as all the warming factors are positive, then probably a flat profile after that.
The long-term trend, as shown in the plots, is still rising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173058</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>CO2 is plant food, not pollution, and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes and during that time most of the deep sea life went extinct.  CO2 is also absorbed by the oceans, it lowers the pH value of water, making it more acidic.  This is happening right now at a rate much faster than it was in your historic example.  It's not just "plant food".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 is plant food , not pollution , and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere.Yes and during that time most of the deep sea life went extinct .
CO2 is also absorbed by the oceans , it lowers the pH value of water , making it more acidic .
This is happening right now at a rate much faster than it was in your historic example .
It 's not just " plant food " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 is plant food, not pollution, and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere.Yes and during that time most of the deep sea life went extinct.
CO2 is also absorbed by the oceans, it lowers the pH value of water, making it more acidic.
This is happening right now at a rate much faster than it was in your historic example.
It's not just "plant food".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168972</id>
	<title>DigiTechGuy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank goodness some people in this country are coming to their senses and taking steps to abandom the liberal lovey-touchy relationship with trees and whatnot, it's insanely detrimental to our economy and I shouldn't be forced to pay for it.</p><p>captcha: bowels - bears great resemblance to liberal tree huggers and neocon enablers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank goodness some people in this country are coming to their senses and taking steps to abandom the liberal lovey-touchy relationship with trees and whatnot , it 's insanely detrimental to our economy and I should n't be forced to pay for it.captcha : bowels - bears great resemblance to liberal tree huggers and neocon enablers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank goodness some people in this country are coming to their senses and taking steps to abandom the liberal lovey-touchy relationship with trees and whatnot, it's insanely detrimental to our economy and I shouldn't be forced to pay for it.captcha: bowels - bears great resemblance to liberal tree huggers and neocon enablers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174538</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1265057100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Freeman Dyson makes some interesting points against climate change</p></div><p>Freeman Dyson is not the sceptic you think he is. He actually accepts AGW, and once wrote in an essay on the topic: <i>"One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas"</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Freeman Dyson makes some interesting points against climate changeFreeman Dyson is not the sceptic you think he is .
He actually accepts AGW , and once wrote in an essay on the topic : " One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas "</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Freeman Dyson makes some interesting points against climate changeFreeman Dyson is not the sceptic you think he is.
He actually accepts AGW, and once wrote in an essay on the topic: "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31183606</id>
	<title>Projection</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1266504780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It is a massive double standard!</i> <br>
<br>
It is more than a double-standard. It is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological\_projection" title="wikipedia.org">projection</a> [wikipedia.org]. A nasty form of denial where one sees their own faults onto their adversaries. Basically, you do bad science, lie, act unethically, and then accuse your opponents of your own actions. It is like a guy who goes to a bar and picks fights -- but he himself sees all of these other aggressive people. It is a type of madness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a massive double standard !
It is more than a double-standard .
It is projection [ wikipedia.org ] .
A nasty form of denial where one sees their own faults onto their adversaries .
Basically , you do bad science , lie , act unethically , and then accuse your opponents of your own actions .
It is like a guy who goes to a bar and picks fights -- but he himself sees all of these other aggressive people .
It is a type of madness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a massive double standard!
It is more than a double-standard.
It is projection [wikipedia.org].
A nasty form of denial where one sees their own faults onto their adversaries.
Basically, you do bad science, lie, act unethically, and then accuse your opponents of your own actions.
It is like a guy who goes to a bar and picks fights -- but he himself sees all of these other aggressive people.
It is a type of madness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168132</id>
	<title>Utah Finds Chlorofluorocarbons Completely at Fault</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1265035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to <b>halt</b> carbon dioxide reduction policies?  I mean, <i>modify</i> them, sure...but why completely halt them?  Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.  Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...</p></div><p>According to the resolution itself (I don't agree with this in anyway) they seem to place all the blame of climate change on Chlorofluorocarbons and are convinced that CO2 has historically been naturally present and part of the circle of life and therefore it's not so bad:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>WHEREAS, there is a statistically more direct correlation between twentieth century temperature rise and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere than CO2; WHEREAS, outlawed and largely phased out by 1978, in the year 2000 CFC's began to decline at approximately the same time as global temperatures began to decline;</p> </div><p>So your proposition in a reduction of CO2 is irrelevant because they find that CFCs are sole contributing factor (seemingly ignoring 'green house gas' family of pollutants).  <br> <br>

They didn't claim CO2 is a "GOOD thing" as you put it but they say it's nothing to scale back our economy for.  To reiterate, I don't agree with this, I'm just telling you of one of the routes they came to the conclusion that CO2 reduction programs should be abolished.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not , why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies ?
I mean , modify them , sure...but why completely halt them ?
Global warming being real or not , there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere .
Regardless of how much this affects our planet , you ca n't honestly tell me that it 's a GOOD thing...According to the resolution itself ( I do n't agree with this in anyway ) they seem to place all the blame of climate change on Chlorofluorocarbons and are convinced that CO2 has historically been naturally present and part of the circle of life and therefore it 's not so bad : WHEREAS , there is a statistically more direct correlation between twentieth century temperature rise and Chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs ) in the atmosphere than CO2 ; WHEREAS , outlawed and largely phased out by 1978 , in the year 2000 CFC 's began to decline at approximately the same time as global temperatures began to decline ; So your proposition in a reduction of CO2 is irrelevant because they find that CFCs are sole contributing factor ( seemingly ignoring 'green house gas ' family of pollutants ) .
They did n't claim CO2 is a " GOOD thing " as you put it but they say it 's nothing to scale back our economy for .
To reiterate , I do n't agree with this , I 'm just telling you of one of the routes they came to the conclusion that CO2 reduction programs should be abolished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies?
I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them?
Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.
Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...According to the resolution itself (I don't agree with this in anyway) they seem to place all the blame of climate change on Chlorofluorocarbons and are convinced that CO2 has historically been naturally present and part of the circle of life and therefore it's not so bad:WHEREAS, there is a statistically more direct correlation between twentieth century temperature rise and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere than CO2; WHEREAS, outlawed and largely phased out by 1978, in the year 2000 CFC's began to decline at approximately the same time as global temperatures began to decline; So your proposition in a reduction of CO2 is irrelevant because they find that CFCs are sole contributing factor (seemingly ignoring 'green house gas' family of pollutants).
They didn't claim CO2 is a "GOOD thing" as you put it but they say it's nothing to scale back our economy for.
To reiterate, I don't agree with this, I'm just telling you of one of the routes they came to the conclusion that CO2 reduction programs should be abolished.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175592</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265017440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Perhaps they could go ahead and legislate some scientific thinking into themselves while they're redefining physics."</p><p>I heard that during the debate this suggested, until someone pointed out that current methods to turn lead into gold have proven extremely difficult and not particularly cost-effective"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Perhaps they could go ahead and legislate some scientific thinking into themselves while they 're redefining physics .
" I heard that during the debate this suggested , until someone pointed out that current methods to turn lead into gold have proven extremely difficult and not particularly cost-effective "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Perhaps they could go ahead and legislate some scientific thinking into themselves while they're redefining physics.
"I heard that during the debate this suggested, until someone pointed out that current methods to turn lead into gold have proven extremely difficult and not particularly cost-effective"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168008</id>
	<title>Interesting data from Prague for last 200 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.chmi.cz/meteo/ok/images/01\_t.gif" title="www.chmi.cz" rel="nofollow">Here</a> [www.chmi.cz]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ www.chmi.cz ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here [www.chmi.cz]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169024</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider a world where there is no need to pay trillions of dollars to some far away countries whose only claim to greatness is lots of hydrocarbons</p> </div><p>Oh my God... consider the world without crime, consider the world without wars, consider the world without Bill Gates,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....blah blah... get a grip on reality...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider a world where there is no need to pay trillions of dollars to some far away countries whose only claim to greatness is lots of hydrocarbons Oh my God... consider the world without crime , consider the world without wars , consider the world without Bill Gates , ....blah blah... get a grip on reality.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider a world where there is no need to pay trillions of dollars to some far away countries whose only claim to greatness is lots of hydrocarbons Oh my God... consider the world without crime, consider the world without wars, consider the world without Bill Gates, ....blah blah... get a grip on reality...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168072</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's true. The legislature should have stuck to legal matters. Like maybe passing legislation allowing us to execute environmentalists.</p><p>Seriously, what have environmentalists ever done that's constructive? At best, they're parasites living on public handouts, at worst, they're a nuisance to people who are actually doing things that are destructive.</p><p>Quickest way to improve the environment - toss all the environmentalists in a land fill, and cover it over quick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's true .
The legislature should have stuck to legal matters .
Like maybe passing legislation allowing us to execute environmentalists.Seriously , what have environmentalists ever done that 's constructive ?
At best , they 're parasites living on public handouts , at worst , they 're a nuisance to people who are actually doing things that are destructive.Quickest way to improve the environment - toss all the environmentalists in a land fill , and cover it over quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's true.
The legislature should have stuck to legal matters.
Like maybe passing legislation allowing us to execute environmentalists.Seriously, what have environmentalists ever done that's constructive?
At best, they're parasites living on public handouts, at worst, they're a nuisance to people who are actually doing things that are destructive.Quickest way to improve the environment - toss all the environmentalists in a land fill, and cover it over quick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168402</id>
	<title>Nation Shocked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Utah legislators are idiots. In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green.  Now here's Tom with the weather.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utah legislators are idiots .
In other news , the sky is blue and grass is green .
Now here 's Tom with the weather .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utah legislators are idiots.
In other news, the sky is blue and grass is green.
Now here's Tom with the weather.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173352</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>magicbluesmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1265053080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who prides himself in using logical and rational decision-making methods your approach appeals to my mind. There is one thing that I feel I must point out. That is the current levels of C02 or so high that we would expect our current temperatures to be much, much higher. The fact that the temperature change has never matched any of the predictions made about global warming basically proves that our understanding of climate and climate change is essentially flawed and/or incomplete.

I would find it difficult to believe that all of our emissions have no effect on planet climate. But, it is apparent to me that we don't know what that effect is. The climate is changing. There is no question in my mind about that. The climate is always changing. That is also fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who prides himself in using logical and rational decision-making methods your approach appeals to my mind .
There is one thing that I feel I must point out .
That is the current levels of C02 or so high that we would expect our current temperatures to be much , much higher .
The fact that the temperature change has never matched any of the predictions made about global warming basically proves that our understanding of climate and climate change is essentially flawed and/or incomplete .
I would find it difficult to believe that all of our emissions have no effect on planet climate .
But , it is apparent to me that we do n't know what that effect is .
The climate is changing .
There is no question in my mind about that .
The climate is always changing .
That is also fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who prides himself in using logical and rational decision-making methods your approach appeals to my mind.
There is one thing that I feel I must point out.
That is the current levels of C02 or so high that we would expect our current temperatures to be much, much higher.
The fact that the temperature change has never matched any of the predictions made about global warming basically proves that our understanding of climate and climate change is essentially flawed and/or incomplete.
I would find it difficult to believe that all of our emissions have no effect on planet climate.
But, it is apparent to me that we don't know what that effect is.
The climate is changing.
There is no question in my mind about that.
The climate is always changing.
That is also fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168312</id>
	<title>So if man makes 29 gigatons or so of CO2 per year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and nature pumps out 600+ how much can we affect it by modifying the US production?</p><p>So whats the rush to regulate it?  Oh, thats right money.  Money to the people who will game the system and then contribute to the "right" people.  Money to special interest groups who will fund 529s and such to support the "right" people.  So we will see all these non producers buy and sell green credits inflating their wallets at the expense of the middle class.  Wall Street wins again because this is where the real push comes from.  Why should people not involved in the production of CO2 get to buy and sell credits for it?</p><p>Follow the money or worse, follow the egos.  The egos of political appointees who are convinced they are right and would not care if any fact to the contrary existed.  People who think that now that they "are in charge" they can fix those stupid people.</p><p>Yeah, sorry, the reason not to rush is because the science isn't settled and way too much money and politics are involved to let science have a clear chance.  Big business signed onto the global warming/climate change once they figured out how to make large amounts of money on it.  GE and similar aren't there because they want to feel good, they want to make a buck.  If getting the government to regulate your competitors is what it takes then so be it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and nature pumps out 600 + how much can we affect it by modifying the US production ? So whats the rush to regulate it ?
Oh , thats right money .
Money to the people who will game the system and then contribute to the " right " people .
Money to special interest groups who will fund 529s and such to support the " right " people .
So we will see all these non producers buy and sell green credits inflating their wallets at the expense of the middle class .
Wall Street wins again because this is where the real push comes from .
Why should people not involved in the production of CO2 get to buy and sell credits for it ? Follow the money or worse , follow the egos .
The egos of political appointees who are convinced they are right and would not care if any fact to the contrary existed .
People who think that now that they " are in charge " they can fix those stupid people.Yeah , sorry , the reason not to rush is because the science is n't settled and way too much money and politics are involved to let science have a clear chance .
Big business signed onto the global warming/climate change once they figured out how to make large amounts of money on it .
GE and similar are n't there because they want to feel good , they want to make a buck .
If getting the government to regulate your competitors is what it takes then so be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and nature pumps out 600+ how much can we affect it by modifying the US production?So whats the rush to regulate it?
Oh, thats right money.
Money to the people who will game the system and then contribute to the "right" people.
Money to special interest groups who will fund 529s and such to support the "right" people.
So we will see all these non producers buy and sell green credits inflating their wallets at the expense of the middle class.
Wall Street wins again because this is where the real push comes from.
Why should people not involved in the production of CO2 get to buy and sell credits for it?Follow the money or worse, follow the egos.
The egos of political appointees who are convinced they are right and would not care if any fact to the contrary existed.
People who think that now that they "are in charge" they can fix those stupid people.Yeah, sorry, the reason not to rush is because the science isn't settled and way too much money and politics are involved to let science have a clear chance.
Big business signed onto the global warming/climate change once they figured out how to make large amounts of money on it.
GE and similar aren't there because they want to feel good, they want to make a buck.
If getting the government to regulate your competitors is what it takes then so be it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175808</id>
	<title>Re:This is what you get....</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265018160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to overlook the fact that a few comments taken out of context in emails or a few references to poorly reviewed sources about glaciers are hardly enough to alter the consensus that has formed among most scientists about CO2 induced global warming.</p><p>There is nothing surprising about politicians scurrying to find excuses for not accomplishing anything that might upset their well-funded contributors.  To blame scientists for the inability of politicians to make sensible decisions certainly doesn't provide the politicians with much cover.</p><p>If the politicians and and people of Utah want to stand idly by as their state continues to heat up and dry out and they are forced to buy their food elsewhere, I have no objection.  However, it is ludicrous to suggest that others should follow in the same path of blind ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to overlook the fact that a few comments taken out of context in emails or a few references to poorly reviewed sources about glaciers are hardly enough to alter the consensus that has formed among most scientists about CO2 induced global warming.There is nothing surprising about politicians scurrying to find excuses for not accomplishing anything that might upset their well-funded contributors .
To blame scientists for the inability of politicians to make sensible decisions certainly does n't provide the politicians with much cover.If the politicians and and people of Utah want to stand idly by as their state continues to heat up and dry out and they are forced to buy their food elsewhere , I have no objection .
However , it is ludicrous to suggest that others should follow in the same path of blind ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to overlook the fact that a few comments taken out of context in emails or a few references to poorly reviewed sources about glaciers are hardly enough to alter the consensus that has formed among most scientists about CO2 induced global warming.There is nothing surprising about politicians scurrying to find excuses for not accomplishing anything that might upset their well-funded contributors.
To blame scientists for the inability of politicians to make sensible decisions certainly doesn't provide the politicians with much cover.If the politicians and and people of Utah want to stand idly by as their state continues to heat up and dry out and they are forced to buy their food elsewhere, I have no objection.
However, it is ludicrous to suggest that others should follow in the same path of blind ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169428</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")</p></div><p>Using a non-quantifiable terms like "too much" too much is the reason these discussions feel completely meaningless. Either we release more pollution than can be sustained by the planet, or we don't (from any global catastrophe perspective).</p><p>The realistic view is that nobody know when (or if) we pass any limit and whatever balance there is, tips over. We won't known until we reach it since we are in the test tube. How bad will it be? Well...perhaps there will be a food falling from the sky and nobody will go hungry again, or the planet will not be able to sustain human-type life for a million years. It is basically a gamble unless the risk of the latter is zero, or we somehow find irrefutable evidence of "no doom".</p><p>Of course, the risk of a global catastrophe will always exist regardless of what we humans do, but environmentalists want to remove the human-induced part from the equation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ( " We pollute too much , but we are n't dooming ourselves .
" ) Using a non-quantifiable terms like " too much " too much is the reason these discussions feel completely meaningless .
Either we release more pollution than can be sustained by the planet , or we do n't ( from any global catastrophe perspective ) .The realistic view is that nobody know when ( or if ) we pass any limit and whatever balance there is , tips over .
We wo n't known until we reach it since we are in the test tube .
How bad will it be ?
Well...perhaps there will be a food falling from the sky and nobody will go hungry again , or the planet will not be able to sustain human-type life for a million years .
It is basically a gamble unless the risk of the latter is zero , or we somehow find irrefutable evidence of " no doom " .Of course , the risk of a global catastrophe will always exist regardless of what we humans do , but environmentalists want to remove the human-induced part from the equation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.
")Using a non-quantifiable terms like "too much" too much is the reason these discussions feel completely meaningless.
Either we release more pollution than can be sustained by the planet, or we don't (from any global catastrophe perspective).The realistic view is that nobody know when (or if) we pass any limit and whatever balance there is, tips over.
We won't known until we reach it since we are in the test tube.
How bad will it be?
Well...perhaps there will be a food falling from the sky and nobody will go hungry again, or the planet will not be able to sustain human-type life for a million years.
It is basically a gamble unless the risk of the latter is zero, or we somehow find irrefutable evidence of "no doom".Of course, the risk of a global catastrophe will always exist regardless of what we humans do, but environmentalists want to remove the human-induced part from the equation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170736</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are so full of bigotry and propaganda that your attitude is what started this whole global warming hoax.  It is a hoax by rich people to stay rich, or at least get their fingers into "the energy business" crap.  So either you are just another perpetrator of lies or you are deceiving yourself.  You pick!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are so full of bigotry and propaganda that your attitude is what started this whole global warming hoax .
It is a hoax by rich people to stay rich , or at least get their fingers into " the energy business " crap .
So either you are just another perpetrator of lies or you are deceiving yourself .
You pick !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are so full of bigotry and propaganda that your attitude is what started this whole global warming hoax.
It is a hoax by rich people to stay rich, or at least get their fingers into "the energy business" crap.
So either you are just another perpetrator of lies or you are deceiving yourself.
You pick!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180748</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>lonecrow</author>
	<datestamp>1265050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long is this "no warming in last 15 years" half-truth going to survive?
<br> <br>
I would be greatly pleased if someone who takes this as some sort of anti-gw proof would kindly review this graph: <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998" title="grist.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998</a> [grist.org]  then explain why they still hold that view.
<br> <br>
Then there is this 2000 year graph showing the results of 10 different studies by different teams using different methodologies: <a href="http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000\_Year\_Temperature\_Comparison\_png" title="globalwarmingart.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000\_Year\_Temperature\_Comparison\_png</a> [globalwarmingart.com]
<br> <br>
Is there a claim that ALL of them are junk?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long is this " no warming in last 15 years " half-truth going to survive ?
I would be greatly pleased if someone who takes this as some sort of anti-gw proof would kindly review this graph : http : //www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998 [ grist.org ] then explain why they still hold that view .
Then there is this 2000 year graph showing the results of 10 different studies by different teams using different methodologies : http : //www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File : 2000 \ _Year \ _Temperature \ _Comparison \ _png [ globalwarmingart.com ] Is there a claim that ALL of them are junk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long is this "no warming in last 15 years" half-truth going to survive?
I would be greatly pleased if someone who takes this as some sort of anti-gw proof would kindly review this graph: http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998 [grist.org]  then explain why they still hold that view.
Then there is this 2000 year graph showing the results of 10 different studies by different teams using different methodologies: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000\_Year\_Temperature\_Comparison\_png [globalwarmingart.com]
 
Is there a claim that ALL of them are junk?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171422</id>
	<title>Utah... LOL</title>
	<author>Malice9610</author>
	<datestamp>1265047260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL, this must have been one of the Utah Legislatures more " quiet " resolutions.

I live in Utah, trust me, everything you have heard about stupid people and Utah is true. Only more so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL , this must have been one of the Utah Legislatures more " quiet " resolutions .
I live in Utah , trust me , everything you have heard about stupid people and Utah is true .
Only more so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL, this must have been one of the Utah Legislatures more " quiet " resolutions.
I live in Utah, trust me, everything you have heard about stupid people and Utah is true.
Only more so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173272</id>
	<title>Re:This might be interesting</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1265052720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They should do the same with gravity. Instandly they will have flying cars.</p></div><p>I live in Salt Lake City, and there is an effort to overturn child saftey seat laws for trips that are within a certain distance and under 25mph.  Doctors and safety experts who point out that a 25mph crash can still be devastating are cast as nanny-staters who want to curtail parent's rights.</p><p>Once these clowns re-establish man's dominion over inertia, I am sure they will get around to gravity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should do the same with gravity .
Instandly they will have flying cars.I live in Salt Lake City , and there is an effort to overturn child saftey seat laws for trips that are within a certain distance and under 25mph .
Doctors and safety experts who point out that a 25mph crash can still be devastating are cast as nanny-staters who want to curtail parent 's rights.Once these clowns re-establish man 's dominion over inertia , I am sure they will get around to gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should do the same with gravity.
Instandly they will have flying cars.I live in Salt Lake City, and there is an effort to overturn child saftey seat laws for trips that are within a certain distance and under 25mph.
Doctors and safety experts who point out that a 25mph crash can still be devastating are cast as nanny-staters who want to curtail parent's rights.Once these clowns re-establish man's dominion over inertia, I am sure they will get around to gravity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170720</id>
	<title>that settles it!</title>
	<author>juan2074</author>
	<datestamp>1265045220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know what they say:
<br>As goes Utah, so goes the nation.

<br> <br>I just hope the laws of nature don't try to supersede the proclamations of the Utah State Assembly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what they say : As goes Utah , so goes the nation .
I just hope the laws of nature do n't try to supersede the proclamations of the Utah State Assembly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what they say:
As goes Utah, so goes the nation.
I just hope the laws of nature don't try to supersede the proclamations of the Utah State Assembly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167874</id>
	<title>I Don't Think This Was Well Thought Out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers;</p></div><p>What do you propose to collect independent data from 1950 to 2010?  Time travel?  Of <i>course</i> you have to rely on global climate researchers.  <br> <br>

I more than understand their concerns with cap and trade but some of these premise statements are a bit off track:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>WHEREAS, the recently completed Copenhagen climate change summit resulted in little agreement, especially among growing CO2-emitting nations like China and India, and calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a time when the United States' national debt will exceed $12 trillion;</p></div><p>So what the state of Utah is saying is that since no one else is taking this seriously, we shouldn't have to?  I agree that it will hurt us economically and competitively with other nations but you <i>have</i> to look at what scientific evidence we have before you mire this in those sorts of things.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>WHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, 1.6 billion people do not have adequate food and clean water; and WHEREAS, global governance related to global warming and reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty:</p></div><p>Funny that absent from their "concerns" of foreign citizens is the statement that "increasing temperatures will increase drought and famine in equatorial developing nations resulting in starvation and displacement."  Third world peoples will be the first to feel the effects of climate change while people like me in the United States will hear about this on the news.  We have the resources and means to deal with the beginnings of it, they don't.  Their governments will have bigger problems than debt and slowed economic development.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its "Endangerment Finding" and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of H. [ the ]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.H climate data H. [ conspiracy ]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.H and global warming science can be substantiated.</p></div><p>A "full and independent investigation" is exactly what the EPA tried to do.  Problem is that everyone is on the planet.  Good luck finding sentient beings to do an 'independent investigation' of our planet.  Anyone else has a stake in this one way or the other because they live here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WHEREAS , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) , a blend of government officials and scientists , does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers ; What do you propose to collect independent data from 1950 to 2010 ?
Time travel ?
Of course you have to rely on global climate researchers .
I more than understand their concerns with cap and trade but some of these premise statements are a bit off track : WHEREAS , the recently completed Copenhagen climate change summit resulted in little agreement , especially among growing CO2-emitting nations like China and India , and calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a time when the United States ' national debt will exceed $ 12 trillion ; So what the state of Utah is saying is that since no one else is taking this seriously , we should n't have to ?
I agree that it will hurt us economically and competitively with other nations but you have to look at what scientific evidence we have before you mire this in those sorts of things.WHEREAS , according to the World Health Organization , 1.6 billion people do not have adequate food and clean water ; and WHEREAS , global governance related to global warming and reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty : Funny that absent from their " concerns " of foreign citizens is the statement that " increasing temperatures will increase drought and famine in equatorial developing nations resulting in starvation and displacement .
" Third world peoples will be the first to feel the effects of climate change while people like me in the United States will hear about this on the news .
We have the resources and means to deal with the beginnings of it , they do n't .
Their governments will have bigger problems than debt and slowed economic development.NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its " Endangerment Finding " and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of H. [ the ] .H climate data H. [ conspiracy ] .H and global warming science can be substantiated.A " full and independent investigation " is exactly what the EPA tried to do .
Problem is that everyone is on the planet .
Good luck finding sentient beings to do an 'independent investigation ' of our planet .
Anyone else has a stake in this one way or the other because they live here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers;What do you propose to collect independent data from 1950 to 2010?
Time travel?
Of course you have to rely on global climate researchers.
I more than understand their concerns with cap and trade but some of these premise statements are a bit off track:WHEREAS, the recently completed Copenhagen climate change summit resulted in little agreement, especially among growing CO2-emitting nations like China and India, and calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a time when the United States' national debt will exceed $12 trillion;So what the state of Utah is saying is that since no one else is taking this seriously, we shouldn't have to?
I agree that it will hurt us economically and competitively with other nations but you have to look at what scientific evidence we have before you mire this in those sorts of things.WHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, 1.6 billion people do not have adequate food and clean water; and WHEREAS, global governance related to global warming and reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty:Funny that absent from their "concerns" of foreign citizens is the statement that "increasing temperatures will increase drought and famine in equatorial developing nations resulting in starvation and displacement.
"  Third world peoples will be the first to feel the effects of climate change while people like me in the United States will hear about this on the news.
We have the resources and means to deal with the beginnings of it, they don't.
Their governments will have bigger problems than debt and slowed economic development.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah urges the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and withdraw its "Endangerment Finding" and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of H. [ the ] .H climate data H. [ conspiracy ] .H and global warming science can be substantiated.A "full and independent investigation" is exactly what the EPA tried to do.
Problem is that everyone is on the planet.
Good luck finding sentient beings to do an 'independent investigation' of our planet.
Anyone else has a stake in this one way or the other because they live here.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168660</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1265037960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them?</p></div><p>Because the EPA has limited statutory authority. Under one provision of the Clean Air Act if a new facility being built has the potential to emit 250 tons per year of CO2 it must receive a PSD permit from the EPA. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study estimates that 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings would fall under regulation on this basis. Under another provision of the Clean Air Act, any facility generating over 100 tons per year must file paperwork about their emissions and pay emmission fees of $43.50 per ton over 100 tons per year. <br>
So, basically, the EPA does not have statutory authority to impose a flexible regulatory standard. If the EPA regulates CO2, current law says that they must impose similar regulatory policies to those which apply to sulfur dioxide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not , why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies ?
I mean , modify them , sure...but why completely halt them ? Because the EPA has limited statutory authority .
Under one provision of the Clean Air Act if a new facility being built has the potential to emit 250 tons per year of CO2 it must receive a PSD permit from the EPA .
A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study estimates that 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings would fall under regulation on this basis .
Under another provision of the Clean Air Act , any facility generating over 100 tons per year must file paperwork about their emissions and pay emmission fees of $ 43.50 per ton over 100 tons per year .
So , basically , the EPA does not have statutory authority to impose a flexible regulatory standard .
If the EPA regulates CO2 , current law says that they must impose similar regulatory policies to those which apply to sulfur dioxide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies?
I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them?Because the EPA has limited statutory authority.
Under one provision of the Clean Air Act if a new facility being built has the potential to emit 250 tons per year of CO2 it must receive a PSD permit from the EPA.
A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study estimates that 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings would fall under regulation on this basis.
Under another provision of the Clean Air Act, any facility generating over 100 tons per year must file paperwork about their emissions and pay emmission fees of $43.50 per ton over 100 tons per year.
So, basically, the EPA does not have statutory authority to impose a flexible regulatory standard.
If the EPA regulates CO2, current law says that they must impose similar regulatory policies to those which apply to sulfur dioxide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167940</id>
	<title>The Mormons...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...are at it again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...are at it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are at it again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168570</id>
	<title>Re:This might be interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CITIZENS</p><p>Yes, we'd certainly like  to  hear  what  one  of us has got to say...</p><p>Erik, Sven, Sven's dad  and  Harald  struggle  out  of  the Great Hall, carrying their belongings and the Horn Resounding, while the citizen is still speaking most  articulately  in  support  of  the  King. They are ALMOST in a panic.</p><p>ERIK</p><p>What are you all doing?</p><p>CITIZEN AT THE BACK</p><p>(cheerfully)</p><p>It's all right. It's not happening.</p><p>ERIK</p><p>(urgently)</p><p>The place is sinking!</p><p>CITIZEN AT THE BACK</p><p>Yes... I thought  it  was  too, but the King's just pointed out that it can't be.</p><p>CITIZEN</p><p>(still speaking in support of  the  King)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and, of course, we mustn't forget King Arnulf's EXCELLENT eye for flower-arranging.</p><p>There is a smattering of applause. A few people pull their robes up out of the wet. Erik leaps onto a wall and shouts to the crowd.</p><p>ERIK</p><p>Save yourselves! Hy-Brasil... is sinking.</p><p>There are a lot of knowing smiles amongst the citizens.</p><p>CITIZEN FROM MIDDLE</p><p>Look, you don't know our safety regulations.</p><p>KING ARNULF</p><p>It can't happen.</p><p>ERIK</p><p>But it IS! Look!</p><p>KING ARNULF</p><p>(ignoring Erik)</p><p>The important thing is not to panic.</p><p>CITIZENS</p><p>Quite... yes... we understand....</p><p>KING ARNULF</p><p>I've already appointed  the  Chancellor  as  Chairman of a committee to find out exactly  what  IS  going  on, and meantime I suggest we have a sing-song!</p><p>CITIZENS</p><p>Good idea!</p><p>ANOTHER</p><p>Can we do the one that goes "TUM-TI-TUM-TI-TUM-TI-TUM"?</p><p>Erik looks around in despair. Meanwhile in another street someone is struggling in the floodwater.</p><p>LOKI</p><p>I can't swim! I can't swim!</p><p>KEITEL</p><p>Relax!</p><p>LOKI</p><p>I'm drowning! Help!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CITIZENSYes , we 'd certainly like to hear what one of us has got to say...Erik , Sven , Sven 's dad and Harald struggle out of the Great Hall , carrying their belongings and the Horn Resounding , while the citizen is still speaking most articulately in support of the King .
They are ALMOST in a panic.ERIKWhat are you all doing ? CITIZEN AT THE BACK ( cheerfully ) It 's all right .
It 's not happening.ERIK ( urgently ) The place is sinking ! CITIZEN AT THE BACKYes... I thought it was too , but the King 's just pointed out that it ca n't be.CITIZEN ( still speaking in support of the King ) ...and , of course , we must n't forget King Arnulf 's EXCELLENT eye for flower-arranging.There is a smattering of applause .
A few people pull their robes up out of the wet .
Erik leaps onto a wall and shouts to the crowd.ERIKSave yourselves !
Hy-Brasil... is sinking.There are a lot of knowing smiles amongst the citizens.CITIZEN FROM MIDDLELook , you do n't know our safety regulations.KING ARNULFIt ca n't happen.ERIKBut it IS !
Look ! KING ARNULF ( ignoring Erik ) The important thing is not to panic.CITIZENSQuite... yes... we understand....KING ARNULFI 've already appointed the Chancellor as Chairman of a committee to find out exactly what IS going on , and meantime I suggest we have a sing-song ! CITIZENSGood idea ! ANOTHERCan we do the one that goes " TUM-TI-TUM-TI-TUM-TI-TUM " ? Erik looks around in despair .
Meanwhile in another street someone is struggling in the floodwater.LOKII ca n't swim !
I ca n't swim ! KEITELRelax ! LOKII 'm drowning !
Help !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CITIZENSYes, we'd certainly like  to  hear  what  one  of us has got to say...Erik, Sven, Sven's dad  and  Harald  struggle  out  of  the Great Hall, carrying their belongings and the Horn Resounding, while the citizen is still speaking most  articulately  in  support  of  the  King.
They are ALMOST in a panic.ERIKWhat are you all doing?CITIZEN AT THE BACK(cheerfully)It's all right.
It's not happening.ERIK(urgently)The place is sinking!CITIZEN AT THE BACKYes... I thought  it  was  too, but the King's just pointed out that it can't be.CITIZEN(still speaking in support of  the  King) ...and, of course, we mustn't forget King Arnulf's EXCELLENT eye for flower-arranging.There is a smattering of applause.
A few people pull their robes up out of the wet.
Erik leaps onto a wall and shouts to the crowd.ERIKSave yourselves!
Hy-Brasil... is sinking.There are a lot of knowing smiles amongst the citizens.CITIZEN FROM MIDDLELook, you don't know our safety regulations.KING ARNULFIt can't happen.ERIKBut it IS!
Look!KING ARNULF(ignoring Erik)The important thing is not to panic.CITIZENSQuite... yes... we understand....KING ARNULFI've already appointed  the  Chancellor  as  Chairman of a committee to find out exactly  what  IS  going  on, and meantime I suggest we have a sing-song!CITIZENSGood idea!ANOTHERCan we do the one that goes "TUM-TI-TUM-TI-TUM-TI-TUM"?Erik looks around in despair.
Meanwhile in another street someone is struggling in the floodwater.LOKII can't swim!
I can't swim!KEITELRelax!LOKII'm drowning!
Help!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31178812</id>
	<title>There's an app for that!</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1265032080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tired of discreditng the fallacious arguments of the AGW deniers.</p><p>There's and app for that!</p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/17/iphone-app-climate-change" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/17/iphone-app-climate-change</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p><p>The ihone has a useful app, whodathunkit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tired of discreditng the fallacious arguments of the AGW deniers.There 's and app for that ! http : //www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/17/iphone-app-climate-change [ guardian.co.uk ] The ihone has a useful app , whodathunkit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tired of discreditng the fallacious arguments of the AGW deniers.There's and app for that!http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/17/iphone-app-climate-change [guardian.co.uk]The ihone has a useful app, whodathunkit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</id>
	<title>Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1265034060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs</p> </div><p>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to <b>halt</b> carbon dioxide reduction policies?  I mean, <i>modify</i> them, sure...but why completely halt them?  Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.  Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...</p><p>People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming.  What's up with that?  Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not , why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies ?
I mean , modify them , sure...but why completely halt them ?
Global warming being real or not , there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere .
Regardless of how much this affects our planet , you ca n't honestly tell me that it 's a GOOD thing...People always seem to follow one extreme ( " We 're ruining our planet !
" ) or the other ( " We are n't doing anything to the planet !
" ) when it comes to global warming .
What 's up with that ?
Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ( " We pollute too much , but we are n't dooming ourselves .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies?
I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them?
Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.
Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!
") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!
") when it comes to global warming.
What's up with that?
Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.
")
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170534</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1265044560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Perhaps the global warming crowd has another motive...?"</p><p>FUD. We know the big oil/gas/coal companies have motive. No need for question marks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Perhaps the global warming crowd has another motive... ? " FUD .
We know the big oil/gas/coal companies have motive .
No need for question marks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Perhaps the global warming crowd has another motive...?"FUD.
We know the big oil/gas/coal companies have motive.
No need for question marks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31186676</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1266517380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There are serious concerns about the IPCC and some of their faulty results but the people mentioned in this article are neither competent nor willing to address them. Just bark with them or against them, do not try to have articulate discussion.</i> <br>
<br>
An army of skeptics troll through a thousand page report and find 2 minor errors. Yep. The problem is serious all right. Better burn the whole report.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are serious concerns about the IPCC and some of their faulty results but the people mentioned in this article are neither competent nor willing to address them .
Just bark with them or against them , do not try to have articulate discussion .
An army of skeptics troll through a thousand page report and find 2 minor errors .
Yep. The problem is serious all right .
Better burn the whole report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are serious concerns about the IPCC and some of their faulty results but the people mentioned in this article are neither competent nor willing to address them.
Just bark with them or against them, do not try to have articulate discussion.
An army of skeptics troll through a thousand page report and find 2 minor errors.
Yep. The problem is serious all right.
Better burn the whole report.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31183658</id>
	<title>Social constructionism</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1266505020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I think that relativistic values</i> <br>
<br>
It is not just relativistic values, it is social constructionism and post modernism gone awry. These are excellent intelligent theories, however, they are all too often used by people who don't understand maths, have no respect for science, and still want to claim the intellectual primacy of their beliefs. This includes a large section of the humanities.<br>
<br>
The result is that science is just "spin". There is a point to that -- but it is too subtle for Joe Average College Student.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that relativistic values It is not just relativistic values , it is social constructionism and post modernism gone awry .
These are excellent intelligent theories , however , they are all too often used by people who do n't understand maths , have no respect for science , and still want to claim the intellectual primacy of their beliefs .
This includes a large section of the humanities .
The result is that science is just " spin " .
There is a point to that -- but it is too subtle for Joe Average College Student .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that relativistic values 

It is not just relativistic values, it is social constructionism and post modernism gone awry.
These are excellent intelligent theories, however, they are all too often used by people who don't understand maths, have no respect for science, and still want to claim the intellectual primacy of their beliefs.
This includes a large section of the humanities.
The result is that science is just "spin".
There is a point to that -- but it is too subtle for Joe Average College Student.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169600</id>
	<title>Denying Climate Change</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1265041440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was just plain stupid.</p><p>It is a fact the climate of the earth changes.</p><p>What idiots.</p><p>If they would have said:</p><p>1) We the people, deny and do not believe the facts for man made climate change with regards to CO2 output.<br>2) We deny that such CO2 output is as classified a poisonous substance.<br>3) We do not believe the carbon credits derivatives markets are set up for the end purpose of anything but greed and creating a world tax system to fund the new world order, under the thinly veiled guise of "saving the planet".<br>4) Finally we the people do believe that there has been sufficient evidence recently of proof that the scientific community headed by the IMF has falsified data, fraudulently misrepresented data, hidden methods and determinations of all current conclusions including the suppression of contrary points of view, published by the IMF and UN of man made climate change under the pretext of the goals stated in #3.</p><p>The whole thing rather in a nutshell is a SCAM with Mr. Al Gore owning huge leveraged securities in 3 firms that would sell CO2 carbon credits and derivatives.</p><p>Its disgusting what they plan on doing to the third world with this system.</p><p>The poor and the powerless in this world ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF CONSTRAINTS ON THEM TO KEEP THEM IN THEIR PLACE AND OFFER NO COMPETITION, Mr. Gore, thank you very much.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was just plain stupid.It is a fact the climate of the earth changes.What idiots.If they would have said : 1 ) We the people , deny and do not believe the facts for man made climate change with regards to CO2 output.2 ) We deny that such CO2 output is as classified a poisonous substance.3 ) We do not believe the carbon credits derivatives markets are set up for the end purpose of anything but greed and creating a world tax system to fund the new world order , under the thinly veiled guise of " saving the planet " .4 ) Finally we the people do believe that there has been sufficient evidence recently of proof that the scientific community headed by the IMF has falsified data , fraudulently misrepresented data , hidden methods and determinations of all current conclusions including the suppression of contrary points of view , published by the IMF and UN of man made climate change under the pretext of the goals stated in # 3.The whole thing rather in a nutshell is a SCAM with Mr. Al Gore owning huge leveraged securities in 3 firms that would sell CO2 carbon credits and derivatives.Its disgusting what they plan on doing to the third world with this system.The poor and the powerless in this world ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF CONSTRAINTS ON THEM TO KEEP THEM IN THEIR PLACE AND OFFER NO COMPETITION , Mr. Gore , thank you very much.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was just plain stupid.It is a fact the climate of the earth changes.What idiots.If they would have said:1) We the people, deny and do not believe the facts for man made climate change with regards to CO2 output.2) We deny that such CO2 output is as classified a poisonous substance.3) We do not believe the carbon credits derivatives markets are set up for the end purpose of anything but greed and creating a world tax system to fund the new world order, under the thinly veiled guise of "saving the planet".4) Finally we the people do believe that there has been sufficient evidence recently of proof that the scientific community headed by the IMF has falsified data, fraudulently misrepresented data, hidden methods and determinations of all current conclusions including the suppression of contrary points of view, published by the IMF and UN of man made climate change under the pretext of the goals stated in #3.The whole thing rather in a nutshell is a SCAM with Mr. Al Gore owning huge leveraged securities in 3 firms that would sell CO2 carbon credits and derivatives.Its disgusting what they plan on doing to the third world with this system.The poor and the powerless in this world ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF CONSTRAINTS ON THEM TO KEEP THEM IN THEIR PLACE AND OFFER NO COMPETITION, Mr. Gore, thank you very much.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173224</id>
	<title>Re:This is what you get....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irritating thing about this whole fiasco is that the deniers are merely finding flaws in current research, however minor they might be.  These deniers contribute no new research, and yet reap all the benefits of rightness in the eyes of the masses.  These dirty tactics contribute nothing in terms of our understanding of nature, and I would have a lot more respect for them if they actually took an active role in the scientific process.</p><p>To illustrate my point: Let's assume that the deniers are correct about the flaws in climate research.  Let's assume that these flaws do in fact cast serious doubts about the conclusions of said research.  And finally, let's assume that their argument is that man is not responsible for global climate change.  The only thing that they have succeeded in doing is proving that the results are unjustified by the data.  This does not mean that humans do not contribute to climate change, it just means that the particular study does not support the opposite claim.  Their argument is a positive statement, and requires scientific justification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irritating thing about this whole fiasco is that the deniers are merely finding flaws in current research , however minor they might be .
These deniers contribute no new research , and yet reap all the benefits of rightness in the eyes of the masses .
These dirty tactics contribute nothing in terms of our understanding of nature , and I would have a lot more respect for them if they actually took an active role in the scientific process.To illustrate my point : Let 's assume that the deniers are correct about the flaws in climate research .
Let 's assume that these flaws do in fact cast serious doubts about the conclusions of said research .
And finally , let 's assume that their argument is that man is not responsible for global climate change .
The only thing that they have succeeded in doing is proving that the results are unjustified by the data .
This does not mean that humans do not contribute to climate change , it just means that the particular study does not support the opposite claim .
Their argument is a positive statement , and requires scientific justification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irritating thing about this whole fiasco is that the deniers are merely finding flaws in current research, however minor they might be.
These deniers contribute no new research, and yet reap all the benefits of rightness in the eyes of the masses.
These dirty tactics contribute nothing in terms of our understanding of nature, and I would have a lot more respect for them if they actually took an active role in the scientific process.To illustrate my point: Let's assume that the deniers are correct about the flaws in climate research.
Let's assume that these flaws do in fact cast serious doubts about the conclusions of said research.
And finally, let's assume that their argument is that man is not responsible for global climate change.
The only thing that they have succeeded in doing is proving that the results are unjustified by the data.
This does not mean that humans do not contribute to climate change, it just means that the particular study does not support the opposite claim.
Their argument is a positive statement, and requires scientific justification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168456</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Derblet</author>
	<datestamp>1265037000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")</p></div><p>Not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/all/ people - but the ones that do are the ones that get in the news.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People always seem to follow one extreme ( " We 're ruining our planet !
" ) or the other ( " We are n't doing anything to the planet !
" ) when it comes to global warming .
What 's up with that ?
Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ( " We pollute too much , but we are n't dooming ourselves .
" ) Not /all/ people - but the ones that do are the ones that get in the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!
") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!
") when it comes to global warming.
What's up with that?
Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.
")Not /all/ people - but the ones that do are the ones that get in the news.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168068</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1265035020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere</p></div></blockquote><p>I deny that as a species we pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.

</p><p>Good heavens. As it turns out, you were incorrect.  There <em>is</em> denying of it.  I wonder what else you're wrong about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphereI deny that as a species we pump way too much crap into our atmosphere .
Good heavens .
As it turns out , you were incorrect .
There is denying of it .
I wonder what else you 're wrong about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphereI deny that as a species we pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.
Good heavens.
As it turns out, you were incorrect.
There is denying of it.
I wonder what else you're wrong about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31181894</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1266489360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I'm not saying this to be faceious..."</i>
<br> <br>
Ditto, a few points...
<br> <br>
I do not agree that there has been virtually no warming since 1995, the trend is still 0.11 ~ 0.15DegC/decade. <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-Phil-Jones-really-say-global-warming-ended-in-1995.html" title="skepticalscience.com">What Phil Jones actually said</a> [skepticalscience.com] in his BBC interview (linked in the skeptical science article) was that the confidence level for the trend over that 15yr period does not quite reach the magical 95\% level of certainty. The same is true for ANY 15yr period. It comes as no surprise to me that the Daily Fail is the source of the misquotes and confusion.
<br> <br>
Arctic melt is mainly driven by the rise in ocean temps (see the graph in the skeptical science link above), ocean currents, and a phenomena called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar\_amplification" title="wikipedia.org">polar amplification</a> [wikipedia.org] that was first predicted by models in the 1980's and was later confirmed by regional analysis of observations.
<br> <br>
Both the ocean and the ice have a thermal inertia many orders of magnitude larger than the atmosphere. This means that if the atmosphre were to somehow drop 10DegC off the global average (say a freak run of consecutive volcanic eruptions) the ice would still continue on a melting trend for quite a few years.
<br> <br>
There is some weak evidence that the heat going into the recent "dramatic" melting of the Arctic ice may be responsible for the flattening of the curve over the last couple of years but this is far from certain. What is a lot more certain is that, like the long term atmosphereic trend, the long term melting trend is virtually unchanged by the recent dramatic melt.
<br> <br>
The PDO (El-Nino/El-Nina) is an internal fluctuation of the Earth's climate system, it is not a root cause for anything. It randomly redistributes existing heat in the ocean/atmosphere. It has nothing to do with the heat budget because it is basically large scale turbulence, I would also be very impressed if anyone could predict turbulance with any degree of accuracy.
<br> <br>
Solar flux was counted as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg" title="wikipedia.org">minor positive forcing</a> [wikipedia.org] in the IPCC reports. There is some evidence it has <a href="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep\_solarwind.htm" title="nasa.gov">become weaker</a> [nasa.gov] since the 1990's. But I agree that the forcing effect of the sun can be considered stable in a "spherical cow" analysis.
<br> <br>
None of this changes <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1552564&amp;cid=31178548" title="slashdot.org">the radiative forcing properties of CO2</a> [slashdot.org] that have been understood now for nearly 200yrs. Nor does it change the fact we have pumped half a trillion tons of the stuff into the atmosphere and are on track to double that tonnage in the next 40yrs.
<br> <br>
The only thing humans have any control over is our emmissions of GHG's (long term warming) and areosols (short term cooling). According to Fourier (1824 - explained in my link above), a trillion tons of CO2 will result in a rise of ~1.5degC. This 1.5degC will be added to the heat budget regardless of all the other forcings and feedbacks we don't have control over. The same laws of physics will continue to operate after 2050. We could blanket ourselves in smog to balance the heat budget but that seems to me to be a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
<br> <br>
Simple risk analysis says we need to drastically cut our emmission, technically and financially I don't believe it's a difficult 40yr goal, I also don't believe anyone has the political solution to the tradgedy of the commons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm not saying this to be faceious... " Ditto , a few points.. . I do not agree that there has been virtually no warming since 1995 , the trend is still 0.11 ~ 0.15DegC/decade .
What Phil Jones actually said [ skepticalscience.com ] in his BBC interview ( linked in the skeptical science article ) was that the confidence level for the trend over that 15yr period does not quite reach the magical 95 \ % level of certainty .
The same is true for ANY 15yr period .
It comes as no surprise to me that the Daily Fail is the source of the misquotes and confusion .
Arctic melt is mainly driven by the rise in ocean temps ( see the graph in the skeptical science link above ) , ocean currents , and a phenomena called polar amplification [ wikipedia.org ] that was first predicted by models in the 1980 's and was later confirmed by regional analysis of observations .
Both the ocean and the ice have a thermal inertia many orders of magnitude larger than the atmosphere .
This means that if the atmosphre were to somehow drop 10DegC off the global average ( say a freak run of consecutive volcanic eruptions ) the ice would still continue on a melting trend for quite a few years .
There is some weak evidence that the heat going into the recent " dramatic " melting of the Arctic ice may be responsible for the flattening of the curve over the last couple of years but this is far from certain .
What is a lot more certain is that , like the long term atmosphereic trend , the long term melting trend is virtually unchanged by the recent dramatic melt .
The PDO ( El-Nino/El-Nina ) is an internal fluctuation of the Earth 's climate system , it is not a root cause for anything .
It randomly redistributes existing heat in the ocean/atmosphere .
It has nothing to do with the heat budget because it is basically large scale turbulence , I would also be very impressed if anyone could predict turbulance with any degree of accuracy .
Solar flux was counted as a minor positive forcing [ wikipedia.org ] in the IPCC reports .
There is some evidence it has become weaker [ nasa.gov ] since the 1990 's .
But I agree that the forcing effect of the sun can be considered stable in a " spherical cow " analysis .
None of this changes the radiative forcing properties of CO2 [ slashdot.org ] that have been understood now for nearly 200yrs .
Nor does it change the fact we have pumped half a trillion tons of the stuff into the atmosphere and are on track to double that tonnage in the next 40yrs .
The only thing humans have any control over is our emmissions of GHG 's ( long term warming ) and areosols ( short term cooling ) .
According to Fourier ( 1824 - explained in my link above ) , a trillion tons of CO2 will result in a rise of ~ 1.5degC .
This 1.5degC will be added to the heat budget regardless of all the other forcings and feedbacks we do n't have control over .
The same laws of physics will continue to operate after 2050 .
We could blanket ourselves in smog to balance the heat budget but that seems to me to be a case of the cure being worse than the disease .
Simple risk analysis says we need to drastically cut our emmission , technically and financially I do n't believe it 's a difficult 40yr goal , I also do n't believe anyone has the political solution to the tradgedy of the commons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm not saying this to be faceious..."
 
Ditto, a few points...
 
I do not agree that there has been virtually no warming since 1995, the trend is still 0.11 ~ 0.15DegC/decade.
What Phil Jones actually said [skepticalscience.com] in his BBC interview (linked in the skeptical science article) was that the confidence level for the trend over that 15yr period does not quite reach the magical 95\% level of certainty.
The same is true for ANY 15yr period.
It comes as no surprise to me that the Daily Fail is the source of the misquotes and confusion.
Arctic melt is mainly driven by the rise in ocean temps (see the graph in the skeptical science link above), ocean currents, and a phenomena called polar amplification [wikipedia.org] that was first predicted by models in the 1980's and was later confirmed by regional analysis of observations.
Both the ocean and the ice have a thermal inertia many orders of magnitude larger than the atmosphere.
This means that if the atmosphre were to somehow drop 10DegC off the global average (say a freak run of consecutive volcanic eruptions) the ice would still continue on a melting trend for quite a few years.
There is some weak evidence that the heat going into the recent "dramatic" melting of the Arctic ice may be responsible for the flattening of the curve over the last couple of years but this is far from certain.
What is a lot more certain is that, like the long term atmosphereic trend, the long term melting trend is virtually unchanged by the recent dramatic melt.
The PDO (El-Nino/El-Nina) is an internal fluctuation of the Earth's climate system, it is not a root cause for anything.
It randomly redistributes existing heat in the ocean/atmosphere.
It has nothing to do with the heat budget because it is basically large scale turbulence, I would also be very impressed if anyone could predict turbulance with any degree of accuracy.
Solar flux was counted as a minor positive forcing [wikipedia.org] in the IPCC reports.
There is some evidence it has become weaker [nasa.gov] since the 1990's.
But I agree that the forcing effect of the sun can be considered stable in a "spherical cow" analysis.
None of this changes the radiative forcing properties of CO2 [slashdot.org] that have been understood now for nearly 200yrs.
Nor does it change the fact we have pumped half a trillion tons of the stuff into the atmosphere and are on track to double that tonnage in the next 40yrs.
The only thing humans have any control over is our emmissions of GHG's (long term warming) and areosols (short term cooling).
According to Fourier (1824 - explained in my link above), a trillion tons of CO2 will result in a rise of ~1.5degC.
This 1.5degC will be added to the heat budget regardless of all the other forcings and feedbacks we don't have control over.
The same laws of physics will continue to operate after 2050.
We could blanket ourselves in smog to balance the heat budget but that seems to me to be a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
Simple risk analysis says we need to drastically cut our emmission, technically and financially I don't believe it's a difficult 40yr goal, I also don't believe anyone has the political solution to the tradgedy of the commons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31176626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168680</id>
	<title>Utah passes resolution denying the moon</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1265038020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Utah can pass any resolution it damn well pleases. For example they can deny the moon is in orbit around the earth. Reality of course may beg to differ on the matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Utah can pass any resolution it damn well pleases .
For example they can deny the moon is in orbit around the earth .
Reality of course may beg to differ on the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utah can pass any resolution it damn well pleases.
For example they can deny the moon is in orbit around the earth.
Reality of course may beg to differ on the matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171238</id>
	<title>Occams razor...</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1265046720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more that Utah is sitting on a whole <a href="http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/energy/fossil\_fuels.htm" title="utah.gov">metric assload of coal</a> [utah.gov].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more that Utah is sitting on a whole metric assload of coal [ utah.gov ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more that Utah is sitting on a whole metric assload of coal [utah.gov].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168078</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1265035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider:  this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!</p><p>Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!</p><p>But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!</p><p>Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major state, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.</p><p>And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.</p><p>If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must deny climate change! The defense rests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury , I have one final thing I want you to consider : this is Chewbacca .
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk , but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor .
Now , think about that .
That does not make sense ! Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks ?
That does not make sense ! But more importantly , you have to ask yourself : what does that have to do with this case ?
Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen , it has nothing to do with this case !
It does not make sense ! Look at me , I 'm a lawyer defending a major state , and I 'm talkin ' about Chewbacca .
Does that make sense ?
Ladies and gentlemen , I am not making any sense .
None of this makes sense.And so you have to remember , when you 're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense ?
No ! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury , it does not make sense.If Chewbacca lives on Endor , you must deny climate change !
The defense rests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider:  this is Chewbacca.
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor.
Now, think about that.
That does not make sense!Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks?
That does not make sense!But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case?
Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case!
It does not make sense!Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major state, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca.
Does that make sense?
Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense.
None of this makes sense.And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense?
No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must deny climate change!
The defense rests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171540</id>
	<title>But... they're mormons...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm willing to make the call that the state is run by reactionary Mormons. The religious studies classes that I've been through have all footnoted Mormonism as a reactionary cult. During one of these classes we had a speaker come in to talk to us who was a "jack mormon" or someone who was able to escape from the church and one of their communities. One of the points that this speaker made was in direct connection to Mormonism and their view on global warming.</p><p>Now, in the more orthodox Mormon communities, the families are mandated to keep three days worth of food and water, so that when the rapture comes, the three days in which heaven purges the non-believers, they will have food and water enough for the family to survive in doors. The speaker described what they saw in the basements of these houses, half a dozen ancient refrigerators, and when we say ancient they made the point of telling us that you won't find an "Energy Star" appliance in a Mormon household in these communities because global warming is just another method by which they believe the Rapture might come quicker.</p><p>I'm inclined to simply write this off as a Mormon saturated government trying to push religious policy. Religious Dogma has no place in Law, and the government is Utah is a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm willing to make the call that the state is run by reactionary Mormons .
The religious studies classes that I 've been through have all footnoted Mormonism as a reactionary cult .
During one of these classes we had a speaker come in to talk to us who was a " jack mormon " or someone who was able to escape from the church and one of their communities .
One of the points that this speaker made was in direct connection to Mormonism and their view on global warming.Now , in the more orthodox Mormon communities , the families are mandated to keep three days worth of food and water , so that when the rapture comes , the three days in which heaven purges the non-believers , they will have food and water enough for the family to survive in doors .
The speaker described what they saw in the basements of these houses , half a dozen ancient refrigerators , and when we say ancient they made the point of telling us that you wo n't find an " Energy Star " appliance in a Mormon household in these communities because global warming is just another method by which they believe the Rapture might come quicker.I 'm inclined to simply write this off as a Mormon saturated government trying to push religious policy .
Religious Dogma has no place in Law , and the government is Utah is a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm willing to make the call that the state is run by reactionary Mormons.
The religious studies classes that I've been through have all footnoted Mormonism as a reactionary cult.
During one of these classes we had a speaker come in to talk to us who was a "jack mormon" or someone who was able to escape from the church and one of their communities.
One of the points that this speaker made was in direct connection to Mormonism and their view on global warming.Now, in the more orthodox Mormon communities, the families are mandated to keep three days worth of food and water, so that when the rapture comes, the three days in which heaven purges the non-believers, they will have food and water enough for the family to survive in doors.
The speaker described what they saw in the basements of these houses, half a dozen ancient refrigerators, and when we say ancient they made the point of telling us that you won't find an "Energy Star" appliance in a Mormon household in these communities because global warming is just another method by which they believe the Rapture might come quicker.I'm inclined to simply write this off as a Mormon saturated government trying to push religious policy.
Religious Dogma has no place in Law, and the government is Utah is a joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172784</id>
	<title>Conservation of energy and global warming</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265051220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is off-topic but somewhat related to this article. First, I'm neutral on global warming. The evidence sure seems convincing, but the sources of the evidence looks pretty suspect. That out of the way, it seems pretty much impossible to avoid because of basic thermodynamics:</p><p>Wikipedia says <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">the US consumes about 100*10^15BTU of energy</a> [wikipedia.org] each year. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake\_Superior" title="wikipedia.org">volume of Lake Superior</a> [wikipedia.org] is about 12*10^15L. Converting all to metric, that would seem to indicate that we use (ie "convert to heat") enough energy each year to raise the temperature of Lake Superior about 2.7C.</p><p>Even if we had a perfectly clean energy source that emitted no pollutants whatsoever, that's a buttload of heat to be dumping into the environment. Wind, solar, and tidal energy get a free pass here in that they're moving energy from one part of the ecosystem to another. All other forms of energy production I know of basically extract energy from below-ground reservoirs and move it into the atmosphere. If this is correct, then isn't global warming thermodynamically unavoidable with almost all the energy sources we use today?</p><p>I'm pretty sure that my math is right, but I don't have a good sense of scale. Even if that seems like a huge number to me, maybe that amount of energy is lost in the background noise compared to transient sources like solar flares, volcanoes, etc. I don't know. Could someone explain whether I'm reasonably correct, and if not, why?</p><p> <b>Disclaimers.</b> To the left: I'm just trying to get a handle on all this. Don't crucify me to expressing (what I feel to be a healthy) skepticism. To the right: I don't own anything that smells like patchouli and my car's gas mileage sucks. I'm not a treehugger! I promise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is off-topic but somewhat related to this article .
First , I 'm neutral on global warming .
The evidence sure seems convincing , but the sources of the evidence looks pretty suspect .
That out of the way , it seems pretty much impossible to avoid because of basic thermodynamics : Wikipedia says the US consumes about 100 * 10 ^ 15BTU of energy [ wikipedia.org ] each year .
The volume of Lake Superior [ wikipedia.org ] is about 12 * 10 ^ 15L .
Converting all to metric , that would seem to indicate that we use ( ie " convert to heat " ) enough energy each year to raise the temperature of Lake Superior about 2.7C.Even if we had a perfectly clean energy source that emitted no pollutants whatsoever , that 's a buttload of heat to be dumping into the environment .
Wind , solar , and tidal energy get a free pass here in that they 're moving energy from one part of the ecosystem to another .
All other forms of energy production I know of basically extract energy from below-ground reservoirs and move it into the atmosphere .
If this is correct , then is n't global warming thermodynamically unavoidable with almost all the energy sources we use today ? I 'm pretty sure that my math is right , but I do n't have a good sense of scale .
Even if that seems like a huge number to me , maybe that amount of energy is lost in the background noise compared to transient sources like solar flares , volcanoes , etc .
I do n't know .
Could someone explain whether I 'm reasonably correct , and if not , why ?
Disclaimers. To the left : I 'm just trying to get a handle on all this .
Do n't crucify me to expressing ( what I feel to be a healthy ) skepticism .
To the right : I do n't own anything that smells like patchouli and my car 's gas mileage sucks .
I 'm not a treehugger !
I promise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is off-topic but somewhat related to this article.
First, I'm neutral on global warming.
The evidence sure seems convincing, but the sources of the evidence looks pretty suspect.
That out of the way, it seems pretty much impossible to avoid because of basic thermodynamics:Wikipedia says the US consumes about 100*10^15BTU of energy [wikipedia.org] each year.
The volume of Lake Superior [wikipedia.org] is about 12*10^15L.
Converting all to metric, that would seem to indicate that we use (ie "convert to heat") enough energy each year to raise the temperature of Lake Superior about 2.7C.Even if we had a perfectly clean energy source that emitted no pollutants whatsoever, that's a buttload of heat to be dumping into the environment.
Wind, solar, and tidal energy get a free pass here in that they're moving energy from one part of the ecosystem to another.
All other forms of energy production I know of basically extract energy from below-ground reservoirs and move it into the atmosphere.
If this is correct, then isn't global warming thermodynamically unavoidable with almost all the energy sources we use today?I'm pretty sure that my math is right, but I don't have a good sense of scale.
Even if that seems like a huge number to me, maybe that amount of energy is lost in the background noise compared to transient sources like solar flares, volcanoes, etc.
I don't know.
Could someone explain whether I'm reasonably correct, and if not, why?
Disclaimers. To the left: I'm just trying to get a handle on all this.
Don't crucify me to expressing (what I feel to be a healthy) skepticism.
To the right: I don't own anything that smells like patchouli and my car's gas mileage sucks.
I'm not a treehugger!
I promise!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169360</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>catchblue22</author>
	<datestamp>1265040600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted the following comment recently, but I think it is germane to this discussion at hand:</p><p>I am noticing in many of the posts here a distinct lack of intellectual rigor. A friend of mine is an engineering professor, and he notices this amongst his students too. Specifically, many of his students have an attitude where they feel they can question any scientific theory. Fine you might say. After all, isn't it good to be skeptical? Well yes, perhaps. But when he asks these students specifically why they doubt a particular theory, they can't make a logical argument to support their position. They just say it doesn't intuitively seem right. It is almost as if they don't really comprehend the reasons for their opinions. And this is amongst elite engineering students.</p><p>If I could venture my own opinion on this, I think that relativistic values (and I don't mean Einstein) have seeped into much of our educational system, and by extension to society at large. This relativistic world is a place where there is no real truth, where all opinions are relative to the self and are essentially given equal value. In such a world, taken to its extreme, there are no facts, only opinions. Everything is relative.</p><p>On the left, we see university professors pontificating from institutions founded on Greek principles of Truth and Freedom of Inquiry that these Greek principles are merely just another cultural view in their relativistic universe. And from the right, we see religious leaders cavalierly rejecting the search for Truth through rational inquiry and observation, preferring to create their own "Truth" as revealed in the bible. What both of these extremes are forgetting is that this country was founded on Greek principles of Truth and Freedom of Inquiry, that in the founders' minds, the Greeks were a primary inspiration. Separation of Church and State; Science; Universities where Truth is the primary virtue; the ideals of Justice; a three class society, in which the Middle Class (the Polis) forms the backbone of society; Democracy. These were ALL Greek values and ideals. And has been these Greek ideals that have made our country great. </p><p>If you don't believe this, I suggest you read some Greek literature. Plato. Aristotle. Aristophanes. Sophocles. In Greek literature you will find commentary on many of the most important issues our society faces. The Greeks even wrote about cultural relativism. I believe we are sorely in need of a rediscovery of Greek wisdom.</p><p>And here is my main point. I believe that many in our society are abandoning the Greek values that have made our civilization great. Values such as searching for Truth for Truth's sake through rational inquiry and logic. Skills such as rigorous logic applied in rational debate. In our modern technological society it often seems that Truth should only be pursued for material gain, for profit and not simply because it is noble to pursue the truth. Thus it is easy for business executives to ignore inconvenient facts if those facts might interfere with profit margins. And it is easy for religious followers to adopt truths that make them feel more comfortable with their chosen worldview. After all, if all Truth is relative, then why not pick an easy and comfortable Truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted the following comment recently , but I think it is germane to this discussion at hand : I am noticing in many of the posts here a distinct lack of intellectual rigor .
A friend of mine is an engineering professor , and he notices this amongst his students too .
Specifically , many of his students have an attitude where they feel they can question any scientific theory .
Fine you might say .
After all , is n't it good to be skeptical ?
Well yes , perhaps .
But when he asks these students specifically why they doubt a particular theory , they ca n't make a logical argument to support their position .
They just say it does n't intuitively seem right .
It is almost as if they do n't really comprehend the reasons for their opinions .
And this is amongst elite engineering students.If I could venture my own opinion on this , I think that relativistic values ( and I do n't mean Einstein ) have seeped into much of our educational system , and by extension to society at large .
This relativistic world is a place where there is no real truth , where all opinions are relative to the self and are essentially given equal value .
In such a world , taken to its extreme , there are no facts , only opinions .
Everything is relative.On the left , we see university professors pontificating from institutions founded on Greek principles of Truth and Freedom of Inquiry that these Greek principles are merely just another cultural view in their relativistic universe .
And from the right , we see religious leaders cavalierly rejecting the search for Truth through rational inquiry and observation , preferring to create their own " Truth " as revealed in the bible .
What both of these extremes are forgetting is that this country was founded on Greek principles of Truth and Freedom of Inquiry , that in the founders ' minds , the Greeks were a primary inspiration .
Separation of Church and State ; Science ; Universities where Truth is the primary virtue ; the ideals of Justice ; a three class society , in which the Middle Class ( the Polis ) forms the backbone of society ; Democracy .
These were ALL Greek values and ideals .
And has been these Greek ideals that have made our country great .
If you do n't believe this , I suggest you read some Greek literature .
Plato. Aristotle .
Aristophanes. Sophocles .
In Greek literature you will find commentary on many of the most important issues our society faces .
The Greeks even wrote about cultural relativism .
I believe we are sorely in need of a rediscovery of Greek wisdom.And here is my main point .
I believe that many in our society are abandoning the Greek values that have made our civilization great .
Values such as searching for Truth for Truth 's sake through rational inquiry and logic .
Skills such as rigorous logic applied in rational debate .
In our modern technological society it often seems that Truth should only be pursued for material gain , for profit and not simply because it is noble to pursue the truth .
Thus it is easy for business executives to ignore inconvenient facts if those facts might interfere with profit margins .
And it is easy for religious followers to adopt truths that make them feel more comfortable with their chosen worldview .
After all , if all Truth is relative , then why not pick an easy and comfortable Truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted the following comment recently, but I think it is germane to this discussion at hand:I am noticing in many of the posts here a distinct lack of intellectual rigor.
A friend of mine is an engineering professor, and he notices this amongst his students too.
Specifically, many of his students have an attitude where they feel they can question any scientific theory.
Fine you might say.
After all, isn't it good to be skeptical?
Well yes, perhaps.
But when he asks these students specifically why they doubt a particular theory, they can't make a logical argument to support their position.
They just say it doesn't intuitively seem right.
It is almost as if they don't really comprehend the reasons for their opinions.
And this is amongst elite engineering students.If I could venture my own opinion on this, I think that relativistic values (and I don't mean Einstein) have seeped into much of our educational system, and by extension to society at large.
This relativistic world is a place where there is no real truth, where all opinions are relative to the self and are essentially given equal value.
In such a world, taken to its extreme, there are no facts, only opinions.
Everything is relative.On the left, we see university professors pontificating from institutions founded on Greek principles of Truth and Freedom of Inquiry that these Greek principles are merely just another cultural view in their relativistic universe.
And from the right, we see religious leaders cavalierly rejecting the search for Truth through rational inquiry and observation, preferring to create their own "Truth" as revealed in the bible.
What both of these extremes are forgetting is that this country was founded on Greek principles of Truth and Freedom of Inquiry, that in the founders' minds, the Greeks were a primary inspiration.
Separation of Church and State; Science; Universities where Truth is the primary virtue; the ideals of Justice; a three class society, in which the Middle Class (the Polis) forms the backbone of society; Democracy.
These were ALL Greek values and ideals.
And has been these Greek ideals that have made our country great.
If you don't believe this, I suggest you read some Greek literature.
Plato. Aristotle.
Aristophanes. Sophocles.
In Greek literature you will find commentary on many of the most important issues our society faces.
The Greeks even wrote about cultural relativism.
I believe we are sorely in need of a rediscovery of Greek wisdom.And here is my main point.
I believe that many in our society are abandoning the Greek values that have made our civilization great.
Values such as searching for Truth for Truth's sake through rational inquiry and logic.
Skills such as rigorous logic applied in rational debate.
In our modern technological society it often seems that Truth should only be pursued for material gain, for profit and not simply because it is noble to pursue the truth.
Thus it is easy for business executives to ignore inconvenient facts if those facts might interfere with profit margins.
And it is easy for religious followers to adopt truths that make them feel more comfortable with their chosen worldview.
After all, if all Truth is relative, then why not pick an easy and comfortable Truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169806</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1265042040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"When you're a sheep, I don't respect your opinion."</p></div><p>Well said. I also don't see the need to upend our economic system based on the cry of alarmists using data little more than a decade or two old. Perhaps the global warming crowd has another motive...?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" When you 're a sheep , I do n't respect your opinion .
" Well said .
I also do n't see the need to upend our economic system based on the cry of alarmists using data little more than a decade or two old .
Perhaps the global warming crowd has another motive... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When you're a sheep, I don't respect your opinion.
"Well said.
I also don't see the need to upend our economic system based on the cry of alarmists using data little more than a decade or two old.
Perhaps the global warming crowd has another motive...?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168928</id>
	<title>Tags</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1265039100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone tag this "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone tag this " suddenoutbreakofcommonsense " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone tag this "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172600</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1265050800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sure, they result in less carbon, but contain mercury. Mercury is a much deadlier poison than CO2, both to people and the environment.</p></div></blockquote><p>Do CFLs need to release that mercury in order to work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , they result in less carbon , but contain mercury .
Mercury is a much deadlier poison than CO2 , both to people and the environment.Do CFLs need to release that mercury in order to work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, they result in less carbon, but contain mercury.
Mercury is a much deadlier poison than CO2, both to people and the environment.Do CFLs need to release that mercury in order to work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169702</id>
	<title>Re:Just look at Venus!</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1265041740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm looking at it. It's pretty hanging there in the sky just where God put it 6000 years ago. LOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking at it .
It 's pretty hanging there in the sky just where God put it 6000 years ago .
LOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking at it.
It's pretty hanging there in the sky just where God put it 6000 years ago.
LOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170414</id>
	<title>How can I take any of this seriously?</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1265044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a simple question. When has the climate not changed? The climate has been far warmer and far colder than it is now many times in the past. How can anyone legitimately claim that humanity is truly responsible for the changing climate. There is plenty of archeological evidence of humans thriving in warmer climates.  How can anyone possibly know what the baseline climate is?</p><p>It seems to me that the real problem is that there are more people living in more places. Humanity, or at least what they've built is more threatened by shifts in climate. Now, if the argument is that we should engage in reshaping the climate, that's another story altogether.</p><p>It may be possible that humanity is applying some pressure to climate shifts but I don't see how anyone could deny it would be happening whether or not we were here. It's simple logic.</p><p>And how am I supposed to take any of the threats seriously when the people making such claims aren't concerned enough to curtail their own pollution. Look at the complete waste that was Copenhagen. I don't see Al Gore giving up his private jet, his mansion or the numerous other homes he undoubtedly owns. I suppose it's us suckers who are supposed to sacrifice everything while the elites can go right on doing whatever they feel like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a simple question .
When has the climate not changed ?
The climate has been far warmer and far colder than it is now many times in the past .
How can anyone legitimately claim that humanity is truly responsible for the changing climate .
There is plenty of archeological evidence of humans thriving in warmer climates .
How can anyone possibly know what the baseline climate is ? It seems to me that the real problem is that there are more people living in more places .
Humanity , or at least what they 've built is more threatened by shifts in climate .
Now , if the argument is that we should engage in reshaping the climate , that 's another story altogether.It may be possible that humanity is applying some pressure to climate shifts but I do n't see how anyone could deny it would be happening whether or not we were here .
It 's simple logic.And how am I supposed to take any of the threats seriously when the people making such claims are n't concerned enough to curtail their own pollution .
Look at the complete waste that was Copenhagen .
I do n't see Al Gore giving up his private jet , his mansion or the numerous other homes he undoubtedly owns .
I suppose it 's us suckers who are supposed to sacrifice everything while the elites can go right on doing whatever they feel like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a simple question.
When has the climate not changed?
The climate has been far warmer and far colder than it is now many times in the past.
How can anyone legitimately claim that humanity is truly responsible for the changing climate.
There is plenty of archeological evidence of humans thriving in warmer climates.
How can anyone possibly know what the baseline climate is?It seems to me that the real problem is that there are more people living in more places.
Humanity, or at least what they've built is more threatened by shifts in climate.
Now, if the argument is that we should engage in reshaping the climate, that's another story altogether.It may be possible that humanity is applying some pressure to climate shifts but I don't see how anyone could deny it would be happening whether or not we were here.
It's simple logic.And how am I supposed to take any of the threats seriously when the people making such claims aren't concerned enough to curtail their own pollution.
Look at the complete waste that was Copenhagen.
I don't see Al Gore giving up his private jet, his mansion or the numerous other homes he undoubtedly owns.
I suppose it's us suckers who are supposed to sacrifice everything while the elites can go right on doing whatever they feel like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169644</id>
	<title>Largest atmosphere experiment ever</title>
	<author>pacoder</author>
	<datestamp>1265041560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Long version: I've always considered the pro global warming argument couched wrong. I think an easier way to look at it is to realize (and convince others) that we are engaged in an experiment of epic proportions with our atmosphere by digging up, and putting back into the atmosphere hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 that was sequestered as fossil fuels millions of years ago. No one can really predict the outcome (at least enough to convince the real naysayers) but it is incredibly short sighted and arrogant to assume that there is absolutely no effect. On top of that since a lot of Christians believe that the earth is only about 6,500 years old, it makes them even more difficult to convince.
<br> <br>
Short version: We're screwed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Long version : I 've always considered the pro global warming argument couched wrong .
I think an easier way to look at it is to realize ( and convince others ) that we are engaged in an experiment of epic proportions with our atmosphere by digging up , and putting back into the atmosphere hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 that was sequestered as fossil fuels millions of years ago .
No one can really predict the outcome ( at least enough to convince the real naysayers ) but it is incredibly short sighted and arrogant to assume that there is absolutely no effect .
On top of that since a lot of Christians believe that the earth is only about 6,500 years old , it makes them even more difficult to convince .
Short version : We 're screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long version: I've always considered the pro global warming argument couched wrong.
I think an easier way to look at it is to realize (and convince others) that we are engaged in an experiment of epic proportions with our atmosphere by digging up, and putting back into the atmosphere hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 that was sequestered as fossil fuels millions of years ago.
No one can really predict the outcome (at least enough to convince the real naysayers) but it is incredibly short sighted and arrogant to assume that there is absolutely no effect.
On top of that since a lot of Christians believe that the earth is only about 6,500 years old, it makes them even more difficult to convince.
Short version: We're screwed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31190186</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>Sarius64</author>
	<datestamp>1266485340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The models are wrong. Big deal. That doesn't make the planet cooler. It just means we're unclear about the causes. (Which is all you global warming deniers want, isn't it? Can't you just attack the science based on the actual fact that root causes of warming are difficult to pin down and not outright lie and claim that the planet is not significantly warming?)</p></div><p>Well over 1,000,000 jobs are being eliminated in California over this "big deal".  Since the rest of us get to pay those share of the tax burden, plus any other carbon taxes, I would like someone to explain conclusive proof that it isn't some sham to get more grant money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The models are wrong .
Big deal .
That does n't make the planet cooler .
It just means we 're unclear about the causes .
( Which is all you global warming deniers want , is n't it ?
Ca n't you just attack the science based on the actual fact that root causes of warming are difficult to pin down and not outright lie and claim that the planet is not significantly warming ?
) Well over 1,000,000 jobs are being eliminated in California over this " big deal " .
Since the rest of us get to pay those share of the tax burden , plus any other carbon taxes , I would like someone to explain conclusive proof that it is n't some sham to get more grant money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The models are wrong.
Big deal.
That doesn't make the planet cooler.
It just means we're unclear about the causes.
(Which is all you global warming deniers want, isn't it?
Can't you just attack the science based on the actual fact that root causes of warming are difficult to pin down and not outright lie and claim that the planet is not significantly warming?
)Well over 1,000,000 jobs are being eliminated in California over this "big deal".
Since the rest of us get to pay those share of the tax burden, plus any other carbon taxes, I would like someone to explain conclusive proof that it isn't some sham to get more grant money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168328</id>
	<title>Utah: Land of the Stupid</title>
	<author>Required Snark</author>
	<datestamp>1265036520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Utah wants to balance their budget by canceling 12th grade in high school: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6213596.shtml" title="cbsnews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6213596.shtml</a> [cbsnews.com] Religious morons and their Republican allies <b>want stupid citizens</b> because they are easier to control and make a better docile peasant class.
<p>
If they really want a balanced budget they should tax religion. It would serve dual purposes: fix the budget and cut back the parasites sucking on society. The religious have nothing to fear, since god loves them so much  he (they know god is a dude with a white beard) will make up any material loss.  If they complain they jsut don't have enough faith...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utah wants to balance their budget by canceling 12th grade in high school : http : //www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6213596.shtml [ cbsnews.com ] Religious morons and their Republican allies want stupid citizens because they are easier to control and make a better docile peasant class .
If they really want a balanced budget they should tax religion .
It would serve dual purposes : fix the budget and cut back the parasites sucking on society .
The religious have nothing to fear , since god loves them so much he ( they know god is a dude with a white beard ) will make up any material loss .
If they complain they jsut do n't have enough faith.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utah wants to balance their budget by canceling 12th grade in high school: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6213596.shtml [cbsnews.com] Religious morons and their Republican allies want stupid citizens because they are easier to control and make a better docile peasant class.
If they really want a balanced budget they should tax religion.
It would serve dual purposes: fix the budget and cut back the parasites sucking on society.
The religious have nothing to fear, since god loves them so much  he (they know god is a dude with a white beard) will make up any material loss.
If they complain they jsut don't have enough faith...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175920</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265018460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps, perhaps not, but it almost certainly confirms that Utahans can expect a lot less of it (water) in the future.  Fortunately for Utah politicians, the folks of Utah can go without water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps , perhaps not , but it almost certainly confirms that Utahans can expect a lot less of it ( water ) in the future .
Fortunately for Utah politicians , the folks of Utah can go without water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps, perhaps not, but it almost certainly confirms that Utahans can expect a lot less of it (water) in the future.
Fortunately for Utah politicians, the folks of Utah can go without water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170026</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. Shell fish and corral reefs love it also, YUM!<br>You liberal yuppies think Mercury is just thermometer food? It taste great in fish as well!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Shell fish and corral reefs love it also , YUM ! You liberal yuppies think Mercury is just thermometer food ?
It taste great in fish as well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Shell fish and corral reefs love it also, YUM!You liberal yuppies think Mercury is just thermometer food?
It taste great in fish as well!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171480</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>mini me</author>
	<datestamp>1265047440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I do not understand is why climate scientists are considered the experts on socioeconomic effects of climate change.</p><p>I get that climate scientists have the ability to model climate patterns to predict that world might be a few degrees warmer in the future. But the only reason we care about that research is because we are told there will be devastating consequences as a result of that warming.</p><p>The problem is that studying the consequences of climate change fall well outside the realm of climate study, yet we still look to climate scientists for all of the answers. It is kind of like looking to a structural engineer about the effects of motion sickness on a roller coaster because they designed the structure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do not understand is why climate scientists are considered the experts on socioeconomic effects of climate change.I get that climate scientists have the ability to model climate patterns to predict that world might be a few degrees warmer in the future .
But the only reason we care about that research is because we are told there will be devastating consequences as a result of that warming.The problem is that studying the consequences of climate change fall well outside the realm of climate study , yet we still look to climate scientists for all of the answers .
It is kind of like looking to a structural engineer about the effects of motion sickness on a roller coaster because they designed the structure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I do not understand is why climate scientists are considered the experts on socioeconomic effects of climate change.I get that climate scientists have the ability to model climate patterns to predict that world might be a few degrees warmer in the future.
But the only reason we care about that research is because we are told there will be devastating consequences as a result of that warming.The problem is that studying the consequences of climate change fall well outside the realm of climate study, yet we still look to climate scientists for all of the answers.
It is kind of like looking to a structural engineer about the effects of motion sickness on a roller coaster because they designed the structure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172146</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem, though, is that we don't trust the scientists on this issue.  No one person, even individual climate scientists, knows enough to fully comprehend every aspect of the problem.  We need to be able to trust the people who evaluate their pieces of the problem to evaluate it without fear or favor.  Too many instances of biased, unfair science exist on the issues for us to have that confidence, however frustrating that may be to various partisans.</p><p>There is too much risk to the human future, in a variety of ways, to trust \_anyone's\_ conclusions unreservedly.  The debate needs to continue until we, the voting masses, sufficiently comprehend the nature of the risks and the potential rewards of one course or another.  It is a slow, uneven process susceptible to manipulation by all sides, and we voters know that too.</p><p>I encourage you to patience, fortitude, and fairness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem , though , is that we do n't trust the scientists on this issue .
No one person , even individual climate scientists , knows enough to fully comprehend every aspect of the problem .
We need to be able to trust the people who evaluate their pieces of the problem to evaluate it without fear or favor .
Too many instances of biased , unfair science exist on the issues for us to have that confidence , however frustrating that may be to various partisans.There is too much risk to the human future , in a variety of ways , to trust \ _anyone 's \ _ conclusions unreservedly .
The debate needs to continue until we , the voting masses , sufficiently comprehend the nature of the risks and the potential rewards of one course or another .
It is a slow , uneven process susceptible to manipulation by all sides , and we voters know that too.I encourage you to patience , fortitude , and fairness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem, though, is that we don't trust the scientists on this issue.
No one person, even individual climate scientists, knows enough to fully comprehend every aspect of the problem.
We need to be able to trust the people who evaluate their pieces of the problem to evaluate it without fear or favor.
Too many instances of biased, unfair science exist on the issues for us to have that confidence, however frustrating that may be to various partisans.There is too much risk to the human future, in a variety of ways, to trust \_anyone's\_ conclusions unreservedly.
The debate needs to continue until we, the voting masses, sufficiently comprehend the nature of the risks and the potential rewards of one course or another.
It is a slow, uneven process susceptible to manipulation by all sides, and we voters know that too.I encourage you to patience, fortitude, and fairness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168830</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's just suppose for a moment that the "empirical" science turns out to be wrong. After all, the accepted science of the day said the Earth was flat. Later, when the accepted science said it was spherical, it was without doubt that the Sun and visible planets rotated around the Earth, geocentrism. People were put to death for merely questioning this "scientifically proven" fact. But, it turns out that the science was wrong.</p><p>So, if we suppose, for a moment, that the climate science is wrong; what then? What will we say to those who have been impeded? What will we say to those whose fortunes have been bled away? What will we say to those whose fortunes were prevented? What will we say?</p><p>Will we say that the world is better off without all that CO2, regardless of the science being wrong? I know that many will say yes but, last I checked, CO2 is not poison. And, the last time I checked the temperature data, the Earth has been warming at an increasing rate for longer than man has been able to effect it.</p><p>I agree that the time to act is now! But, the action needs to be study and verification. Right now, the science has some massive gaps, a lack of understanding and a healthy dose of shenanigans thrown in for good measure. Even if the science is proven correct, there's as yet no science on the chosen course of action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's just suppose for a moment that the " empirical " science turns out to be wrong .
After all , the accepted science of the day said the Earth was flat .
Later , when the accepted science said it was spherical , it was without doubt that the Sun and visible planets rotated around the Earth , geocentrism .
People were put to death for merely questioning this " scientifically proven " fact .
But , it turns out that the science was wrong.So , if we suppose , for a moment , that the climate science is wrong ; what then ?
What will we say to those who have been impeded ?
What will we say to those whose fortunes have been bled away ?
What will we say to those whose fortunes were prevented ?
What will we say ? Will we say that the world is better off without all that CO2 , regardless of the science being wrong ?
I know that many will say yes but , last I checked , CO2 is not poison .
And , the last time I checked the temperature data , the Earth has been warming at an increasing rate for longer than man has been able to effect it.I agree that the time to act is now !
But , the action needs to be study and verification .
Right now , the science has some massive gaps , a lack of understanding and a healthy dose of shenanigans thrown in for good measure .
Even if the science is proven correct , there 's as yet no science on the chosen course of action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's just suppose for a moment that the "empirical" science turns out to be wrong.
After all, the accepted science of the day said the Earth was flat.
Later, when the accepted science said it was spherical, it was without doubt that the Sun and visible planets rotated around the Earth, geocentrism.
People were put to death for merely questioning this "scientifically proven" fact.
But, it turns out that the science was wrong.So, if we suppose, for a moment, that the climate science is wrong; what then?
What will we say to those who have been impeded?
What will we say to those whose fortunes have been bled away?
What will we say to those whose fortunes were prevented?
What will we say?Will we say that the world is better off without all that CO2, regardless of the science being wrong?
I know that many will say yes but, last I checked, CO2 is not poison.
And, the last time I checked the temperature data, the Earth has been warming at an increasing rate for longer than man has been able to effect it.I agree that the time to act is now!
But, the action needs to be study and verification.
Right now, the science has some massive gaps, a lack of understanding and a healthy dose of shenanigans thrown in for good measure.
Even if the science is proven correct, there's as yet no science on the chosen course of action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168414</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I for one am glad that legislation has finally taken care of this whole warming business, as scientists weren't making much headway, with all that discussing, experimenting, measuring and whatnot. Perhaps now our esteemed legislators can finally start working on simplifying the value of pi (really, who needs more than 3?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I for one am glad that legislation has finally taken care of this whole warming business , as scientists were n't making much headway , with all that discussing , experimenting , measuring and whatnot .
Perhaps now our esteemed legislators can finally start working on simplifying the value of pi ( really , who needs more than 3 ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I for one am glad that legislation has finally taken care of this whole warming business, as scientists weren't making much headway, with all that discussing, experimenting, measuring and whatnot.
Perhaps now our esteemed legislators can finally start working on simplifying the value of pi (really, who needs more than 3?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173420</id>
	<title>damage the economy?</title>
	<author>jafac</author>
	<datestamp>1265053260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on what evidence? Based on what science?   The Theory of the Invisible Hand?</p><p>Economics has a LONG way to go before it catches up to the credibility level of climate science.  Especially with damaged spokespeople like Bernard Madoff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on what evidence ?
Based on what science ?
The Theory of the Invisible Hand ? Economics has a LONG way to go before it catches up to the credibility level of climate science .
Especially with damaged spokespeople like Bernard Madoff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on what evidence?
Based on what science?
The Theory of the Invisible Hand?Economics has a LONG way to go before it catches up to the credibility level of climate science.
Especially with damaged spokespeople like Bernard Madoff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174238</id>
	<title>Re:Tags</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1265056020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right after they come out with a "fucking idiot" mod.</p><p>That's perhaps a bit harsh. How about a "Doesn't Understand Basic Physics" mod?</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right after they come out with a " fucking idiot " mod.That 's perhaps a bit harsh .
How about a " Does n't Understand Basic Physics " mod ? ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right after they come out with a "fucking idiot" mod.That's perhaps a bit harsh.
How about a "Doesn't Understand Basic Physics" mod?~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169518</id>
	<title>And that dovetails nicely with....</title>
	<author>Abies Bracteata</author>
	<datestamp>1265041140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the proposal to eliminate 12th-grade in Utah public schools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the proposal to eliminate 12th-grade in Utah public schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the proposal to eliminate 12th-grade in Utah public schools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170582</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well said. I also don't see the need to upend our economic system based on the cry of alarmists using data little more than a decade or two old. Perhaps the global warming crowd has another motive...?</p></div><p>Besides continuing to get ever-increasing amounts of money thrown at them to continue to 'prove' that global warming is, and continues to be, a major threat to the planet, so governments can justify seizing <i>more</i> power to impose new regulations?</p><p>Even throwing out the implied conspiracy, since research institutions depend on outside grants for their continued existence, do you <i>really</i> think that climate-research organizations are going to up and say "No, we were wrong; global warming is just another long-period oscillation in the Earth's temperature. There's nothing to worry about; stop giving us money to try to 'prove' what doesn't exist, and you can cancel all your 'global climate change' initiatives, because they won't do any good, and they'll waste trillions of dollars that could be better spent elsewhere."? Look at how many people have vested interests in seeing that the 'threat of global climate change' continues to get flogged past the populace again and again, justifying all of the expensive changes they're trying to push down people's throats.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
I also do n't see the need to upend our economic system based on the cry of alarmists using data little more than a decade or two old .
Perhaps the global warming crowd has another motive... ? Besides continuing to get ever-increasing amounts of money thrown at them to continue to 'prove ' that global warming is , and continues to be , a major threat to the planet , so governments can justify seizing more power to impose new regulations ? Even throwing out the implied conspiracy , since research institutions depend on outside grants for their continued existence , do you really think that climate-research organizations are going to up and say " No , we were wrong ; global warming is just another long-period oscillation in the Earth 's temperature .
There 's nothing to worry about ; stop giving us money to try to 'prove ' what does n't exist , and you can cancel all your 'global climate change ' initiatives , because they wo n't do any good , and they 'll waste trillions of dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. " ?
Look at how many people have vested interests in seeing that the 'threat of global climate change ' continues to get flogged past the populace again and again , justifying all of the expensive changes they 're trying to push down people 's throats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
I also don't see the need to upend our economic system based on the cry of alarmists using data little more than a decade or two old.
Perhaps the global warming crowd has another motive...?Besides continuing to get ever-increasing amounts of money thrown at them to continue to 'prove' that global warming is, and continues to be, a major threat to the planet, so governments can justify seizing more power to impose new regulations?Even throwing out the implied conspiracy, since research institutions depend on outside grants for their continued existence, do you really think that climate-research organizations are going to up and say "No, we were wrong; global warming is just another long-period oscillation in the Earth's temperature.
There's nothing to worry about; stop giving us money to try to 'prove' what doesn't exist, and you can cancel all your 'global climate change' initiatives, because they won't do any good, and they'll waste trillions of dollars that could be better spent elsewhere."?
Look at how many people have vested interests in seeing that the 'threat of global climate change' continues to get flogged past the populace again and again, justifying all of the expensive changes they're trying to push down people's throats.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168198</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1265035800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a growing number of people who believe that aiming solely for fast large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is not an economically wise decision and it's better to mix less ambitious goals on reducing greenhouse gas emissions with engineering approaches to try and reduce global warming.</p><p>That said, reducing CO2 emissions does have some interesting side-effects such as reducing dependency on Oil and Gas.</p><p>Consider a world where there is no need to pay trillions of dollars to some far away countries whose only claim to greatness is lots of hydrocarbons and the subsidizing of madrassas in other countries to spread a particularly extremist and violent form of Islam, or spend trillions of dollars on wars to protect them. Not to mention that Oil and Gas keep some pretty nasty dictatorships in power.</p><p>In such a world, if China does not follow other countries into a low-carbon economy, they will be the sending trillions to those countries and paying for wars in faraway places<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a growing number of people who believe that aiming solely for fast large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is not an economically wise decision and it 's better to mix less ambitious goals on reducing greenhouse gas emissions with engineering approaches to try and reduce global warming.That said , reducing CO2 emissions does have some interesting side-effects such as reducing dependency on Oil and Gas.Consider a world where there is no need to pay trillions of dollars to some far away countries whose only claim to greatness is lots of hydrocarbons and the subsidizing of madrassas in other countries to spread a particularly extremist and violent form of Islam , or spend trillions of dollars on wars to protect them .
Not to mention that Oil and Gas keep some pretty nasty dictatorships in power.In such a world , if China does not follow other countries into a low-carbon economy , they will be the sending trillions to those countries and paying for wars in faraway places .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a growing number of people who believe that aiming solely for fast large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is not an economically wise decision and it's better to mix less ambitious goals on reducing greenhouse gas emissions with engineering approaches to try and reduce global warming.That said, reducing CO2 emissions does have some interesting side-effects such as reducing dependency on Oil and Gas.Consider a world where there is no need to pay trillions of dollars to some far away countries whose only claim to greatness is lots of hydrocarbons and the subsidizing of madrassas in other countries to spread a particularly extremist and violent form of Islam, or spend trillions of dollars on wars to protect them.
Not to mention that Oil and Gas keep some pretty nasty dictatorships in power.In such a world, if China does not follow other countries into a low-carbon economy, they will be the sending trillions to those countries and paying for wars in faraway places ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169214</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1265040060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that people are sensitive to certain things like sea level rise or sudden changes in local climate (doubt, floods, storms, etc.) Just because there *can* be naturally high CO2 levels on earth doesn't mean we should make it that way suddenly. While it will be no Armageddon and few Americans will lose more than farmland or shoreline property, many people in other places will die from these changes. Population displacement also leads to war and economic instability, something Americans are fighting and losing lives and resources to now. <br> <br>
Utah is taking a short-sighted approach in light of the fact that they produce 95\% of their electricity from cheap, dirty coal and plan to build <a href="http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/coal/utah.php" title="westernres...ocates.org"> more</a> [westernres...ocates.org]. Now who is motivated by greed??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that people are sensitive to certain things like sea level rise or sudden changes in local climate ( doubt , floods , storms , etc .
) Just because there * can * be naturally high CO2 levels on earth does n't mean we should make it that way suddenly .
While it will be no Armageddon and few Americans will lose more than farmland or shoreline property , many people in other places will die from these changes .
Population displacement also leads to war and economic instability , something Americans are fighting and losing lives and resources to now .
Utah is taking a short-sighted approach in light of the fact that they produce 95 \ % of their electricity from cheap , dirty coal and plan to build more [ westernres...ocates.org ] .
Now who is motivated by greed ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that people are sensitive to certain things like sea level rise or sudden changes in local climate (doubt, floods, storms, etc.
) Just because there *can* be naturally high CO2 levels on earth doesn't mean we should make it that way suddenly.
While it will be no Armageddon and few Americans will lose more than farmland or shoreline property, many people in other places will die from these changes.
Population displacement also leads to war and economic instability, something Americans are fighting and losing lives and resources to now.
Utah is taking a short-sighted approach in light of the fact that they produce 95\% of their electricity from cheap, dirty coal and plan to build  more [westernres...ocates.org].
Now who is motivated by greed?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170432</id>
	<title>Re:So if man makes 29 gigatons or so of CO2 per ye</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1265044200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So whats the rush to regulate it? Oh, thats right money. Money to the people who will game the system and then contribute to the 'right' people. Money to special interest groups who will fund 529s and such to support the 'right' people. So we will see all these non producers buy and sell green credits inflating their wallets at the expense of the middle class. Wall Street wins again because this is where the real push comes from. Why should people not involved in the production of CO2 get to buy and sell credits for it?"</p><p>This is pretty much nonsensical B.S. If you want to find the vested money interests in this issue, there's no need for tortured mental gymnastics that end with a question mark. Here is your answer: Big oil, gas, and coal companies. If I need to pick a side of this debate of which to be suspicious, it's extremely easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So whats the rush to regulate it ?
Oh , thats right money .
Money to the people who will game the system and then contribute to the 'right ' people .
Money to special interest groups who will fund 529s and such to support the 'right ' people .
So we will see all these non producers buy and sell green credits inflating their wallets at the expense of the middle class .
Wall Street wins again because this is where the real push comes from .
Why should people not involved in the production of CO2 get to buy and sell credits for it ?
" This is pretty much nonsensical B.S .
If you want to find the vested money interests in this issue , there 's no need for tortured mental gymnastics that end with a question mark .
Here is your answer : Big oil , gas , and coal companies .
If I need to pick a side of this debate of which to be suspicious , it 's extremely easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So whats the rush to regulate it?
Oh, thats right money.
Money to the people who will game the system and then contribute to the 'right' people.
Money to special interest groups who will fund 529s and such to support the 'right' people.
So we will see all these non producers buy and sell green credits inflating their wallets at the expense of the middle class.
Wall Street wins again because this is where the real push comes from.
Why should people not involved in the production of CO2 get to buy and sell credits for it?
"This is pretty much nonsensical B.S.
If you want to find the vested money interests in this issue, there's no need for tortured mental gymnastics that end with a question mark.
Here is your answer: Big oil, gas, and coal companies.
If I need to pick a side of this debate of which to be suspicious, it's extremely easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172076</id>
	<title>You do realise you made that up, don't you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realise you made that up, don't you?</p><p>You can work it out yourself (this was done in 1934, by the way):</p><p>Take the climate record.</p><p>Find the RMS error to a line fit.</p><p>This is your annual error. It is about +/- 0.5C.</p><p>Each year you add more data, if there is no trend, you reduce your error of estimation of the mean by a factor of sqrt(N).</p><p>Each year the underlying trend if AGW models are right is about 0.02C increase.</p><p>Each year you gain more of the trend that underlies the climate. It goes up each year by a factor (N).</p><p>Work out where 0.5/sqrt(N) &gt; 25.</p><p>N&gt;&gt; 625 ** 1/3</p><p>N&gt;&gt; 8 years</p><p>16 years leaves you within 2 standard deviations. There's a 90\% chance your answer is not real, just happenstance.</p><p>24 years leaves you within 3 standard deviations. There's a 95\% chance your answer is not real, just happenstance.</p><p>30 years means your answer is better than 95\% chance of being genuine.</p><p>If you want greater certainty, you must use more years.</p><p>PS the last 15 years shows 0.12C per decade warming trend (though not above the significance level: therefore the upper bound is over 0.25C per decade. Hence it's entirely possible [if less than 50-50] that the predicted warming of 0.17C per decade has been seen in 15 years).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realise you made that up , do n't you ? You can work it out yourself ( this was done in 1934 , by the way ) : Take the climate record.Find the RMS error to a line fit.This is your annual error .
It is about + /- 0.5C.Each year you add more data , if there is no trend , you reduce your error of estimation of the mean by a factor of sqrt ( N ) .Each year the underlying trend if AGW models are right is about 0.02C increase.Each year you gain more of the trend that underlies the climate .
It goes up each year by a factor ( N ) .Work out where 0.5/sqrt ( N ) &gt; 25.N &gt; &gt; 625 * * 1/3N &gt; &gt; 8 years16 years leaves you within 2 standard deviations .
There 's a 90 \ % chance your answer is not real , just happenstance.24 years leaves you within 3 standard deviations .
There 's a 95 \ % chance your answer is not real , just happenstance.30 years means your answer is better than 95 \ % chance of being genuine.If you want greater certainty , you must use more years.PS the last 15 years shows 0.12C per decade warming trend ( though not above the significance level : therefore the upper bound is over 0.25C per decade .
Hence it 's entirely possible [ if less than 50-50 ] that the predicted warming of 0.17C per decade has been seen in 15 years ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realise you made that up, don't you?You can work it out yourself (this was done in 1934, by the way):Take the climate record.Find the RMS error to a line fit.This is your annual error.
It is about +/- 0.5C.Each year you add more data, if there is no trend, you reduce your error of estimation of the mean by a factor of sqrt(N).Each year the underlying trend if AGW models are right is about 0.02C increase.Each year you gain more of the trend that underlies the climate.
It goes up each year by a factor (N).Work out where 0.5/sqrt(N) &gt; 25.N&gt;&gt; 625 ** 1/3N&gt;&gt; 8 years16 years leaves you within 2 standard deviations.
There's a 90\% chance your answer is not real, just happenstance.24 years leaves you within 3 standard deviations.
There's a 95\% chance your answer is not real, just happenstance.30 years means your answer is better than 95\% chance of being genuine.If you want greater certainty, you must use more years.PS the last 15 years shows 0.12C per decade warming trend (though not above the significance level: therefore the upper bound is over 0.25C per decade.
Hence it's entirely possible [if less than 50-50] that the predicted warming of 0.17C per decade has been seen in 15 years).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168038</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because emission reduction is a dirty hippie tree-hugging liberal thing.</p><p>Politics is not about rational decisions. The important thing isn't who is right, it's who is percieved as right by the voters. Liberals says emission reduction is needed, therefore conservatives are obliged to fight those reductions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because emission reduction is a dirty hippie tree-hugging liberal thing.Politics is not about rational decisions .
The important thing is n't who is right , it 's who is percieved as right by the voters .
Liberals says emission reduction is needed , therefore conservatives are obliged to fight those reductions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because emission reduction is a dirty hippie tree-hugging liberal thing.Politics is not about rational decisions.
The important thing isn't who is right, it's who is percieved as right by the voters.
Liberals says emission reduction is needed, therefore conservatives are obliged to fight those reductions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172006</id>
	<title>kdawson trolls slashdot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Film at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Film at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31182142</id>
	<title>Utah is jealous of Wyoming!</title>
	<author>EricTheO</author>
	<datestamp>1266492180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps Utah is just jealous of Wyoming's Coal Mining Industry and is eager to further exploit Utah's coal fields. Those pesty regulators always get in the way of dirty capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Utah is just jealous of Wyoming 's Coal Mining Industry and is eager to further exploit Utah 's coal fields .
Those pesty regulators always get in the way of dirty capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Utah is just jealous of Wyoming's Coal Mining Industry and is eager to further exploit Utah's coal fields.
Those pesty regulators always get in the way of dirty capitalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168500</id>
	<title>Re:Like a child with their fingers in their ears.</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1265037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Sun's output is only around 386,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts. I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Sun 's output is only around 386,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts .
I 've told you a million times not to exaggerate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Sun's output is only around 386,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts.
I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168702</id>
	<title>if this helps...</title>
	<author>woodsworth</author>
	<datestamp>1265038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...in letting climate change disappear I have a few more resolutions to propose.<p>

I especially like this paragraph from the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.</p></div><p>
It's a great example of the "invoke fear and terror in our ignorant population by using unrelated, unfounded, known to be false statements" approach. It's quite popular in the fine country of the US (especially in this one party I'm not going to mention).</p><p>


And in the end it's not surprising that Utah passes a resolution like this. If you've ever driven through the state you'd noticed that it already looks like climate change has already happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...in letting climate change disappear I have a few more resolutions to propose .
I especially like this paragraph from the article : In the heat of the debate , the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion .
It 's a great example of the " invoke fear and terror in our ignorant population by using unrelated , unfounded , known to be false statements " approach .
It 's quite popular in the fine country of the US ( especially in this one party I 'm not going to mention ) .
And in the end it 's not surprising that Utah passes a resolution like this .
If you 've ever driven through the state you 'd noticed that it already looks like climate change has already happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...in letting climate change disappear I have a few more resolutions to propose.
I especially like this paragraph from the article:In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.
It's a great example of the "invoke fear and terror in our ignorant population by using unrelated, unfounded, known to be false statements" approach.
It's quite popular in the fine country of the US (especially in this one party I'm not going to mention).
And in the end it's not surprising that Utah passes a resolution like this.
If you've ever driven through the state you'd noticed that it already looks like climate change has already happened.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168342</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This says it all:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.</p></div><p>It's obvious that people who are climate-change deniers are paranoid schizophrenics who should be placed in a mental institution for their own protection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This says it all : In the heat of the debate , the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.It 's obvious that people who are climate-change deniers are paranoid schizophrenics who should be placed in a mental institution for their own protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This says it all:In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.It's obvious that people who are climate-change deniers are paranoid schizophrenics who should be placed in a mental institution for their own protection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175838</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1265018220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If I could venture my own opinion on this, I think that relativistic values (and I don't mean Einstein) have seeped into much of our educational system, and by extension to society at large. This relativistic world is a place where there is no real truth, where all opinions are relative to the self and are essentially given equal value. In such a world, taken to its extreme, there are no facts, only opinions. Everything is relative."</p><p>I would lay the blame for that squarely on the 24 hour media machines, and the news industry in general, as ownership diversity shrinks.</p><p>Expect it to worsen significantly with the recent supreme court decision allowing unlimited political spending by corporations.  Misinformation is at an all time high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If I could venture my own opinion on this , I think that relativistic values ( and I do n't mean Einstein ) have seeped into much of our educational system , and by extension to society at large .
This relativistic world is a place where there is no real truth , where all opinions are relative to the self and are essentially given equal value .
In such a world , taken to its extreme , there are no facts , only opinions .
Everything is relative .
" I would lay the blame for that squarely on the 24 hour media machines , and the news industry in general , as ownership diversity shrinks.Expect it to worsen significantly with the recent supreme court decision allowing unlimited political spending by corporations .
Misinformation is at an all time high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If I could venture my own opinion on this, I think that relativistic values (and I don't mean Einstein) have seeped into much of our educational system, and by extension to society at large.
This relativistic world is a place where there is no real truth, where all opinions are relative to the self and are essentially given equal value.
In such a world, taken to its extreme, there are no facts, only opinions.
Everything is relative.
"I would lay the blame for that squarely on the 24 hour media machines, and the news industry in general, as ownership diversity shrinks.Expect it to worsen significantly with the recent supreme court decision allowing unlimited political spending by corporations.
Misinformation is at an all time high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167986</id>
	<title>Hey, son, you're doing it the wrong way...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should not vote for stopping the US from participating in worldwide environmental policies -- you should work on getting the world to make China accept said policies.</p><p>Soon you'll be using Chinese products and breathing Chinese pollution.</p><p>I'm a foreigner and I do find the US impressive... in a bad way.</p><p>http://one\_foggy.tripod.com/sounds/ll\_clunkenough.wav</p><p>PS: not that we're much better off... *sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should not vote for stopping the US from participating in worldwide environmental policies -- you should work on getting the world to make China accept said policies.Soon you 'll be using Chinese products and breathing Chinese pollution.I 'm a foreigner and I do find the US impressive... in a bad way.http : //one \ _foggy.tripod.com/sounds/ll \ _clunkenough.wavPS : not that we 're much better off... * sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should not vote for stopping the US from participating in worldwide environmental policies -- you should work on getting the world to make China accept said policies.Soon you'll be using Chinese products and breathing Chinese pollution.I'm a foreigner and I do find the US impressive... in a bad way.http://one\_foggy.tripod.com/sounds/ll\_clunkenough.wavPS: not that we're much better off... *sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172584</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265050740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them? Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere. Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Because there might be BETTER things to spend our LIMITED resources on than reducing C02 emissions. It's not like C02 is the only thing we're releasing into the atmosphere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not , why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies ?
I mean , modify them , sure...but why completely halt them ?
Global warming being real or not , there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere .
Regardless of how much this affects our planet , you ca n't honestly tell me that it 's a GOOD thing.. . Because there might be BETTER things to spend our LIMITED resources on than reducing C02 emissions .
It 's not like C02 is the only thing we 're releasing into the atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies?
I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them?
Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.
Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...
Because there might be BETTER things to spend our LIMITED resources on than reducing C02 emissions.
It's not like C02 is the only thing we're releasing into the atmosphere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179114</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1265034900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant" by any normal definition, and that is what the pertinent laws were set up to regulate.  Trying to regulate CO2 emissions without a new law designed to mitigate global warming is making an end run around congressional authority.  Essentially a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats stretching laws to do things they weren't intended to cover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because carbon dioxide is not a " pollutant " by any normal definition , and that is what the pertinent laws were set up to regulate .
Trying to regulate CO2 emissions without a new law designed to mitigate global warming is making an end run around congressional authority .
Essentially a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats stretching laws to do things they were n't intended to cover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant" by any normal definition, and that is what the pertinent laws were set up to regulate.
Trying to regulate CO2 emissions without a new law designed to mitigate global warming is making an end run around congressional authority.
Essentially a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats stretching laws to do things they weren't intended to cover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894</id>
	<title>I love the double standards</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265034000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many times have we seen this sort of argument as contained in TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".</p></div><p>So in other words, they accuse the climate change scientists of of acting in their own financial interests by being alarmists and then also complain about how doing something about the problem will adversely affect the financial interests of the skeptics. It is a massive double standard!</p><p>They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants, and yet can you imagine how much definitive proof against man-made climate change would be worth to businesses? Any scientist who was in it for the money could name their price (or at least, their wife could name her price to be a consultant to industry).</p><p>The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims, while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims. In this case, claiming that the other side is on the "gravy train" isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet there is no way to disprove it either. In all the leaked emails regarding this, where was the shred of evidence that anybody was trying to rort taxpayers money?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times have we seen this sort of argument as contained in TFA : It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a " gravy train " and their efforts would " ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty " .So in other words , they accuse the climate change scientists of of acting in their own financial interests by being alarmists and then also complain about how doing something about the problem will adversely affect the financial interests of the skeptics .
It is a massive double standard ! They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants , and yet can you imagine how much definitive proof against man-made climate change would be worth to businesses ?
Any scientist who was in it for the money could name their price ( or at least , their wife could name her price to be a consultant to industry ) .The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims , while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims .
In this case , claiming that the other side is on the " gravy train " is n't supported by any evidence at all , and yet there is no way to disprove it either .
In all the leaked emails regarding this , where was the shred of evidence that anybody was trying to rort taxpayers money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times have we seen this sort of argument as contained in TFA:It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".So in other words, they accuse the climate change scientists of of acting in their own financial interests by being alarmists and then also complain about how doing something about the problem will adversely affect the financial interests of the skeptics.
It is a massive double standard!They claim that scientists toe the climate change line to get grants, and yet can you imagine how much definitive proof against man-made climate change would be worth to businesses?
Any scientist who was in it for the money could name their price (or at least, their wife could name her price to be a consultant to industry).The problem with this debate is that one side has to prove their claims, while the other side just needs to create doubt by using unsubstantiated and even sometimes completely discredited claims.
In this case, claiming that the other side is on the "gravy train" isn't supported by any evidence at all, and yet there is no way to disprove it either.
In all the leaked emails regarding this, where was the shred of evidence that anybody was trying to rort taxpayers money?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168226</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>jplopez</author>
	<datestamp>1265035920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Utah Assembly confirms that water is not wet anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Utah Assembly confirms that water is not wet anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utah Assembly confirms that water is not wet anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179444</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>cbeaudry</author>
	<datestamp>1265037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please do some research before making points that aren't based on fact.</p><p>Carbon Dioxide concentration is not found to be hazardous if below 10 000ppm over a 8hour period and if under 30 000ppm over a 15min period.</p><p>What that means is, before CO2 can have any effect on ANYONES health it would have to be 26 times higher than current 390ppm levels.</p><p>CO2 is NOT a poison and it is not a problem either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do some research before making points that are n't based on fact.Carbon Dioxide concentration is not found to be hazardous if below 10 000ppm over a 8hour period and if under 30 000ppm over a 15min period.What that means is , before CO2 can have any effect on ANYONES health it would have to be 26 times higher than current 390ppm levels.CO2 is NOT a poison and it is not a problem either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please do some research before making points that aren't based on fact.Carbon Dioxide concentration is not found to be hazardous if below 10 000ppm over a 8hour period and if under 30 000ppm over a 15min period.What that means is, before CO2 can have any effect on ANYONES health it would have to be 26 times higher than current 390ppm levels.CO2 is NOT a poison and it is not a problem either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173022</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265051940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>CO2 is plant food, not pollution, and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere.</p> </div><p>In ages past, there was a time when there was no oxygen in the air at all. There was also a time when Earth surface temperature was over 200C.</p><p>Just because things have been some way in the past, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to have them the same way in the future. If you're going to go for a "we survived that already" argument, then at least restrict yourself to the time period in which human civilization existed (which would be a hundred thousand years at most, and that's quite a stretch). Though even that is ignoring the sheer difference in scale, and dependency on mass-scale agriculture that was not present for most of humanity's history.</p><p>Then also, "survival" is relative. E.g. if 10\% of humanity dies out of famines caused by draughts, that's a very high survival rate, but it's also a major humanitarian disaster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 is plant food , not pollution , and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere .
In ages past , there was a time when there was no oxygen in the air at all .
There was also a time when Earth surface temperature was over 200C.Just because things have been some way in the past , does n't mean that it 's a good idea to have them the same way in the future .
If you 're going to go for a " we survived that already " argument , then at least restrict yourself to the time period in which human civilization existed ( which would be a hundred thousand years at most , and that 's quite a stretch ) .
Though even that is ignoring the sheer difference in scale , and dependency on mass-scale agriculture that was not present for most of humanity 's history.Then also , " survival " is relative .
E.g. if 10 \ % of humanity dies out of famines caused by draughts , that 's a very high survival rate , but it 's also a major humanitarian disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 is plant food, not pollution, and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere.
In ages past, there was a time when there was no oxygen in the air at all.
There was also a time when Earth surface temperature was over 200C.Just because things have been some way in the past, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to have them the same way in the future.
If you're going to go for a "we survived that already" argument, then at least restrict yourself to the time period in which human civilization existed (which would be a hundred thousand years at most, and that's quite a stretch).
Though even that is ignoring the sheer difference in scale, and dependency on mass-scale agriculture that was not present for most of humanity's history.Then also, "survival" is relative.
E.g. if 10\% of humanity dies out of famines caused by draughts, that's a very high survival rate, but it's also a major humanitarian disaster.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169376</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>ccarson</author>
	<datestamp>1265040660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh man, that's good stuff.  Thanks for the laugh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh man , that 's good stuff .
Thanks for the laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh man, that's good stuff.
Thanks for the laugh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174024</id>
	<title>I just passed a resolution too...</title>
	<author>evocarti</author>
	<datestamp>1265055360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...declaring Utah to be dumb!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...declaring Utah to be dumb !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...declaring Utah to be dumb!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168974</id>
	<title>For Those of  You Who Don't Know Utah...</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1265039220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a mysterious town somewhere between L.A. and Vail. I'd say they'll be where California invades when the sea levels rise, but California seems to invade them yearly, anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a mysterious town somewhere between L.A. and Vail .
I 'd say they 'll be where California invades when the sea levels rise , but California seems to invade them yearly , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a mysterious town somewhere between L.A. and Vail.
I'd say they'll be where California invades when the sea levels rise, but California seems to invade them yearly, anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171644</id>
	<title>Let's Petition Oregon to Ban Friction!</title>
	<author>StefanJ</author>
	<datestamp>1265047920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The theory of "friction" was cooked up by grant-hungry so-called physicists, the WD-40 lobby, and Jiffy Lube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory of " friction " was cooked up by grant-hungry so-called physicists , the WD-40 lobby , and Jiffy Lube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory of "friction" was cooked up by grant-hungry so-called physicists, the WD-40 lobby, and Jiffy Lube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173046</id>
	<title>Don't worry...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the Sky Fairy, or Jebus, or someother religious whoop-dee-doo will save us! Remember, we're talking about Utah here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the Sky Fairy , or Jebus , or someother religious whoop-dee-doo will save us !
Remember , we 're talking about Utah here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the Sky Fairy, or Jebus, or someother religious whoop-dee-doo will save us!
Remember, we're talking about Utah here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168960</id>
	<title>It Makes Sense to Me</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1265039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone in Utah has finally created a hallucinogenic for which no current drug tests can measure.   This stuff must be fantastic; everyone there is happy, and staring at the sky.  Its going to be interesting to see which of the idiots in Utah said "Aye" to this non-sense.  Their names should be known so that the rest of humanity can be so enlightened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone in Utah has finally created a hallucinogenic for which no current drug tests can measure .
This stuff must be fantastic ; everyone there is happy , and staring at the sky .
Its going to be interesting to see which of the idiots in Utah said " Aye " to this non-sense .
Their names should be known so that the rest of humanity can be so enlightened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone in Utah has finally created a hallucinogenic for which no current drug tests can measure.
This stuff must be fantastic; everyone there is happy, and staring at the sky.
Its going to be interesting to see which of the idiots in Utah said "Aye" to this non-sense.
Their names should be known so that the rest of humanity can be so enlightened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168568</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's because people who know about the subject know we are dooming ourselves</p><p>and people who don't want to lower their standard of life, regardless of the effects, will say that the planet is totally ok</p><p>someone who would go for a middle poitn of view would just be a retarded niwit who doesn't know anything about climate change but is still ready to lower his standards of life for no reson at all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's because people who know about the subject know we are dooming ourselvesand people who do n't want to lower their standard of life , regardless of the effects , will say that the planet is totally oksomeone who would go for a middle poitn of view would just be a retarded niwit who does n't know anything about climate change but is still ready to lower his standards of life for no reson at all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's because people who know about the subject know we are dooming ourselvesand people who don't want to lower their standard of life, regardless of the effects, will say that the planet is totally oksomeone who would go for a middle poitn of view would just be a retarded niwit who doesn't know anything about climate change but is still ready to lower his standards of life for no reson at all</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170338</id>
	<title>Resolutions in Utah..  That's like Making Jello...</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1265043840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The State Snack?!?!?</p><p>http://www.answerbag.com/q\_view/383965</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The State Snack ? ! ? !
? http : //www.answerbag.com/q \ _view/383965</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The State Snack?!?!
?http://www.answerbag.com/q\_view/383965</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31183436</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1266504060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Solar radiation is remarkably invariant, as Warmers point out every time Denialists mention it. Now suddenly it's an important variable?</p></div></blockquote><p>A good reference regarding solar variability is section 2.7.1 on pages 188-193 of chapter 2 in the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/publications\_ipcc\_fourth\_assessment\_report\_wg1\_report\_the\_physical\_science\_basis.htm" title="www.ipcc.ch">IPCC AR4 WG1</a> [www.ipcc.ch] report. "Remarkably invariant" wouldn't be my first choice of words. Solar output <a href="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr\_deepsolarminimum.htm" title="nasa.gov">varies cyclically</a> [nasa.gov], mainly at an 11 year cycle. But the satellite network hasn't detected a long term trend in solar output over the past ~40 years to match the surface temperature trend over that timespan.</p><blockquote><div><p>Also, isn't it curious that there's no evidence of warming in the past 15 years but we keep on hearing about how Arctic ice is melting at record rates. What do you suppose is driving that? If global temperatures have not increased, yet Arctic melting is not only going on but going on at a rate far faster than anyone predicted (which is what I always see reported) what is driving it? Clearly not anything to do with the Earth's overall heat budget, which you have just admited
has been very nearly neutral in the past 15 years.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... since there has been no significant increase in the Earth's atmospheric heat content in the past 15 years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if we all agree the Earth's heat budget has been almost perfectly neutral over that time.</p></div></blockquote><p>Again, it's better to think about the heat content of the ocean+troposphere system. That eliminates the spurious ENSO heat redistributions which seem to confuse so many nonscientists. Plus, the internal energy of the Earth certainly includes the heat of fusion of melting glaciers and sea ice, so I <em>don't</em> agree that the Earth's heat budget has been neutral over the past 15 years.</p><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.</p></div>

</blockquote><p>

You do realize you're just making that up?</p></div>

</blockquote><p>Wow! In that case, why do climatologists bother to take initial condition ensembles, if climate models have the accuracy you're claiming they do? Is it because they <em>enjoy</em> increasing the run time on expensive supercomputers by an order of magnitude?</p><p>GCMs with better skill than those available to modern science will eventually be able to make predictions that require less temporal averaging. But right now I'd say his figure is on the <em>low</em> side; climate is only meaningful when discussing averages over ~20 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar radiation is remarkably invariant , as Warmers point out every time Denialists mention it .
Now suddenly it 's an important variable ? A good reference regarding solar variability is section 2.7.1 on pages 188-193 of chapter 2 in the IPCC AR4 WG1 [ www.ipcc.ch ] report .
" Remarkably invariant " would n't be my first choice of words .
Solar output varies cyclically [ nasa.gov ] , mainly at an 11 year cycle .
But the satellite network has n't detected a long term trend in solar output over the past ~ 40 years to match the surface temperature trend over that timespan.Also , is n't it curious that there 's no evidence of warming in the past 15 years but we keep on hearing about how Arctic ice is melting at record rates .
What do you suppose is driving that ?
If global temperatures have not increased , yet Arctic melting is not only going on but going on at a rate far faster than anyone predicted ( which is what I always see reported ) what is driving it ?
Clearly not anything to do with the Earth 's overall heat budget , which you have just admited has been very nearly neutral in the past 15 years .
... since there has been no significant increase in the Earth 's atmospheric heat content in the past 15 years ... if we all agree the Earth 's heat budget has been almost perfectly neutral over that time.Again , it 's better to think about the heat content of the ocean + troposphere system .
That eliminates the spurious ENSO heat redistributions which seem to confuse so many nonscientists .
Plus , the internal energy of the Earth certainly includes the heat of fusion of melting glaciers and sea ice , so I do n't agree that the Earth 's heat budget has been neutral over the past 15 years.That 's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures .
You do realize you 're just making that up ?
Wow ! In that case , why do climatologists bother to take initial condition ensembles , if climate models have the accuracy you 're claiming they do ?
Is it because they enjoy increasing the run time on expensive supercomputers by an order of magnitude ? GCMs with better skill than those available to modern science will eventually be able to make predictions that require less temporal averaging .
But right now I 'd say his figure is on the low side ; climate is only meaningful when discussing averages over ~ 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar radiation is remarkably invariant, as Warmers point out every time Denialists mention it.
Now suddenly it's an important variable?A good reference regarding solar variability is section 2.7.1 on pages 188-193 of chapter 2 in the IPCC AR4 WG1 [www.ipcc.ch] report.
"Remarkably invariant" wouldn't be my first choice of words.
Solar output varies cyclically [nasa.gov], mainly at an 11 year cycle.
But the satellite network hasn't detected a long term trend in solar output over the past ~40 years to match the surface temperature trend over that timespan.Also, isn't it curious that there's no evidence of warming in the past 15 years but we keep on hearing about how Arctic ice is melting at record rates.
What do you suppose is driving that?
If global temperatures have not increased, yet Arctic melting is not only going on but going on at a rate far faster than anyone predicted (which is what I always see reported) what is driving it?
Clearly not anything to do with the Earth's overall heat budget, which you have just admited
has been very nearly neutral in the past 15 years.
... since there has been no significant increase in the Earth's atmospheric heat content in the past 15 years ... if we all agree the Earth's heat budget has been almost perfectly neutral over that time.Again, it's better to think about the heat content of the ocean+troposphere system.
That eliminates the spurious ENSO heat redistributions which seem to confuse so many nonscientists.
Plus, the internal energy of the Earth certainly includes the heat of fusion of melting glaciers and sea ice, so I don't agree that the Earth's heat budget has been neutral over the past 15 years.That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.
You do realize you're just making that up?
Wow! In that case, why do climatologists bother to take initial condition ensembles, if climate models have the accuracy you're claiming they do?
Is it because they enjoy increasing the run time on expensive supercomputers by an order of magnitude?GCMs with better skill than those available to modern science will eventually be able to make predictions that require less temporal averaging.
But right now I'd say his figure is on the low side; climate is only meaningful when discussing averages over ~20 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31176626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168074</id>
	<title>A power-couple after the Obamas' own heart...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100217/wl\_asia\_afp/nkoreapoliticskimfamily\_20100217130209" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100217/wl\_asia\_afp/nkoreapoliticskimfamily\_20100217130209</a> [yahoo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100217/wl \ _asia \ _afp/nkoreapoliticskimfamily \ _20100217130209 [ yahoo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100217/wl\_asia\_afp/nkoreapoliticskimfamily\_20100217130209 [yahoo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31182494</id>
	<title>Re:This might be interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266496260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They should do the same with gravity. Instandly they will have flying cars.</p></div><p>You are a genius. I suddenly recall having seen creatures that are able to fly, thus disproving the theory of gravity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should do the same with gravity .
Instandly they will have flying cars.You are a genius .
I suddenly recall having seen creatures that are able to fly , thus disproving the theory of gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should do the same with gravity.
Instandly they will have flying cars.You are a genius.
I suddenly recall having seen creatures that are able to fly, thus disproving the theory of gravity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31189082</id>
	<title>Climate MADNESS ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266525540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you REALLY DO believe in Global Warming OR Climate CHANGE please do me a favor and look up the average temperature of the existence of LIFE on Earth.</p><p>Look at the LONG TERM chart of temps, look at the duration when LIFE has EXISTED on the planet, or you can look at only the section when Primates are known to exist on Earth, with either one of these please derive the average temp during these periods ???</p><p>Also, record the MAX and MIN temps for either period.</p><p>Then compare this to the current temps !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you REALLY DO believe in Global Warming OR Climate CHANGE please do me a favor and look up the average temperature of the existence of LIFE on Earth.Look at the LONG TERM chart of temps , look at the duration when LIFE has EXISTED on the planet , or you can look at only the section when Primates are known to exist on Earth , with either one of these please derive the average temp during these periods ? ?
? Also , record the MAX and MIN temps for either period.Then compare this to the current temps ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you REALLY DO believe in Global Warming OR Climate CHANGE please do me a favor and look up the average temperature of the existence of LIFE on Earth.Look at the LONG TERM chart of temps, look at the duration when LIFE has EXISTED on the planet, or you can look at only the section when Primates are known to exist on Earth, with either one of these please derive the average temp during these periods ??
?Also, record the MAX and MIN temps for either period.Then compare this to the current temps !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168244</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science!</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1265036040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the scientific method didn't include debate, Robert's Rules of Order or passage by majority</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer\_review" title="wikipedia.org">A rose by any other name....</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the scientific method did n't include debate , Robert 's Rules of Order or passage by majority A rose by any other name.... [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the scientific method didn't include debate, Robert's Rules of Order or passage by majority A rose by any other name.... [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168098</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>N3tRunner</author>
	<datestamp>1265035140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if global warming is absolutely false in every way, having more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does nothing positive for our air quality. Whether we're warm (or underwater) or not doesn't make a difference if we're having trouble breathing. Air quality is already an issue for many asthmatics, and it will be moreso in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if global warming is absolutely false in every way , having more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does nothing positive for our air quality .
Whether we 're warm ( or underwater ) or not does n't make a difference if we 're having trouble breathing .
Air quality is already an issue for many asthmatics , and it will be moreso in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if global warming is absolutely false in every way, having more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does nothing positive for our air quality.
Whether we're warm (or underwater) or not doesn't make a difference if we're having trouble breathing.
Air quality is already an issue for many asthmatics, and it will be moreso in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168178</id>
	<title>Re:Utah matters?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1265035680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm especially impressed that they think the climate or some other force of nature cares for their laws. I dunno, isn't Utah that state with a sizable population in the religious corner of the map of the human mind? Maybe they think that if God's people pass a law the planet has to adhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm especially impressed that they think the climate or some other force of nature cares for their laws .
I dunno , is n't Utah that state with a sizable population in the religious corner of the map of the human mind ?
Maybe they think that if God 's people pass a law the planet has to adhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm especially impressed that they think the climate or some other force of nature cares for their laws.
I dunno, isn't Utah that state with a sizable population in the religious corner of the map of the human mind?
Maybe they think that if God's people pass a law the planet has to adhere?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31190802</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Sarius64</author>
	<datestamp>1266486900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs</p></div><p>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to <b>halt</b> carbon dioxide reduction policies?  I mean, <i>modify</i> them, sure...but why completely halt them?  Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.  Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...</p><p>People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming.  What's up with that?  Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")</p></div><p>It just floors me that supposedly rational people make statements like this sans substance.  Listen, AB32 is gutting 1,000,000 jobs here in California.  We cannot legally mix concrete under the new law.

If you're so hell bent on reducing CO2 I invite you to jump into the nearest predator's gullet and aid the cause.  If you cannot make this small sacrifice how can I give standing to anything you say about what others must give up?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programsUm...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not , why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies ?
I mean , modify them , sure...but why completely halt them ?
Global warming being real or not , there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere .
Regardless of how much this affects our planet , you ca n't honestly tell me that it 's a GOOD thing...People always seem to follow one extreme ( " We 're ruining our planet !
" ) or the other ( " We are n't doing anything to the planet !
" ) when it comes to global warming .
What 's up with that ?
Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ( " We pollute too much , but we are n't dooming ourselves .
" ) It just floors me that supposedly rational people make statements like this sans substance .
Listen , AB32 is gutting 1,000,000 jobs here in California .
We can not legally mix concrete under the new law .
If you 're so hell bent on reducing CO2 I invite you to jump into the nearest predator 's gullet and aid the cause .
If you can not make this small sacrifice how can I give standing to anything you say about what others must give up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programsUm...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies?
I mean, modify them, sure...but why completely halt them?
Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.
Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!
") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!
") when it comes to global warming.
What's up with that?
Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.
")It just floors me that supposedly rational people make statements like this sans substance.
Listen, AB32 is gutting 1,000,000 jobs here in California.
We cannot legally mix concrete under the new law.
If you're so hell bent on reducing CO2 I invite you to jump into the nearest predator's gullet and aid the cause.
If you cannot make this small sacrifice how can I give standing to anything you say about what others must give up?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169794</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Ordonator</author>
	<datestamp>1265042040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. Why not do what everyone else does about this and just ignore it, pretending its not there? Do you really have to come out and decry it?

Idiots!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Why not do what everyone else does about this and just ignore it , pretending its not there ?
Do you really have to come out and decry it ?
Idiots !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Why not do what everyone else does about this and just ignore it, pretending its not there?
Do you really have to come out and decry it?
Idiots!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172974</id>
	<title>SOS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265051760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Save Our Scam</p><p>Global Warming is simply non existent per any current and alleged science based reasoning. It simply does not exist in any other fashion other than as I originally suspected, a multidecadal variation driven by solar activity and natural earth processes as volcanism and weather.</p><p>GET THE FUCK OVER IT...ITS A SHAM, SCAM AND SCARE</p><p>Additionaly, I was also proven right when I said here many times that the movement in some manifestations by certain parties was simply a tool used by our enemies to convince us to impose self decline unto which they will then fill in the void created by our castrated economies.</p><p>I was fucking right and some here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/gash, WERE WROOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG, fucking admit it or shut the fuck up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Save Our ScamGlobal Warming is simply non existent per any current and alleged science based reasoning .
It simply does not exist in any other fashion other than as I originally suspected , a multidecadal variation driven by solar activity and natural earth processes as volcanism and weather.GET THE FUCK OVER IT...ITS A SHAM , SCAM AND SCAREAdditionaly , I was also proven right when I said here many times that the movement in some manifestations by certain parties was simply a tool used by our enemies to convince us to impose self decline unto which they will then fill in the void created by our castrated economies.I was fucking right and some here on /gash , WERE WROOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG , fucking admit it or shut the fuck up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Save Our ScamGlobal Warming is simply non existent per any current and alleged science based reasoning.
It simply does not exist in any other fashion other than as I originally suspected, a multidecadal variation driven by solar activity and natural earth processes as volcanism and weather.GET THE FUCK OVER IT...ITS A SHAM, SCAM AND SCAREAdditionaly, I was also proven right when I said here many times that the movement in some manifestations by certain parties was simply a tool used by our enemies to convince us to impose self decline unto which they will then fill in the void created by our castrated economies.I was fucking right and some here on /gash, WERE WROOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG, fucking admit it or shut the fuck up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168268</id>
	<title>My counter-resolution</title>
	<author>oiron</author>
	<datestamp>1265036160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking for reason in all the wrong places, apparently...<blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Endangerment Finding" and proposed action to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is based on questionable climate data and would place significant regulatory and financial burdens on all sectors of the nation's economy at a time when the nation's unemployment rate exceeds 10\%</p></div></blockquote><p>

And WHEREAS the questionability of the said data has been questioned (and debunked thoroughly) and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years;</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS using 12 years of data is a flaw in itself, especially given that 1998 was an El-Nino year, and

WHEREAS the last decade was the hottest on record in any case and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, the "hockey stick" global warming assertion has been discredited and climate alarmists' carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures;</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS that old-wives' tale was debunked recently and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, there is a statistically more direct correlation between twentieth century temperature rise and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere than CO2;</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS that was one study that actually used flawed data and didn't even bother to speculate on the physics of how CFCs could affect temperatures in the first place and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, outlawed and largely phased out by 1978, in the year 2000 CFC's began to decline at approximately the same time as global temperatures began to decline;</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS said decline in temperatures was addressed above and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, emails and other communications between climate researchers around the globe, referred to as "Climategate," indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome;</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS a committee appointed for that purpose found no evidence against one researcher, none of the charges against the other researchers was ever proven, and effort involved in faking such a massive amount of data would make it impossible in any case and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, there has been a concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming by manipulating or pressuring peer-reviewed publications to keep contrary or competing scientific viewpoints and findings on global warming from being reviewed and published;</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS the paper under consideration was published by lowering the standards of a peer reviewed journal so that it would get in and several editors resigned from that journal for that reason and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers;</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS this clause only lays down the fact which is unquestioned and was the original purpose of IPCC and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, Earth's climate is constantly changing with recent warming potentially an indication of a return to more normal temperatures following a prolonged cooling period from 1250 to 1860 called the "Little Ice Age";</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS the rate of change is what matters in the first place, and the existence of a "Little Ice Age" has yet to be proven globally and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, more than $7 billion annually in federal government grants, may have influenced the climate research focus and findings that have produced a "scientific consensus" at research institutions and universities;</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS that one is simply a strawman argument and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, the recently completed Copenhagen climate change summit resulted in little agreement, especially among growing CO2-emitting nations like China and India, and calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a time when the United States' national debt will exceed $12 trillion;</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS "everyone else is cheating" is a kindergarten argument and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, the United States Department of Agriculture estimates that current legislation providing agriculture offsets and carbon credits to reduce CO2 emissions would result in tree planting on 59 million acres of crop and pasture land, damaging America's food security and rural communities;</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS that presents a false dichotomy, and America is not particularly food-insecure in the first place and</p><blockquote><div><p>WHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, 1.6 billion people do not have adequate food and clean water; and

WHEREAS, global governance related to global warming and reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty:</p></div></blockquote><p>

WHEREAS these are both a strawman and a false dichotomy in one gift-wrapped package and</p><blockquote><div><p>NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED...</p></div></blockquote><p>

NOW THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN SHOWN that the Legislature of Utah just passed a resolution that shows a poor lack of understanding of the science involved.
AND IT IS FURTHER SPECULATED that the Legislature of Utah passed this resolution more on the basis of partisan bias than after a truly fair assessment of the science involved, and without consulting any of the people who actually work in the field of climate science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking for reason in all the wrong places , apparently...WHEREAS , the United States Environmental Protection Agency 's ( EPA ) " Endangerment Finding " and proposed action to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is based on questionable climate data and would place significant regulatory and financial burdens on all sectors of the nation 's economy at a time when the nation 's unemployment rate exceeds 10 \ % And WHEREAS the questionability of the said data has been questioned ( and debunked thoroughly ) andWHEREAS , global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years ; WHEREAS using 12 years of data is a flaw in itself , especially given that 1998 was an El-Nino year , and WHEREAS the last decade was the hottest on record in any case andWHEREAS , the " hockey stick " global warming assertion has been discredited and climate alarmists ' carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures ; WHEREAS that old-wives ' tale was debunked recently andWHEREAS , there is a statistically more direct correlation between twentieth century temperature rise and Chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs ) in the atmosphere than CO2 ; WHEREAS that was one study that actually used flawed data and did n't even bother to speculate on the physics of how CFCs could affect temperatures in the first place andWHEREAS , outlawed and largely phased out by 1978 , in the year 2000 CFC 's began to decline at approximately the same time as global temperatures began to decline ; WHEREAS said decline in temperatures was addressed above andWHEREAS , emails and other communications between climate researchers around the globe , referred to as " Climategate , " indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome ; WHEREAS a committee appointed for that purpose found no evidence against one researcher , none of the charges against the other researchers was ever proven , and effort involved in faking such a massive amount of data would make it impossible in any case andWHEREAS , there has been a concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming by manipulating or pressuring peer-reviewed publications to keep contrary or competing scientific viewpoints and findings on global warming from being reviewed and published ; WHEREAS the paper under consideration was published by lowering the standards of a peer reviewed journal so that it would get in and several editors resigned from that journal for that reason andWHEREAS , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) , a blend of government officials and scientists , does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers ; WHEREAS this clause only lays down the fact which is unquestioned and was the original purpose of IPCC andWHEREAS , Earth 's climate is constantly changing with recent warming potentially an indication of a return to more normal temperatures following a prolonged cooling period from 1250 to 1860 called the " Little Ice Age " ; WHEREAS the rate of change is what matters in the first place , and the existence of a " Little Ice Age " has yet to be proven globally andWHEREAS , more than $ 7 billion annually in federal government grants , may have influenced the climate research focus and findings that have produced a " scientific consensus " at research institutions and universities ; WHEREAS that one is simply a strawman argument andWHEREAS , the recently completed Copenhagen climate change summit resulted in little agreement , especially among growing CO2-emitting nations like China and India , and calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a time when the United States ' national debt will exceed $ 12 trillion ; WHEREAS " everyone else is cheating " is a kindergarten argument andWHEREAS , the United States Department of Agriculture estimates that current legislation providing agriculture offsets and carbon credits to reduce CO2 emissions would result in tree planting on 59 million acres of crop and pasture land , damaging America 's food security and rural communities ; WHEREAS that presents a false dichotomy , and America is not particularly food-insecure in the first place andWHEREAS , according to the World Health Organization , 1.6 billion people do not have adequate food and clean water ; and WHEREAS , global governance related to global warming and reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty : WHEREAS these are both a strawman and a false dichotomy in one gift-wrapped package andNOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED.. . NOW THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN SHOWN that the Legislature of Utah just passed a resolution that shows a poor lack of understanding of the science involved .
AND IT IS FURTHER SPECULATED that the Legislature of Utah passed this resolution more on the basis of partisan bias than after a truly fair assessment of the science involved , and without consulting any of the people who actually work in the field of climate science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking for reason in all the wrong places, apparently...WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Endangerment Finding" and proposed action to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is based on questionable climate data and would place significant regulatory and financial burdens on all sectors of the nation's economy at a time when the nation's unemployment rate exceeds 10\%

And WHEREAS the questionability of the said data has been questioned (and debunked thoroughly) andWHEREAS, global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years;

WHEREAS using 12 years of data is a flaw in itself, especially given that 1998 was an El-Nino year, and

WHEREAS the last decade was the hottest on record in any case andWHEREAS, the "hockey stick" global warming assertion has been discredited and climate alarmists' carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures;

WHEREAS that old-wives' tale was debunked recently andWHEREAS, there is a statistically more direct correlation between twentieth century temperature rise and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere than CO2;

WHEREAS that was one study that actually used flawed data and didn't even bother to speculate on the physics of how CFCs could affect temperatures in the first place andWHEREAS, outlawed and largely phased out by 1978, in the year 2000 CFC's began to decline at approximately the same time as global temperatures began to decline;

WHEREAS said decline in temperatures was addressed above andWHEREAS, emails and other communications between climate researchers around the globe, referred to as "Climategate," indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome;

WHEREAS a committee appointed for that purpose found no evidence against one researcher, none of the charges against the other researchers was ever proven, and effort involved in faking such a massive amount of data would make it impossible in any case andWHEREAS, there has been a concerted effort by climate change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific community who are skeptical of global warming by manipulating or pressuring peer-reviewed publications to keep contrary or competing scientific viewpoints and findings on global warming from being reviewed and published;

WHEREAS the paper under consideration was published by lowering the standards of a peer reviewed journal so that it would get in and several editors resigned from that journal for that reason andWHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does no independent climate research but relies on global climate researchers;

WHEREAS this clause only lays down the fact which is unquestioned and was the original purpose of IPCC andWHEREAS, Earth's climate is constantly changing with recent warming potentially an indication of a return to more normal temperatures following a prolonged cooling period from 1250 to 1860 called the "Little Ice Age";

WHEREAS the rate of change is what matters in the first place, and the existence of a "Little Ice Age" has yet to be proven globally andWHEREAS, more than $7 billion annually in federal government grants, may have influenced the climate research focus and findings that have produced a "scientific consensus" at research institutions and universities;

WHEREAS that one is simply a strawman argument andWHEREAS, the recently completed Copenhagen climate change summit resulted in little agreement, especially among growing CO2-emitting nations like China and India, and calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a time when the United States' national debt will exceed $12 trillion;

WHEREAS "everyone else is cheating" is a kindergarten argument andWHEREAS, the United States Department of Agriculture estimates that current legislation providing agriculture offsets and carbon credits to reduce CO2 emissions would result in tree planting on 59 million acres of crop and pasture land, damaging America's food security and rural communities;

WHEREAS that presents a false dichotomy, and America is not particularly food-insecure in the first place andWHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, 1.6 billion people do not have adequate food and clean water; and

WHEREAS, global governance related to global warming and reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty:

WHEREAS these are both a strawman and a false dichotomy in one gift-wrapped package andNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED...

NOW THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN SHOWN that the Legislature of Utah just passed a resolution that shows a poor lack of understanding of the science involved.
AND IT IS FURTHER SPECULATED that the Legislature of Utah passed this resolution more on the basis of partisan bias than after a truly fair assessment of the science involved, and without consulting any of the people who actually work in the field of climate science.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168254</id>
	<title>Like a child with their fingers in their ears.</title>
	<author>dmgxmichael</author>
	<datestamp>1265036100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the mental picture I get every time I see this debate.  Fact: There is an observed increase in global average temperature over the last 100 years.  Now whether that's due to man's activites or something else can be debated - whether the trend continues can be debated.  Personally I think that 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 googlewatt heatlamp in the sky (a.k.a. The Sun) has a lot more to do with climate change than anything we as a species will ever do. But to say there has not been any warming to date is as much (if not more) than a lie than stating that the projections of climatalogists are fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the mental picture I get every time I see this debate .
Fact : There is an observed increase in global average temperature over the last 100 years .
Now whether that 's due to man 's activites or something else can be debated - whether the trend continues can be debated .
Personally I think that 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 googlewatt heatlamp in the sky ( a.k.a .
The Sun ) has a lot more to do with climate change than anything we as a species will ever do .
But to say there has not been any warming to date is as much ( if not more ) than a lie than stating that the projections of climatalogists are fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the mental picture I get every time I see this debate.
Fact: There is an observed increase in global average temperature over the last 100 years.
Now whether that's due to man's activites or something else can be debated - whether the trend continues can be debated.
Personally I think that 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 googlewatt heatlamp in the sky (a.k.a.
The Sun) has a lot more to do with climate change than anything we as a species will ever do.
But to say there has not been any warming to date is as much (if not more) than a lie than stating that the projections of climatalogists are fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168868</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>umm yes, pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere DOES have some positive effects.  Many experiments have been done on plant growth in the presence of increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plant growth is significantly increased. With population growth on its current trajectory, plant growth (including crops) could be seen as a net positive.</p><p>So stopping CO2 emmission regulations can be good, depending on your point of view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>umm yes , pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere DOES have some positive effects .
Many experiments have been done on plant growth in the presence of increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere .
Plant growth is significantly increased .
With population growth on its current trajectory , plant growth ( including crops ) could be seen as a net positive.So stopping CO2 emmission regulations can be good , depending on your point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>umm yes, pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere DOES have some positive effects.
Many experiments have been done on plant growth in the presence of increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Plant growth is significantly increased.
With population growth on its current trajectory, plant growth (including crops) could be seen as a net positive.So stopping CO2 emmission regulations can be good, depending on your point of view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171996</id>
	<title>They're right in a way</title>
	<author>Greg\_D</author>
	<datestamp>1265048880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can rant and rave about climate change all you want, but the fact of the matter is that unless all nations have a firm agreement in place to stem the unmitigated increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, then it's pointless to try to do it unilaterally.  In that case, instead of stifling industry by requiring the reduction of greenhouse gases, you should instead be trying to accumulate as many resources as possible for the inevitable climate change you claim is going to take place.  If we really are at peak oil, then the market is going to take care of the carbon issue for us anyway.</p><p>And excuse me for being a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but it seems rather odd to me that the same folks who are championing climate change as a scientific issue are also trying to use it to create an international social program in the same flavor as the IMF.  They want developed nations to set aside $130 billion to be distributed to 3rd world countries.  And by "developed nations," they mean the US and the EU.  Because reducing the pool of money available for the countries who actually invest in these green technologies, otherwise driving costs down, makes perfect sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can rant and rave about climate change all you want , but the fact of the matter is that unless all nations have a firm agreement in place to stem the unmitigated increase of CO2 in the atmosphere , then it 's pointless to try to do it unilaterally .
In that case , instead of stifling industry by requiring the reduction of greenhouse gases , you should instead be trying to accumulate as many resources as possible for the inevitable climate change you claim is going to take place .
If we really are at peak oil , then the market is going to take care of the carbon issue for us anyway.And excuse me for being a bit of a conspiracy theorist , but it seems rather odd to me that the same folks who are championing climate change as a scientific issue are also trying to use it to create an international social program in the same flavor as the IMF .
They want developed nations to set aside $ 130 billion to be distributed to 3rd world countries .
And by " developed nations , " they mean the US and the EU .
Because reducing the pool of money available for the countries who actually invest in these green technologies , otherwise driving costs down , makes perfect sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can rant and rave about climate change all you want, but the fact of the matter is that unless all nations have a firm agreement in place to stem the unmitigated increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, then it's pointless to try to do it unilaterally.
In that case, instead of stifling industry by requiring the reduction of greenhouse gases, you should instead be trying to accumulate as many resources as possible for the inevitable climate change you claim is going to take place.
If we really are at peak oil, then the market is going to take care of the carbon issue for us anyway.And excuse me for being a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but it seems rather odd to me that the same folks who are championing climate change as a scientific issue are also trying to use it to create an international social program in the same flavor as the IMF.
They want developed nations to set aside $130 billion to be distributed to 3rd world countries.
And by "developed nations," they mean the US and the EU.
Because reducing the pool of money available for the countries who actually invest in these green technologies, otherwise driving costs down, makes perfect sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31186736</id>
	<title>Re:This is what you get....</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1266517620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I make no claim as to if climate change is upon us or not, but it is ESSENTIAL that the science is revisited and made rock solid (or completely disproven)...</i> <br>
<br>
It was essentially proven about 30 years ago. See <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8" title="youtube.com">here</a> [youtube.com] for an example of just how dishonest this debate is. See <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF\_Rmlio&amp;feature=player\_embedded" title="youtube.com">here</a> [youtube.com] for a brief history of the debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I make no claim as to if climate change is upon us or not , but it is ESSENTIAL that the science is revisited and made rock solid ( or completely disproven ) .. . It was essentially proven about 30 years ago .
See here [ youtube.com ] for an example of just how dishonest this debate is .
See here [ youtube.com ] for a brief history of the debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I make no claim as to if climate change is upon us or not, but it is ESSENTIAL that the science is revisited and made rock solid (or completely disproven)... 

It was essentially proven about 30 years ago.
See here [youtube.com] for an example of just how dishonest this debate is.
See here [youtube.com] for a brief history of the debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168250</id>
	<title>The global warming hysteria is so nonsensical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I checked, the effects of global warming are predicted to be positive, not negative.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects\_of\_global\_warming#Economic\_and\_social<br>It seems the only area where the negative consequences will prevail is Africa, not counting small nonsignificant islands. But so what? There are already too much people there.<br>Also, China and India don't give a shit. What is USA and Europe really doing, is OUTSOURCING emissions; the result is INCREASE in emissions because China's factories are inefficient and polluting.<br>But yeah, go on with this pseudo-ecological crap. The same nonsense as the anti-nuclear movement...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , the effects of global warming are predicted to be positive , not negative.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects \ _of \ _global \ _warming # Economic \ _and \ _socialIt seems the only area where the negative consequences will prevail is Africa , not counting small nonsignificant islands .
But so what ?
There are already too much people there.Also , China and India do n't give a shit .
What is USA and Europe really doing , is OUTSOURCING emissions ; the result is INCREASE in emissions because China 's factories are inefficient and polluting.But yeah , go on with this pseudo-ecological crap .
The same nonsense as the anti-nuclear movement.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, the effects of global warming are predicted to be positive, not negative.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects\_of\_global\_warming#Economic\_and\_socialIt seems the only area where the negative consequences will prevail is Africa, not counting small nonsignificant islands.
But so what?
There are already too much people there.Also, China and India don't give a shit.
What is USA and Europe really doing, is OUTSOURCING emissions; the result is INCREASE in emissions because China's factories are inefficient and polluting.But yeah, go on with this pseudo-ecological crap.
The same nonsense as the anti-nuclear movement...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169100</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1265039640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, CO2 is plant food.  Of course, we've been spending the last several decades cutting down all the trees and pumping out CO2 at an ever-increasing rate.  At some point, fewer plants and more emissions mean you're producing far more CO2 than all the plants on Earth can reasonably use.  We reached that point a long time ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , CO2 is plant food .
Of course , we 've been spending the last several decades cutting down all the trees and pumping out CO2 at an ever-increasing rate .
At some point , fewer plants and more emissions mean you 're producing far more CO2 than all the plants on Earth can reasonably use .
We reached that point a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, CO2 is plant food.
Of course, we've been spending the last several decades cutting down all the trees and pumping out CO2 at an ever-increasing rate.
At some point, fewer plants and more emissions mean you're producing far more CO2 than all the plants on Earth can reasonably use.
We reached that point a long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169664</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you're a sheep you might not even realize you're a sheep, right?  Or are you sure you're not just blindly following your shepherd who has given you the easy out: "Don't worry my woolly little friend, nothing humans can do can change the climate; it's just mean environmentalists that want to take away your Escalade."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you 're a sheep you might not even realize you 're a sheep , right ?
Or are you sure you 're not just blindly following your shepherd who has given you the easy out : " Do n't worry my woolly little friend , nothing humans can do can change the climate ; it 's just mean environmentalists that want to take away your Escalade .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you're a sheep you might not even realize you're a sheep, right?
Or are you sure you're not just blindly following your shepherd who has given you the easy out: "Don't worry my woolly little friend, nothing humans can do can change the climate; it's just mean environmentalists that want to take away your Escalade.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169030</id>
	<title>Just look at Venus!</title>
	<author>Kjellander</author>
	<datestamp>1265039400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?...</p><p>The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome".</p></div></blockquote><p>To all lawmakers in Utah: <b>You are idiots!</b></p><p>Just look at fucking <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Venus" title="wikimedia.org">Venus</a> [wikimedia.org]! Explain how green house gases haven't heated that planet so it is now so hot you can melt lead on the surface, i.e. 460 C, which is 40 C hotter than Mercury, even though Venus only gets 25\% of the irradiation from the Sun compared to Mercury. And what is the atmosphere made of? COfucking2! These are <b>facts</b>! Anyone who denies these facts is firstly a wanker, secondly an ignorant idiot, thirdly should be publicly mocked and ridiculed.</p><p>What you are saying is just as stupid as saying the world is flat.<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Carbon dioxide is " essentially harmless " to human beings and good for plants .
So now will you stop worrying about global warming ? ...The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a " well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate " tricks " related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome " .To all lawmakers in Utah : You are idiots ! Just look at fucking Venus [ wikimedia.org ] !
Explain how green house gases have n't heated that planet so it is now so hot you can melt lead on the surface , i.e .
460 C , which is 40 C hotter than Mercury , even though Venus only gets 25 \ % of the irradiation from the Sun compared to Mercury .
And what is the atmosphere made of ?
COfucking2 ! These are facts !
Anyone who denies these facts is firstly a wanker , secondly an ignorant idiot , thirdly should be publicly mocked and ridiculed.What you are saying is just as stupid as saying the world is flat .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants.
So now will you stop worrying about global warming?...The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome".To all lawmakers in Utah: You are idiots!Just look at fucking Venus [wikimedia.org]!
Explain how green house gases haven't heated that planet so it is now so hot you can melt lead on the surface, i.e.
460 C, which is 40 C hotter than Mercury, even though Venus only gets 25\% of the irradiation from the Sun compared to Mercury.
And what is the atmosphere made of?
COfucking2! These are facts!
Anyone who denies these facts is firstly a wanker, secondly an ignorant idiot, thirdly should be publicly mocked and ridiculed.What you are saying is just as stupid as saying the world is flat.
 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168662</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies? I mean, modify  them, sure...but why completely halt them? Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere. Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...</p></div><p>The problem is that in many cases, they are substituting one form of pollution for another.  Take CFL light bulbs for example.  Sure, they result in less carbon, but contain mercury.  Mercury is a much deadlier poison than CO2, both to people and the environment.</p><p>A bigger problem is that government is trying to use AGW for political means, like to for income redistribution or "leveling the playing field" by telling people that no matter how much they make or have, they are not allowed to spend it.  In a world where energy usage is capped, everyone has an allowance of carbon they are allowed to release directly or indirectly.  The goal is to make so that everyone is allowed to use the same amount, thus leveling the playing field.  Whether you are rich or poor, you are allowed to use X number of carbon credits.  This not only includes how much energy you use directly in your car or home, but how much stuff you are allowed to buy since it costs energy to produce and transport those products.  Suddenly, how much money you have or make is meaningless because you are not allowed to spend it.  Everyone is allowed to have the exact same amount.  This is exactly what Marx envisioned.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!") when it comes to global warming. What's up with that? Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")</p></div><p>Agreed.  But the problem is that it is the "alarmists" doing much more of this than the "skeptics".  However, many on both sides are starting to realize that it is cheaper, much less disruptive and more beneficial to spend resources to adapt to climate change than to attempt fight it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not , why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies ?
I mean , modify them , sure...but why completely halt them ?
Global warming being real or not , there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere .
Regardless of how much this affects our planet , you ca n't honestly tell me that it 's a GOOD thing...The problem is that in many cases , they are substituting one form of pollution for another .
Take CFL light bulbs for example .
Sure , they result in less carbon , but contain mercury .
Mercury is a much deadlier poison than CO2 , both to people and the environment.A bigger problem is that government is trying to use AGW for political means , like to for income redistribution or " leveling the playing field " by telling people that no matter how much they make or have , they are not allowed to spend it .
In a world where energy usage is capped , everyone has an allowance of carbon they are allowed to release directly or indirectly .
The goal is to make so that everyone is allowed to use the same amount , thus leveling the playing field .
Whether you are rich or poor , you are allowed to use X number of carbon credits .
This not only includes how much energy you use directly in your car or home , but how much stuff you are allowed to buy since it costs energy to produce and transport those products .
Suddenly , how much money you have or make is meaningless because you are not allowed to spend it .
Everyone is allowed to have the exact same amount .
This is exactly what Marx envisioned.People always seem to follow one extreme ( " We 're ruining our planet !
" ) or the other ( " We are n't doing anything to the planet !
" ) when it comes to global warming .
What 's up with that ?
Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ( " We pollute too much , but we are n't dooming ourselves. " ) Agreed .
But the problem is that it is the " alarmists " doing much more of this than the " skeptics " .
However , many on both sides are starting to realize that it is cheaper , much less disruptive and more beneficial to spend resources to adapt to climate change than to attempt fight it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um...whether you think global warming is bullshit or not, why would you want to halt carbon dioxide reduction policies?
I mean, modify  them, sure...but why completely halt them?
Global warming being real or not, there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere.
Regardless of how much this affects our planet, you can't honestly tell me that it's a GOOD thing...The problem is that in many cases, they are substituting one form of pollution for another.
Take CFL light bulbs for example.
Sure, they result in less carbon, but contain mercury.
Mercury is a much deadlier poison than CO2, both to people and the environment.A bigger problem is that government is trying to use AGW for political means, like to for income redistribution or "leveling the playing field" by telling people that no matter how much they make or have, they are not allowed to spend it.
In a world where energy usage is capped, everyone has an allowance of carbon they are allowed to release directly or indirectly.
The goal is to make so that everyone is allowed to use the same amount, thus leveling the playing field.
Whether you are rich or poor, you are allowed to use X number of carbon credits.
This not only includes how much energy you use directly in your car or home, but how much stuff you are allowed to buy since it costs energy to produce and transport those products.
Suddenly, how much money you have or make is meaningless because you are not allowed to spend it.
Everyone is allowed to have the exact same amount.
This is exactly what Marx envisioned.People always seem to follow one extreme ("We're ruining our planet!
") or the other ("We aren't doing anything to the planet!
") when it comes to global warming.
What's up with that?
Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")Agreed.
But the problem is that it is the "alarmists" doing much more of this than the "skeptics".
However, many on both sides are starting to realize that it is cheaper, much less disruptive and more beneficial to spend resources to adapt to climate change than to attempt fight it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31176626</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265021160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We'd then expect, over the next decade, to have rapidly increasing temperatures as all the warming factors are positive, then probably a flat profile after that</p></div><p>Solar radiation is remarkably invariant, as Warmers point out every time Denialists mention it.  Now suddenly it's an important variable?</p><p>No significant volcanoes since the 1992 Mount Pinatubo erruption, which shaved about 1 C off global temperatures for a year.  Volcanic timescales are very short compared to a 15 year scale.</p><p>El Nino is a climate effect as well as a cause.  If a climate model able to correctly predict its direction and strength I'd be pretty impressed.</p><p>So yeah, the next decade may see a marked increase in the warming rate.  If it does, I'll take it seriously.</p><p>If it doesn't, what'll you do?</p><p>Also, isn't it curious that there's no evidence of warming in the past 15 years but we keep on hearing about how Arctic ice is melting at record rates.  What do you suppose is driving that?</p><p>If global temperatures have not increased, yet Arctic melting is not only going on but going on at a rate far faster than anyone predicted (which is what I always see reported) what is driving it?</p><p>Clearly not anything to do with the Earth's overall heat budget, which you have just admited<br>has been very nearly neutral in the past 15 years.</p><p>That is:  since there has been no significant increase in the Earth's atmospheric heat content in the past 15 years, none of the climate effects seen in that time can be anything but the result of something else, unless the cumulative effect of GW/CC up to 1995 is somehow the cause, but since the water cycle has an extremely short timescale it seems implausible that the effects would continue to worsen over 15 years with no warming.</p><p>I'm not saying this to be faceious... it really does seem to me to be extremely odd, to the point where one might want to look elsewhere for the climate effects that have been observed in the past 15 years, if we all agree the Earth's heat budget has been almost perfectly neutral over that time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'd then expect , over the next decade , to have rapidly increasing temperatures as all the warming factors are positive , then probably a flat profile after thatSolar radiation is remarkably invariant , as Warmers point out every time Denialists mention it .
Now suddenly it 's an important variable ? No significant volcanoes since the 1992 Mount Pinatubo erruption , which shaved about 1 C off global temperatures for a year .
Volcanic timescales are very short compared to a 15 year scale.El Nino is a climate effect as well as a cause .
If a climate model able to correctly predict its direction and strength I 'd be pretty impressed.So yeah , the next decade may see a marked increase in the warming rate .
If it does , I 'll take it seriously.If it does n't , what 'll you do ? Also , is n't it curious that there 's no evidence of warming in the past 15 years but we keep on hearing about how Arctic ice is melting at record rates .
What do you suppose is driving that ? If global temperatures have not increased , yet Arctic melting is not only going on but going on at a rate far faster than anyone predicted ( which is what I always see reported ) what is driving it ? Clearly not anything to do with the Earth 's overall heat budget , which you have just admitedhas been very nearly neutral in the past 15 years.That is : since there has been no significant increase in the Earth 's atmospheric heat content in the past 15 years , none of the climate effects seen in that time can be anything but the result of something else , unless the cumulative effect of GW/CC up to 1995 is somehow the cause , but since the water cycle has an extremely short timescale it seems implausible that the effects would continue to worsen over 15 years with no warming.I 'm not saying this to be faceious... it really does seem to me to be extremely odd , to the point where one might want to look elsewhere for the climate effects that have been observed in the past 15 years , if we all agree the Earth 's heat budget has been almost perfectly neutral over that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'd then expect, over the next decade, to have rapidly increasing temperatures as all the warming factors are positive, then probably a flat profile after thatSolar radiation is remarkably invariant, as Warmers point out every time Denialists mention it.
Now suddenly it's an important variable?No significant volcanoes since the 1992 Mount Pinatubo erruption, which shaved about 1 C off global temperatures for a year.
Volcanic timescales are very short compared to a 15 year scale.El Nino is a climate effect as well as a cause.
If a climate model able to correctly predict its direction and strength I'd be pretty impressed.So yeah, the next decade may see a marked increase in the warming rate.
If it does, I'll take it seriously.If it doesn't, what'll you do?Also, isn't it curious that there's no evidence of warming in the past 15 years but we keep on hearing about how Arctic ice is melting at record rates.
What do you suppose is driving that?If global temperatures have not increased, yet Arctic melting is not only going on but going on at a rate far faster than anyone predicted (which is what I always see reported) what is driving it?Clearly not anything to do with the Earth's overall heat budget, which you have just admitedhas been very nearly neutral in the past 15 years.That is:  since there has been no significant increase in the Earth's atmospheric heat content in the past 15 years, none of the climate effects seen in that time can be anything but the result of something else, unless the cumulative effect of GW/CC up to 1995 is somehow the cause, but since the water cycle has an extremely short timescale it seems implausible that the effects would continue to worsen over 15 years with no warming.I'm not saying this to be faceious... it really does seem to me to be extremely odd, to the point where one might want to look elsewhere for the climate effects that have been observed in the past 15 years, if we all agree the Earth's heat budget has been almost perfectly neutral over that time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168572</id>
	<title>Politics + Science</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1265037540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientists seem to think they have the right to dictate to us what we know, based on petty things like research and knowledge. We are capable of free thought! We can decide for ourselves what is true and what isn't without them shoving it down our throats.</p><p>I for one applaud Utah for showing some backbone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists seem to think they have the right to dictate to us what we know , based on petty things like research and knowledge .
We are capable of free thought !
We can decide for ourselves what is true and what is n't without them shoving it down our throats.I for one applaud Utah for showing some backbone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists seem to think they have the right to dictate to us what we know, based on petty things like research and knowledge.
We are capable of free thought!
We can decide for ourselves what is true and what isn't without them shoving it down our throats.I for one applaud Utah for showing some backbone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180640</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1265049540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And given how much forest we are cutting down and how much of the ocean's ecosystem we are disrupting, we might have to be more careful about how much carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And given how much forest we are cutting down and how much of the ocean 's ecosystem we are disrupting , we might have to be more careful about how much carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And given how much forest we are cutting down and how much of the ocean's ecosystem we are disrupting, we might have to be more careful about how much carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>dreamchaser</author>
	<datestamp>1265035860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CO2 is plant food, not pollution, and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere.  Should we continue to strive to reduce all industrial emmissions? Of course we should.  Should CO2 be high on the list? Not even close.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 is plant food , not pollution , and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere .
Should we continue to strive to reduce all industrial emmissions ?
Of course we should .
Should CO2 be high on the list ?
Not even close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 is plant food, not pollution, and in ages past there were FAR higher levels of it in the atmosphere.
Should we continue to strive to reduce all industrial emmissions?
Of course we should.
Should CO2 be high on the list?
Not even close.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31182694</id>
	<title>I don't get this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266498360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. If there is no man-made global warming because mans actions do not affect the climate, then there would be no adverse effects of cutting down on CO2, or other kinds of emissions. If there is a man made global warming, the result of not cutting down on emissions could be catastrophic.</p><p>2. The amount of oil, gas and coal is finite. As of today we do not have readily available technology to maintain anything resembling the western worlds current standards of comfort when we run out of fossil fuel. We do not know how long it will take to develop this technology, so why not start sooner rather than later?</p><p>3. Even if you do not believe that CO2 emissions cause global warming, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks CO2 is good for you. Anyone who has ever been sitting near a campfire and felt the stinging in their eyes and lungs from the smoke should be able to agree that the smoke from burning carbon-based fuel probably isn't good for you. When faced with confliting theories and adhering to one (beliveing in man-made global warming and trying to cut down on emissions) causes no ill effect, but adhering to the other (denying man-made global warming and doing nothing) could potentially have catastroping consequences, why not err on the side of caution?</p><p>4. OK, so you don't believe in man-made global warming. You feel the evidence does not prove it. How certain do you have to be in order to do something anyways? I know that if I thought a certain event that could end human existence had a 1\% chance of happening, I would'nt sit on my ass and accept that we had a 99\% chance of survival. Would you fly if 1 out of every 100 planes crashed? Would you drink Coca-Cola if 1 out of every 100 bottles was laced with poison? The risk of anybody trying to hijack a plane is far less than 1\%, but we still use billions of dollars to prevent it. So if you are 99\% sure that global warming is a hoax, shouldn't you still be doing something about it?</p><p>5. The Utah Assembly is worried that without coal mines people will fall into poverty. It might interest them that most people in the world make a living without digging finite resources out of the ground. The only problem is that these companies don't exist yet, and therefore can not pay money to the politicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
If there is no man-made global warming because mans actions do not affect the climate , then there would be no adverse effects of cutting down on CO2 , or other kinds of emissions .
If there is a man made global warming , the result of not cutting down on emissions could be catastrophic.2 .
The amount of oil , gas and coal is finite .
As of today we do not have readily available technology to maintain anything resembling the western worlds current standards of comfort when we run out of fossil fuel .
We do not know how long it will take to develop this technology , so why not start sooner rather than later ? 3 .
Even if you do not believe that CO2 emissions cause global warming , I have yet to meet anyone who thinks CO2 is good for you .
Anyone who has ever been sitting near a campfire and felt the stinging in their eyes and lungs from the smoke should be able to agree that the smoke from burning carbon-based fuel probably is n't good for you .
When faced with confliting theories and adhering to one ( beliveing in man-made global warming and trying to cut down on emissions ) causes no ill effect , but adhering to the other ( denying man-made global warming and doing nothing ) could potentially have catastroping consequences , why not err on the side of caution ? 4 .
OK , so you do n't believe in man-made global warming .
You feel the evidence does not prove it .
How certain do you have to be in order to do something anyways ?
I know that if I thought a certain event that could end human existence had a 1 \ % chance of happening , I would'nt sit on my ass and accept that we had a 99 \ % chance of survival .
Would you fly if 1 out of every 100 planes crashed ?
Would you drink Coca-Cola if 1 out of every 100 bottles was laced with poison ?
The risk of anybody trying to hijack a plane is far less than 1 \ % , but we still use billions of dollars to prevent it .
So if you are 99 \ % sure that global warming is a hoax , should n't you still be doing something about it ? 5 .
The Utah Assembly is worried that without coal mines people will fall into poverty .
It might interest them that most people in the world make a living without digging finite resources out of the ground .
The only problem is that these companies do n't exist yet , and therefore can not pay money to the politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
If there is no man-made global warming because mans actions do not affect the climate, then there would be no adverse effects of cutting down on CO2, or other kinds of emissions.
If there is a man made global warming, the result of not cutting down on emissions could be catastrophic.2.
The amount of oil, gas and coal is finite.
As of today we do not have readily available technology to maintain anything resembling the western worlds current standards of comfort when we run out of fossil fuel.
We do not know how long it will take to develop this technology, so why not start sooner rather than later?3.
Even if you do not believe that CO2 emissions cause global warming, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks CO2 is good for you.
Anyone who has ever been sitting near a campfire and felt the stinging in their eyes and lungs from the smoke should be able to agree that the smoke from burning carbon-based fuel probably isn't good for you.
When faced with confliting theories and adhering to one (beliveing in man-made global warming and trying to cut down on emissions) causes no ill effect, but adhering to the other (denying man-made global warming and doing nothing) could potentially have catastroping consequences, why not err on the side of caution?4.
OK, so you don't believe in man-made global warming.
You feel the evidence does not prove it.
How certain do you have to be in order to do something anyways?
I know that if I thought a certain event that could end human existence had a 1\% chance of happening, I would'nt sit on my ass and accept that we had a 99\% chance of survival.
Would you fly if 1 out of every 100 planes crashed?
Would you drink Coca-Cola if 1 out of every 100 bottles was laced with poison?
The risk of anybody trying to hijack a plane is far less than 1\%, but we still use billions of dollars to prevent it.
So if you are 99\% sure that global warming is a hoax, shouldn't you still be doing something about it?5.
The Utah Assembly is worried that without coal mines people will fall into poverty.
It might interest them that most people in the world make a living without digging finite resources out of the ground.
The only problem is that these companies don't exist yet, and therefore can not pay money to the politicians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168434</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1265036940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere</p></div></blockquote><p>
Says who? You? There is evidence that the increased CO2 levels help plants grow. What's too much? The claim is that it's causing warming and ice melting - which is in doubt. In fact there is evidence that sea levels rose significantly above where they are now in previous inter-glacial periods. There is really no evidence that our CO2 production is changing anything. If you want see mans effect on the weather, read about the <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20020808/jet\_contrails020808" title="www.ctv.ca">daily temperature variation when air traffic is stopped</a> [www.ctv.ca] then tell me how you separate these effects from other claimed temperature changes of lesser amounts.
<br> <br>
I'm no longer a believer either, I applaud Utah for their message - if not the presentation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere Says who ?
You ? There is evidence that the increased CO2 levels help plants grow .
What 's too much ?
The claim is that it 's causing warming and ice melting - which is in doubt .
In fact there is evidence that sea levels rose significantly above where they are now in previous inter-glacial periods .
There is really no evidence that our CO2 production is changing anything .
If you want see mans effect on the weather , read about the daily temperature variation when air traffic is stopped [ www.ctv.ca ] then tell me how you separate these effects from other claimed temperature changes of lesser amounts .
I 'm no longer a believer either , I applaud Utah for their message - if not the presentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is no denying that we as a species pump way too much crap into our atmosphere
Says who?
You? There is evidence that the increased CO2 levels help plants grow.
What's too much?
The claim is that it's causing warming and ice melting - which is in doubt.
In fact there is evidence that sea levels rose significantly above where they are now in previous inter-glacial periods.
There is really no evidence that our CO2 production is changing anything.
If you want see mans effect on the weather, read about the daily temperature variation when air traffic is stopped [www.ctv.ca] then tell me how you separate these effects from other claimed temperature changes of lesser amounts.
I'm no longer a believer either, I applaud Utah for their message - if not the presentation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169490</id>
	<title>now only if they could get physics to be on board</title>
	<author>happyjack27</author>
	<datestamp>1265041080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...with the resolution.

always the obstinate one, eh, physics?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...with the resolution .
always the obstinate one , eh , physics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...with the resolution.
always the obstinate one, eh, physics?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168298</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>navygeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265036340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pojut, I'll thank you to take your rational, sane commentary and leave now. There's no place for your kind of middle-of-the-road-and-still-rational mindset here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., the place where extremes live. Why hasn't this guy been modded "-1 Flamebait" yet? He's CLEARLY disagreeing with both sides of Global Warming, shouldn't each side be modding the piss outta him?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pojut , I 'll thank you to take your rational , sane commentary and leave now .
There 's no place for your kind of middle-of-the-road-and-still-rational mindset here at /. , the place where extremes live .
Why has n't this guy been modded " -1 Flamebait " yet ?
He 's CLEARLY disagreeing with both sides of Global Warming , should n't each side be modding the piss outta him ?
; - ) ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pojut, I'll thank you to take your rational, sane commentary and leave now.
There's no place for your kind of middle-of-the-road-and-still-rational mindset here at /., the place where extremes live.
Why hasn't this guy been modded "-1 Flamebait" yet?
He's CLEARLY disagreeing with both sides of Global Warming, shouldn't each side be modding the piss outta him?
;-) ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179186</id>
	<title>Re:Huzza for legislation over science! NOT</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1265035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>While the science around climate change deserves scrutiny and probing, this probing should probably be done by scientists, not legislators.</em></p><p>Why do you think they passed this bill? To \_make\_ a policy statement. Do you think that physical scientists have any special expertise in economics or social policy?  If anyone it is overstepping their bounds here it is the scientists who act as if they have been anointed arbiters over all <em>political</em> questions.</p><p>The question at hand is a political one, not a scientific one: whether the EPA should be regulating carbon dioxide. It is not the EPA that has the power to pass cap and trade it is Congress. How dare they(!).  Certainly Congress isn't qualified to decide such life and death matters.  Instead we should appoint a committee of seven scientists and let all power flow down from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the science around climate change deserves scrutiny and probing , this probing should probably be done by scientists , not legislators.Why do you think they passed this bill ?
To \ _make \ _ a policy statement .
Do you think that physical scientists have any special expertise in economics or social policy ?
If anyone it is overstepping their bounds here it is the scientists who act as if they have been anointed arbiters over all political questions.The question at hand is a political one , not a scientific one : whether the EPA should be regulating carbon dioxide .
It is not the EPA that has the power to pass cap and trade it is Congress .
How dare they ( ! ) .
Certainly Congress is n't qualified to decide such life and death matters .
Instead we should appoint a committee of seven scientists and let all power flow down from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the science around climate change deserves scrutiny and probing, this probing should probably be done by scientists, not legislators.Why do you think they passed this bill?
To \_make\_ a policy statement.
Do you think that physical scientists have any special expertise in economics or social policy?
If anyone it is overstepping their bounds here it is the scientists who act as if they have been anointed arbiters over all political questions.The question at hand is a political one, not a scientific one: whether the EPA should be regulating carbon dioxide.
It is not the EPA that has the power to pass cap and trade it is Congress.
How dare they(!).
Certainly Congress isn't qualified to decide such life and death matters.
Instead we should appoint a committee of seven scientists and let all power flow down from there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168582</id>
	<title>I can just picture them...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1265037600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are like children with their ears covered and screaming, I cant hear you, la,la,la,la,la.<br>If I wish hard enough, will it go away?<br>Wow, we really voted for these people?</p><p>ps- Did the folks they used to review the environmental stats, have access to the archives that the scientific body has<br>dating back 100s of years, or did they go out and get the last 5 years to make an analysis?<br>even then,. the last 5 years have seen more abnormal weather patterns then ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are like children with their ears covered and screaming , I cant hear you , la,la,la,la,la.If I wish hard enough , will it go away ? Wow , we really voted for these people ? ps- Did the folks they used to review the environmental stats , have access to the archives that the scientific body hasdating back 100s of years , or did they go out and get the last 5 years to make an analysis ? even then, .
the last 5 years have seen more abnormal weather patterns then ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are like children with their ears covered and screaming, I cant hear you, la,la,la,la,la.If I wish hard enough, will it go away?Wow, we really voted for these people?ps- Did the folks they used to review the environmental stats, have access to the archives that the scientific body hasdating back 100s of years, or did they go out and get the last 5 years to make an analysis?even then,.
the last 5 years have seen more abnormal weather patterns then ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169526</id>
	<title>At least it wasn't Texas this time</title>
	<author>PHPNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1265041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a Texan, I have been alarmed at the recent increase of the rate of retardedness coming out of my state. Let me be the first to say: I'm glad that this ridiculous news wasn't out of Texas this time. Thank God.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Texan , I have been alarmed at the recent increase of the rate of retardedness coming out of my state .
Let me be the first to say : I 'm glad that this ridiculous news was n't out of Texas this time .
Thank God .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Texan, I have been alarmed at the recent increase of the rate of retardedness coming out of my state.
Let me be the first to say: I'm glad that this ridiculous news wasn't out of Texas this time.
Thank God.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170260</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1265043600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sorry, but isn't the main argument against AGW "skeptics" that they are all working for "big oil"? And now you are claiming that it's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce "science" that will ultimately give government more power.</p></div><p>For you to compare big oil and the government, you first need to show that the government has the same track record as big business for funding bad research.</p><p>Are you really trying to say that government grants for global warming research are done with the same motivation as, for example, the research paid for by Tobacco companies starting in the 50s? They were "creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it, and advocating the public's right to smoke, without actually urging them to take up the practice." It wasn't until ~45 years later that the Tobacco industry came out and admitted they were full of shit and that yes, cigarettes are actually cancer sticks that can kill you.</p><p>Because that's the type of equivalence you're trying to make here.</p><p>The skepticism with which the public views industry research is backed by decades of bad behavior on the part of big business.<br>The onus is on you to show that the government is and has been doing the same, if you want us to view them with equal skepticism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but is n't the main argument against AGW " skeptics " that they are all working for " big oil " ?
And now you are claiming that it 's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce " science " that will ultimately give government more power.For you to compare big oil and the government , you first need to show that the government has the same track record as big business for funding bad research.Are you really trying to say that government grants for global warming research are done with the same motivation as , for example , the research paid for by Tobacco companies starting in the 50s ?
They were " creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it , and advocating the public 's right to smoke , without actually urging them to take up the practice .
" It was n't until ~ 45 years later that the Tobacco industry came out and admitted they were full of shit and that yes , cigarettes are actually cancer sticks that can kill you.Because that 's the type of equivalence you 're trying to make here.The skepticism with which the public views industry research is backed by decades of bad behavior on the part of big business.The onus is on you to show that the government is and has been doing the same , if you want us to view them with equal skepticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but isn't the main argument against AGW "skeptics" that they are all working for "big oil"?
And now you are claiming that it's wrong to consider the financial interests of the scientists receiving government paid grants to produce "science" that will ultimately give government more power.For you to compare big oil and the government, you first need to show that the government has the same track record as big business for funding bad research.Are you really trying to say that government grants for global warming research are done with the same motivation as, for example, the research paid for by Tobacco companies starting in the 50s?
They were "creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it, and advocating the public's right to smoke, without actually urging them to take up the practice.
" It wasn't until ~45 years later that the Tobacco industry came out and admitted they were full of shit and that yes, cigarettes are actually cancer sticks that can kill you.Because that's the type of equivalence you're trying to make here.The skepticism with which the public views industry research is backed by decades of bad behavior on the part of big business.The onus is on you to show that the government is and has been doing the same, if you want us to view them with equal skepticism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180674</id>
	<title>Your long term trend has a problem</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1265049840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your long term trend has a problem. The "hockey stick", even if you believed in it, ended in 1995.  The escape to infinity positive feedback loop predicted did not happen.  Disaster was averted for 15 years without policy intervention.  We are not living in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Day\_After\_Tomorrow" title="wikipedia.org">The Day After Tomorrow</a> [wikipedia.org].
</p><p>Increasing partial pressures of CO2 increase the effective photosynthesis of plants across the entire face of the globe, most especially the oceans.  This results in more hydrocarbons and calcium carbonate deposits on the floor of the oceans as the predominant terrestrial life form - algae - and the organisms that eat algae sequester it.  That's a negative feedback loop that leads to equilibrium.  There are not enough carbon based fuels left in the ground to even approach the optimal CO2 partial pressure for photosynthesis with modern plants, let alone exceed it.
</p><p>We've burned most of the readily available carbon-based fuels already, and poorly.  Modern methods create a lot less pollution.  What damage we can do with the rest is not going to turn the Earth into Venus.  If that could happen, it would have happened over a hundred million years ago when that carbon was being sequestered the previous time.  Naturally that was not the <i>first</i> time.  The life/carbon cycle is an important part of the Snowball Earth/Verdant Earth cycle.  The vast majority of atmospheric CO2 in the Earth's original atmosphere was sequestered over a billion years ago when life was much different than it is today.
</p><p>AGW alarmists would have you believe escape-to-infinity positive feedback loops are the only ones operating here.  They're not.  The Earth has sufficient quantity and diversity of biomass to prevent any runaway anything, and these cooperative organisms operate in to an effect (but not by design) that keeps us comfortable because in a larger biosphere sense we evolved to be compatible with their equilibrium.
</p><p>Oddly enough much of the carbon that was in the atmosphere billions of years ago was sequestered by life forms like algae, which deposited it on the floor of the oceans where it was subducted by tectonic plate motion and dissolved into the Earth's mantle.  We see today only a tiny fraction of the fossils that once consumed all that CO2, producing the O2 humans breathe today.  Occasionally we see it as volcanic activity as high percentages of CO2 in the subducted rock escape violently in a process called "volcanic eruption". As the biosphere and tectonic motion subduct more and more carbon our supply of this precious resource will run out over the next billion years as it is no longer being replenished by comets as much as it once was.  If we want to sustain our teeming billions we will one day import CO2 from the oort cloud or other sources.  Before then we'll deliberately create CO2 from effluent and water capturing the phosphates for fertilizer and closing the cycle where it touches us.
</p><p>So there.  Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 won't double, won't turn into a runaway greenhouse, and will eventually be sequestered, subducted, and become a lost precious resource.
</p><p>Now let's talk about husbanding our carbon fuel resources <i>because they're a limited resource that will run out unless we get more from off-planet!</i>  That's a much more realistic issue than "OMG! Russians and Canadians might someday enjoy luxuries like sunbathing and agriculture!  Rising oceans might drown humans who can't move inland at a rate of 1M/decade!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your long term trend has a problem .
The " hockey stick " , even if you believed in it , ended in 1995 .
The escape to infinity positive feedback loop predicted did not happen .
Disaster was averted for 15 years without policy intervention .
We are not living in The Day After Tomorrow [ wikipedia.org ] .
Increasing partial pressures of CO2 increase the effective photosynthesis of plants across the entire face of the globe , most especially the oceans .
This results in more hydrocarbons and calcium carbonate deposits on the floor of the oceans as the predominant terrestrial life form - algae - and the organisms that eat algae sequester it .
That 's a negative feedback loop that leads to equilibrium .
There are not enough carbon based fuels left in the ground to even approach the optimal CO2 partial pressure for photosynthesis with modern plants , let alone exceed it .
We 've burned most of the readily available carbon-based fuels already , and poorly .
Modern methods create a lot less pollution .
What damage we can do with the rest is not going to turn the Earth into Venus .
If that could happen , it would have happened over a hundred million years ago when that carbon was being sequestered the previous time .
Naturally that was not the first time .
The life/carbon cycle is an important part of the Snowball Earth/Verdant Earth cycle .
The vast majority of atmospheric CO2 in the Earth 's original atmosphere was sequestered over a billion years ago when life was much different than it is today .
AGW alarmists would have you believe escape-to-infinity positive feedback loops are the only ones operating here .
They 're not .
The Earth has sufficient quantity and diversity of biomass to prevent any runaway anything , and these cooperative organisms operate in to an effect ( but not by design ) that keeps us comfortable because in a larger biosphere sense we evolved to be compatible with their equilibrium .
Oddly enough much of the carbon that was in the atmosphere billions of years ago was sequestered by life forms like algae , which deposited it on the floor of the oceans where it was subducted by tectonic plate motion and dissolved into the Earth 's mantle .
We see today only a tiny fraction of the fossils that once consumed all that CO2 , producing the O2 humans breathe today .
Occasionally we see it as volcanic activity as high percentages of CO2 in the subducted rock escape violently in a process called " volcanic eruption " .
As the biosphere and tectonic motion subduct more and more carbon our supply of this precious resource will run out over the next billion years as it is no longer being replenished by comets as much as it once was .
If we want to sustain our teeming billions we will one day import CO2 from the oort cloud or other sources .
Before then we 'll deliberately create CO2 from effluent and water capturing the phosphates for fertilizer and closing the cycle where it touches us .
So there .
Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 wo n't double , wo n't turn into a runaway greenhouse , and will eventually be sequestered , subducted , and become a lost precious resource .
Now let 's talk about husbanding our carbon fuel resources because they 're a limited resource that will run out unless we get more from off-planet !
That 's a much more realistic issue than " OMG !
Russians and Canadians might someday enjoy luxuries like sunbathing and agriculture !
Rising oceans might drown humans who ca n't move inland at a rate of 1M/decade !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your long term trend has a problem.
The "hockey stick", even if you believed in it, ended in 1995.
The escape to infinity positive feedback loop predicted did not happen.
Disaster was averted for 15 years without policy intervention.
We are not living in The Day After Tomorrow [wikipedia.org].
Increasing partial pressures of CO2 increase the effective photosynthesis of plants across the entire face of the globe, most especially the oceans.
This results in more hydrocarbons and calcium carbonate deposits on the floor of the oceans as the predominant terrestrial life form - algae - and the organisms that eat algae sequester it.
That's a negative feedback loop that leads to equilibrium.
There are not enough carbon based fuels left in the ground to even approach the optimal CO2 partial pressure for photosynthesis with modern plants, let alone exceed it.
We've burned most of the readily available carbon-based fuels already, and poorly.
Modern methods create a lot less pollution.
What damage we can do with the rest is not going to turn the Earth into Venus.
If that could happen, it would have happened over a hundred million years ago when that carbon was being sequestered the previous time.
Naturally that was not the first time.
The life/carbon cycle is an important part of the Snowball Earth/Verdant Earth cycle.
The vast majority of atmospheric CO2 in the Earth's original atmosphere was sequestered over a billion years ago when life was much different than it is today.
AGW alarmists would have you believe escape-to-infinity positive feedback loops are the only ones operating here.
They're not.
The Earth has sufficient quantity and diversity of biomass to prevent any runaway anything, and these cooperative organisms operate in to an effect (but not by design) that keeps us comfortable because in a larger biosphere sense we evolved to be compatible with their equilibrium.
Oddly enough much of the carbon that was in the atmosphere billions of years ago was sequestered by life forms like algae, which deposited it on the floor of the oceans where it was subducted by tectonic plate motion and dissolved into the Earth's mantle.
We see today only a tiny fraction of the fossils that once consumed all that CO2, producing the O2 humans breathe today.
Occasionally we see it as volcanic activity as high percentages of CO2 in the subducted rock escape violently in a process called "volcanic eruption".
As the biosphere and tectonic motion subduct more and more carbon our supply of this precious resource will run out over the next billion years as it is no longer being replenished by comets as much as it once was.
If we want to sustain our teeming billions we will one day import CO2 from the oort cloud or other sources.
Before then we'll deliberately create CO2 from effluent and water capturing the phosphates for fertilizer and closing the cycle where it touches us.
So there.
Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 won't double, won't turn into a runaway greenhouse, and will eventually be sequestered, subducted, and become a lost precious resource.
Now let's talk about husbanding our carbon fuel resources because they're a limited resource that will run out unless we get more from off-planet!
That's a much more realistic issue than "OMG!
Russians and Canadians might someday enjoy luxuries like sunbathing and agriculture!
Rising oceans might drown humans who can't move inland at a rate of 1M/decade!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167906</id>
	<title>Falling behind a little more each day.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Each day, the United States falls behind a little bit more.</p><p>Cutting-edge research these days happens in Europe and Asia, where religion is put in its place, and education is paramount. Even if global warming is a political sham and most of the "scientific" evidence has been fabricated, as it very well may be, at least it has spurned research into solar and wind technologies, for instance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each day , the United States falls behind a little bit more.Cutting-edge research these days happens in Europe and Asia , where religion is put in its place , and education is paramount .
Even if global warming is a political sham and most of the " scientific " evidence has been fabricated , as it very well may be , at least it has spurned research into solar and wind technologies , for instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each day, the United States falls behind a little bit more.Cutting-edge research these days happens in Europe and Asia, where religion is put in its place, and education is paramount.
Even if global warming is a political sham and most of the "scientific" evidence has been fabricated, as it very well may be, at least it has spurned research into solar and wind technologies, for instance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170766</id>
	<title>Re:I love to be the first to say this...</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1265045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.</p></div><p>I think you said that poorly.</p><p>There is no sharp cut-off as to the interval size you need to be able to achieve significance.   Furthermore, the *meaning* of significance is confusing when we talk about a single interval's importance in falsifying a hypothesis about the distribution of a random variable (global average temperatures)</p><p>Imagine we play a game of coin toss with a coin I provide.  I take heads, you take tails.  We play four rounds, and heads comes up every time.   You, naturally, suspect I'm cheating.  Then our friend Dr. Jones points out that four sequential heads does not meet the 95\% standard for statistical significance.   You need no more greater probability for an event than  p(1/20), but we only have a p(1/16) event here.</p><p>What the deniers are doing with Dr. Jones remarks is like saying, "Four heads in a row is not a statistically significant result, which PROVES the coin is fair."</p><p>In any case, *random sampling* is integral to the very notion of statistical significance.  In a sequence of trials of a random variable, you can *always* choose an interval that makes the point you want to make: increase/no change/decrease.   And technically, your interval *will* be significantly increasing or decreasing as you like.</p><p>So basically significance or non-significance of any single  sample of a random sequence doesn't prove or disprove anything, if the sample is small and the chooser gets to pick the size of the interval.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.I think you said that poorly.There is no sharp cut-off as to the interval size you need to be able to achieve significance .
Furthermore , the * meaning * of significance is confusing when we talk about a single interval 's importance in falsifying a hypothesis about the distribution of a random variable ( global average temperatures ) Imagine we play a game of coin toss with a coin I provide .
I take heads , you take tails .
We play four rounds , and heads comes up every time .
You , naturally , suspect I 'm cheating .
Then our friend Dr. Jones points out that four sequential heads does not meet the 95 \ % standard for statistical significance .
You need no more greater probability for an event than p ( 1/20 ) , but we only have a p ( 1/16 ) event here.What the deniers are doing with Dr. Jones remarks is like saying , " Four heads in a row is not a statistically significant result , which PROVES the coin is fair .
" In any case , * random sampling * is integral to the very notion of statistical significance .
In a sequence of trials of a random variable , you can * always * choose an interval that makes the point you want to make : increase/no change/decrease .
And technically , your interval * will * be significantly increasing or decreasing as you like.So basically significance or non-significance of any single sample of a random sequence does n't prove or disprove anything , if the sample is small and the chooser gets to pick the size of the interval .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.I think you said that poorly.There is no sharp cut-off as to the interval size you need to be able to achieve significance.
Furthermore, the *meaning* of significance is confusing when we talk about a single interval's importance in falsifying a hypothesis about the distribution of a random variable (global average temperatures)Imagine we play a game of coin toss with a coin I provide.
I take heads, you take tails.
We play four rounds, and heads comes up every time.
You, naturally, suspect I'm cheating.
Then our friend Dr. Jones points out that four sequential heads does not meet the 95\% standard for statistical significance.
You need no more greater probability for an event than  p(1/20), but we only have a p(1/16) event here.What the deniers are doing with Dr. Jones remarks is like saying, "Four heads in a row is not a statistically significant result, which PROVES the coin is fair.
"In any case, *random sampling* is integral to the very notion of statistical significance.
In a sequence of trials of a random variable, you can *always* choose an interval that makes the point you want to make: increase/no change/decrease.
And technically, your interval *will* be significantly increasing or decreasing as you like.So basically significance or non-significance of any single  sample of a random sequence doesn't prove or disprove anything, if the sample is small and the chooser gets to pick the size of the interval.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168782</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry. Plant food? I must have missed the 30,000 feet trees sucking out the Co2 out of the upper atmosphere...</p><p>Get real...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry .
Plant food ?
I must have missed the 30,000 feet trees sucking out the Co2 out of the upper atmosphere...Get real.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry.
Plant food?
I must have missed the 30,000 feet trees sucking out the Co2 out of the upper atmosphere...Get real...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167916</id>
	<title>This might be interesting</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1265034120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should do the same with gravity. Instandly they will have flying cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should do the same with gravity .
Instandly they will have flying cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should do the same with gravity.
Instandly they will have flying cars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170370</id>
	<title>Re:I love the double standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh heh<br>you are so far off with your reasoning.<br>Go look up the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere.<br>There is so little of it, the greenhouse is caused 99.99 percent by water vapor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh hehyou are so far off with your reasoning.Go look up the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere.There is so little of it , the greenhouse is caused 99.99 percent by water vapor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh hehyou are so far off with your reasoning.Go look up the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere.There is so little of it, the greenhouse is caused 99.99 percent by water vapor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168620</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.")</p></div><p>Assuming of course that taking the average of opposing sides make your view realistic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ( " We pollute too much , but we are n't dooming ourselves .
" ) Assuming of course that taking the average of opposing sides make your view realistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it so hard to find people with a realistic point of view ("We pollute too much, but we aren't dooming ourselves.
")Assuming of course that taking the average of opposing sides make your view realistic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31177554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31186736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31177300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31187088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31183606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31183658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31190802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31177618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31190186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31186676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31201924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31176626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31181894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31176626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31183436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31182494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2346202_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31201924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31186736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31182494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31177618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168842
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169402
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31190186
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180748
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169690
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31176626
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31183436
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31181894
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180674
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174390
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169806
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170582
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170584
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169664
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171486
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171786
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171854
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31174238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31171702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31180640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31190802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31186676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31167894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31173352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31177300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31183606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31172064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31169360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31187088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31179722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31183658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31177554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31170260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2346202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31168226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2346202.31175920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
