<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_0158232</id>
	<title>Debunking a Climate-Change Skeptic</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266948060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>DJRumpy writes <i>"The Danish political scientist Bj&#248;rn Lomborg won fame and fans by arguing that many of the alarms sounded by environmental activists and scientists &mdash; that species are going extinct at a dangerous rate, that forests are disappearing, that climate change could be catastrophic &mdash; are bogus. A big reason Lomborg was taken seriously is that both of his books, <em>The Skeptical Environmentalist</em> (in 2001) and <em>Cool It</em> (in 2007), have extensive references, giving a seemingly authoritative source for every one of his controversial assertions. So in a display of altruistic masochism that we should all be grateful for (just as we're grateful that some people are willing to be dairy farmers), author Howard Friel has checked every single citation in <em>Cool It</em>. The result is <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942?">The Lomborg Deception</a>, which is being published by Yale University Press next month. It reveals that Lomborg's work is 'a mirage,' writes biologist Thomas Lovejoy in the foreword. '[I]t is a house of cards. Friel has used real scholarship to reveal the flimsy nature' of Lomborg's work."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DJRumpy writes " The Danish political scientist Bj   rn Lomborg won fame and fans by arguing that many of the alarms sounded by environmental activists and scientists    that species are going extinct at a dangerous rate , that forests are disappearing , that climate change could be catastrophic    are bogus .
A big reason Lomborg was taken seriously is that both of his books , The Skeptical Environmentalist ( in 2001 ) and Cool It ( in 2007 ) , have extensive references , giving a seemingly authoritative source for every one of his controversial assertions .
So in a display of altruistic masochism that we should all be grateful for ( just as we 're grateful that some people are willing to be dairy farmers ) , author Howard Friel has checked every single citation in Cool It .
The result is The Lomborg Deception , which is being published by Yale University Press next month .
It reveals that Lomborg 's work is 'a mirage, ' writes biologist Thomas Lovejoy in the foreword .
' [ I ] t is a house of cards .
Friel has used real scholarship to reveal the flimsy nature ' of Lomborg 's work .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DJRumpy writes "The Danish political scientist Bjørn Lomborg won fame and fans by arguing that many of the alarms sounded by environmental activists and scientists — that species are going extinct at a dangerous rate, that forests are disappearing, that climate change could be catastrophic — are bogus.
A big reason Lomborg was taken seriously is that both of his books, The Skeptical Environmentalist (in 2001) and Cool It (in 2007), have extensive references, giving a seemingly authoritative source for every one of his controversial assertions.
So in a display of altruistic masochism that we should all be grateful for (just as we're grateful that some people are willing to be dairy farmers), author Howard Friel has checked every single citation in Cool It.
The result is The Lomborg Deception, which is being published by Yale University Press next month.
It reveals that Lomborg's work is 'a mirage,' writes biologist Thomas Lovejoy in the foreword.
'[I]t is a house of cards.
Friel has used real scholarship to reveal the flimsy nature' of Lomborg's work.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241322</id>
	<title>Still an "Environmentalist"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266866700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>He may be skeptical, but he still is an environmentalist suffering mental malady...</htmltext>
<tokenext>He may be skeptical , but he still is an environmentalist suffering mental malady.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He may be skeptical, but he still is an environmentalist suffering mental malady...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243388</id>
	<title>Re:That's why he's so hated</title>
	<author>gkai</author>
	<datestamp>1266934260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, just wow....</p><p>This is a very insightfull remark imho, something that should makes all sides pause and re-assert where they stand in the objective scientist - activist scale.</p><p>pity i am not a moderator now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , just wow....This is a very insightfull remark imho , something that should makes all sides pause and re-assert where they stand in the objective scientist - activist scale.pity i am not a moderator now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, just wow....This is a very insightfull remark imho, something that should makes all sides pause and re-assert where they stand in the objective scientist - activist scale.pity i am not a moderator now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242730</id>
	<title>Give and take?</title>
	<author>meburke</author>
	<datestamp>1266927600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having read Lomberg's response to the criticism, I'm more comfortable with his conclusions than I am with Friel's. However, the last word probably hasn't been written/spoken on the subject. Both sides of the argument fall short of absolute proof, but Lomberg seems to be a better mathematician.</p><p>I am basing my opinion on incomplete information (as are all the posters on this topic) since, a. Friel's complete book is is not completely available to us and, b. it's a lot of dang work to analyze the books side-by-side in any case. Despite the lack of sufficient info, people will go out and vote (some of them anyway) and the minority of the voters and the general citizenry will be stuck with the results.</p><p>The information at hand doesn't support a conclusion of immediate emergency, so I'm holding out against any hasty drastic actions that mostly serve to make Al Gore richer. The urgency is for more research done a manner that we can all trust, untainted by political considerations, BEFORE it becomes a real emergency. Legitimate scientists will examine all sides of the problem before recommending any long-term solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read Lomberg 's response to the criticism , I 'm more comfortable with his conclusions than I am with Friel 's .
However , the last word probably has n't been written/spoken on the subject .
Both sides of the argument fall short of absolute proof , but Lomberg seems to be a better mathematician.I am basing my opinion on incomplete information ( as are all the posters on this topic ) since , a. Friel 's complete book is is not completely available to us and , b. it 's a lot of dang work to analyze the books side-by-side in any case .
Despite the lack of sufficient info , people will go out and vote ( some of them anyway ) and the minority of the voters and the general citizenry will be stuck with the results.The information at hand does n't support a conclusion of immediate emergency , so I 'm holding out against any hasty drastic actions that mostly serve to make Al Gore richer .
The urgency is for more research done a manner that we can all trust , untainted by political considerations , BEFORE it becomes a real emergency .
Legitimate scientists will examine all sides of the problem before recommending any long-term solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read Lomberg's response to the criticism, I'm more comfortable with his conclusions than I am with Friel's.
However, the last word probably hasn't been written/spoken on the subject.
Both sides of the argument fall short of absolute proof, but Lomberg seems to be a better mathematician.I am basing my opinion on incomplete information (as are all the posters on this topic) since, a. Friel's complete book is is not completely available to us and, b. it's a lot of dang work to analyze the books side-by-side in any case.
Despite the lack of sufficient info, people will go out and vote (some of them anyway) and the minority of the voters and the general citizenry will be stuck with the results.The information at hand doesn't support a conclusion of immediate emergency, so I'm holding out against any hasty drastic actions that mostly serve to make Al Gore richer.
The urgency is for more research done a manner that we can all trust, untainted by political considerations, BEFORE it becomes a real emergency.
Legitimate scientists will examine all sides of the problem before recommending any long-term solutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241244</id>
	<title>Absence of Evidence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266865620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is, of course, not evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, but that public critics of ACC feel they can profitably resort to dishonesty to prove their point, since newspapers "report the controversy" instead of doing their own independent work, and most climate change deniers are happy to adopt any useful argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is , of course , not evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real , but that public critics of ACC feel they can profitably resort to dishonesty to prove their point , since newspapers " report the controversy " instead of doing their own independent work , and most climate change deniers are happy to adopt any useful argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is, of course, not evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, but that public critics of ACC feel they can profitably resort to dishonesty to prove their point, since newspapers "report the controversy" instead of doing their own independent work, and most climate change deniers are happy to adopt any useful argument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480</id>
	<title>Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>RudyHartmann</author>
	<datestamp>1266868140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth. That it is why it was named that way. When the solar cycle became colder, Greenland lost population due to global cooling. The climate was not influenced then by Scandinavians driving gas guzzling, CO2 belching SUV's. Man is not powerful enough to change the earth's climate to any "significant" degree. But that big thermonuclear ball in the sky is. A billion petrochemical fueled cars will not influence the sun.

But, I still think we should find better sources of energy. Petrochemicals can be very dirty. I think we should only use them for a feedstock for plastics and use Thorium reactors to make our energy. Thorium reactors could even be used to get rid of the deadly nuclear waste from Uranium/Plutonium reactors.

<a href="http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/12/01/how-a-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor-lftr-works/" title="howstuffworks.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/12/01/how-a-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor-lftr-works/</a> [howstuffworks.com]

Scientists are men that can be influenced by propaganda just like any man can be. I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.

BTW, I also love this video from George Carlin:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth .
That it is why it was named that way .
When the solar cycle became colder , Greenland lost population due to global cooling .
The climate was not influenced then by Scandinavians driving gas guzzling , CO2 belching SUV 's .
Man is not powerful enough to change the earth 's climate to any " significant " degree .
But that big thermonuclear ball in the sky is .
A billion petrochemical fueled cars will not influence the sun .
But , I still think we should find better sources of energy .
Petrochemicals can be very dirty .
I think we should only use them for a feedstock for plastics and use Thorium reactors to make our energy .
Thorium reactors could even be used to get rid of the deadly nuclear waste from Uranium/Plutonium reactors .
http : //blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/12/01/how-a-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor-lftr-works/ [ howstuffworks.com ] Scientists are men that can be influenced by propaganda just like any man can be .
I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money .
BTW , I also love this video from George Carlin : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = eScDfYzMEEw [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth.
That it is why it was named that way.
When the solar cycle became colder, Greenland lost population due to global cooling.
The climate was not influenced then by Scandinavians driving gas guzzling, CO2 belching SUV's.
Man is not powerful enough to change the earth's climate to any "significant" degree.
But that big thermonuclear ball in the sky is.
A billion petrochemical fueled cars will not influence the sun.
But, I still think we should find better sources of energy.
Petrochemicals can be very dirty.
I think we should only use them for a feedstock for plastics and use Thorium reactors to make our energy.
Thorium reactors could even be used to get rid of the deadly nuclear waste from Uranium/Plutonium reactors.
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/12/01/how-a-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor-lftr-works/ [howstuffworks.com]

Scientists are men that can be influenced by propaganda just like any man can be.
I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.
BTW, I also love this video from George Carlin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242172</id>
	<title>Re:Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>HertzaHaeon</author>
	<datestamp>1266919740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Classical denialist argumentation from ignorance. If very small amounts of something aren't danegrous, you wouldn't mind drinking a glass containing the same concentration of nerve toxin as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, would you?</p><p>There's so much evidence of our ability to affect the climate that it's just silly to ignore it. To get you started, read up on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian\_brown\_cloud" title="wikipedia.org">haze of brown smog hanging over Asia</a> [wikipedia.org]. People are actually changing the climate by simply <em>burning wood</em>. Now imagine what a billion cars can do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Classical denialist argumentation from ignorance .
If very small amounts of something are n't danegrous , you would n't mind drinking a glass containing the same concentration of nerve toxin as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere , would you ? There 's so much evidence of our ability to affect the climate that it 's just silly to ignore it .
To get you started , read up on the haze of brown smog hanging over Asia [ wikipedia.org ] .
People are actually changing the climate by simply burning wood .
Now imagine what a billion cars can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Classical denialist argumentation from ignorance.
If very small amounts of something aren't danegrous, you wouldn't mind drinking a glass containing the same concentration of nerve toxin as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, would you?There's so much evidence of our ability to affect the climate that it's just silly to ignore it.
To get you started, read up on the haze of brown smog hanging over Asia [wikipedia.org].
People are actually changing the climate by simply burning wood.
Now imagine what a billion cars can do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244218</id>
	<title>Re:Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1266939180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth. That it is why it was named that way.</p></div></blockquote><p>I take it you also believe that North Korea is a democracy. That is why is named the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" after all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth .
That it is why it was named that way.I take it you also believe that North Korea is a democracy .
That is why is named the " Democratic People 's Republic of Korea " after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth.
That it is why it was named that way.I take it you also believe that North Korea is a democracy.
That is why is named the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" after all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241354</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the teabaggers.</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1266866880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure Bj&#248;rn Lomborg is paid by oil companies...</p><p>I am kidding of course. I watched the following video presentation the other day. It seemed credible and in line with what you are saying, the guy doesn't deny climate is warming:</p><p><a href="http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=Catastrophe+Denied&amp;cat=0" title="mininova.org">http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=Catastrophe+Denied&amp;cat=0</a> [mininova.org]</p><p>Anybody cares to give background on the author ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure Bj   rn Lomborg is paid by oil companies...I am kidding of course .
I watched the following video presentation the other day .
It seemed credible and in line with what you are saying , the guy does n't deny climate is warming : http : //www.mininova.org/search/ ? search = Catastrophe + Denied&amp;cat = 0 [ mininova.org ] Anybody cares to give background on the author ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure Bjørn Lomborg is paid by oil companies...I am kidding of course.
I watched the following video presentation the other day.
It seemed credible and in line with what you are saying, the guy doesn't deny climate is warming:http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=Catastrophe+Denied&amp;cat=0 [mininova.org]Anybody cares to give background on the author ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247028</id>
	<title>Meta-Science..</title>
	<author>WittyName</author>
	<datestamp>1266951240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is still science IMO..</p><p>Just saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is still science IMO..Just saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is still science IMO..Just saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31280524</id>
	<title>The so-called "Lomborg Deception</title>
	<author>thesquire</author>
	<datestamp>1267108620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The climate change fanatics are jumping with glee over revelations that Lomborg may have either been deceptive or over-stated his case, however, this takes nothing away from the revelations of fraud and deceit revealed by the Climategate email disclosures, the false claims of Himalyan glacier meltdowns and other non-scientific and purely political chicaneries of the fanatics, revealing their house of cards and the lack of scientific reliability of their claims.  It is time for a sober and non-partisan examination of the warming and climate questions and the taking of appropriate action not based on hysteria and chicanery and not leading to economic bankruptcy and major economic disruptions and dislocations that would flow from the false cures offered by the hysterics and fanatics.  Wake up, all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate change fanatics are jumping with glee over revelations that Lomborg may have either been deceptive or over-stated his case , however , this takes nothing away from the revelations of fraud and deceit revealed by the Climategate email disclosures , the false claims of Himalyan glacier meltdowns and other non-scientific and purely political chicaneries of the fanatics , revealing their house of cards and the lack of scientific reliability of their claims .
It is time for a sober and non-partisan examination of the warming and climate questions and the taking of appropriate action not based on hysteria and chicanery and not leading to economic bankruptcy and major economic disruptions and dislocations that would flow from the false cures offered by the hysterics and fanatics .
Wake up , all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate change fanatics are jumping with glee over revelations that Lomborg may have either been deceptive or over-stated his case, however, this takes nothing away from the revelations of fraud and deceit revealed by the Climategate email disclosures, the false claims of Himalyan glacier meltdowns and other non-scientific and purely political chicaneries of the fanatics, revealing their house of cards and the lack of scientific reliability of their claims.
It is time for a sober and non-partisan examination of the warming and climate questions and the taking of appropriate action not based on hysteria and chicanery and not leading to economic bankruptcy and major economic disruptions and dislocations that would flow from the false cures offered by the hysterics and fanatics.
Wake up, all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241542</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Again</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1266868620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found your problem: "nutjob denialist conspiracy crusade Creationist lunatics".  You have a labelling problem.  Try labelling them "the unconvinced" and go from there.  Labelling people nutjobs does not win friends and influence people.  If that doesn't work, try posting some <a href="http://finickypenguin.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/pac\_man\_pie\_chart.jpg" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">graphs</a> [wordpress.com].  I hear people have good respect for graphs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found your problem : " nutjob denialist conspiracy crusade Creationist lunatics " .
You have a labelling problem .
Try labelling them " the unconvinced " and go from there .
Labelling people nutjobs does not win friends and influence people .
If that does n't work , try posting some graphs [ wordpress.com ] .
I hear people have good respect for graphs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found your problem: "nutjob denialist conspiracy crusade Creationist lunatics".
You have a labelling problem.
Try labelling them "the unconvinced" and go from there.
Labelling people nutjobs does not win friends and influence people.
If that doesn't work, try posting some graphs [wordpress.com].
I hear people have good respect for graphs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31248028</id>
	<title>Re:The whole argument is tedious...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1266954780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Glad to see I got marked troll.  If I hadn't, I would have suspected that the Oil boyz had diverted all of their own troll dollars towards advertising for the upcoming 2010 U.S. elections, both leaving a not insignificant number of slashdotters unemployed and guaranteeing mediocre TV interspersed with horrendous lies on all seven dozen or so of my channels for the foreseeable future.  API's efforts are burgeoning, as it is, and those are nasty enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad to see I got marked troll .
If I had n't , I would have suspected that the Oil boyz had diverted all of their own troll dollars towards advertising for the upcoming 2010 U.S. elections , both leaving a not insignificant number of slashdotters unemployed and guaranteeing mediocre TV interspersed with horrendous lies on all seven dozen or so of my channels for the foreseeable future .
API 's efforts are burgeoning , as it is , and those are nasty enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad to see I got marked troll.
If I hadn't, I would have suspected that the Oil boyz had diverted all of their own troll dollars towards advertising for the upcoming 2010 U.S. elections, both leaving a not insignificant number of slashdotters unemployed and guaranteeing mediocre TV interspersed with horrendous lies on all seven dozen or so of my channels for the foreseeable future.
API's efforts are burgeoning, as it is, and those are nasty enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241964</id>
	<title>Re:Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1266916620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Greenland? -. Is there no limit to people rumaging through the dustbin of science?
<br> <br>
You should listen more carefully to Carlin - "The planet is fine, the people are fucked"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenland ?
-. Is there no limit to people rumaging through the dustbin of science ?
You should listen more carefully to Carlin - " The planet is fine , the people are fucked "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenland?
-. Is there no limit to people rumaging through the dustbin of science?
You should listen more carefully to Carlin - "The planet is fine, the people are fucked"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31252536</id>
	<title>THERE IS NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266928200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THERE IS NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!</p><p>There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THERE IS NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING ! !
! There is no man made global warming , There is no man made global warming , There is no man made global warming , There is no man made global warming , There is no man made global warming , There is no man made global warming , There is no man made global warming , There is no man made global warming , There is no man made global warming,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THERE IS NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!
!There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming, There is no man made global warming,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244828</id>
	<title>Yawn right back at ya</title>
	<author>misanthrope101</author>
	<datestamp>1266942480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> This is simple, IPCC was married with politics, like much of the entire debate. Everyone back to the lab, the field, the research. Stop pandering to politicians and environmentalists, and come up with some science!</p></div></blockquote><p>

Unfortunately, the science <i>has</i> been done, by climatologists.   However, they said a bunch of stuff that some of us didn't want to hear, which by definition makes it controversial, so we pretend that the science is still murky.   Throwing out Gore's movie or the entire IPCC doesn't change the bare fact that about 97 out of a hundred climatologists will tell you that humans are exacerbating global warming.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is simple , IPCC was married with politics , like much of the entire debate .
Everyone back to the lab , the field , the research .
Stop pandering to politicians and environmentalists , and come up with some science !
Unfortunately , the science has been done , by climatologists .
However , they said a bunch of stuff that some of us did n't want to hear , which by definition makes it controversial , so we pretend that the science is still murky .
Throwing out Gore 's movie or the entire IPCC does n't change the bare fact that about 97 out of a hundred climatologists will tell you that humans are exacerbating global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is simple, IPCC was married with politics, like much of the entire debate.
Everyone back to the lab, the field, the research.
Stop pandering to politicians and environmentalists, and come up with some science!
Unfortunately, the science has been done, by climatologists.
However, they said a bunch of stuff that some of us didn't want to hear, which by definition makes it controversial, so we pretend that the science is still murky.
Throwing out Gore's movie or the entire IPCC doesn't change the bare fact that about 97 out of a hundred climatologists will tell you that humans are exacerbating global warming.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241812</id>
	<title>-1 - -1 = 1 ?</title>
	<author>Aerosiecki</author>
	<datestamp>1266957780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you debunk a debunker, don't you just get back to the net-zero result?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you debunk a debunker , do n't you just get back to the net-zero result ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you debunk a debunker, don't you just get back to the net-zero result?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241304</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>jav1231</author>
	<datestamp>1266866400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So now we have a celebrity science pissing-match on our hands. This is simple, IPCC was married with politics, like much of the entire debate. Everyone back to the lab, the field, the research. Stop pandering to politicians and environmentalists, and come up with some science! Until then, no I'm not taking you seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now we have a celebrity science pissing-match on our hands .
This is simple , IPCC was married with politics , like much of the entire debate .
Everyone back to the lab , the field , the research .
Stop pandering to politicians and environmentalists , and come up with some science !
Until then , no I 'm not taking you seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now we have a celebrity science pissing-match on our hands.
This is simple, IPCC was married with politics, like much of the entire debate.
Everyone back to the lab, the field, the research.
Stop pandering to politicians and environmentalists, and come up with some science!
Until then, no I'm not taking you seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243084</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>SirWinston</author>
	<datestamp>1266931260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Does it really matter if we are warming the planet or not?</p><p>No, no it doesn't:</p><p><a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/123218/stossel-thu-dec-10-2009" title="hulu.com">http://www.hulu.com/watch/123218/stossel-thu-dec-10-2009</a> [hulu.com]</p><p>I'm all for switching from fossil fuels to renewables as quickly as is practicable.  I can hardly wait for the day when I can go into a dealership and buy an affordable electric car, and can charge it on a nuclear-fed electric grid instead of the coal-based grid I'm on now.  I want solar panels on every roof where they'd do any good and wind turbines wherever they'd be useful.  BUT, we don't have to risk our economy to get there.  We don't have to be taken in by lies and exaggerations to get there.</p><p>Climate change is a fact.  How much of it is anthropogenic is far from certain.  What we should do about it is, basically, the same thing we should do regardless--cleaner, renewable energy is the logical future in any event.  But the AGW alarmists would have us cripple our economies with carbon taxes and gas taxes and all sorts of boondoggles to try to make the change quicker, whereas the reality is, as is pointed out in the video discussion linked above, we should be slow and steady and reasonable about changing our economy to rely less on fossil fuels.  Being too hasty and redirecting too many resources will end up killing millions more through aid cuts than will be killed by climate change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Does it really matter if we are warming the planet or not ? No , no it does n't : http : //www.hulu.com/watch/123218/stossel-thu-dec-10-2009 [ hulu.com ] I 'm all for switching from fossil fuels to renewables as quickly as is practicable .
I can hardly wait for the day when I can go into a dealership and buy an affordable electric car , and can charge it on a nuclear-fed electric grid instead of the coal-based grid I 'm on now .
I want solar panels on every roof where they 'd do any good and wind turbines wherever they 'd be useful .
BUT , we do n't have to risk our economy to get there .
We do n't have to be taken in by lies and exaggerations to get there.Climate change is a fact .
How much of it is anthropogenic is far from certain .
What we should do about it is , basically , the same thing we should do regardless--cleaner , renewable energy is the logical future in any event .
But the AGW alarmists would have us cripple our economies with carbon taxes and gas taxes and all sorts of boondoggles to try to make the change quicker , whereas the reality is , as is pointed out in the video discussion linked above , we should be slow and steady and reasonable about changing our economy to rely less on fossil fuels .
Being too hasty and redirecting too many resources will end up killing millions more through aid cuts than will be killed by climate change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Does it really matter if we are warming the planet or not?No, no it doesn't:http://www.hulu.com/watch/123218/stossel-thu-dec-10-2009 [hulu.com]I'm all for switching from fossil fuels to renewables as quickly as is practicable.
I can hardly wait for the day when I can go into a dealership and buy an affordable electric car, and can charge it on a nuclear-fed electric grid instead of the coal-based grid I'm on now.
I want solar panels on every roof where they'd do any good and wind turbines wherever they'd be useful.
BUT, we don't have to risk our economy to get there.
We don't have to be taken in by lies and exaggerations to get there.Climate change is a fact.
How much of it is anthropogenic is far from certain.
What we should do about it is, basically, the same thing we should do regardless--cleaner, renewable energy is the logical future in any event.
But the AGW alarmists would have us cripple our economies with carbon taxes and gas taxes and all sorts of boondoggles to try to make the change quicker, whereas the reality is, as is pointed out in the video discussion linked above, we should be slow and steady and reasonable about changing our economy to rely less on fossil fuels.
Being too hasty and redirecting too many resources will end up killing millions more through aid cuts than will be killed by climate change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245260</id>
	<title>Re:The tip of the iceberg</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1266944820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You do not "debunk", you ostracize. The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic, not empirical.</p></div><p>AGW deniers are ostracized in the same way that creationists and holocaust deniers have been ostracized. But there is a difference. If AGW deniers produced good science, every oil company on Earth would be throwing money at them to prove to the public that they can have their cake and eat it too. Don't you think that would dry up every last bit of support GW scientists have?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Hence the conversion of "skeptic" from badge of honor to a mark of shame, and the introduction of the "denier" label to further amp up the hysteric persecution of those who dont go with the program.</p></div><p>I still consider myself a skeptic. The problem is that "denier" is more accurate for GW deniers. If the evidence supports the other side, and you still stick to your guns, you are not a skeptic.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This also explains the skepticism of the general public. Joe Blow doesnt know his tree rings from his ice cores, but he sure knows what fanaticism looks like.</p></div><p>Is this the same Joe Blow that spent the last 8 years wetting his pants and throwing his money and freedom out the window every time a politician said the word "terrorist"? You, yourself, admitted that this hypothetical "Joe Blow" doesn't know anything about the evidence. So, why would your trust him over the vast majority of the world's scientists? That doesn't sound very skeptical to me.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>After all, how can one trust a science where "skepticism" is career death? The answer is simple: One cant.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That's right. If only the people who use the word "skeptic" really were skeptics...</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do not " debunk " , you ostracize .
The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic , not empirical.AGW deniers are ostracized in the same way that creationists and holocaust deniers have been ostracized .
But there is a difference .
If AGW deniers produced good science , every oil company on Earth would be throwing money at them to prove to the public that they can have their cake and eat it too .
Do n't you think that would dry up every last bit of support GW scientists have ? Hence the conversion of " skeptic " from badge of honor to a mark of shame , and the introduction of the " denier " label to further amp up the hysteric persecution of those who dont go with the program.I still consider myself a skeptic .
The problem is that " denier " is more accurate for GW deniers .
If the evidence supports the other side , and you still stick to your guns , you are not a skeptic.This also explains the skepticism of the general public .
Joe Blow doesnt know his tree rings from his ice cores , but he sure knows what fanaticism looks like.Is this the same Joe Blow that spent the last 8 years wetting his pants and throwing his money and freedom out the window every time a politician said the word " terrorist " ?
You , yourself , admitted that this hypothetical " Joe Blow " does n't know anything about the evidence .
So , why would your trust him over the vast majority of the world 's scientists ?
That does n't sound very skeptical to me.After all , how can one trust a science where " skepticism " is career death ?
The answer is simple : One cant.That 's right .
If only the people who use the word " skeptic " really were skeptics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do not "debunk", you ostracize.
The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic, not empirical.AGW deniers are ostracized in the same way that creationists and holocaust deniers have been ostracized.
But there is a difference.
If AGW deniers produced good science, every oil company on Earth would be throwing money at them to prove to the public that they can have their cake and eat it too.
Don't you think that would dry up every last bit of support GW scientists have?Hence the conversion of "skeptic" from badge of honor to a mark of shame, and the introduction of the "denier" label to further amp up the hysteric persecution of those who dont go with the program.I still consider myself a skeptic.
The problem is that "denier" is more accurate for GW deniers.
If the evidence supports the other side, and you still stick to your guns, you are not a skeptic.This also explains the skepticism of the general public.
Joe Blow doesnt know his tree rings from his ice cores, but he sure knows what fanaticism looks like.Is this the same Joe Blow that spent the last 8 years wetting his pants and throwing his money and freedom out the window every time a politician said the word "terrorist"?
You, yourself, admitted that this hypothetical "Joe Blow" doesn't know anything about the evidence.
So, why would your trust him over the vast majority of the world's scientists?
That doesn't sound very skeptical to me.After all, how can one trust a science where "skepticism" is career death?
The answer is simple: One cant.That's right.
If only the people who use the word "skeptic" really were skeptics...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244564</id>
	<title>Re:Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266940920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody has every claimed that we are making the sun hotter. This demonstrates that you really don't understand the problem. The problem is that the heat from the sun is being trapped here. As an analogy, my house stays pretty cool even on hot days without the need for air conditioning. As long as it gets cooler at night, it stays pleasant during the day. But if it stays hot at night, it doesn't get a chance to lose the build-up of heat from the previous day and it gets more unpleasant as after day. The days are not necessarily hotter, but the accumulated heat energy means that each successive day has a larger affect.</p></div><p>

Some people say the problem is that the heat from the sun is being trapped here while others say there is <b>no human solvable problem</b> as there is a <b>natural cycle</b> of climate change due to sunspots and that no amount of human activity is going to change that.  <a href="http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great\_global\_warming\_swindle.php" title="moviesfoundonline.com" rel="nofollow">Documentary reference is here on this very subject.</a> [moviesfoundonline.com] <br> <br>
Of course this documentary goes into detail that water is an even greater greenhouse gas than CO2.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody has every claimed that we are making the sun hotter .
This demonstrates that you really do n't understand the problem .
The problem is that the heat from the sun is being trapped here .
As an analogy , my house stays pretty cool even on hot days without the need for air conditioning .
As long as it gets cooler at night , it stays pleasant during the day .
But if it stays hot at night , it does n't get a chance to lose the build-up of heat from the previous day and it gets more unpleasant as after day .
The days are not necessarily hotter , but the accumulated heat energy means that each successive day has a larger affect .
Some people say the problem is that the heat from the sun is being trapped here while others say there is no human solvable problem as there is a natural cycle of climate change due to sunspots and that no amount of human activity is going to change that .
Documentary reference is here on this very subject .
[ moviesfoundonline.com ] Of course this documentary goes into detail that water is an even greater greenhouse gas than CO2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody has every claimed that we are making the sun hotter.
This demonstrates that you really don't understand the problem.
The problem is that the heat from the sun is being trapped here.
As an analogy, my house stays pretty cool even on hot days without the need for air conditioning.
As long as it gets cooler at night, it stays pleasant during the day.
But if it stays hot at night, it doesn't get a chance to lose the build-up of heat from the previous day and it gets more unpleasant as after day.
The days are not necessarily hotter, but the accumulated heat energy means that each successive day has a larger affect.
Some people say the problem is that the heat from the sun is being trapped here while others say there is no human solvable problem as there is a natural cycle of climate change due to sunspots and that no amount of human activity is going to change that.
Documentary reference is here on this very subject.
[moviesfoundonline.com]  
Of course this documentary goes into detail that water is an even greater greenhouse gas than CO2.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243478</id>
	<title>They see the writing on the wall</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266934800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and see their big buck research grants slipping away.... Time to get shrill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and see their big buck research grants slipping away.... Time to get shrill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and see their big buck research grants slipping away.... Time to get shrill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245564</id>
	<title>Re:Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266946320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The climate change "scare" as you call it was instigated by the scientists, not the politicions</p></div><p>Hmmmm.... I never knew Al Gore was a scientist....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate change " scare " as you call it was instigated by the scientists , not the politicionsHmmmm.... I never knew Al Gore was a scientist... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate change "scare" as you call it was instigated by the scientists, not the politicionsHmmmm.... I never knew Al Gore was a scientist....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242428</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1266923640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't we just give all Americans incurable diseases while we're at it to stimulate the medical industry properly? Snarky sounding, but perhaps you're right, the US has shown a fairly strong track record for solving problems that it can actually be motivated to deal with.<br> <br>

It's worth pointing out though that the high cost of gasoline outside of the US has been pushing large numbers of people to CNG, which although less less polluting is still not a long term solution to the problem, simply a delaying effort that very well may be immediately offset by increased use. In India it costs half as much but releases 2/3rds the CO2 for equivalent usage. These systems can however sometimes run on landfill waste products at which point we simply have a logistical problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we just give all Americans incurable diseases while we 're at it to stimulate the medical industry properly ?
Snarky sounding , but perhaps you 're right , the US has shown a fairly strong track record for solving problems that it can actually be motivated to deal with .
It 's worth pointing out though that the high cost of gasoline outside of the US has been pushing large numbers of people to CNG , which although less less polluting is still not a long term solution to the problem , simply a delaying effort that very well may be immediately offset by increased use .
In India it costs half as much but releases 2/3rds the CO2 for equivalent usage .
These systems can however sometimes run on landfill waste products at which point we simply have a logistical problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we just give all Americans incurable diseases while we're at it to stimulate the medical industry properly?
Snarky sounding, but perhaps you're right, the US has shown a fairly strong track record for solving problems that it can actually be motivated to deal with.
It's worth pointing out though that the high cost of gasoline outside of the US has been pushing large numbers of people to CNG, which although less less polluting is still not a long term solution to the problem, simply a delaying effort that very well may be immediately offset by increased use.
In India it costs half as much but releases 2/3rds the CO2 for equivalent usage.
These systems can however sometimes run on landfill waste products at which point we simply have a logistical problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243474</id>
	<title>this is the reality of science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266934740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as a scientists, earned phd, poor speller, 10+ peer reviewed papers (including papers in high profile journals with 50+ citations)  the reality of science is that it is a dirty, competitive game, and the sort of things going on here are typical.<br>Academics have this big thing about honesty and openess, and so forth, but underneath you see all sorts of nasty stuff.<br>specifically, many posters have commented on how pro warming scientists used control of peer review to keep papers from being published</p><p>to my personal knolwedge, this is common in molecular biology, and I am sure it occurs all th time in all branches of science because publication in science is money, power, status and jobs.<br>people are more then willing to fight dirty over having a job or not<br>quite literally, getting a paper published, espically in a high profile journal, can mean the difference between a comfortable middleclass existence and poverty.</p><p>the real story here is that to become succesful in science, you need a lot of drive and competitivenes - science is as competitive as big league sports, and there is just as much dirty stuff going on; we just have a fairy tale vision of th scientist as this ivory tower person</p><p>normally I would login, but I forgot, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has this bug where after login you don't get returned to where you were, so I'm to lazy to login<br>cinnamon colbert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as a scientists , earned phd , poor speller , 10 + peer reviewed papers ( including papers in high profile journals with 50 + citations ) the reality of science is that it is a dirty , competitive game , and the sort of things going on here are typical.Academics have this big thing about honesty and openess , and so forth , but underneath you see all sorts of nasty stuff.specifically , many posters have commented on how pro warming scientists used control of peer review to keep papers from being publishedto my personal knolwedge , this is common in molecular biology , and I am sure it occurs all th time in all branches of science because publication in science is money , power , status and jobs.people are more then willing to fight dirty over having a job or notquite literally , getting a paper published , espically in a high profile journal , can mean the difference between a comfortable middleclass existence and poverty.the real story here is that to become succesful in science , you need a lot of drive and competitivenes - science is as competitive as big league sports , and there is just as much dirty stuff going on ; we just have a fairy tale vision of th scientist as this ivory tower personnormally I would login , but I forgot , and / .
has this bug where after login you do n't get returned to where you were , so I 'm to lazy to logincinnamon colbert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as a scientists, earned phd, poor speller, 10+ peer reviewed papers (including papers in high profile journals with 50+ citations)  the reality of science is that it is a dirty, competitive game, and the sort of things going on here are typical.Academics have this big thing about honesty and openess, and so forth, but underneath you see all sorts of nasty stuff.specifically, many posters have commented on how pro warming scientists used control of peer review to keep papers from being publishedto my personal knolwedge, this is common in molecular biology, and I am sure it occurs all th time in all branches of science because publication in science is money, power, status and jobs.people are more then willing to fight dirty over having a job or notquite literally, getting a paper published, espically in a high profile journal, can mean the difference between a comfortable middleclass existence and poverty.the real story here is that to become succesful in science, you need a lot of drive and competitivenes - science is as competitive as big league sports, and there is just as much dirty stuff going on; we just have a fairy tale vision of th scientist as this ivory tower personnormally I would login, but I forgot, and /.
has this bug where after login you don't get returned to where you were, so I'm to lazy to logincinnamon colbert</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31255356</id>
	<title>Effects are obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266945060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is one inescapable conclusion regarding this debate:</p><p>The continued increase in atmospheric CO2 generates more heat than light in politics.</p><p>The figures clearly show that even a linear increase in debatogenic gas will exponentially increase the number of assholes shouting at each other!</p><p>The quesion is correlation vs. causation, are these assholes heating up the debate with hot air + factual methane or vice versa?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is one inescapable conclusion regarding this debate : The continued increase in atmospheric CO2 generates more heat than light in politics.The figures clearly show that even a linear increase in debatogenic gas will exponentially increase the number of assholes shouting at each other ! The quesion is correlation vs. causation , are these assholes heating up the debate with hot air + factual methane or vice versa ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is one inescapable conclusion regarding this debate:The continued increase in atmospheric CO2 generates more heat than light in politics.The figures clearly show that even a linear increase in debatogenic gas will exponentially increase the number of assholes shouting at each other!The quesion is correlation vs. causation, are these assholes heating up the debate with hot air + factual methane or vice versa?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241752</id>
	<title>Tit for tat</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1266957180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any intelligent person can debunk another with convincing arguments. Myself, I believe that when in doubt, assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any intelligent person can debunk another with convincing arguments .
Myself , I believe that when in doubt , assume the truth is somewhere in the middle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any intelligent person can debunk another with convincing arguments.
Myself, I believe that when in doubt, assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336</id>
	<title>Yet Again</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1266866760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In every thread about global warming I see the same nutjob denialist theories debunked over and over again, yet with no change in the opinions of the hardcore denialists.

</p><p>Here we have yet another denialist conspiracy to mislead the public debunked by actual science.  Previously we had the "smoking gun" theory debunked by a blogger.

</p><p>How many times do these theories need to be debunked before denialist nutjobs give up their crusade against rational science?  It's like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In every thread about global warming I see the same nutjob denialist theories debunked over and over again , yet with no change in the opinions of the hardcore denialists .
Here we have yet another denialist conspiracy to mislead the public debunked by actual science .
Previously we had the " smoking gun " theory debunked by a blogger .
How many times do these theories need to be debunked before denialist nutjobs give up their crusade against rational science ?
It 's like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In every thread about global warming I see the same nutjob denialist theories debunked over and over again, yet with no change in the opinions of the hardcore denialists.
Here we have yet another denialist conspiracy to mislead the public debunked by actual science.
Previously we had the "smoking gun" theory debunked by a blogger.
How many times do these theories need to be debunked before denialist nutjobs give up their crusade against rational science?
It's like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242996</id>
	<title>That's why he's so hated</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1266930360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's not just saying "Nope, this isn't a problem, ignore it, don't worry, etc, etc." A person like that is much easier to dismiss. What he's saying is "Yes, this is a problem, but not a big one, and certainly not one worth all the money and effort being proposed to fix it. Instead, we should spend that on other things that would have a much bigger impact on quality of life." More or less he's not disagreeing with the fundamental premise or conclusion, he's disagreeing with the policies being proposed because of that.</p><p>This drives the global warming proponents totally mad. Most of them seem to be of the opinion that what they have to do is convince people that global warming is real, and caused by humans. Once that is done, people should be willing to accept whatever policies they say are necessary. No questioning of the costs or the utility, they've proven the problem and now whatever they say needs to happen should happen without further question.</p><p>So Lomborg has become one of their top enemies because he doesn't fundamentally disagree on the idea that the world is warming, just that it is worth while to try and solve when there are so many other problems to human life. For that, they hate him.</p><p>That is one of the things that makes me question motives in this whole thing. I can understand exasperation with people who believe your research is incorrect/false/made up if your truly believe it is right. You think you've got it correct, done a lot of work in that regard, you get mad when people say "Nuh uh!". However, when someone is disagreeing not with that, but with the policies you demand and you get even more angry at them, well that makes me wonder: Is the research really what's important to you, or are you using it just to try and drive policies that you want, regardless of their use? It would seem to me that how to deal with the problem would be open for discussion, yet discussion of that generates the most backlash. Makes you wonder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not just saying " Nope , this is n't a problem , ignore it , do n't worry , etc , etc .
" A person like that is much easier to dismiss .
What he 's saying is " Yes , this is a problem , but not a big one , and certainly not one worth all the money and effort being proposed to fix it .
Instead , we should spend that on other things that would have a much bigger impact on quality of life .
" More or less he 's not disagreeing with the fundamental premise or conclusion , he 's disagreeing with the policies being proposed because of that.This drives the global warming proponents totally mad .
Most of them seem to be of the opinion that what they have to do is convince people that global warming is real , and caused by humans .
Once that is done , people should be willing to accept whatever policies they say are necessary .
No questioning of the costs or the utility , they 've proven the problem and now whatever they say needs to happen should happen without further question.So Lomborg has become one of their top enemies because he does n't fundamentally disagree on the idea that the world is warming , just that it is worth while to try and solve when there are so many other problems to human life .
For that , they hate him.That is one of the things that makes me question motives in this whole thing .
I can understand exasperation with people who believe your research is incorrect/false/made up if your truly believe it is right .
You think you 've got it correct , done a lot of work in that regard , you get mad when people say " Nuh uh ! " .
However , when someone is disagreeing not with that , but with the policies you demand and you get even more angry at them , well that makes me wonder : Is the research really what 's important to you , or are you using it just to try and drive policies that you want , regardless of their use ?
It would seem to me that how to deal with the problem would be open for discussion , yet discussion of that generates the most backlash .
Makes you wonder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not just saying "Nope, this isn't a problem, ignore it, don't worry, etc, etc.
" A person like that is much easier to dismiss.
What he's saying is "Yes, this is a problem, but not a big one, and certainly not one worth all the money and effort being proposed to fix it.
Instead, we should spend that on other things that would have a much bigger impact on quality of life.
" More or less he's not disagreeing with the fundamental premise or conclusion, he's disagreeing with the policies being proposed because of that.This drives the global warming proponents totally mad.
Most of them seem to be of the opinion that what they have to do is convince people that global warming is real, and caused by humans.
Once that is done, people should be willing to accept whatever policies they say are necessary.
No questioning of the costs or the utility, they've proven the problem and now whatever they say needs to happen should happen without further question.So Lomborg has become one of their top enemies because he doesn't fundamentally disagree on the idea that the world is warming, just that it is worth while to try and solve when there are so many other problems to human life.
For that, they hate him.That is one of the things that makes me question motives in this whole thing.
I can understand exasperation with people who believe your research is incorrect/false/made up if your truly believe it is right.
You think you've got it correct, done a lot of work in that regard, you get mad when people say "Nuh uh!".
However, when someone is disagreeing not with that, but with the policies you demand and you get even more angry at them, well that makes me wonder: Is the research really what's important to you, or are you using it just to try and drive policies that you want, regardless of their use?
It would seem to me that how to deal with the problem would be open for discussion, yet discussion of that generates the most backlash.
Makes you wonder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246888</id>
	<title>Proponents vs. scientists</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1266950760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic, not empirical.</p></div><p>I agree that's true for some AGW proponents, including some people here on Slashdot. I'd say that a good example argument from this point of view is something like "who cares if AGW is real, we shouldn't be polluting the Earth anyway." Not exactly a scientific argument.</p><p>But the scientists actually performing research are empirical, and let's face it, the online flamewars often gravitate to discussions of the science rather than the tactics (ironically I'd put this story in the tactics column since it's writer vs. writer).</p><p>When it comes around to the science, I agree with the GP--it is exhausting to see the same arguments over and over and over again, like these old tropes: "Maybe these scientists forgot about the sun." "How do we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?" "The greenhouse effect of CO2 doesn't matter compared to water vapor." "The earth was warmer in the past." "Volcanoes put out way more CO2 than mankind." "Other planets are warming just like Earth." "Mankind's activities are not big enough to change the climate." "It's just a natural cycle." Etc., etc. There are answers to each of these that are very easy to find with open mind and search bar.</p><p>"Skeptic" is a term that is self-applied by people who raise questions like these. When the rest of us use that term to group them, we are simply using the label they chose for themselves. Real skepticism though, I would point out, is not endless. Real skepticism is open to proof and adjusts its understanding accordingly. That sort of approach is the hallmark the scientific process, but let's face it, few people look beyond the flamewars anymore, including you apparently. I would encourage you not to confuse the enviros shouting slogans on the corner with Ph.D. scientists publishing in professional journals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic , not empirical.I agree that 's true for some AGW proponents , including some people here on Slashdot .
I 'd say that a good example argument from this point of view is something like " who cares if AGW is real , we should n't be polluting the Earth anyway .
" Not exactly a scientific argument.But the scientists actually performing research are empirical , and let 's face it , the online flamewars often gravitate to discussions of the science rather than the tactics ( ironically I 'd put this story in the tactics column since it 's writer vs. writer ) .When it comes around to the science , I agree with the GP--it is exhausting to see the same arguments over and over and over again , like these old tropes : " Maybe these scientists forgot about the sun .
" " How do we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas ?
" " The greenhouse effect of CO2 does n't matter compared to water vapor .
" " The earth was warmer in the past .
" " Volcanoes put out way more CO2 than mankind .
" " Other planets are warming just like Earth .
" " Mankind 's activities are not big enough to change the climate .
" " It 's just a natural cycle .
" Etc. , etc .
There are answers to each of these that are very easy to find with open mind and search bar .
" Skeptic " is a term that is self-applied by people who raise questions like these .
When the rest of us use that term to group them , we are simply using the label they chose for themselves .
Real skepticism though , I would point out , is not endless .
Real skepticism is open to proof and adjusts its understanding accordingly .
That sort of approach is the hallmark the scientific process , but let 's face it , few people look beyond the flamewars anymore , including you apparently .
I would encourage you not to confuse the enviros shouting slogans on the corner with Ph.D. scientists publishing in professional journals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic, not empirical.I agree that's true for some AGW proponents, including some people here on Slashdot.
I'd say that a good example argument from this point of view is something like "who cares if AGW is real, we shouldn't be polluting the Earth anyway.
" Not exactly a scientific argument.But the scientists actually performing research are empirical, and let's face it, the online flamewars often gravitate to discussions of the science rather than the tactics (ironically I'd put this story in the tactics column since it's writer vs. writer).When it comes around to the science, I agree with the GP--it is exhausting to see the same arguments over and over and over again, like these old tropes: "Maybe these scientists forgot about the sun.
" "How do we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
" "The greenhouse effect of CO2 doesn't matter compared to water vapor.
" "The earth was warmer in the past.
" "Volcanoes put out way more CO2 than mankind.
" "Other planets are warming just like Earth.
" "Mankind's activities are not big enough to change the climate.
" "It's just a natural cycle.
" Etc., etc.
There are answers to each of these that are very easy to find with open mind and search bar.
"Skeptic" is a term that is self-applied by people who raise questions like these.
When the rest of us use that term to group them, we are simply using the label they chose for themselves.
Real skepticism though, I would point out, is not endless.
Real skepticism is open to proof and adjusts its understanding accordingly.
That sort of approach is the hallmark the scientific process, but let's face it, few people look beyond the flamewars anymore, including you apparently.
I would encourage you not to confuse the enviros shouting slogans on the corner with Ph.D. scientists publishing in professional journals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246804</id>
	<title>Re:The whole argument is tedious...</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1266950460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It only makes sense to take precautions so as to avoid any chance of eliminating your own species.</p> </div><p>Unfortunately, you are carefully innumerate here.  You seem to be suggesting for some reason that the cost of "precautions" is necessarily small.  One of Lomberg's main points is that what has been suggested so far is expensive and ineffective, and that much of the money spent could be deployed more effectively fighting problems that are unequivocal:  malaria, poor water supply infrastructure, etc.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Who are you, when compared to humanity?</p> </div><p>One might reasonably surmise that I am part of humanity, and therefore due the same dignity and consideration as every individual.  "Humanity" after all is nothing but the sum total of all human individuals, so you would have to be insane or evil--probably both if the history of the 20th century is any indication--to even suggest that any individual should ever be sacrified for the good of "humanity."</p><p>I think the thing that pisses people off about Lomberg is that he is bringing rational, real-world, pragmatic considerations into something that power-hungry assholes want to be an ideological crusade.  He is pointing out that there is no particular justification for making global climate change the dominant policy driver of the 21st century, as opposed to, say, malaria erradication.</p><p>Eliminating malaria would save far more lives with much greater certainty than any amount of speculative insurance against AGW, although there are other reasons to invest in clean power--notably that oil is running out and coal has enough environmental problems to fill a strip-mine.</p><p>But eliminating malaria doesn't give power-hungry assholes any excuse to claim that only they can save "humanity" while stomping on the faces of individuals, forever.  So boring, practical, rational policy does not get made, and Lomberg is pointing that out.  Power-hungry assholes--who want to sacrifice individual rights and well-being for the sake of "humanity" and who ask arrogant rhetorical questions like, "Who are you when compared to humanity?"--hate that.</p><p>I am humanity.  So are you.  So is everyone else.  Attempting to put individual humans in opposition to abstract humanity is the rhetorical tool of petty tyrants, and is in that respect quite useful, because as soon as someone does it you know they do not care about human life or well-being, but only about their own rapacious quest for power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It only makes sense to take precautions so as to avoid any chance of eliminating your own species .
Unfortunately , you are carefully innumerate here .
You seem to be suggesting for some reason that the cost of " precautions " is necessarily small .
One of Lomberg 's main points is that what has been suggested so far is expensive and ineffective , and that much of the money spent could be deployed more effectively fighting problems that are unequivocal : malaria , poor water supply infrastructure , etc.Who are you , when compared to humanity ?
One might reasonably surmise that I am part of humanity , and therefore due the same dignity and consideration as every individual .
" Humanity " after all is nothing but the sum total of all human individuals , so you would have to be insane or evil--probably both if the history of the 20th century is any indication--to even suggest that any individual should ever be sacrified for the good of " humanity .
" I think the thing that pisses people off about Lomberg is that he is bringing rational , real-world , pragmatic considerations into something that power-hungry assholes want to be an ideological crusade .
He is pointing out that there is no particular justification for making global climate change the dominant policy driver of the 21st century , as opposed to , say , malaria erradication.Eliminating malaria would save far more lives with much greater certainty than any amount of speculative insurance against AGW , although there are other reasons to invest in clean power--notably that oil is running out and coal has enough environmental problems to fill a strip-mine.But eliminating malaria does n't give power-hungry assholes any excuse to claim that only they can save " humanity " while stomping on the faces of individuals , forever .
So boring , practical , rational policy does not get made , and Lomberg is pointing that out .
Power-hungry assholes--who want to sacrifice individual rights and well-being for the sake of " humanity " and who ask arrogant rhetorical questions like , " Who are you when compared to humanity ?
" --hate that.I am humanity .
So are you .
So is everyone else .
Attempting to put individual humans in opposition to abstract humanity is the rhetorical tool of petty tyrants , and is in that respect quite useful , because as soon as someone does it you know they do not care about human life or well-being , but only about their own rapacious quest for power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only makes sense to take precautions so as to avoid any chance of eliminating your own species.
Unfortunately, you are carefully innumerate here.
You seem to be suggesting for some reason that the cost of "precautions" is necessarily small.
One of Lomberg's main points is that what has been suggested so far is expensive and ineffective, and that much of the money spent could be deployed more effectively fighting problems that are unequivocal:  malaria, poor water supply infrastructure, etc.Who are you, when compared to humanity?
One might reasonably surmise that I am part of humanity, and therefore due the same dignity and consideration as every individual.
"Humanity" after all is nothing but the sum total of all human individuals, so you would have to be insane or evil--probably both if the history of the 20th century is any indication--to even suggest that any individual should ever be sacrified for the good of "humanity.
"I think the thing that pisses people off about Lomberg is that he is bringing rational, real-world, pragmatic considerations into something that power-hungry assholes want to be an ideological crusade.
He is pointing out that there is no particular justification for making global climate change the dominant policy driver of the 21st century, as opposed to, say, malaria erradication.Eliminating malaria would save far more lives with much greater certainty than any amount of speculative insurance against AGW, although there are other reasons to invest in clean power--notably that oil is running out and coal has enough environmental problems to fill a strip-mine.But eliminating malaria doesn't give power-hungry assholes any excuse to claim that only they can save "humanity" while stomping on the faces of individuals, forever.
So boring, practical, rational policy does not get made, and Lomberg is pointing that out.
Power-hungry assholes--who want to sacrifice individual rights and well-being for the sake of "humanity" and who ask arrogant rhetorical questions like, "Who are you when compared to humanity?
"--hate that.I am humanity.
So are you.
So is everyone else.
Attempting to put individual humans in opposition to abstract humanity is the rhetorical tool of petty tyrants, and is in that respect quite useful, because as soon as someone does it you know they do not care about human life or well-being, but only about their own rapacious quest for power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1266868560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does it really matter if we are warming the planet or not?</p><p>Even if we are how are we going to fix it? Limit CO2 emissions by something like cap and trade? Great concept but India, China etc are not going to play in
a game that is detrimental to their growing manufacturing industries. Or perhaps we create green energy solutions, problem is none of those solutions are cost
effective to be self sustaining.   If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing?</p></div><p>I see this argument rather often, and I think it fails to see the point.  The US has the largest GDP in the world BY FAR.  It has the biggest and most robust economy by an order of magnitude, and nearly all gigantic leaps in technological innovation occur here because of the vast consumer market and potential profits (at least when Republicans aren't stymying innovation by giving away money to the rich).

If the US creates a cap and trade system that rewards innovators and penalizes fossil fuel users, there is no doubt an explosion of innovation will arrive in the field.  Companies like nanosolar would be only the tip of the iceberg.

</p><p>Most European and Asian countries already have gas prices more than twice as high as ours.  Just imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative startups that would have occurred over the last two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately.  Imagine the massive private expenditures into developing consumer-grade alternative energy products.  It's just mind-boggling to think what the US could do if it were as forward thinking as some other countries are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it really matter if we are warming the planet or not ? Even if we are how are we going to fix it ?
Limit CO2 emissions by something like cap and trade ?
Great concept but India , China etc are not going to play in a game that is detrimental to their growing manufacturing industries .
Or perhaps we create green energy solutions , problem is none of those solutions are cost effective to be self sustaining .
If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing ? I see this argument rather often , and I think it fails to see the point .
The US has the largest GDP in the world BY FAR .
It has the biggest and most robust economy by an order of magnitude , and nearly all gigantic leaps in technological innovation occur here because of the vast consumer market and potential profits ( at least when Republicans are n't stymying innovation by giving away money to the rich ) .
If the US creates a cap and trade system that rewards innovators and penalizes fossil fuel users , there is no doubt an explosion of innovation will arrive in the field .
Companies like nanosolar would be only the tip of the iceberg .
Most European and Asian countries already have gas prices more than twice as high as ours .
Just imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative startups that would have occurred over the last two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately .
Imagine the massive private expenditures into developing consumer-grade alternative energy products .
It 's just mind-boggling to think what the US could do if it were as forward thinking as some other countries are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it really matter if we are warming the planet or not?Even if we are how are we going to fix it?
Limit CO2 emissions by something like cap and trade?
Great concept but India, China etc are not going to play in
a game that is detrimental to their growing manufacturing industries.
Or perhaps we create green energy solutions, problem is none of those solutions are cost
effective to be self sustaining.
If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing?I see this argument rather often, and I think it fails to see the point.
The US has the largest GDP in the world BY FAR.
It has the biggest and most robust economy by an order of magnitude, and nearly all gigantic leaps in technological innovation occur here because of the vast consumer market and potential profits (at least when Republicans aren't stymying innovation by giving away money to the rich).
If the US creates a cap and trade system that rewards innovators and penalizes fossil fuel users, there is no doubt an explosion of innovation will arrive in the field.
Companies like nanosolar would be only the tip of the iceberg.
Most European and Asian countries already have gas prices more than twice as high as ours.
Just imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative startups that would have occurred over the last two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately.
Imagine the massive private expenditures into developing consumer-grade alternative energy products.
It's just mind-boggling to think what the US could do if it were as forward thinking as some other countries are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241346</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the teabaggers.</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1266866820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, let's just accept that we're doomed and billions of people will have to suffer.  Yay!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , let 's just accept that we 're doomed and billions of people will have to suffer .
Yay !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, let's just accept that we're doomed and billions of people will have to suffer.
Yay!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31255776</id>
	<title>Death of the Scientific Process</title>
	<author>iterativeDesign</author>
	<datestamp>1266949140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to be nothing more than a bickering citation debate over AGW.
<br> <br>
The real tragedy is painful and distorted abuse the scientific process has taken with all this AGW 'science' floating around from self proclaimed and cohort sponsoring experts. I'm almost sick calling it a science, even calling it semi-science, quasi-science or even postulate sickens my stomach. The process generically is as follows:
<br> <br>
"A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[35]
<br> <br>
   1. Define the question<br>
   2. Gather information and resources (observe)<br>
   3. Form hypothesis<br>
   4. Perform experiment and collect data<br>
   5. Analyze data<br>
   6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis<br>
   7. Publish results<br>
   8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
<br> <br>
The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again." - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_process" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_process</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
The key it is an iterative process and will weed out incorrect hypothesis. Now granted the scale of the "experiment" renders a significant challenge to objectively interpret results, this debate we are having for pro-AGW and anti-AGW is a portion of that interpreting of data, what results we come to, is to be determined.
<br> <br> <br>

<b>Personal Opinions and Examples:</b> <br>
I am an engineer and a fervent believer in a strict, regimented analysis to arrive at conclusive solutions. I also have yet to mention, that I'm a HVAC&amp;R (Heating, Ventilation, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration) engineer, I see the business side of the climate debate and what policies are 'actually' doing to our business, economy, and as a citizen, our society. I having attempted first-hand to apply some of the government sponsored mathematics to validate credits for green building certification, and can say that on a macro scale their units don't match. I and anyone who has a LEED v3.0 code book has proof in their hands (check the units for EAc4 aka Enhanced Refrigerant Credit 4). Short of the creators of this book throwing in couple unspecified coefficients ("global warming potential" or "ozone depletion potential"), they cannot make their units match up. It is near laughable for anyone who has taken calculus II or above, even to look at how the equations are written; as if by a two year old who doesn't know what subscripts are. In short, I have yet to see proof that AGW exists and see only a global scandal fueled by misinterpretation of data and the scientific process.

<br> <br>

<b>The AGW process:</b> <br>
1) Create an mandated industry<br>
2) Regulate and control the industry<br>
3) Own the industry<br>
4) Gain further control of associated industries (construction, manufacturing, transportation...etc.)
<br> <br>
IngSoc here we come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to be nothing more than a bickering citation debate over AGW .
The real tragedy is painful and distorted abuse the scientific process has taken with all this AGW 'science ' floating around from self proclaimed and cohort sponsoring experts .
I 'm almost sick calling it a science , even calling it semi-science , quasi-science or even postulate sickens my stomach .
The process generically is as follows : " A linearized , pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding : [ 35 ] 1 .
Define the question 2 .
Gather information and resources ( observe ) 3 .
Form hypothesis 4 .
Perform experiment and collect data 5 .
Analyze data 6 .
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7 .
Publish results 8 .
Retest ( frequently done by other scientists ) The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again .
" - http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific \ _process [ wikipedia.org ] The key it is an iterative process and will weed out incorrect hypothesis .
Now granted the scale of the " experiment " renders a significant challenge to objectively interpret results , this debate we are having for pro-AGW and anti-AGW is a portion of that interpreting of data , what results we come to , is to be determined .
Personal Opinions and Examples : I am an engineer and a fervent believer in a strict , regimented analysis to arrive at conclusive solutions .
I also have yet to mention , that I 'm a HVAC&amp;R ( Heating , Ventilation , Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration ) engineer , I see the business side of the climate debate and what policies are 'actually ' doing to our business , economy , and as a citizen , our society .
I having attempted first-hand to apply some of the government sponsored mathematics to validate credits for green building certification , and can say that on a macro scale their units do n't match .
I and anyone who has a LEED v3.0 code book has proof in their hands ( check the units for EAc4 aka Enhanced Refrigerant Credit 4 ) .
Short of the creators of this book throwing in couple unspecified coefficients ( " global warming potential " or " ozone depletion potential " ) , they can not make their units match up .
It is near laughable for anyone who has taken calculus II or above , even to look at how the equations are written ; as if by a two year old who does n't know what subscripts are .
In short , I have yet to see proof that AGW exists and see only a global scandal fueled by misinterpretation of data and the scientific process .
The AGW process : 1 ) Create an mandated industry 2 ) Regulate and control the industry 3 ) Own the industry 4 ) Gain further control of associated industries ( construction , manufacturing , transportation...etc .
) IngSoc here we come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to be nothing more than a bickering citation debate over AGW.
The real tragedy is painful and distorted abuse the scientific process has taken with all this AGW 'science' floating around from self proclaimed and cohort sponsoring experts.
I'm almost sick calling it a science, even calling it semi-science, quasi-science or even postulate sickens my stomach.
The process generically is as follows:
 
"A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[35]
 
   1.
Define the question
   2.
Gather information and resources (observe)
   3.
Form hypothesis
   4.
Perform experiment and collect data
   5.
Analyze data
   6.
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
   7.
Publish results
   8.
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
 
The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.
" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_process [wikipedia.org]
 
The key it is an iterative process and will weed out incorrect hypothesis.
Now granted the scale of the "experiment" renders a significant challenge to objectively interpret results, this debate we are having for pro-AGW and anti-AGW is a portion of that interpreting of data, what results we come to, is to be determined.
Personal Opinions and Examples: 
I am an engineer and a fervent believer in a strict, regimented analysis to arrive at conclusive solutions.
I also have yet to mention, that I'm a HVAC&amp;R (Heating, Ventilation, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration) engineer, I see the business side of the climate debate and what policies are 'actually' doing to our business, economy, and as a citizen, our society.
I having attempted first-hand to apply some of the government sponsored mathematics to validate credits for green building certification, and can say that on a macro scale their units don't match.
I and anyone who has a LEED v3.0 code book has proof in their hands (check the units for EAc4 aka Enhanced Refrigerant Credit 4).
Short of the creators of this book throwing in couple unspecified coefficients ("global warming potential" or "ozone depletion potential"), they cannot make their units match up.
It is near laughable for anyone who has taken calculus II or above, even to look at how the equations are written; as if by a two year old who doesn't know what subscripts are.
In short, I have yet to see proof that AGW exists and see only a global scandal fueled by misinterpretation of data and the scientific process.
The AGW process: 
1) Create an mandated industry
2) Regulate and control the industry
3) Own the industry
4) Gain further control of associated industries (construction, manufacturing, transportation...etc.
)
 
IngSoc here we come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243754</id>
	<title>My understand of Bjorn's position was</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1266936780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that he didn't deny climate change was happening. He was of the opinion that there was nowhere near the evidence for the standard Gore-esque position of "Oh my god we're all gonna die. We need to stop doing everything right now and drastically cut back on everything right now." Admittedly that comes from an episode of BullShit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>that he did n't deny climate change was happening .
He was of the opinion that there was nowhere near the evidence for the standard Gore-esque position of " Oh my god we 're all gon na die .
We need to stop doing everything right now and drastically cut back on everything right now .
" Admittedly that comes from an episode of BullShit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that he didn't deny climate change was happening.
He was of the opinion that there was nowhere near the evidence for the standard Gore-esque position of "Oh my god we're all gonna die.
We need to stop doing everything right now and drastically cut back on everything right now.
" Admittedly that comes from an episode of BullShit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242286</id>
	<title>Who cares either way?</title>
	<author>strangemachinex</author>
	<datestamp>1266921240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really believe in global warming, only because I see so many companies using it as a scare tactic to make money. I can't take it seriously. Every commercial break is a barrage of "go green" propaganda. But I'll be the first to admit I've read nothing scientific about climate change. I honestly don't care either way. I'm not interested at all in "saving the earth maaaaan." I'd rather just go about my life. As far as I'm concerned, the world can go up in flames the second I die.

Sorry if I sound like a troll, I really don't intend to. Just wondering if there are others out there who feel the same as me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really believe in global warming , only because I see so many companies using it as a scare tactic to make money .
I ca n't take it seriously .
Every commercial break is a barrage of " go green " propaganda .
But I 'll be the first to admit I 've read nothing scientific about climate change .
I honestly do n't care either way .
I 'm not interested at all in " saving the earth maaaaan .
" I 'd rather just go about my life .
As far as I 'm concerned , the world can go up in flames the second I die .
Sorry if I sound like a troll , I really do n't intend to .
Just wondering if there are others out there who feel the same as me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really believe in global warming, only because I see so many companies using it as a scare tactic to make money.
I can't take it seriously.
Every commercial break is a barrage of "go green" propaganda.
But I'll be the first to admit I've read nothing scientific about climate change.
I honestly don't care either way.
I'm not interested at all in "saving the earth maaaaan.
" I'd rather just go about my life.
As far as I'm concerned, the world can go up in flames the second I die.
Sorry if I sound like a troll, I really don't intend to.
Just wondering if there are others out there who feel the same as me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241942</id>
	<title>Re:The whole argument is tedious...</title>
	<author>daver00</author>
	<datestamp>1266916200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it so dire? Can you give me any credible source of research that says we face utter extinction if we do not stop the CO2 emissions? And what is it with the resources FUD? Where are they going? are we shooting all our resources out into space or something? Matter more or less never changes in any way other than configuration, our mass is going more or less nowhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it so dire ?
Can you give me any credible source of research that says we face utter extinction if we do not stop the CO2 emissions ?
And what is it with the resources FUD ?
Where are they going ?
are we shooting all our resources out into space or something ?
Matter more or less never changes in any way other than configuration , our mass is going more or less nowhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it so dire?
Can you give me any credible source of research that says we face utter extinction if we do not stop the CO2 emissions?
And what is it with the resources FUD?
Where are they going?
are we shooting all our resources out into space or something?
Matter more or less never changes in any way other than configuration, our mass is going more or less nowhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31257372</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1265109960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you mean the wealthy live in expensive places far away from work?

</p><p>Anyway your estimation of gasoline costs on our lives is ridiculous.  The idea that we can't adapt our lifestyle is just stupid and arrogant.

</p><p>More than that, once alternative energy technology becomes more advanced, there's no reason to believe it will not *continue its advancement*.  Who's to say in 20 years we won't have super low-cost 60\% efficient solar panels?  In another 20 maybe 80\%?

</p><p>Who's to say we won't be able to build batteries with 100 times the density of those today, enabling an even more mobile society than what we currently have?  Who's to say we'll never bring the next-generation of rocket propulsion technology to the consumer market, thus increasing international mobility?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you mean the wealthy live in expensive places far away from work ?
Anyway your estimation of gasoline costs on our lives is ridiculous .
The idea that we ca n't adapt our lifestyle is just stupid and arrogant .
More than that , once alternative energy technology becomes more advanced , there 's no reason to believe it will not * continue its advancement * .
Who 's to say in 20 years we wo n't have super low-cost 60 \ % efficient solar panels ?
In another 20 maybe 80 \ % ?
Who 's to say we wo n't be able to build batteries with 100 times the density of those today , enabling an even more mobile society than what we currently have ?
Who 's to say we 'll never bring the next-generation of rocket propulsion technology to the consumer market , thus increasing international mobility ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you mean the wealthy live in expensive places far away from work?
Anyway your estimation of gasoline costs on our lives is ridiculous.
The idea that we can't adapt our lifestyle is just stupid and arrogant.
More than that, once alternative energy technology becomes more advanced, there's no reason to believe it will not *continue its advancement*.
Who's to say in 20 years we won't have super low-cost 60\% efficient solar panels?
In another 20 maybe 80\%?
Who's to say we won't be able to build batteries with 100 times the density of those today, enabling an even more mobile society than what we currently have?
Who's to say we'll never bring the next-generation of rocket propulsion technology to the consumer market, thus increasing international mobility?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241610</id>
	<title>There is nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>Puff\_Of\_Hot\_Air</author>
	<datestamp>1266955920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading that very lengthy rebuttal, one thing becomes clear. Howard Friel does not deserve our time or thought. If you are going to criticize someone's work, you need to be doubly careful that the things you take issue with are valid. Here it appears that the criticism is far less solid than the material it critisizes. This does not make the original material correct as a result, but truely; there is nothing to see here, move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading that very lengthy rebuttal , one thing becomes clear .
Howard Friel does not deserve our time or thought .
If you are going to criticize someone 's work , you need to be doubly careful that the things you take issue with are valid .
Here it appears that the criticism is far less solid than the material it critisizes .
This does not make the original material correct as a result , but truely ; there is nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading that very lengthy rebuttal, one thing becomes clear.
Howard Friel does not deserve our time or thought.
If you are going to criticize someone's work, you need to be doubly careful that the things you take issue with are valid.
Here it appears that the criticism is far less solid than the material it critisizes.
This does not make the original material correct as a result, but truely; there is nothing to see here, move along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241782</id>
	<title>another IPCC 'fact' bites the dust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266957480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently the ocean rise report cited by the IPCC has been retracted to go along with the bogus North Africa food shortage, increased natural disaster frequency and intensity, Brazilian rain forest depletion, and Himalaya glacier claims. Then there's East Anglia and Mr. Jones conceding that there'd been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years. I have  always respected the healthy skepticism seen on slashdot, but unfortunately when AGW comes up often it seems that the game changes for many contributors and the 'science' is all of a sudden 'settled'. What's going on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the ocean rise report cited by the IPCC has been retracted to go along with the bogus North Africa food shortage , increased natural disaster frequency and intensity , Brazilian rain forest depletion , and Himalaya glacier claims .
Then there 's East Anglia and Mr. Jones conceding that there 'd been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years .
I have always respected the healthy skepticism seen on slashdot , but unfortunately when AGW comes up often it seems that the game changes for many contributors and the 'science ' is all of a sudden 'settled' .
What 's going on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the ocean rise report cited by the IPCC has been retracted to go along with the bogus North Africa food shortage, increased natural disaster frequency and intensity, Brazilian rain forest depletion, and Himalaya glacier claims.
Then there's East Anglia and Mr. Jones conceding that there'd been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years.
I have  always respected the healthy skepticism seen on slashdot, but unfortunately when AGW comes up often it seems that the game changes for many contributors and the 'science' is all of a sudden 'settled'.
What's going on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243418</id>
	<title>Re:Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>PybusJ</author>
	<datestamp>1266934500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Man is not powerful enough to change the earth's climate to any "significant" degree. But that big thermonuclear ball in the sky is.</p></div><p>Quite separate from the question of whether our previous actions *have* driven climate change as a side effect, we as a species certainly have the technology to bugger up the earth's climate if we actively tried.  Large scale nuclear war, or any process which put enough dust into the atmosphere would significantly alter our planet's albedo and cause climatic effects which would last for far longer than our current civilisations.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Scientists are men that can be influenced by propaganda just like any man can be. I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.</p></div><p>You're right that scientists are human (look carefully though, you'll find not all are men) and susceptible to various influences.  You won't find perfect logic, behaviour or motives behind every scientist's action on both sides of any large scientific debate, but over time (and this issue had been studied for decades before the conclusions became front-line political questions) consensus tends to emerge, possibly to be overthrown later as new facts come to light.  It's frustrating, but the best process we have.  Certainly far better than listening to the voices of the lobby groups of those industries benefiting from the status quo.</p><p>I understand your mistrust of government by politicians, but I don't think they're behind this one.  Really, it's just not a good sell "we need tax money to spend on mitigation for 3rd world countries and large scale, changes which may effect you lifestyle", surely if you want to get some extra tax dollars it's just so much easier to start a war.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man is not powerful enough to change the earth 's climate to any " significant " degree .
But that big thermonuclear ball in the sky is.Quite separate from the question of whether our previous actions * have * driven climate change as a side effect , we as a species certainly have the technology to bugger up the earth 's climate if we actively tried .
Large scale nuclear war , or any process which put enough dust into the atmosphere would significantly alter our planet 's albedo and cause climatic effects which would last for far longer than our current civilisations.Scientists are men that can be influenced by propaganda just like any man can be .
I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.You 're right that scientists are human ( look carefully though , you 'll find not all are men ) and susceptible to various influences .
You wo n't find perfect logic , behaviour or motives behind every scientist 's action on both sides of any large scientific debate , but over time ( and this issue had been studied for decades before the conclusions became front-line political questions ) consensus tends to emerge , possibly to be overthrown later as new facts come to light .
It 's frustrating , but the best process we have .
Certainly far better than listening to the voices of the lobby groups of those industries benefiting from the status quo.I understand your mistrust of government by politicians , but I do n't think they 're behind this one .
Really , it 's just not a good sell " we need tax money to spend on mitigation for 3rd world countries and large scale , changes which may effect you lifestyle " , surely if you want to get some extra tax dollars it 's just so much easier to start a war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man is not powerful enough to change the earth's climate to any "significant" degree.
But that big thermonuclear ball in the sky is.Quite separate from the question of whether our previous actions *have* driven climate change as a side effect, we as a species certainly have the technology to bugger up the earth's climate if we actively tried.
Large scale nuclear war, or any process which put enough dust into the atmosphere would significantly alter our planet's albedo and cause climatic effects which would last for far longer than our current civilisations.Scientists are men that can be influenced by propaganda just like any man can be.
I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.You're right that scientists are human (look carefully though, you'll find not all are men) and susceptible to various influences.
You won't find perfect logic, behaviour or motives behind every scientist's action on both sides of any large scientific debate, but over time (and this issue had been studied for decades before the conclusions became front-line political questions) consensus tends to emerge, possibly to be overthrown later as new facts come to light.
It's frustrating, but the best process we have.
Certainly far better than listening to the voices of the lobby groups of those industries benefiting from the status quo.I understand your mistrust of government by politicians, but I don't think they're behind this one.
Really, it's just not a good sell "we need tax money to spend on mitigation for 3rd world countries and large scale, changes which may effect you lifestyle", surely if you want to get some extra tax dollars it's just so much easier to start a war.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244384</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266939960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most European and Asian countries already have gas prices more than twice as high as ours.  Just imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative startups that would have occurred over the last two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately.  Imagine the massive private expenditures into developing consumer-grade alternative energy products.  It's just mind-boggling to think what the US could do if it were as forward thinking as some other countries are.</p></div><p>Imagine building communities with higher densities, where public transit was an option. Where you could ride a bicycle (or walk) to work and school, and thus get some exercise--thus improving your health and lowering health care costs (and budgets). Where housing was closer together so it'd be worth it for ISPs to string fibre at speeds like Japan and South Korea. Where air quality and smog weren't a problem, and asthma was a thing of the past.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most European and Asian countries already have gas prices more than twice as high as ours .
Just imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative startups that would have occurred over the last two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately .
Imagine the massive private expenditures into developing consumer-grade alternative energy products .
It 's just mind-boggling to think what the US could do if it were as forward thinking as some other countries are.Imagine building communities with higher densities , where public transit was an option .
Where you could ride a bicycle ( or walk ) to work and school , and thus get some exercise--thus improving your health and lowering health care costs ( and budgets ) .
Where housing was closer together so it 'd be worth it for ISPs to string fibre at speeds like Japan and South Korea .
Where air quality and smog were n't a problem , and asthma was a thing of the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most European and Asian countries already have gas prices more than twice as high as ours.
Just imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative startups that would have occurred over the last two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately.
Imagine the massive private expenditures into developing consumer-grade alternative energy products.
It's just mind-boggling to think what the US could do if it were as forward thinking as some other countries are.Imagine building communities with higher densities, where public transit was an option.
Where you could ride a bicycle (or walk) to work and school, and thus get some exercise--thus improving your health and lowering health care costs (and budgets).
Where housing was closer together so it'd be worth it for ISPs to string fibre at speeds like Japan and South Korea.
Where air quality and smog weren't a problem, and asthma was a thing of the past.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243704</id>
	<title>Lomborg is not a climate change skeptic</title>
	<author>XNormal</author>
	<datestamp>1266936480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I challenge anyone to find a quote from Lomborg suggesting that he questions climate change or its anthropogenic origin.<br>He does, however, <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn\_lomborg\_sets\_global\_priorities.html" title="ted.com">make a pretty convincing case</a> [ted.com] that focusing on it diverts resources and attention away from some other very serious issues. But I guess it's easier to vilify him than to actually LISTEN to him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I challenge anyone to find a quote from Lomborg suggesting that he questions climate change or its anthropogenic origin.He does , however , make a pretty convincing case [ ted.com ] that focusing on it diverts resources and attention away from some other very serious issues .
But I guess it 's easier to vilify him than to actually LISTEN to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I challenge anyone to find a quote from Lomborg suggesting that he questions climate change or its anthropogenic origin.He does, however, make a pretty convincing case [ted.com] that focusing on it diverts resources and attention away from some other very serious issues.
But I guess it's easier to vilify him than to actually LISTEN to him.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244078</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266938580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As opposed to the Democrats stymying innovation by giving company profits to fat babymakers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to the Democrats stymying innovation by giving company profits to fat babymakers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to the Democrats stymying innovation by giving company profits to fat babymakers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242384</id>
	<title>The tip of the iceberg</title>
	<author>Dobeln</author>
	<datestamp>1266922860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do not "debunk", you ostracize. The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic, not empirical.</p><p>Hence the conversion of "skeptic" from badge of honor to a mark of shame, and the introduction of the "denier" label to further amp up the hysteric persecution of those who dont go with the program.</p><p>This also explains the skepticism of the general public. Joe Blow doesnt know his tree rings from his ice cores, but he sure knows what fanaticism looks like.</p><p>After all, how can one trust a science where "skepticism" is career death? The answer is simple: One cant. And as the tip of the iceberg is now visible for all to see - the remaining question is how much is hidden by the sea...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do not " debunk " , you ostracize .
The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic , not empirical.Hence the conversion of " skeptic " from badge of honor to a mark of shame , and the introduction of the " denier " label to further amp up the hysteric persecution of those who dont go with the program.This also explains the skepticism of the general public .
Joe Blow doesnt know his tree rings from his ice cores , but he sure knows what fanaticism looks like.After all , how can one trust a science where " skepticism " is career death ?
The answer is simple : One cant .
And as the tip of the iceberg is now visible for all to see - the remaining question is how much is hidden by the sea.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do not "debunk", you ostracize.
The main modus of debate of AGW proponents from day one has been moralistic, not empirical.Hence the conversion of "skeptic" from badge of honor to a mark of shame, and the introduction of the "denier" label to further amp up the hysteric persecution of those who dont go with the program.This also explains the skepticism of the general public.
Joe Blow doesnt know his tree rings from his ice cores, but he sure knows what fanaticism looks like.After all, how can one trust a science where "skepticism" is career death?
The answer is simple: One cant.
And as the tip of the iceberg is now visible for all to see - the remaining question is how much is hidden by the sea...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241644</id>
	<title>Re:Lomborg has a response</title>
	<author>Puff\_Of\_Hot\_Air</author>
	<datestamp>1266956280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>But he hasn't done any science. Or is that your point? His book has collated a whole bunch of other peoples research to make the argument "Yeah climate change is real and human made and largly negative, BUT, our attempts at reversing it are a fools errand". I mean, this is the sort of thing you do when you write a book. He hasn't done any original research, so what is there to submit to a journal? Your creating a crazy argument "You have to submit your research to peer-review!" "But I haven't done any research..." "AHA!".</htmltext>
<tokenext>But he has n't done any science .
Or is that your point ?
His book has collated a whole bunch of other peoples research to make the argument " Yeah climate change is real and human made and largly negative , BUT , our attempts at reversing it are a fools errand " .
I mean , this is the sort of thing you do when you write a book .
He has n't done any original research , so what is there to submit to a journal ?
Your creating a crazy argument " You have to submit your research to peer-review !
" " But I have n't done any research... " " AHA !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But he hasn't done any science.
Or is that your point?
His book has collated a whole bunch of other peoples research to make the argument "Yeah climate change is real and human made and largly negative, BUT, our attempts at reversing it are a fools errand".
I mean, this is the sort of thing you do when you write a book.
He hasn't done any original research, so what is there to submit to a journal?
Your creating a crazy argument "You have to submit your research to peer-review!
" "But I haven't done any research..." "AHA!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246662</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266950100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What people don't get is that Lomborg doesn't disagree with the IPCC at all (except for the stuff that's obviously crap, like the 2035 glacier claim.)</p><p>His argument isn't that climate change isn't happening, or that it's not caused by humans.</p><p>His argument is that spending money combating climate change isn't worthwhile, compared to other things we could be spending money on. See his example in the rebuttal about the farmers living at the base of Mount Kilimanjaro, who would be much better served by a program to buy seed or combat the spread of STDs than any program designed to combat climate change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What people do n't get is that Lomborg does n't disagree with the IPCC at all ( except for the stuff that 's obviously crap , like the 2035 glacier claim .
) His argument is n't that climate change is n't happening , or that it 's not caused by humans.His argument is that spending money combating climate change is n't worthwhile , compared to other things we could be spending money on .
See his example in the rebuttal about the farmers living at the base of Mount Kilimanjaro , who would be much better served by a program to buy seed or combat the spread of STDs than any program designed to combat climate change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people don't get is that Lomborg doesn't disagree with the IPCC at all (except for the stuff that's obviously crap, like the 2035 glacier claim.
)His argument isn't that climate change isn't happening, or that it's not caused by humans.His argument is that spending money combating climate change isn't worthwhile, compared to other things we could be spending money on.
See his example in the rebuttal about the farmers living at the base of Mount Kilimanjaro, who would be much better served by a program to buy seed or combat the spread of STDs than any program designed to combat climate change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244088</id>
	<title>I'm from Canada</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1266938640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Global Warming makes a larger portion of my Country livable! (excluding the bit underwater around the coast)</p><p>It also would open up vast natural resources in our North to be shared between Russia, Canada, USA, and Denmark respectively.</p><p>The only downside is perhaps a flood of refugees, our current method of getting to the north using "ice roads" might have to be made a bit more permanent, and variable weather conditions effecting farming in the Prairies (though this may be countered by more arable land being made available).</p><p>So while on the world as a whole, it is a very bad thing, tell me why this is such a bad thing for me specifically? Before you mention unrest in certain parts of the world, I would say that there currently is that already, has been for decades, and I don't see any change in the foreseeable future.</p><p>I am saying all of this half in jest mind you, but there is a small kernel of truth there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global Warming makes a larger portion of my Country livable !
( excluding the bit underwater around the coast ) It also would open up vast natural resources in our North to be shared between Russia , Canada , USA , and Denmark respectively.The only downside is perhaps a flood of refugees , our current method of getting to the north using " ice roads " might have to be made a bit more permanent , and variable weather conditions effecting farming in the Prairies ( though this may be countered by more arable land being made available ) .So while on the world as a whole , it is a very bad thing , tell me why this is such a bad thing for me specifically ?
Before you mention unrest in certain parts of the world , I would say that there currently is that already , has been for decades , and I do n't see any change in the foreseeable future.I am saying all of this half in jest mind you , but there is a small kernel of truth there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global Warming makes a larger portion of my Country livable!
(excluding the bit underwater around the coast)It also would open up vast natural resources in our North to be shared between Russia, Canada, USA, and Denmark respectively.The only downside is perhaps a flood of refugees, our current method of getting to the north using "ice roads" might have to be made a bit more permanent, and variable weather conditions effecting farming in the Prairies (though this may be countered by more arable land being made available).So while on the world as a whole, it is a very bad thing, tell me why this is such a bad thing for me specifically?
Before you mention unrest in certain parts of the world, I would say that there currently is that already, has been for decades, and I don't see any change in the foreseeable future.I am saying all of this half in jest mind you, but there is a small kernel of truth there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241398</id>
	<title>Re:Lomborg has a response</title>
	<author>rmushkatblat</author>
	<datestamp>1266867300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I might even buy the book to see if his debunking of the debunking is correct.

Frankly, I don't think he would risk sinking his career (further) by publishing more inaccurate statements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might even buy the book to see if his debunking of the debunking is correct .
Frankly , I do n't think he would risk sinking his career ( further ) by publishing more inaccurate statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might even buy the book to see if his debunking of the debunking is correct.
Frankly, I don't think he would risk sinking his career (further) by publishing more inaccurate statements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245954</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Again</title>
	<author>Glock27</author>
	<datestamp>1266947640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are a fair few people who just dont know how accurate the science is, a common question I get is "How can we measure air (CO2) from thousands of years ago", I point them towards the Wikipedia page on Ice Cores and say "because it's been trapped there all this time".</p></div><p>I find your citation of ice core data amusing, because in general it doesn't support the AGW thesis. Two major results have been the confirmation of ancient warm periods, and the fact that higher CO2 concentrations have lagged behind times of higher temperature, not the other way around.</p><p>It's really rather ironic that the AGW proponents, who have clearly not been objective regarding the science, have the nerve to paint the skeptics as fanatics. Any truly objective person who reads the leaked CRU emails and source code will see a group committed to furthering its agenda at any cost, certainly to include lost scientific objectivity.</p><p>The frightening thing is that if natural climate variability had cooperated, we might be wasting trillions of dollars to no good purpose, since "the science is settled". Crazily, the EPA is still parroting that nonsense, but clearly the tide is turning. I think in the end good science will prevail, saving us from the extremist environmentalist agenda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a fair few people who just dont know how accurate the science is , a common question I get is " How can we measure air ( CO2 ) from thousands of years ago " , I point them towards the Wikipedia page on Ice Cores and say " because it 's been trapped there all this time " .I find your citation of ice core data amusing , because in general it does n't support the AGW thesis .
Two major results have been the confirmation of ancient warm periods , and the fact that higher CO2 concentrations have lagged behind times of higher temperature , not the other way around.It 's really rather ironic that the AGW proponents , who have clearly not been objective regarding the science , have the nerve to paint the skeptics as fanatics .
Any truly objective person who reads the leaked CRU emails and source code will see a group committed to furthering its agenda at any cost , certainly to include lost scientific objectivity.The frightening thing is that if natural climate variability had cooperated , we might be wasting trillions of dollars to no good purpose , since " the science is settled " .
Crazily , the EPA is still parroting that nonsense , but clearly the tide is turning .
I think in the end good science will prevail , saving us from the extremist environmentalist agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a fair few people who just dont know how accurate the science is, a common question I get is "How can we measure air (CO2) from thousands of years ago", I point them towards the Wikipedia page on Ice Cores and say "because it's been trapped there all this time".I find your citation of ice core data amusing, because in general it doesn't support the AGW thesis.
Two major results have been the confirmation of ancient warm periods, and the fact that higher CO2 concentrations have lagged behind times of higher temperature, not the other way around.It's really rather ironic that the AGW proponents, who have clearly not been objective regarding the science, have the nerve to paint the skeptics as fanatics.
Any truly objective person who reads the leaked CRU emails and source code will see a group committed to furthering its agenda at any cost, certainly to include lost scientific objectivity.The frightening thing is that if natural climate variability had cooperated, we might be wasting trillions of dollars to no good purpose, since "the science is settled".
Crazily, the EPA is still parroting that nonsense, but clearly the tide is turning.
I think in the end good science will prevail, saving us from the extremist environmentalist agenda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247970</id>
	<title>Re:Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1266954600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, it would have been warmer and greener than it was now, but if there was subterfuge in the naming of the country then I don't imagine that it was a tropical paradise</p></div><p>Why it's our old friend, Mr. Strawman! I like how you concede that the GP's statement is probably true (the first, not the second, which I agree is known false), BUT don't think that it's some wild extreme that was never posited. Way to go, killer.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It also doesn't mean that it was as consistantly warmer across the globe as it is now.It also doesn't mean that it was as consistantly warmer across the globe as it is now.</p></div><p>It also doesn't mean that it wasn't. No assumption made here in either direction should be construed as proven (and even Phil Jones <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">says</a> [bbc.co.uk] this point is unprovable at this time).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you deny that being shot by a gun could kill you, merely because other people have died without being shot. Just because it got warmer then doesn't mean that we are not causing it to get warmer now. It is getting hotter, faster and more globally than it did back then.</p></div><p>This is confusing causes with effects and with a pessimistic bias to boot. (Warming must be bad, the only question is how bad!) In the first place, warming trends in the planet's history have frequently been positive for speciation and population, and even if some warming trends have had negative impacts, that would simply demonstrate that warming by itself is either not a catalyst for speciation and population, or that it is only part of a multi-faceted paradigm that could go one way or another based on other factors. <br> <br>
In the second place, if man is the primary cause, and it's happening hard and fast, so what? Photosythetic life changed the planet's atmosphere completely during the Siderian, causing the Oxygen Crisis that led to mass extinction of anaerobic life, as well as making all current animal life possible where it otherwise would not. Would you like to go back in time and undo that? Mankind is so conceited that he thinks the biosphere he has come to know in the last few centuries of biology is the ONE PERFECT BIOSPHERE that must be FROZEN IN TIME at all costs, because change is bad and scary! Who knows how many cuddly animals might cease to be viable, just as over 99\% of all species in the planet's history already did. Never mind new species coming on to the field, that can't possibly be relevant or natural, right?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody has every claimed that we are making the sun hotter.</p></div><p>Do you imagine that the solar output is fixed and unchanging? Of course we're not causing it to change, but it DOES change, and temperature records do more closely correlate with solar output than CO2 levels in the atmosphere.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The climate change "scare" as you call it was instigated by the scientists, not the politicions.</p></div><p>Yeah, Margaret Thatcher never latched onto it in attempt to undermine the power of coal miners' unions and commissioned original research to try to buttress it. I just imagined that. More contemporary examples exist, but that one goes back before most people in either the scientific or lay community knew or cared anything about the issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it would have been warmer and greener than it was now , but if there was subterfuge in the naming of the country then I do n't imagine that it was a tropical paradiseWhy it 's our old friend , Mr. Strawman ! I like how you concede that the GP 's statement is probably true ( the first , not the second , which I agree is known false ) , BUT do n't think that it 's some wild extreme that was never posited .
Way to go , killer.It also does n't mean that it was as consistantly warmer across the globe as it is now.It also does n't mean that it was as consistantly warmer across the globe as it is now.It also does n't mean that it was n't .
No assumption made here in either direction should be construed as proven ( and even Phil Jones says [ bbc.co.uk ] this point is unprovable at this time ) .Do you deny that being shot by a gun could kill you , merely because other people have died without being shot .
Just because it got warmer then does n't mean that we are not causing it to get warmer now .
It is getting hotter , faster and more globally than it did back then.This is confusing causes with effects and with a pessimistic bias to boot .
( Warming must be bad , the only question is how bad !
) In the first place , warming trends in the planet 's history have frequently been positive for speciation and population , and even if some warming trends have had negative impacts , that would simply demonstrate that warming by itself is either not a catalyst for speciation and population , or that it is only part of a multi-faceted paradigm that could go one way or another based on other factors .
In the second place , if man is the primary cause , and it 's happening hard and fast , so what ?
Photosythetic life changed the planet 's atmosphere completely during the Siderian , causing the Oxygen Crisis that led to mass extinction of anaerobic life , as well as making all current animal life possible where it otherwise would not .
Would you like to go back in time and undo that ?
Mankind is so conceited that he thinks the biosphere he has come to know in the last few centuries of biology is the ONE PERFECT BIOSPHERE that must be FROZEN IN TIME at all costs , because change is bad and scary !
Who knows how many cuddly animals might cease to be viable , just as over 99 \ % of all species in the planet 's history already did .
Never mind new species coming on to the field , that ca n't possibly be relevant or natural , right ? Nobody has every claimed that we are making the sun hotter.Do you imagine that the solar output is fixed and unchanging ?
Of course we 're not causing it to change , but it DOES change , and temperature records do more closely correlate with solar output than CO2 levels in the atmosphere.The climate change " scare " as you call it was instigated by the scientists , not the politicions.Yeah , Margaret Thatcher never latched onto it in attempt to undermine the power of coal miners ' unions and commissioned original research to try to buttress it .
I just imagined that .
More contemporary examples exist , but that one goes back before most people in either the scientific or lay community knew or cared anything about the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it would have been warmer and greener than it was now, but if there was subterfuge in the naming of the country then I don't imagine that it was a tropical paradiseWhy it's our old friend, Mr. Strawman! I like how you concede that the GP's statement is probably true (the first, not the second, which I agree is known false), BUT don't think that it's some wild extreme that was never posited.
Way to go, killer.It also doesn't mean that it was as consistantly warmer across the globe as it is now.It also doesn't mean that it was as consistantly warmer across the globe as it is now.It also doesn't mean that it wasn't.
No assumption made here in either direction should be construed as proven (and even Phil Jones says [bbc.co.uk] this point is unprovable at this time).Do you deny that being shot by a gun could kill you, merely because other people have died without being shot.
Just because it got warmer then doesn't mean that we are not causing it to get warmer now.
It is getting hotter, faster and more globally than it did back then.This is confusing causes with effects and with a pessimistic bias to boot.
(Warming must be bad, the only question is how bad!
) In the first place, warming trends in the planet's history have frequently been positive for speciation and population, and even if some warming trends have had negative impacts, that would simply demonstrate that warming by itself is either not a catalyst for speciation and population, or that it is only part of a multi-faceted paradigm that could go one way or another based on other factors.
In the second place, if man is the primary cause, and it's happening hard and fast, so what?
Photosythetic life changed the planet's atmosphere completely during the Siderian, causing the Oxygen Crisis that led to mass extinction of anaerobic life, as well as making all current animal life possible where it otherwise would not.
Would you like to go back in time and undo that?
Mankind is so conceited that he thinks the biosphere he has come to know in the last few centuries of biology is the ONE PERFECT BIOSPHERE that must be FROZEN IN TIME at all costs, because change is bad and scary!
Who knows how many cuddly animals might cease to be viable, just as over 99\% of all species in the planet's history already did.
Never mind new species coming on to the field, that can't possibly be relevant or natural, right?Nobody has every claimed that we are making the sun hotter.Do you imagine that the solar output is fixed and unchanging?
Of course we're not causing it to change, but it DOES change, and temperature records do more closely correlate with solar output than CO2 levels in the atmosphere.The climate change "scare" as you call it was instigated by the scientists, not the politicions.Yeah, Margaret Thatcher never latched onto it in attempt to undermine the power of coal miners' unions and commissioned original research to try to buttress it.
I just imagined that.
More contemporary examples exist, but that one goes back before most people in either the scientific or lay community knew or cared anything about the issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Again</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1266867420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In every thread about global warming I see the same nutjob denialist theories debunked over and over again, yet with no change in the opinions of the hardcore denialists.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

But still we must debunk and continue to debunk. There are a fair few people who just dont know how accurate the science is, a common question I get is "How can we measure air (CO2) from thousands of years ago", I point them towards the Wikipedia page on Ice Cores and say "because it's been trapped there all this time".<br> <br>

A denialist wont listen, they are just looking to confirm their bias (and tabloids have made an industry out of doing this) but you'll occasionally find a rational person who will listen. We aren't trying to change denialists, it's the genuine sceptics we want to reach. The ignorant never hold any real power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In every thread about global warming I see the same nutjob denialist theories debunked over and over again , yet with no change in the opinions of the hardcore denialists .
But still we must debunk and continue to debunk .
There are a fair few people who just dont know how accurate the science is , a common question I get is " How can we measure air ( CO2 ) from thousands of years ago " , I point them towards the Wikipedia page on Ice Cores and say " because it 's been trapped there all this time " .
A denialist wont listen , they are just looking to confirm their bias ( and tabloids have made an industry out of doing this ) but you 'll occasionally find a rational person who will listen .
We are n't trying to change denialists , it 's the genuine sceptics we want to reach .
The ignorant never hold any real power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In every thread about global warming I see the same nutjob denialist theories debunked over and over again, yet with no change in the opinions of the hardcore denialists.
But still we must debunk and continue to debunk.
There are a fair few people who just dont know how accurate the science is, a common question I get is "How can we measure air (CO2) from thousands of years ago", I point them towards the Wikipedia page on Ice Cores and say "because it's been trapped there all this time".
A denialist wont listen, they are just looking to confirm their bias (and tabloids have made an industry out of doing this) but you'll occasionally find a rational person who will listen.
We aren't trying to change denialists, it's the genuine sceptics we want to reach.
The ignorant never hold any real power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242646</id>
	<title>Re:He's more pragmatic than skeptic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266926520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In interviews he's always come across as a pragmatist more than a skeptic.</p></div><p>I do not see any major government proposing zero emissions. All aim at reduced use of fossil fuel. My prediction is that all the fossil fuel that can be used will be. I don't know if it makes much difference to the climate if we were to burn it all in the next 5 years or take 100 years. (Admission of lack of knowledge, not a statement of scepticism.)</p><p>So to those who do the science, work out how much fossil fuel there is and what effect it would have if it was all used, then plan for that because that is what is going to happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In interviews he 's always come across as a pragmatist more than a skeptic.I do not see any major government proposing zero emissions .
All aim at reduced use of fossil fuel .
My prediction is that all the fossil fuel that can be used will be .
I do n't know if it makes much difference to the climate if we were to burn it all in the next 5 years or take 100 years .
( Admission of lack of knowledge , not a statement of scepticism .
) So to those who do the science , work out how much fossil fuel there is and what effect it would have if it was all used , then plan for that because that is what is going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In interviews he's always come across as a pragmatist more than a skeptic.I do not see any major government proposing zero emissions.
All aim at reduced use of fossil fuel.
My prediction is that all the fossil fuel that can be used will be.
I don't know if it makes much difference to the climate if we were to burn it all in the next 5 years or take 100 years.
(Admission of lack of knowledge, not a statement of scepticism.
)So to those who do the science, work out how much fossil fuel there is and what effect it would have if it was all used, then plan for that because that is what is going to happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243186</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares either way?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1266932220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL - modded troll because, er, someone disagrees with you. How DARE YOU not believe in global warming? Hehehe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL - modded troll because , er , someone disagrees with you .
How DARE YOU not believe in global warming ?
Hehehe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL - modded troll because, er, someone disagrees with you.
How DARE YOU not believe in global warming?
Hehehe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242346</id>
	<title>Re:Lomborg has a response</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1266922320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Continue to mod parent up. Whether you agree with Lomborg or not his response is extremely level headed and informative. If the passages he responds to are any indicator of the quality of this "debunking" it's nothing more than another log of rhetoric on the fire that does nothing to serve either side of the argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Continue to mod parent up .
Whether you agree with Lomborg or not his response is extremely level headed and informative .
If the passages he responds to are any indicator of the quality of this " debunking " it 's nothing more than another log of rhetoric on the fire that does nothing to serve either side of the argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Continue to mod parent up.
Whether you agree with Lomborg or not his response is extremely level headed and informative.
If the passages he responds to are any indicator of the quality of this "debunking" it's nothing more than another log of rhetoric on the fire that does nothing to serve either side of the argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247682</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares either way?</title>
	<author>DavidShor</author>
	<datestamp>1266953520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not about "saving the eath maaaaan", climate change has a significant chance of killing millions and shunting hundreds of millions more into dire poverty. In Bangledesh alone, over 40 million people are set to be displaced from their homes in the coming decades because of rising sea levels.
<p>
.
</p><p>
It's one thing if you're willing to dispute those findings after careful consideration and research. But if you unwilling to devote more thought to the issue then anti-consumerist bullshit, because you don't care...I have no kind words...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about " saving the eath maaaaan " , climate change has a significant chance of killing millions and shunting hundreds of millions more into dire poverty .
In Bangledesh alone , over 40 million people are set to be displaced from their homes in the coming decades because of rising sea levels .
. It 's one thing if you 're willing to dispute those findings after careful consideration and research .
But if you unwilling to devote more thought to the issue then anti-consumerist bullshit , because you do n't care...I have no kind words.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about "saving the eath maaaaan", climate change has a significant chance of killing millions and shunting hundreds of millions more into dire poverty.
In Bangledesh alone, over 40 million people are set to be displaced from their homes in the coming decades because of rising sea levels.
.

It's one thing if you're willing to dispute those findings after careful consideration and research.
But if you unwilling to devote more thought to the issue then anti-consumerist bullshit, because you don't care...I have no kind words...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242250</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1266920820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pour several billion dollars into a hundred different fusion projects done by independent groups of researchers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pour several billion dollars into a hundred different fusion projects done by independent groups of researchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pour several billion dollars into a hundred different fusion projects done by independent groups of researchers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510</id>
	<title>The whole argument is tedious...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1266868380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It only makes sense to take precautions so as to avoid any chance of eliminating your own species.  If you're wrong, you spent some money unnecessarily.  Just like when you pay for homeowner's insurance, and your house fails to do you the courtesy of burning itself down before you die.</p><p>The question is really whether the human race is willing to its potentially infinite future to satiate the greed of a few during their comparatively insignificant lifespans.</p><p> <i> <b>Who</b> </i> are <i>you</i>, when compared to <i> <b>humanity?</b> </i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only makes sense to take precautions so as to avoid any chance of eliminating your own species .
If you 're wrong , you spent some money unnecessarily .
Just like when you pay for homeowner 's insurance , and your house fails to do you the courtesy of burning itself down before you die.The question is really whether the human race is willing to its potentially infinite future to satiate the greed of a few during their comparatively insignificant lifespans .
Who are you , when compared to humanity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only makes sense to take precautions so as to avoid any chance of eliminating your own species.
If you're wrong, you spent some money unnecessarily.
Just like when you pay for homeowner's insurance, and your house fails to do you the courtesy of burning itself down before you die.The question is really whether the human race is willing to its potentially infinite future to satiate the greed of a few during their comparatively insignificant lifespans.
Who  are you, when compared to  humanity?  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242028</id>
	<title>Re:Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266917520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth. That it is why it was named that way.</p></div><p>According to the Reverend J. Sephton in his book <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17946/17946-h/17946-h.htm" title="gutenberg.org">Eirik the Red's Saga</a> [gutenberg.org], Greenland was named as a marketing ploy by Eirik: <i>"Because," said he, "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name."</i> </p><p>Yes, it would have been warmer and greener than it was now, but if there was subterfuge in the naming of the country then I don't imagine that it was a tropical paradise. It also doesn't mean that it was as consistantly warmer across the globe as it is now.</p><p>But it is also a distraction. Do you deny that being shot by a gun could kill you, merely because other people have died without being shot. Just because it got warmer then doesn't mean that we are not causing it to get warmer now. It is getting hotter, faster and more globally than it did back then.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Man is not powerful enough to change the earth's climate to any "significant" degree. But that big thermonuclear ball in the sky is. A billion petrochemical fueled cars will not influence the sun.</p></div><p>Nobody has every claimed that we are making the sun hotter. This demonstrates that you really don't understand the problem. The problem is that the heat from the sun is being trapped here. As an analogy, my house stays pretty cool even on hot days without the need for air conditioning. As long as it gets cooler at night, it stays pleasant during the day. But if it stays hot at night, it doesn't get a chance to lose the build-up of heat from the previous day and it gets more unpleasant as after day. The days are not necessarily hotter, but the accumulated heat energy means that each successive day has a larger affect.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Scientists are men that can be influenced by propaganda just like any man can be. I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.</p></div><p>The climate change "scare" as you call it was instigated by the scientists, not the politicions. They don't just watch the news and think "yeah, I had better parrot that line too". They just follow their data, and all get to the same place. It is either a giant conspiracy or the truth. Which seems the most likely.</p><p>However, if you can come up with ANY evidence to back up the claim that it is the politicians that are leading our scientists around then please present it. Oh, have a look at all those CRU emails that were released. They should be able to tell you the names of the politicians who are giving the orders (if there are any). Come back and let us know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth .
That it is why it was named that way.According to the Reverend J. Sephton in his book Eirik the Red 's Saga [ gutenberg.org ] , Greenland was named as a marketing ploy by Eirik : " Because , " said he , " men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name .
" Yes , it would have been warmer and greener than it was now , but if there was subterfuge in the naming of the country then I do n't imagine that it was a tropical paradise .
It also does n't mean that it was as consistantly warmer across the globe as it is now.But it is also a distraction .
Do you deny that being shot by a gun could kill you , merely because other people have died without being shot .
Just because it got warmer then does n't mean that we are not causing it to get warmer now .
It is getting hotter , faster and more globally than it did back then.Man is not powerful enough to change the earth 's climate to any " significant " degree .
But that big thermonuclear ball in the sky is .
A billion petrochemical fueled cars will not influence the sun.Nobody has every claimed that we are making the sun hotter .
This demonstrates that you really do n't understand the problem .
The problem is that the heat from the sun is being trapped here .
As an analogy , my house stays pretty cool even on hot days without the need for air conditioning .
As long as it gets cooler at night , it stays pleasant during the day .
But if it stays hot at night , it does n't get a chance to lose the build-up of heat from the previous day and it gets more unpleasant as after day .
The days are not necessarily hotter , but the accumulated heat energy means that each successive day has a larger affect.Scientists are men that can be influenced by propaganda just like any man can be .
I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.The climate change " scare " as you call it was instigated by the scientists , not the politicions .
They do n't just watch the news and think " yeah , I had better parrot that line too " .
They just follow their data , and all get to the same place .
It is either a giant conspiracy or the truth .
Which seems the most likely.However , if you can come up with ANY evidence to back up the claim that it is the politicians that are leading our scientists around then please present it .
Oh , have a look at all those CRU emails that were released .
They should be able to tell you the names of the politicians who are giving the orders ( if there are any ) .
Come back and let us know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth.
That it is why it was named that way.According to the Reverend J. Sephton in his book Eirik the Red's Saga [gutenberg.org], Greenland was named as a marketing ploy by Eirik: "Because," said he, "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.
" Yes, it would have been warmer and greener than it was now, but if there was subterfuge in the naming of the country then I don't imagine that it was a tropical paradise.
It also doesn't mean that it was as consistantly warmer across the globe as it is now.But it is also a distraction.
Do you deny that being shot by a gun could kill you, merely because other people have died without being shot.
Just because it got warmer then doesn't mean that we are not causing it to get warmer now.
It is getting hotter, faster and more globally than it did back then.Man is not powerful enough to change the earth's climate to any "significant" degree.
But that big thermonuclear ball in the sky is.
A billion petrochemical fueled cars will not influence the sun.Nobody has every claimed that we are making the sun hotter.
This demonstrates that you really don't understand the problem.
The problem is that the heat from the sun is being trapped here.
As an analogy, my house stays pretty cool even on hot days without the need for air conditioning.
As long as it gets cooler at night, it stays pleasant during the day.
But if it stays hot at night, it doesn't get a chance to lose the build-up of heat from the previous day and it gets more unpleasant as after day.
The days are not necessarily hotter, but the accumulated heat energy means that each successive day has a larger affect.Scientists are men that can be influenced by propaganda just like any man can be.
I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.The climate change "scare" as you call it was instigated by the scientists, not the politicions.
They don't just watch the news and think "yeah, I had better parrot that line too".
They just follow their data, and all get to the same place.
It is either a giant conspiracy or the truth.
Which seems the most likely.However, if you can come up with ANY evidence to back up the claim that it is the politicians that are leading our scientists around then please present it.
Oh, have a look at all those CRU emails that were released.
They should be able to tell you the names of the politicians who are giving the orders (if there are any).
Come back and let us know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31257558</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1265112240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tuvaluans (the entire country is at most 4.5 meters above sea levels),</p></div><p>Ha! They have it easy. The Maldives are at most 1.6 meters above sea level. That country is really at risk of disappearing completely over the next century.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tuvaluans ( the entire country is at most 4.5 meters above sea levels ) ,Ha !
They have it easy .
The Maldives are at most 1.6 meters above sea level .
That country is really at risk of disappearing completely over the next century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tuvaluans (the entire country is at most 4.5 meters above sea levels),Ha!
They have it easy.
The Maldives are at most 1.6 meters above sea level.
That country is really at risk of disappearing completely over the next century.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242274</id>
	<title>Lomborg Intellegence Test</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1266921000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The book was in fact an intelligence test. It seems a page explaining it's purpose was left out. An intelligent (enough) person such as myself reading this kind of book will spot the holes, misinterpretations, distortions and glaring factual inaccuracy (also known as outright lies). Your score is higher if you stop reading sooner once you note the particular writing style and go do something useful with your day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The book was in fact an intelligence test .
It seems a page explaining it 's purpose was left out .
An intelligent ( enough ) person such as myself reading this kind of book will spot the holes , misinterpretations , distortions and glaring factual inaccuracy ( also known as outright lies ) .
Your score is higher if you stop reading sooner once you note the particular writing style and go do something useful with your day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The book was in fact an intelligence test.
It seems a page explaining it's purpose was left out.
An intelligent (enough) person such as myself reading this kind of book will spot the holes, misinterpretations, distortions and glaring factual inaccuracy (also known as outright lies).
Your score is higher if you stop reading sooner once you note the particular writing style and go do something useful with your day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241956</id>
	<title>Seriously plagiarized post</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1266916380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sort of ironic that the submission is about an exhaustive check of sources when he completely copies the original story in his summary without even mentioning the source (beyond a very vague link that IMO is NOT sufficient when pulling whole sentences from the original article...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sort of ironic that the submission is about an exhaustive check of sources when he completely copies the original story in his summary without even mentioning the source ( beyond a very vague link that IMO is NOT sufficient when pulling whole sentences from the original article... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sort of ironic that the submission is about an exhaustive check of sources when he completely copies the original story in his summary without even mentioning the source (beyond a very vague link that IMO is NOT sufficient when pulling whole sentences from the original article...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31251202</id>
	<title>Re:He's more pragmatic than skeptic</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1266922560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never heard of him before today, but your summary makes him sound like someone I could agree with. That's mainly because I think most of the "green" movement is irrational, and one manifestation is that they've blocked the advancement of nuclear power for decades. Their myopic naivete kept us dependent on coal, and even today continues to sour public sentiment regarding the best practical solution.</p><p>I completely agree with <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559622&amp;cid=31241610" title="slashdot.org">these</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559622&amp;cid=31246662" title="slashdot.org">comments</a> [slashdot.org] when they say that the article demonstrates that Friel doesn't do a very good job. I also mostly agree with <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559622&amp;cid=31246804" title="slashdot.org">this sentiment</a> [slashdot.org] regarding the shrill nature of these debates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never heard of him before today , but your summary makes him sound like someone I could agree with .
That 's mainly because I think most of the " green " movement is irrational , and one manifestation is that they 've blocked the advancement of nuclear power for decades .
Their myopic naivete kept us dependent on coal , and even today continues to sour public sentiment regarding the best practical solution.I completely agree with these [ slashdot.org ] comments [ slashdot.org ] when they say that the article demonstrates that Friel does n't do a very good job .
I also mostly agree with this sentiment [ slashdot.org ] regarding the shrill nature of these debates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never heard of him before today, but your summary makes him sound like someone I could agree with.
That's mainly because I think most of the "green" movement is irrational, and one manifestation is that they've blocked the advancement of nuclear power for decades.
Their myopic naivete kept us dependent on coal, and even today continues to sour public sentiment regarding the best practical solution.I completely agree with these [slashdot.org] comments [slashdot.org] when they say that the article demonstrates that Friel doesn't do a very good job.
I also mostly agree with this sentiment [slashdot.org] regarding the shrill nature of these debates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242284</id>
	<title>Burden of proof</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266921240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that somehow in all of this that the burden of proof has switched from the people proposing the theory to the ones disputing it. I'm fairly sure this is bad science. The burden of proof always lies with the people in the affirmative, not the negative. If the affirmative cannot construct a logical argument disputing a retort by the negative, then the theory is disproven. It is insufficient to say "but we have many more other arguments in the affirmative". It may be cruel, but it only takes one win for the negative to disprove.</p><p>Furthermore, I'm fairly sure most of the people posting in this thread are not climate scientists, therefore do not understand the science being spoken about by either side, therefore should remain truly skeptical, taking neither side, until an argument is made you are capable of understanding, or you research and learn enough to understand the original argument. Until then, it's all smoke which only hints at answer, but does not prove one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that somehow in all of this that the burden of proof has switched from the people proposing the theory to the ones disputing it .
I 'm fairly sure this is bad science .
The burden of proof always lies with the people in the affirmative , not the negative .
If the affirmative can not construct a logical argument disputing a retort by the negative , then the theory is disproven .
It is insufficient to say " but we have many more other arguments in the affirmative " .
It may be cruel , but it only takes one win for the negative to disprove.Furthermore , I 'm fairly sure most of the people posting in this thread are not climate scientists , therefore do not understand the science being spoken about by either side , therefore should remain truly skeptical , taking neither side , until an argument is made you are capable of understanding , or you research and learn enough to understand the original argument .
Until then , it 's all smoke which only hints at answer , but does not prove one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that somehow in all of this that the burden of proof has switched from the people proposing the theory to the ones disputing it.
I'm fairly sure this is bad science.
The burden of proof always lies with the people in the affirmative, not the negative.
If the affirmative cannot construct a logical argument disputing a retort by the negative, then the theory is disproven.
It is insufficient to say "but we have many more other arguments in the affirmative".
It may be cruel, but it only takes one win for the negative to disprove.Furthermore, I'm fairly sure most of the people posting in this thread are not climate scientists, therefore do not understand the science being spoken about by either side, therefore should remain truly skeptical, taking neither side, until an argument is made you are capable of understanding, or you research and learn enough to understand the original argument.
Until then, it's all smoke which only hints at answer, but does not prove one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241568</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the teabaggers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266955320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel ripped off, where's the bad analogy?
<br> <br>
<i>"However, it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming"</i>
<br> <br>
RF = 5.35 * ln(c2/c1) - Fourier 1824.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel ripped off , where 's the bad analogy ?
" However , it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming " RF = 5.35 * ln ( c2/c1 ) - Fourier 1824 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel ripped off, where's the bad analogy?
"However, it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming"
 
RF = 5.35 * ln(c2/c1) - Fourier 1824.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241430</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1266867660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Stop pandering to politicians and environmentalists, and come up with some science!</p></div></blockquote><p>1950 called, it wants its appropriate response to AGW back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop pandering to politicians and environmentalists , and come up with some science ! 1950 called , it wants its appropriate response to AGW back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop pandering to politicians and environmentalists, and come up with some science!1950 called, it wants its appropriate response to AGW back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241272</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the teabaggers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266866040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The arguments on both sides are right. The climate is changing and the earth is warming. That much is true. However, it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming. This is also true.</p><p>So we should be studying ways to mitigate the impact of climate change, not trying to find ways to reverse the irreversible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The arguments on both sides are right .
The climate is changing and the earth is warming .
That much is true .
However , it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming .
This is also true.So we should be studying ways to mitigate the impact of climate change , not trying to find ways to reverse the irreversible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The arguments on both sides are right.
The climate is changing and the earth is warming.
That much is true.
However, it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming.
This is also true.So we should be studying ways to mitigate the impact of climate change, not trying to find ways to reverse the irreversible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241228</id>
	<title>Cue the teabaggers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266865500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or maybe someone should call them "yeasties".  In another thread, some slashdotter pointed out that yeast bacteria are perfectly content to ferment and ferment and ferment until alcohol kills off their whole colony.  I wonder if, in their short life, some of the more "successful" bacteria scorn the ones who suggest that a different approach would be wiser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe someone should call them " yeasties " .
In another thread , some slashdotter pointed out that yeast bacteria are perfectly content to ferment and ferment and ferment until alcohol kills off their whole colony .
I wonder if , in their short life , some of the more " successful " bacteria scorn the ones who suggest that a different approach would be wiser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe someone should call them "yeasties".
In another thread, some slashdotter pointed out that yeast bacteria are perfectly content to ferment and ferment and ferment until alcohol kills off their whole colony.
I wonder if, in their short life, some of the more "successful" bacteria scorn the ones who suggest that a different approach would be wiser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31252366</id>
	<title>Re:Lomborg has a response</title>
	<author>dcam</author>
	<datestamp>1266927360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lomborg is popular because he tells people: keep doing what you are doing, nothing is wrong. That is an attractive message. People want to believe it even before they have heard any of the evidence.</p><p>Equally there are also people who are more predisposed to believe doom and gloom predictions, regardless of the evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lomborg is popular because he tells people : keep doing what you are doing , nothing is wrong .
That is an attractive message .
People want to believe it even before they have heard any of the evidence.Equally there are also people who are more predisposed to believe doom and gloom predictions , regardless of the evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lomborg is popular because he tells people: keep doing what you are doing, nothing is wrong.
That is an attractive message.
People want to believe it even before they have heard any of the evidence.Equally there are also people who are more predisposed to believe doom and gloom predictions, regardless of the evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31258556</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't understand that in Europe mobility does not have to be by car. Most europeans do not even own a car or, if they do, it's to go shopping every other week or to go see the family. The daily commute can be 100 miles each way and it's done entirely over public transport for pennies. Your model of driving everywhere is nonsensical and quite expensive [when you have good metro, buses and trains and you are not mugged at 22:00 if you are there alone].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't understand that in Europe mobility does not have to be by car .
Most europeans do not even own a car or , if they do , it 's to go shopping every other week or to go see the family .
The daily commute can be 100 miles each way and it 's done entirely over public transport for pennies .
Your model of driving everywhere is nonsensical and quite expensive [ when you have good metro , buses and trains and you are not mugged at 22 : 00 if you are there alone ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't understand that in Europe mobility does not have to be by car.
Most europeans do not even own a car or, if they do, it's to go shopping every other week or to go see the family.
The daily commute can be 100 miles each way and it's done entirely over public transport for pennies.
Your model of driving everywhere is nonsensical and quite expensive [when you have good metro, buses and trains and you are not mugged at 22:00 if you are there alone].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242568</id>
	<title>Nice, but wrong attitude</title>
	<author>Dobeln</author>
	<datestamp>1266925380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If ones argument is strong relative to public perception, one benefits from an open and honest argument.</p><p>If ones argument is weak relative to public perception, well... "Denialist conspiracy crusade lunatics" it is.</p><p>In short: The whole AGW hysteria is entirely reliant on the reputation cascade for operating. If they let up on the ostracism of dissenters, Gaia knows what will happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If ones argument is strong relative to public perception , one benefits from an open and honest argument.If ones argument is weak relative to public perception , well... " Denialist conspiracy crusade lunatics " it is.In short : The whole AGW hysteria is entirely reliant on the reputation cascade for operating .
If they let up on the ostracism of dissenters , Gaia knows what will happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ones argument is strong relative to public perception, one benefits from an open and honest argument.If ones argument is weak relative to public perception, well... "Denialist conspiracy crusade lunatics" it is.In short: The whole AGW hysteria is entirely reliant on the reputation cascade for operating.
If they let up on the ostracism of dissenters, Gaia knows what will happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241822</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266957900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>If that doesn't work, try posting some graphs. I hear people have good respect for graphs.</i> </p><p>Oh, I've seen those doctored graphs showing that the world existed for <i>millions</i> (as if!) of years before creation.  Didn't fool me none!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that does n't work , try posting some graphs .
I hear people have good respect for graphs .
Oh , I 've seen those doctored graphs showing that the world existed for millions ( as if !
) of years before creation .
Did n't fool me none !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If that doesn't work, try posting some graphs.
I hear people have good respect for graphs.
Oh, I've seen those doctored graphs showing that the world existed for millions (as if!
) of years before creation.
Didn't fool me none!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245308</id>
	<title>Re:He's more pragmatic than skeptic</title>
	<author>s-whs</author>
	<datestamp>1266945000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div class="quote"><p>1) Think about the return on investment.

Let's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars. Is it worth the investment? What do we really get out of it? How many other problems could have been fixed with that money?</p></div></blockquote><p>Anyone who talks of return on investment if one of the possible outcomes is a huge impact on the environment that no money can ever fix, is crazy.</p><p>I have not read his books and have no intention. The experience I have with similar Dutch types (from groups such as groene rekenkamer) is that they too talk about the money involved and their conclusions (naturally) are that it's pointless until you're sure. Which is moronic since something needs to be done ASAP as real scientists all agree on. <strong>You can't gamble with the environment as you only have one!</strong> Note that I have examined many of their claims (from those Dutch groups I mean) and found them to be bullshit. These people are pseudo-scientists and amateurs with no understanding of reasoning nor logic and their 'material' should be avoided like the plague as it results in only one thing: A waste of time (well, for me it was nice to debunk their arguments, which I did on my website. I quite enjoyed making them look like the fools they are...).</p><p>People who are complaining about the cost seem to think pumping out tons of junk into the atmosphere is ok. But, cleaning up your act, besides being beneficial to the environment, will improve your technology. There's a saying: It's an ill wind that blows no one any good. In other words, deal with it!</p><p>I can go on with reasons, but usually it just takes examining one or two claims from such pseudo-skeptics to see how stupid they are (note: Scientists are skeptics, these people are actually just non-believers with no good arguments to do so). If that's the case with Lomborg, I don't know, and I'm not really interested either as I've only seen moronic arguments from non-believers and am not inclined to waste my time on this stuff any more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Think about the return on investment .
Let 's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars .
Is it worth the investment ?
What do we really get out of it ?
How many other problems could have been fixed with that money ? Anyone who talks of return on investment if one of the possible outcomes is a huge impact on the environment that no money can ever fix , is crazy.I have not read his books and have no intention .
The experience I have with similar Dutch types ( from groups such as groene rekenkamer ) is that they too talk about the money involved and their conclusions ( naturally ) are that it 's pointless until you 're sure .
Which is moronic since something needs to be done ASAP as real scientists all agree on .
You ca n't gamble with the environment as you only have one !
Note that I have examined many of their claims ( from those Dutch groups I mean ) and found them to be bullshit .
These people are pseudo-scientists and amateurs with no understanding of reasoning nor logic and their 'material ' should be avoided like the plague as it results in only one thing : A waste of time ( well , for me it was nice to debunk their arguments , which I did on my website .
I quite enjoyed making them look like the fools they are... ) .People who are complaining about the cost seem to think pumping out tons of junk into the atmosphere is ok. But , cleaning up your act , besides being beneficial to the environment , will improve your technology .
There 's a saying : It 's an ill wind that blows no one any good .
In other words , deal with it ! I can go on with reasons , but usually it just takes examining one or two claims from such pseudo-skeptics to see how stupid they are ( note : Scientists are skeptics , these people are actually just non-believers with no good arguments to do so ) .
If that 's the case with Lomborg , I do n't know , and I 'm not really interested either as I 've only seen moronic arguments from non-believers and am not inclined to waste my time on this stuff any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Think about the return on investment.
Let's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars.
Is it worth the investment?
What do we really get out of it?
How many other problems could have been fixed with that money?Anyone who talks of return on investment if one of the possible outcomes is a huge impact on the environment that no money can ever fix, is crazy.I have not read his books and have no intention.
The experience I have with similar Dutch types (from groups such as groene rekenkamer) is that they too talk about the money involved and their conclusions (naturally) are that it's pointless until you're sure.
Which is moronic since something needs to be done ASAP as real scientists all agree on.
You can't gamble with the environment as you only have one!
Note that I have examined many of their claims (from those Dutch groups I mean) and found them to be bullshit.
These people are pseudo-scientists and amateurs with no understanding of reasoning nor logic and their 'material' should be avoided like the plague as it results in only one thing: A waste of time (well, for me it was nice to debunk their arguments, which I did on my website.
I quite enjoyed making them look like the fools they are...).People who are complaining about the cost seem to think pumping out tons of junk into the atmosphere is ok. But, cleaning up your act, besides being beneficial to the environment, will improve your technology.
There's a saying: It's an ill wind that blows no one any good.
In other words, deal with it!I can go on with reasons, but usually it just takes examining one or two claims from such pseudo-skeptics to see how stupid they are (note: Scientists are skeptics, these people are actually just non-believers with no good arguments to do so).
If that's the case with Lomborg, I don't know, and I'm not really interested either as I've only seen moronic arguments from non-believers and am not inclined to waste my time on this stuff any more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31252466</id>
	<title>Re:There is nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>rta</author>
	<datestamp>1266927900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The defense in the rebuttal seems pretty strong, though i haven't read the original works or, of course, the unreleased critique discussed in the OP.</p><p>It certainly doesn't seem that Friel is acting in good faith here.   For example, Lomberg points out that Friel chose to critique the shorter American version of "Cool It" instead of the more heavily footnoted British version ("The full 354 pages version with 59 graphs and about 50\% more text" ) even though the British version is apparently MENTIONED in the American version. ( see<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.http://www.lomborg.com/cool\_it/uk-version\_354\_pages/ )</p><p>It's also unfortunate for Friel that he apparently makes some arguments using the now retracted 2035 date for the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers to counter Lomberg's moderate claims that said glaciers will at least last out this century.</p><p>Tone wise Friel comes off as shrill and snarky and wheras Lomberg seems cool and collected.  As to the claims, at least the tens of such claims rebutted by Lomberg, don't seem to hold up in the least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The defense in the rebuttal seems pretty strong , though i have n't read the original works or , of course , the unreleased critique discussed in the OP.It certainly does n't seem that Friel is acting in good faith here .
For example , Lomberg points out that Friel chose to critique the shorter American version of " Cool It " instead of the more heavily footnoted British version ( " The full 354 pages version with 59 graphs and about 50 \ % more text " ) even though the British version is apparently MENTIONED in the American version .
( see .http : //www.lomborg.com/cool \ _it/uk-version \ _354 \ _pages/ ) It 's also unfortunate for Friel that he apparently makes some arguments using the now retracted 2035 date for the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers to counter Lomberg 's moderate claims that said glaciers will at least last out this century.Tone wise Friel comes off as shrill and snarky and wheras Lomberg seems cool and collected .
As to the claims , at least the tens of such claims rebutted by Lomberg , do n't seem to hold up in the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The defense in the rebuttal seems pretty strong, though i haven't read the original works or, of course, the unreleased critique discussed in the OP.It certainly doesn't seem that Friel is acting in good faith here.
For example, Lomberg points out that Friel chose to critique the shorter American version of "Cool It" instead of the more heavily footnoted British version ("The full 354 pages version with 59 graphs and about 50\% more text" ) even though the British version is apparently MENTIONED in the American version.
( see .http://www.lomborg.com/cool\_it/uk-version\_354\_pages/ )It's also unfortunate for Friel that he apparently makes some arguments using the now retracted 2035 date for the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers to counter Lomberg's moderate claims that said glaciers will at least last out this century.Tone wise Friel comes off as shrill and snarky and wheras Lomberg seems cool and collected.
As to the claims, at least the tens of such claims rebutted by Lomberg, don't seem to hold up in the least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31267424</id>
	<title>In the end it's a game of trust anyway.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265121120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, of course every &ldquo;debunking&rdquo; can be bullshit itself. In an endless succession of calling each other wrong, and relying on &ldquo;facts&rdquo;.</p><p>In the end you have two choices:<br>1. Find all the arguments, connect them by all their connections, and thereby find the base paradigms made. Then find if the base paradigms are correct by working back until you get to quantum physics and the big bang (or the closest point in time where nothing could have influenced it anymore). And if they hold, you can find any flaws in the logic of the arguments/connections.<br>2. Somewhere on that way, give up. Since you would have to devote your whole life to it.</p><p>Unfortunately, most people go a third, invalid (but useful) way:<br>3. They just listen until they give up, and then just look if it fits their very own inner model of the world. Regardless if it has anything to do with physical reality. (Most of the time, it doesn&rsquo;t, even for very important points. Since we&rsquo;re not perfect.) And then they call it bullshit if it doesn&rsquo;t fit, or accept it into their model and from then on defend it as a &ldquo;fact&rdquo;, if it fits. (Note how this has nothing to do with actual physical facts.)</p><p>Luckily, in this case, it&rsquo;s quite easy. Since it&rsquo;s not that hard, to check if those gases we pump into the atmosphere reflect heat when coming from earth (but not when coming from the sun). And if they do that, the heat is trapped. Hence we have a greenhouse effect. Which obviously results in global warming. (Relative to a state without those gases.)</p><p>So what we need, is a simple experiment that everyone can do at home, to prove that those gases reflect sunlight when coming from earth (but not when coming from the sun).<br>Does anyone have something like this? That would be really cool!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , of course every    debunking    can be bullshit itself .
In an endless succession of calling each other wrong , and relying on    facts    .In the end you have two choices : 1 .
Find all the arguments , connect them by all their connections , and thereby find the base paradigms made .
Then find if the base paradigms are correct by working back until you get to quantum physics and the big bang ( or the closest point in time where nothing could have influenced it anymore ) .
And if they hold , you can find any flaws in the logic of the arguments/connections.2 .
Somewhere on that way , give up .
Since you would have to devote your whole life to it.Unfortunately , most people go a third , invalid ( but useful ) way : 3 .
They just listen until they give up , and then just look if it fits their very own inner model of the world .
Regardless if it has anything to do with physical reality .
( Most of the time , it doesn    t , even for very important points .
Since we    re not perfect .
) And then they call it bullshit if it doesn    t fit , or accept it into their model and from then on defend it as a    fact    , if it fits .
( Note how this has nothing to do with actual physical facts .
) Luckily , in this case , it    s quite easy .
Since it    s not that hard , to check if those gases we pump into the atmosphere reflect heat when coming from earth ( but not when coming from the sun ) .
And if they do that , the heat is trapped .
Hence we have a greenhouse effect .
Which obviously results in global warming .
( Relative to a state without those gases .
) So what we need , is a simple experiment that everyone can do at home , to prove that those gases reflect sunlight when coming from earth ( but not when coming from the sun ) .Does anyone have something like this ?
That would be really cool !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, of course every “debunking” can be bullshit itself.
In an endless succession of calling each other wrong, and relying on “facts”.In the end you have two choices:1.
Find all the arguments, connect them by all their connections, and thereby find the base paradigms made.
Then find if the base paradigms are correct by working back until you get to quantum physics and the big bang (or the closest point in time where nothing could have influenced it anymore).
And if they hold, you can find any flaws in the logic of the arguments/connections.2.
Somewhere on that way, give up.
Since you would have to devote your whole life to it.Unfortunately, most people go a third, invalid (but useful) way:3.
They just listen until they give up, and then just look if it fits their very own inner model of the world.
Regardless if it has anything to do with physical reality.
(Most of the time, it doesn’t, even for very important points.
Since we’re not perfect.
) And then they call it bullshit if it doesn’t fit, or accept it into their model and from then on defend it as a “fact”, if it fits.
(Note how this has nothing to do with actual physical facts.
)Luckily, in this case, it’s quite easy.
Since it’s not that hard, to check if those gases we pump into the atmosphere reflect heat when coming from earth (but not when coming from the sun).
And if they do that, the heat is trapped.
Hence we have a greenhouse effect.
Which obviously results in global warming.
(Relative to a state without those gases.
)So what we need, is a simple experiment that everyone can do at home, to prove that those gases reflect sunlight when coming from earth (but not when coming from the sun).Does anyone have something like this?
That would be really cool!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242902</id>
	<title>The most important virtue of Lomborg...</title>
	<author>Dobeln</author>
	<datestamp>1266929580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is not his actual arguments (important as they may be), but rather that the attacks on him - in their viscousness, dishonesty and general rage-inducing pompousness - highlight how venal large swathes of the "scientific establishment" have become.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is not his actual arguments ( important as they may be ) , but rather that the attacks on him - in their viscousness , dishonesty and general rage-inducing pompousness - highlight how venal large swathes of the " scientific establishment " have become .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is not his actual arguments (important as they may be), but rather that the attacks on him - in their viscousness, dishonesty and general rage-inducing pompousness - highlight how venal large swathes of the "scientific establishment" have become.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241486</id>
	<title>Chamberlain versus Damon</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1266868200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So The Lomborg Deception isn't about some spy novelist's later works being heavily ghostwritten?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So The Lomborg Deception is n't about some spy novelist 's later works being heavily ghostwritten ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So The Lomborg Deception isn't about some spy novelist's later works being heavily ghostwritten?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31253968</id>
	<title>Re:The tip of the iceberg</title>
	<author>WeatherGod</author>
	<datestamp>1266935220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You do not "debunk", you ostracize.</p></div><p>I don't know who has been talking to you, but every skeptic I have encountered I have treated with respect and have had fruitful discussions with them.  Most people I have talked to haven't made up their minds and are merely curious.  Others have their minds made up, but at least our discussions do eliminate some of the more obvious misconceptions.</p><p>And I *gasp* enjoy these discussions!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do not " debunk " , you ostracize.I do n't know who has been talking to you , but every skeptic I have encountered I have treated with respect and have had fruitful discussions with them .
Most people I have talked to have n't made up their minds and are merely curious .
Others have their minds made up , but at least our discussions do eliminate some of the more obvious misconceptions.And I * gasp * enjoy these discussions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do not "debunk", you ostracize.I don't know who has been talking to you, but every skeptic I have encountered I have treated with respect and have had fruitful discussions with them.
Most people I have talked to haven't made up their minds and are merely curious.
Others have their minds made up, but at least our discussions do eliminate some of the more obvious misconceptions.And I *gasp* enjoy these discussions!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241938</id>
	<title>We will see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266916200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BL strikes me as being far more reasonable and less hysterical then his critics. His theseis is that there are far better things to spend our money on from a human point-of-view than a massive and potentially economy-wrecking war on on CO2. Is that such a terrible thing to assert?<br>I would guess that people, species and planet wil turn out to be far more adaptable than the Gore-alarmists would have us believe. And seeing how fast things are actually changing (not that fast) we will undoubtably find out who is right.<br>And all this reminds me a lot of the "Waldsterben" panic in the 80's when the Germans were convinced all their forests were dying and would all be gone by 2000 if we didn't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, they never really figured it out. There is now slightly more forest than there was then and it looks pretty similar to me too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BL strikes me as being far more reasonable and less hysterical then his critics .
His theseis is that there are far better things to spend our money on from a human point-of-view than a massive and potentially economy-wrecking war on on CO2 .
Is that such a terrible thing to assert ? I would guess that people , species and planet wil turn out to be far more adaptable than the Gore-alarmists would have us believe .
And seeing how fast things are actually changing ( not that fast ) we will undoubtably find out who is right.And all this reminds me a lot of the " Waldsterben " panic in the 80 's when the Germans were convinced all their forests were dying and would all be gone by 2000 if we did n't ... well , they never really figured it out .
There is now slightly more forest than there was then and it looks pretty similar to me too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BL strikes me as being far more reasonable and less hysterical then his critics.
His theseis is that there are far better things to spend our money on from a human point-of-view than a massive and potentially economy-wrecking war on on CO2.
Is that such a terrible thing to assert?I would guess that people, species and planet wil turn out to be far more adaptable than the Gore-alarmists would have us believe.
And seeing how fast things are actually changing (not that fast) we will undoubtably find out who is right.And all this reminds me a lot of the "Waldsterben" panic in the 80's when the Germans were convinced all their forests were dying and would all be gone by 2000 if we didn't ... well, they never really figured it out.
There is now slightly more forest than there was then and it looks pretty similar to me too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31257524</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1265111820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the US creates a cap and trade system that rewards innovators and penalizes fossil fuel users, there is no doubt an explosion of innovation will arrive in the field.  Companies like nanosolar would be only the tip of the iceberg.</p></div><p>The best way to do this is not through cap-and-trade, but by taxing CO2 emissions and using that money directly to get that same amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere (through planting forests, stimulating algae growth in sea, capturing CO2 and storing it underground, whatever you like). The tax should definitely not disappear into government budgets, and preferably be directly related to the cost of capturing that CO2.</p><p>This will stimulate companies to reduce their CO2 emissions, but it will also stimulate and entirely new industry that finds new and effective ways to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And best of all, this system will almost immediately significantly reduce the net CO2 emissions. (Though it might be best to introduce it gradually, giving industries time to adjust.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US creates a cap and trade system that rewards innovators and penalizes fossil fuel users , there is no doubt an explosion of innovation will arrive in the field .
Companies like nanosolar would be only the tip of the iceberg.The best way to do this is not through cap-and-trade , but by taxing CO2 emissions and using that money directly to get that same amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere ( through planting forests , stimulating algae growth in sea , capturing CO2 and storing it underground , whatever you like ) .
The tax should definitely not disappear into government budgets , and preferably be directly related to the cost of capturing that CO2.This will stimulate companies to reduce their CO2 emissions , but it will also stimulate and entirely new industry that finds new and effective ways to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere .
And best of all , this system will almost immediately significantly reduce the net CO2 emissions .
( Though it might be best to introduce it gradually , giving industries time to adjust .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US creates a cap and trade system that rewards innovators and penalizes fossil fuel users, there is no doubt an explosion of innovation will arrive in the field.
Companies like nanosolar would be only the tip of the iceberg.The best way to do this is not through cap-and-trade, but by taxing CO2 emissions and using that money directly to get that same amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere (through planting forests, stimulating algae growth in sea, capturing CO2 and storing it underground, whatever you like).
The tax should definitely not disappear into government budgets, and preferably be directly related to the cost of capturing that CO2.This will stimulate companies to reduce their CO2 emissions, but it will also stimulate and entirely new industry that finds new and effective ways to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And best of all, this system will almost immediately significantly reduce the net CO2 emissions.
(Though it might be best to introduce it gradually, giving industries time to adjust.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242742</id>
	<title>Friel deliciously biting his own glacial ass</title>
	<author>Dobeln</author>
	<datestamp>1266927720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Friel, denouncing Lomborg on glaciers:</p><p>"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is Page 18 of 27 very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005). [IPCC, 2007c, p. 493]"</p><p>How is that "settled science" working out for you Frielyboy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Friel , denouncing Lomborg on glaciers : " Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world ( see Table 10.9 ) and , if the present rate continues , the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is Page 18 of 27 very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate .
Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 ( WWF , 2005 ) .
[ IPCC , 2007c , p. 493 ] " How is that " settled science " working out for you Frielyboy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friel, denouncing Lomborg on glaciers:"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is Page 18 of 27 very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.
Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).
[IPCC, 2007c, p. 493]"How is that "settled science" working out for you Frielyboy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242160</id>
	<title>To be expected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266919680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just fly over any developing country, look out the window and ask yourself why large tracts of virgin and natural environments have suddenly become clay</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just fly over any developing country , look out the window and ask yourself why large tracts of virgin and natural environments have suddenly become clay</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just fly over any developing country, look out the window and ask yourself why large tracts of virgin and natural environments have suddenly become clay</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242024</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the teabaggers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266917460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you replace 'suffer' with 'LIVE IN HOUSEBOATS' then global warming becomes AWESOME!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you replace 'suffer ' with 'LIVE IN HOUSEBOATS ' then global warming becomes AWESOME !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you replace 'suffer' with 'LIVE IN HOUSEBOATS' then global warming becomes AWESOME!
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245018</id>
	<title>Re:The whole argument is tedious...</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1266943500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I think the core issue here about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is whether or not humans can actually do anything to stop it. We're looking at proposals which could dramatically disrupt people's way of life and there's no evidence any of it will be effective. Further aggravating the issue is the fact that climate has always been changing and there's countless evidence to support this.</p><p>A couple of years ago I read about archeological finds on the Japanese islands from a time when the climate was much warmer and the seas were much higher. I recall reading 8ft higher, but don't quote me on that. The human population there thrived during this period and dwindled when the climate cooled. So that brings up another matter, why is global warming inherently bad? I might be a great thing for a huge portion of humanity although certainly it will likely be a very bad thing for some parts of the world. The real issue is that we've got more people living in more places around the world meaning that the consequences of climate change may be much more profound.</p><p>But again, I return to the original question, if the climate has always been changing is there anything we can realistically do to stop this? And if we can make that kind of impact, what about unintended consequences? Certainly we should move away from fossil fuels and do all we can to stop pollution. But these actions have more immediate and quantifiable benefits to humanity. While everyone's concerned about greenhouse gas emissions in China and India everyone is overlooking the more serious acts of pollution.</p><p>Recently in China there was a case of extensive lead poisoning in a town near a lead smelter. When people began falling ill the government initially dismissed it as an example of mass hysteria. Ultimately, what was the China's answer? Move the town and keep the factory open. Instead people are stupidly concerned with more abstract threats.</p><p>I wont be surprised in the least if we spend untold trillions trying to fight climate change and the climate changes in a way we don't want regardless. So I'd argue money should be going towards ensuring survivability and being able to copy with mass migrations if things go wrong. Perhaps it's time to start considering how to move or outright abandon cities sitting to close to coastlines at risk. It's safe to say climate change is going to happen whether we like it or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I think the core issue here about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is whether or not humans can actually do anything to stop it .
We 're looking at proposals which could dramatically disrupt people 's way of life and there 's no evidence any of it will be effective .
Further aggravating the issue is the fact that climate has always been changing and there 's countless evidence to support this.A couple of years ago I read about archeological finds on the Japanese islands from a time when the climate was much warmer and the seas were much higher .
I recall reading 8ft higher , but do n't quote me on that .
The human population there thrived during this period and dwindled when the climate cooled .
So that brings up another matter , why is global warming inherently bad ?
I might be a great thing for a huge portion of humanity although certainly it will likely be a very bad thing for some parts of the world .
The real issue is that we 've got more people living in more places around the world meaning that the consequences of climate change may be much more profound.But again , I return to the original question , if the climate has always been changing is there anything we can realistically do to stop this ?
And if we can make that kind of impact , what about unintended consequences ?
Certainly we should move away from fossil fuels and do all we can to stop pollution .
But these actions have more immediate and quantifiable benefits to humanity .
While everyone 's concerned about greenhouse gas emissions in China and India everyone is overlooking the more serious acts of pollution.Recently in China there was a case of extensive lead poisoning in a town near a lead smelter .
When people began falling ill the government initially dismissed it as an example of mass hysteria .
Ultimately , what was the China 's answer ?
Move the town and keep the factory open .
Instead people are stupidly concerned with more abstract threats.I wont be surprised in the least if we spend untold trillions trying to fight climate change and the climate changes in a way we do n't want regardless .
So I 'd argue money should be going towards ensuring survivability and being able to copy with mass migrations if things go wrong .
Perhaps it 's time to start considering how to move or outright abandon cities sitting to close to coastlines at risk .
It 's safe to say climate change is going to happen whether we like it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I think the core issue here about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is whether or not humans can actually do anything to stop it.
We're looking at proposals which could dramatically disrupt people's way of life and there's no evidence any of it will be effective.
Further aggravating the issue is the fact that climate has always been changing and there's countless evidence to support this.A couple of years ago I read about archeological finds on the Japanese islands from a time when the climate was much warmer and the seas were much higher.
I recall reading 8ft higher, but don't quote me on that.
The human population there thrived during this period and dwindled when the climate cooled.
So that brings up another matter, why is global warming inherently bad?
I might be a great thing for a huge portion of humanity although certainly it will likely be a very bad thing for some parts of the world.
The real issue is that we've got more people living in more places around the world meaning that the consequences of climate change may be much more profound.But again, I return to the original question, if the climate has always been changing is there anything we can realistically do to stop this?
And if we can make that kind of impact, what about unintended consequences?
Certainly we should move away from fossil fuels and do all we can to stop pollution.
But these actions have more immediate and quantifiable benefits to humanity.
While everyone's concerned about greenhouse gas emissions in China and India everyone is overlooking the more serious acts of pollution.Recently in China there was a case of extensive lead poisoning in a town near a lead smelter.
When people began falling ill the government initially dismissed it as an example of mass hysteria.
Ultimately, what was the China's answer?
Move the town and keep the factory open.
Instead people are stupidly concerned with more abstract threats.I wont be surprised in the least if we spend untold trillions trying to fight climate change and the climate changes in a way we don't want regardless.
So I'd argue money should be going towards ensuring survivability and being able to copy with mass migrations if things go wrong.
Perhaps it's time to start considering how to move or outright abandon cities sitting to close to coastlines at risk.
It's safe to say climate change is going to happen whether we like it or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244430</id>
	<title>Re:The whole argument is tedious...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266940200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who are we?  We are human beings, and like every creature on the planet, we have been engineered by evolution to be selfish, either individually, or for our species.</p><p>Even if we could get nations or the whole world to agree to reduce energy usage, do you really think people inside communist regimes, for instance, would actually go along?  Or would they ignore their pledge while telling everyone else that they were honoring it?</p><p>People, and in particular the alpha's who run the show, do not have the foresight to cut back their energy usage to circa 1900 levels on some vague chance that our own species might somehow be destroyed way down the road.  That is too abstract for 99.9\% of people (and 100\% of political leaders) to grasp.  Same for "spending some money unnecesarily".  Ain't gonna happen.  That money is much better spent buying votes for politicians.</p><p>I hope you aren't pinning too much hope on humanity's future...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who are we ?
We are human beings , and like every creature on the planet , we have been engineered by evolution to be selfish , either individually , or for our species.Even if we could get nations or the whole world to agree to reduce energy usage , do you really think people inside communist regimes , for instance , would actually go along ?
Or would they ignore their pledge while telling everyone else that they were honoring it ? People , and in particular the alpha 's who run the show , do not have the foresight to cut back their energy usage to circa 1900 levels on some vague chance that our own species might somehow be destroyed way down the road .
That is too abstract for 99.9 \ % of people ( and 100 \ % of political leaders ) to grasp .
Same for " spending some money unnecesarily " .
Ai n't gon na happen .
That money is much better spent buying votes for politicians.I hope you are n't pinning too much hope on humanity 's future.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who are we?
We are human beings, and like every creature on the planet, we have been engineered by evolution to be selfish, either individually, or for our species.Even if we could get nations or the whole world to agree to reduce energy usage, do you really think people inside communist regimes, for instance, would actually go along?
Or would they ignore their pledge while telling everyone else that they were honoring it?People, and in particular the alpha's who run the show, do not have the foresight to cut back their energy usage to circa 1900 levels on some vague chance that our own species might somehow be destroyed way down the road.
That is too abstract for 99.9\% of people (and 100\% of political leaders) to grasp.
Same for "spending some money unnecesarily".
Ain't gonna happen.
That money is much better spent buying votes for politicians.I hope you aren't pinning too much hope on humanity's future...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243210</id>
	<title>people with their heads buried don't hear well</title>
	<author>hort\_wort</author>
	<datestamp>1266932460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Professor, we would like for you to calculate if a nuclear weapon would ignite the oxygen in the atmosphere and destroy the planet.  Take your time, we want to be --"<br>"No, it's fine."<br>"... What?  Have you already done the calculation?!"<br>"No.  It's just that if I'm wrong, who'd know?"</p><p>Luckily, he guessed correctly.  Gotta love that Konopinski.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Professor , we would like for you to calculate if a nuclear weapon would ignite the oxygen in the atmosphere and destroy the planet .
Take your time , we want to be -- " " No , it 's fine. " " .. .
What ? Have you already done the calculation ? ! " " No .
It 's just that if I 'm wrong , who 'd know ?
" Luckily , he guessed correctly .
Got ta love that Konopinski .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Professor, we would like for you to calculate if a nuclear weapon would ignite the oxygen in the atmosphere and destroy the planet.
Take your time, we want to be --""No, it's fine.""...
What?  Have you already done the calculation?!""No.
It's just that if I'm wrong, who'd know?
"Luckily, he guessed correctly.
Gotta love that Konopinski.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241352</id>
	<title>Re:Lomborg has a response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266866820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very cool Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very cool Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very cool Thanks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242522</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266924780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Most European and Asian countries already have gas<br>&gt;prices more than twice as high as ours. Just<br>&gt;imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative<br>&gt;startups that would have occurred over the last<br>&gt;two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately.</p><p>I see this argument frequently, but it ignores the simple reality that unlike in Europe and Asia, the American economy is based on a highly mobile workforce able to commute great distances by automobile.  The middle class, in particular, is enabled by and enriched by the automobile and cheap gasoline--the wealthier can live in expensive neighborhoods close to work, and the poor live wherever they can while commuting as little as possible; but, the middle class often work in areas where they could either not afford nearby housing which caters to the more affluent, or where nearby housing caters to the poor.</p><p>That's not always the case, of course, but it often is and the middle class has thrived on the ability to live in cheaper yet comfortable neighborhoods further from job centers--i.e., living in the suburbs while commuting to the city, or living in the country and commuting to the burbs.  There's also a greater mobility and variety of jobs available to the middle class thanks to cheap gas: where I live, many commute to Washington, D.C., many others to Richmond, and a few to Charlottesville--meaning the job markets of 2.5 major cities are effectively local.  Tax gas at a high rate, and people will have less employment mobility, fewer competitive opportunities, and lower overall wages due to the lowered competition among employers in formerly-neighboring employment centers.  Additionally, with permanently expensive gas making long commutes cost-prohibitive for the middle class, there would be a huge migration out of the burbs and into more urban areas--where are all the urban poor going to move when whole cities are gentrified almost overnight?  Into deserted suburbs with few native local job opportunities?</p><p>Tax gas at a high rate, and the mobile workforce and all the competitive advantages it bestows evaporates; the middle class would be eviscerated, and the poor would be displaced.  Like it or not, there is no viable public and/or mass transit in most of the U.S.--we haven't needed it thanks to cheap gas, nor has it been as practical as in Europe thanks to our sprawling landmass.</p><p>So, do we heavily invest in public/mass transit now in a crash program, to the tune of trillions of dollars almost all at once, so we can end our reliance on cheap gas?  No, that's impractical, too expensive, and no one has either the political will or political capital.  Do we just levy those high gas taxes, and see if the dire predictions are false?  No, because even if it wouldn't destroy the middle class, it would destroy so many political careers that no one is dumb enough to try it--remember that when oil stayed above $100/barrel for a record number of weeks not long ago and U.S. gas prices stayed at record levels, populist anger boiled so hot that Congress was subpoenaing oil executives and threatening to tax their profits and repeal gas taxes and doing ANYTHING to keep a lid on popular sentiments that threatened to derail every incumbent in their wake.</p><p>So no, there will not be high gas taxes in this country, nor should there be.  What there should be is a plan to phase out gasoline, not through punitive taxes aimed at the working classes but through taxes and legislative pressures on automakers to phase in certain percentages of electric or hybrid vehicles by target dates.  We mandate automakers to include lots of once-expensive tech which has since come down in manufacturing cost; why not, in the name of national security as well as the environment, mandate targeted percentages of electric offerings?  If prices of new cars do rise in the short term while early adopters bear the brunt, so be it--the more financially challenged can stick with their old cars for a few years more until costs come down.  It may seem unrealistic to exp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Most European and Asian countries already have gas &gt; prices more than twice as high as ours .
Just &gt; imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative &gt; startups that would have occurred over the last &gt; two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately.I see this argument frequently , but it ignores the simple reality that unlike in Europe and Asia , the American economy is based on a highly mobile workforce able to commute great distances by automobile .
The middle class , in particular , is enabled by and enriched by the automobile and cheap gasoline--the wealthier can live in expensive neighborhoods close to work , and the poor live wherever they can while commuting as little as possible ; but , the middle class often work in areas where they could either not afford nearby housing which caters to the more affluent , or where nearby housing caters to the poor.That 's not always the case , of course , but it often is and the middle class has thrived on the ability to live in cheaper yet comfortable neighborhoods further from job centers--i.e. , living in the suburbs while commuting to the city , or living in the country and commuting to the burbs .
There 's also a greater mobility and variety of jobs available to the middle class thanks to cheap gas : where I live , many commute to Washington , D.C. , many others to Richmond , and a few to Charlottesville--meaning the job markets of 2.5 major cities are effectively local .
Tax gas at a high rate , and people will have less employment mobility , fewer competitive opportunities , and lower overall wages due to the lowered competition among employers in formerly-neighboring employment centers .
Additionally , with permanently expensive gas making long commutes cost-prohibitive for the middle class , there would be a huge migration out of the burbs and into more urban areas--where are all the urban poor going to move when whole cities are gentrified almost overnight ?
Into deserted suburbs with few native local job opportunities ? Tax gas at a high rate , and the mobile workforce and all the competitive advantages it bestows evaporates ; the middle class would be eviscerated , and the poor would be displaced .
Like it or not , there is no viable public and/or mass transit in most of the U.S.--we have n't needed it thanks to cheap gas , nor has it been as practical as in Europe thanks to our sprawling landmass.So , do we heavily invest in public/mass transit now in a crash program , to the tune of trillions of dollars almost all at once , so we can end our reliance on cheap gas ?
No , that 's impractical , too expensive , and no one has either the political will or political capital .
Do we just levy those high gas taxes , and see if the dire predictions are false ?
No , because even if it would n't destroy the middle class , it would destroy so many political careers that no one is dumb enough to try it--remember that when oil stayed above $ 100/barrel for a record number of weeks not long ago and U.S. gas prices stayed at record levels , populist anger boiled so hot that Congress was subpoenaing oil executives and threatening to tax their profits and repeal gas taxes and doing ANYTHING to keep a lid on popular sentiments that threatened to derail every incumbent in their wake.So no , there will not be high gas taxes in this country , nor should there be .
What there should be is a plan to phase out gasoline , not through punitive taxes aimed at the working classes but through taxes and legislative pressures on automakers to phase in certain percentages of electric or hybrid vehicles by target dates .
We mandate automakers to include lots of once-expensive tech which has since come down in manufacturing cost ; why not , in the name of national security as well as the environment , mandate targeted percentages of electric offerings ?
If prices of new cars do rise in the short term while early adopters bear the brunt , so be it--the more financially challenged can stick with their old cars for a few years more until costs come down .
It may seem unrealistic to exp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Most European and Asian countries already have gas&gt;prices more than twice as high as ours.
Just&gt;imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative&gt;startups that would have occurred over the last&gt;two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately.I see this argument frequently, but it ignores the simple reality that unlike in Europe and Asia, the American economy is based on a highly mobile workforce able to commute great distances by automobile.
The middle class, in particular, is enabled by and enriched by the automobile and cheap gasoline--the wealthier can live in expensive neighborhoods close to work, and the poor live wherever they can while commuting as little as possible; but, the middle class often work in areas where they could either not afford nearby housing which caters to the more affluent, or where nearby housing caters to the poor.That's not always the case, of course, but it often is and the middle class has thrived on the ability to live in cheaper yet comfortable neighborhoods further from job centers--i.e., living in the suburbs while commuting to the city, or living in the country and commuting to the burbs.
There's also a greater mobility and variety of jobs available to the middle class thanks to cheap gas: where I live, many commute to Washington, D.C., many others to Richmond, and a few to Charlottesville--meaning the job markets of 2.5 major cities are effectively local.
Tax gas at a high rate, and people will have less employment mobility, fewer competitive opportunities, and lower overall wages due to the lowered competition among employers in formerly-neighboring employment centers.
Additionally, with permanently expensive gas making long commutes cost-prohibitive for the middle class, there would be a huge migration out of the burbs and into more urban areas--where are all the urban poor going to move when whole cities are gentrified almost overnight?
Into deserted suburbs with few native local job opportunities?Tax gas at a high rate, and the mobile workforce and all the competitive advantages it bestows evaporates; the middle class would be eviscerated, and the poor would be displaced.
Like it or not, there is no viable public and/or mass transit in most of the U.S.--we haven't needed it thanks to cheap gas, nor has it been as practical as in Europe thanks to our sprawling landmass.So, do we heavily invest in public/mass transit now in a crash program, to the tune of trillions of dollars almost all at once, so we can end our reliance on cheap gas?
No, that's impractical, too expensive, and no one has either the political will or political capital.
Do we just levy those high gas taxes, and see if the dire predictions are false?
No, because even if it wouldn't destroy the middle class, it would destroy so many political careers that no one is dumb enough to try it--remember that when oil stayed above $100/barrel for a record number of weeks not long ago and U.S. gas prices stayed at record levels, populist anger boiled so hot that Congress was subpoenaing oil executives and threatening to tax their profits and repeal gas taxes and doing ANYTHING to keep a lid on popular sentiments that threatened to derail every incumbent in their wake.So no, there will not be high gas taxes in this country, nor should there be.
What there should be is a plan to phase out gasoline, not through punitive taxes aimed at the working classes but through taxes and legislative pressures on automakers to phase in certain percentages of electric or hybrid vehicles by target dates.
We mandate automakers to include lots of once-expensive tech which has since come down in manufacturing cost; why not, in the name of national security as well as the environment, mandate targeted percentages of electric offerings?
If prices of new cars do rise in the short term while early adopters bear the brunt, so be it--the more financially challenged can stick with their old cars for a few years more until costs come down.
It may seem unrealistic to exp</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31253088</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Again</title>
	<author>Herr\_Skymarshall</author>
	<datestamp>1266930780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's not different than arguing with creationists, Richard Hoagland, 9/11 truthers, or holocaust deniers. They've made up their minds, the facts be damned.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Are you talking about the supporters or the opponents of global warming?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not different than arguing with creationists , Richard Hoagland , 9/11 truthers , or holocaust deniers .
They 've made up their minds , the facts be damned .
Are you talking about the supporters or the opponents of global warming ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not different than arguing with creationists, Richard Hoagland, 9/11 truthers, or holocaust deniers.
They've made up their minds, the facts be damned.
Are you talking about the supporters or the opponents of global warming?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244236</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1266939240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most European and Asian countries already have gas prices more than twice as high as ours. Just imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative startups that would have occurred over the last two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately. Imagine the massive private expenditures into developing consumer-grade alternative energy products. It's just mind-boggling to think what the US could do if it were as forward thinking as some other countries are.</p></div><p>Earlier in your post, you admitted that the US economy is stronger than all others. In fact, according to the CIA World Factbook, it's greater than the next three countries combined and is nearly as great as the entire continent of Europe combined. We're an economic powerhouse, there's no simply no disputing that.</p><p>However, after you acknowledge that fact, you then suggest we hobble our economy by introducing measures used in Europe. Tell me, if those measures are so wonderful, why is their GDP not higher than it is? Going by PPP, the GDP of the EU is a mere $270 billion more than the US, or roughly 1.89\%, even though the EU has 62\% more population than the US. If excessive taxation and rationing of gasoline were such a wonderful idea I would expect to see a greater disparity between the GDP of the US and the EU.</p><p>You can't expect the US to copy the economic systems of nations that simply can't compete with ours. That's just foolishness. If anything, Europe needs to copy our system if they want to compete successfully.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most European and Asian countries already have gas prices more than twice as high as ours .
Just imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative startups that would have occurred over the last two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately .
Imagine the massive private expenditures into developing consumer-grade alternative energy products .
It 's just mind-boggling to think what the US could do if it were as forward thinking as some other countries are.Earlier in your post , you admitted that the US economy is stronger than all others .
In fact , according to the CIA World Factbook , it 's greater than the next three countries combined and is nearly as great as the entire continent of Europe combined .
We 're an economic powerhouse , there 's no simply no disputing that.However , after you acknowledge that fact , you then suggest we hobble our economy by introducing measures used in Europe .
Tell me , if those measures are so wonderful , why is their GDP not higher than it is ?
Going by PPP , the GDP of the EU is a mere $ 270 billion more than the US , or roughly 1.89 \ % , even though the EU has 62 \ % more population than the US .
If excessive taxation and rationing of gasoline were such a wonderful idea I would expect to see a greater disparity between the GDP of the US and the EU.You ca n't expect the US to copy the economic systems of nations that simply ca n't compete with ours .
That 's just foolishness .
If anything , Europe needs to copy our system if they want to compete successfully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most European and Asian countries already have gas prices more than twice as high as ours.
Just imagine the massive shift in capital to innovative startups that would have occurred over the last two decades had the US taxed gasoline appropriately.
Imagine the massive private expenditures into developing consumer-grade alternative energy products.
It's just mind-boggling to think what the US could do if it were as forward thinking as some other countries are.Earlier in your post, you admitted that the US economy is stronger than all others.
In fact, according to the CIA World Factbook, it's greater than the next three countries combined and is nearly as great as the entire continent of Europe combined.
We're an economic powerhouse, there's no simply no disputing that.However, after you acknowledge that fact, you then suggest we hobble our economy by introducing measures used in Europe.
Tell me, if those measures are so wonderful, why is their GDP not higher than it is?
Going by PPP, the GDP of the EU is a mere $270 billion more than the US, or roughly 1.89\%, even though the EU has 62\% more population than the US.
If excessive taxation and rationing of gasoline were such a wonderful idea I would expect to see a greater disparity between the GDP of the US and the EU.You can't expect the US to copy the economic systems of nations that simply can't compete with ours.
That's just foolishness.
If anything, Europe needs to copy our system if they want to compete successfully.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243166</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266931920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ignorant never hold any real power.</p></div><p>Unfortunately, in the U.S. at least, an ignorant person's vote counts just as much as yours, and the fear is that the ignorant outnumber us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ignorant never hold any real power.Unfortunately , in the U.S. at least , an ignorant person 's vote counts just as much as yours , and the fear is that the ignorant outnumber us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ignorant never hold any real power.Unfortunately, in the U.S. at least, an ignorant person's vote counts just as much as yours, and the fear is that the ignorant outnumber us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31279804</id>
	<title>Re:That's why he's so hated</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1267103100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you, Sycraft-fu, for your words of sanity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , Sycraft-fu , for your words of sanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, Sycraft-fu, for your words of sanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241976</id>
	<title>dairy farmers</title>
	<author>michalk0</author>
	<datestamp>1266916800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why the fuck should I be grateful for someone being a dairy farmer, my monetary votes for his produce are all the grace he needs</htmltext>
<tokenext>why the fuck should I be grateful for someone being a dairy farmer , my monetary votes for his produce are all the grace he needs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why the fuck should I be grateful for someone being a dairy farmer, my monetary votes for his produce are all the grace he needs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242940</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266930000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's right, but looks like you think that the rest of the world is waiting for you to follow....<br>If you had traveled outside the States you will see the rest of the world already did it while you where happily burning oil.<br>You only have to look at American cars compared to the rest. And you are also behind in solar and wind technologies, well, in a lot of areas more.<br>In fact, when I go to the states and walk on the streets looks like i traveled back in time  20 years. You keep saying the you are ahead in technology, but I don't see it anywere. Even NASA gadgets already look so 80's.<br>I really think EEUU have been a long time looking at his own belly, you don't really see how different it's the world outside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right , but looks like you think that the rest of the world is waiting for you to follow....If you had traveled outside the States you will see the rest of the world already did it while you where happily burning oil.You only have to look at American cars compared to the rest .
And you are also behind in solar and wind technologies , well , in a lot of areas more.In fact , when I go to the states and walk on the streets looks like i traveled back in time 20 years .
You keep saying the you are ahead in technology , but I do n't see it anywere .
Even NASA gadgets already look so 80 's.I really think EEUU have been a long time looking at his own belly , you do n't really see how different it 's the world outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right, but looks like you think that the rest of the world is waiting for you to follow....If you had traveled outside the States you will see the rest of the world already did it while you where happily burning oil.You only have to look at American cars compared to the rest.
And you are also behind in solar and wind technologies, well, in a lot of areas more.In fact, when I go to the states and walk on the streets looks like i traveled back in time  20 years.
You keep saying the you are ahead in technology, but I don't see it anywere.
Even NASA gadgets already look so 80's.I really think EEUU have been a long time looking at his own belly, you don't really see how different it's the world outside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243334</id>
	<title>I knew I remembered that guy's name from somewhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266933840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wrote about him back in 2002, and called his prescriptions "Microsoft Environmental Policy":</p><p>"Get users hooked on crappy technology, and then keep them locked into a system in which the only realistically "affordable" improvements are a series of costly upgrades and retrofits. We shouldn't be focused on providing the consumer with a better technology today; instead, we should get them using our existing technology as soon as possible, in as large a quantity as possible, and the let the inevitable economic improvements drive environmental policy later."</p><p>He's a nutter fo sho. Not suprised that he's still around, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote about him back in 2002 , and called his prescriptions " Microsoft Environmental Policy " : " Get users hooked on crappy technology , and then keep them locked into a system in which the only realistically " affordable " improvements are a series of costly upgrades and retrofits .
We should n't be focused on providing the consumer with a better technology today ; instead , we should get them using our existing technology as soon as possible , in as large a quantity as possible , and the let the inevitable economic improvements drive environmental policy later .
" He 's a nutter fo sho .
Not suprised that he 's still around , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote about him back in 2002, and called his prescriptions "Microsoft Environmental Policy":"Get users hooked on crappy technology, and then keep them locked into a system in which the only realistically "affordable" improvements are a series of costly upgrades and retrofits.
We shouldn't be focused on providing the consumer with a better technology today; instead, we should get them using our existing technology as soon as possible, in as large a quantity as possible, and the let the inevitable economic improvements drive environmental policy later.
"He's a nutter fo sho.
Not suprised that he's still around, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241894</id>
	<title>Re:The whole argument is tedious...</title>
	<author>Lars512</author>
	<datestamp>1266915720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It only makes sense to take precautions so as to avoid any chance of eliminating your own species.  If you're wrong, you spent some money unnecessarily.</p></div><p>Despite catastrophic consequences, I sincerely doubt that humanity would perish if global warming continues unabated. I wouldn't want to live in that world though, and surely a lot of people would suffer or die. However, reducing emissions doesn't come for free either. The cost of being wrong, aside from setting society back a few decades, is to keep another generation or two of third worlders in severe poverty. That's hardly free, so it's good that the science gets appropriately debated. Now I just wish that politics would hurry up and iterate towards the same level of consensus as is there in the science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It only makes sense to take precautions so as to avoid any chance of eliminating your own species .
If you 're wrong , you spent some money unnecessarily.Despite catastrophic consequences , I sincerely doubt that humanity would perish if global warming continues unabated .
I would n't want to live in that world though , and surely a lot of people would suffer or die .
However , reducing emissions does n't come for free either .
The cost of being wrong , aside from setting society back a few decades , is to keep another generation or two of third worlders in severe poverty .
That 's hardly free , so it 's good that the science gets appropriately debated .
Now I just wish that politics would hurry up and iterate towards the same level of consensus as is there in the science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only makes sense to take precautions so as to avoid any chance of eliminating your own species.
If you're wrong, you spent some money unnecessarily.Despite catastrophic consequences, I sincerely doubt that humanity would perish if global warming continues unabated.
I wouldn't want to live in that world though, and surely a lot of people would suffer or die.
However, reducing emissions doesn't come for free either.
The cost of being wrong, aside from setting society back a few decades, is to keep another generation or two of third worlders in severe poverty.
That's hardly free, so it's good that the science gets appropriately debated.
Now I just wish that politics would hurry up and iterate towards the same level of consensus as is there in the science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242158</id>
	<title>Re: He's more pragmatic than skeptic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266919680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars. Is it worth the investment? What do we really get out of it? How many other problems could have been fixed with that money?</p></div><p>OTOH, how much is it going to cost to move all the world's coastal cities to higher ground?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars .
Is it worth the investment ?
What do we really get out of it ?
How many other problems could have been fixed with that money ? OTOH , how much is it going to cost to move all the world 's coastal cities to higher ground ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars.
Is it worth the investment?
What do we really get out of it?
How many other problems could have been fixed with that money?OTOH, how much is it going to cost to move all the world's coastal cities to higher ground?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246920</id>
	<title>Re:Lomborg has a response</title>
	<author>Stupid McStupidson</author>
	<datestamp>1266950880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Hell, Lomborg fucked her!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , Lomborg fucked her !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Hell, Lomborg fucked her!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241408</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn</title>
	<author>eloki</author>
	<datestamp>1266867420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The science will always be intertwined with politics though, because it's about people's lifestyles and the environmental framework we live in.</p><p>It's not about someone doing science to just to increase the bit density on hard disk platters.</p><p>The problem is that serious science in this field is still questionable depending on which data sources you believe to be reliable, which extrapolations are considered reliable. There will never be any more consensus than there already is, without actual climate catastrophe happening. If it doesn't happen then the naysayers will feel vindicated, and the believers will simply adjust their models and timeframes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The science will always be intertwined with politics though , because it 's about people 's lifestyles and the environmental framework we live in.It 's not about someone doing science to just to increase the bit density on hard disk platters.The problem is that serious science in this field is still questionable depending on which data sources you believe to be reliable , which extrapolations are considered reliable .
There will never be any more consensus than there already is , without actual climate catastrophe happening .
If it does n't happen then the naysayers will feel vindicated , and the believers will simply adjust their models and timeframes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The science will always be intertwined with politics though, because it's about people's lifestyles and the environmental framework we live in.It's not about someone doing science to just to increase the bit density on hard disk platters.The problem is that serious science in this field is still questionable depending on which data sources you believe to be reliable, which extrapolations are considered reliable.
There will never be any more consensus than there already is, without actual climate catastrophe happening.
If it doesn't happen then the naysayers will feel vindicated, and the believers will simply adjust their models and timeframes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241986</id>
	<title>Re:Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>Arker</author>
	<datestamp>1266916860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth. That it is why it was named that way.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Medieval warm period wasnt necessarily a period of global warmth. It may have been a period of north-atlantic warmth. Other areas were cooler. This is one of the many areas where the situation is just flat out more complicated than any popular treatment would lead one to believe. Very often one area will be cooler and another hotter and it's bugger-all difficult to properly sort it out and demonstrate a *global* trend without going to a very long time-scale. </p><p>And it wasnt named that because it was actually green - it wasnt. It was named that because Ericsson had previously found it very difficult to attract settlers for his previous development, Iceland, because even though it was in fact quite green at the time, it just sounded cold and barren. So he chose a more attractive name for his second development in the interest of marketing. </p><blockquote><div><p>The climate was not influenced then by Scandinavians driving gas guzzling, CO2 belching SUV's.</p></div></blockquote><p>Certainly true. </p><blockquote><div><p>Man is not powerful enough to change the earth's climate to any "significant" degree.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Whether or not this is true is far from a settled question. Mans actions influence the environment and vice versa and always have. How much is "significant?" There is some very interesting research that indicates even the tens of thousands of years of farming prior to the industrial revolution may have altered global climate significantly enough to be detected. However in the broader picture, of course, the natural forces that have driven climate change since long before humans evolved are still at work and dwarf anything we can do or likely will be able to do anytime soon. </p><blockquote><div><p>I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think there is a grain of truth in that, but you drastically oversimplify. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth .
That it is why it was named that way .
Medieval warm period wasnt necessarily a period of global warmth .
It may have been a period of north-atlantic warmth .
Other areas were cooler .
This is one of the many areas where the situation is just flat out more complicated than any popular treatment would lead one to believe .
Very often one area will be cooler and another hotter and it 's bugger-all difficult to properly sort it out and demonstrate a * global * trend without going to a very long time-scale .
And it wasnt named that because it was actually green - it wasnt .
It was named that because Ericsson had previously found it very difficult to attract settlers for his previous development , Iceland , because even though it was in fact quite green at the time , it just sounded cold and barren .
So he chose a more attractive name for his second development in the interest of marketing .
The climate was not influenced then by Scandinavians driving gas guzzling , CO2 belching SUV 's.Certainly true .
Man is not powerful enough to change the earth 's climate to any " significant " degree .
Whether or not this is true is far from a settled question .
Mans actions influence the environment and vice versa and always have .
How much is " significant ?
" There is some very interesting research that indicates even the tens of thousands of years of farming prior to the industrial revolution may have altered global climate significantly enough to be detected .
However in the broader picture , of course , the natural forces that have driven climate change since long before humans evolved are still at work and dwarf anything we can do or likely will be able to do anytime soon .
I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.I think there is a grain of truth in that , but you drastically oversimplify .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenland was colonized during a period of global warmth.
That it is why it was named that way.
Medieval warm period wasnt necessarily a period of global warmth.
It may have been a period of north-atlantic warmth.
Other areas were cooler.
This is one of the many areas where the situation is just flat out more complicated than any popular treatment would lead one to believe.
Very often one area will be cooler and another hotter and it's bugger-all difficult to properly sort it out and demonstrate a *global* trend without going to a very long time-scale.
And it wasnt named that because it was actually green - it wasnt.
It was named that because Ericsson had previously found it very difficult to attract settlers for his previous development, Iceland, because even though it was in fact quite green at the time, it just sounded cold and barren.
So he chose a more attractive name for his second development in the interest of marketing.
The climate was not influenced then by Scandinavians driving gas guzzling, CO2 belching SUV's.Certainly true.
Man is not powerful enough to change the earth's climate to any "significant" degree.
Whether or not this is true is far from a settled question.
Mans actions influence the environment and vice versa and always have.
How much is "significant?
" There is some very interesting research that indicates even the tens of thousands of years of farming prior to the industrial revolution may have altered global climate significantly enough to be detected.
However in the broader picture, of course, the natural forces that have driven climate change since long before humans evolved are still at work and dwarf anything we can do or likely will be able to do anytime soon.
I think the climate change scare is just another way for politicians to steal our hard earned money.I think there is a grain of truth in that, but you drastically oversimplify. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241588</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>Kierthos</author>
	<datestamp>1266955620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing?</p></div></blockquote><p>Penguins, polar bears, people living in Alaska, Tuvaluans (the entire country is at most 4.5 meters above sea levels), anyone else living really close to a coastline....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing ? Penguins , polar bears , people living in Alaska , Tuvaluans ( the entire country is at most 4.5 meters above sea levels ) , anyone else living really close to a coastline... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing?Penguins, polar bears, people living in Alaska, Tuvaluans (the entire country is at most 4.5 meters above sea levels), anyone else living really close to a coastline....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244576</id>
	<title>Re:The whole argument is tedious...</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1266940980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the amount of money that would need to be spent, people will die if the money is spent.  So the question is what will minimize the loss of life, whether it be slow people living on coastal areas, or poor people who suddenly can't afford the things they need because the economy is messed up.  <br> <br>
Extinction of the species isn't realistic.  Humans can live in any climate and can eat about anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the amount of money that would need to be spent , people will die if the money is spent .
So the question is what will minimize the loss of life , whether it be slow people living on coastal areas , or poor people who suddenly ca n't afford the things they need because the economy is messed up .
Extinction of the species is n't realistic .
Humans can live in any climate and can eat about anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the amount of money that would need to be spent, people will die if the money is spent.
So the question is what will minimize the loss of life, whether it be slow people living on coastal areas, or poor people who suddenly can't afford the things they need because the economy is messed up.
Extinction of the species isn't realistic.
Humans can live in any climate and can eat about anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243872</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the teabaggers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266937500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mankind has increased greenhouse gas 40\% over pre industrial levels</p></div><p>Sadly, not true.  Not even close.</p><p>First of all, the greatest greenhouse gas is naturally produced water vapor.  It makes up about 95\% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.  Industrialization has not changed this much, certainly not by 40\%.  More like 0.0001\%.  From <a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse\_data.html" title="geocraft.com" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> [geocraft.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.</p><p>From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.</p><p>
&nbsp; Water vapor, responsible for 95\% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999\% natural (some argue, 100\%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.</p><p>
&nbsp; Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117\% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!</p><p>
&nbsp; Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28\% (factoring in water vapor).</p></div><p>However, if you are just talking about CO2, then you're still not close.  I believe the number you are looking for can be found here:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618\%) and \% of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225\%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117\% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mankind has increased greenhouse gas 40 \ % over pre industrial levelsSadly , not true .
Not even close.First of all , the greatest greenhouse gas is naturally produced water vapor .
It makes up about 95 \ % of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere .
Industrialization has not changed this much , certainly not by 40 \ % .
More like 0.0001 \ % .
From HERE [ geocraft.com ] When greenhouse contributions are listed by source , the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect , is readily apparent.From Table 4a , both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart , in gray and green , respectively .
For clarity only the man-made ( anthropogenic ) contributions are labeled on the chart .
  Water vapor , responsible for 95 \ % of Earth 's greenhouse effect , is 99.999 \ % natural ( some argue , 100 \ % ) .
Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this .
  Anthropogenic ( man-made ) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117 \ % of Earth 's greenhouse effect , ( factoring in water vapor ) .
This is insignificant !
  Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources , the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28 \ % ( factoring in water vapor ) .However , if you are just talking about CO2 , then you 're still not close .
I believe the number you are looking for can be found here : To finish with the math , by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases ( 3.618 \ % ) and \ % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic ( man-made ) sources ( 3.225 \ % ) , we see that only ( 0.03618 X 0.03225 ) or 0.117 \ % of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity .
The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mankind has increased greenhouse gas 40\% over pre industrial levelsSadly, not true.
Not even close.First of all, the greatest greenhouse gas is naturally produced water vapor.
It makes up about 95\% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
Industrialization has not changed this much, certainly not by 40\%.
More like 0.0001\%.
From HERE [geocraft.com] When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively.
For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.
  Water vapor, responsible for 95\% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999\% natural (some argue, 100\%).
Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.
  Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117\% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor).
This is insignificant!
  Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28\% (factoring in water vapor).However, if you are just talking about CO2, then you're still not close.
I believe the number you are looking for can be found here:To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618\%) and \% of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225\%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117\% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity.
The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243720</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>codepunks whole argument is that it isn't forward thinking. If there's no point in doing it, why would you have a whole argument around how you can do it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>codepunks whole argument is that it is n't forward thinking .
If there 's no point in doing it , why would you have a whole argument around how you can do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>codepunks whole argument is that it isn't forward thinking.
If there's no point in doing it, why would you have a whole argument around how you can do it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31249522</id>
	<title>Re:Its All About Power and Money</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1266916320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I quit paying attention to the arguments that invoke the settling of Greenland when I noted that although they used that short-cycle migration as proof that global warming would be a piece of cake to survive, they never scale it up into terms that accommodate <a href="http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm" title="vaughns-1-pagers.com">global population growth</a> [vaughns-1-pagers.com].</p><p>Without the appropriate scaling, using the Greenland migration as an analogy for the impact of global warming is the equivalent of saying that since it is easy to evacuate a ranch house that has no elevators in the event of an earthquake, it will be easy to evacuate a 1000-story office building that has no elevators in the event of an earthquake, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I quit paying attention to the arguments that invoke the settling of Greenland when I noted that although they used that short-cycle migration as proof that global warming would be a piece of cake to survive , they never scale it up into terms that accommodate global population growth [ vaughns-1-pagers.com ] .Without the appropriate scaling , using the Greenland migration as an analogy for the impact of global warming is the equivalent of saying that since it is easy to evacuate a ranch house that has no elevators in the event of an earthquake , it will be easy to evacuate a 1000-story office building that has no elevators in the event of an earthquake , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I quit paying attention to the arguments that invoke the settling of Greenland when I noted that although they used that short-cycle migration as proof that global warming would be a piece of cake to survive, they never scale it up into terms that accommodate global population growth [vaughns-1-pagers.com].Without the appropriate scaling, using the Greenland migration as an analogy for the impact of global warming is the equivalent of saying that since it is easy to evacuate a ranch house that has no elevators in the event of an earthquake, it will be easy to evacuate a 1000-story office building that has no elevators in the event of an earthquake, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245066</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1266943800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have nothing of substance to rebut you with, so I'll just say USA! USA! USA!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have nothing of substance to rebut you with , so I 'll just say USA !
USA ! USA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have nothing of substance to rebut you with, so I'll just say USA!
USA! USA!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243030</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1266930600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because Europe is incapable of innovation to solve these problems? Mostly the high oil prices in Europe have resulted in a few high mpg cars that are actually fun to drive - good, but not earth-shaking. Mostly their climate change actions are just subsidizing solar panels that will never recoup their cost and using cap and trade as a smokescreen for massive industrial subsidies.</p><p>I'm not saying the US *couldn't* implement a cap and trade scheme that wasn't rife with loopholes and corporate rent-seeking, I'll just be very surprised if they do given their role model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because Europe is incapable of innovation to solve these problems ?
Mostly the high oil prices in Europe have resulted in a few high mpg cars that are actually fun to drive - good , but not earth-shaking .
Mostly their climate change actions are just subsidizing solar panels that will never recoup their cost and using cap and trade as a smokescreen for massive industrial subsidies.I 'm not saying the US * could n't * implement a cap and trade scheme that was n't rife with loopholes and corporate rent-seeking , I 'll just be very surprised if they do given their role model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because Europe is incapable of innovation to solve these problems?
Mostly the high oil prices in Europe have resulted in a few high mpg cars that are actually fun to drive - good, but not earth-shaking.
Mostly their climate change actions are just subsidizing solar panels that will never recoup their cost and using cap and trade as a smokescreen for massive industrial subsidies.I'm not saying the US *couldn't* implement a cap and trade scheme that wasn't rife with loopholes and corporate rent-seeking, I'll just be very surprised if they do given their role model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684</id>
	<title>He's more pragmatic than skeptic</title>
	<author>brucmack</author>
	<datestamp>1266956580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't read his books, but I live in Denmark so Lomborg gets quite a bit of press here, especially under the climate change conference in December. In interviews he's always come across as a pragmatist more than a skeptic.</p><p>He has two main arguments:</p><p>1) Think about the return on investment.</p><p>Let's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars. Is it worth the investment? What do we really get out of it? How many other problems could have been fixed with that money?</p><p>2) The current approach to fighting climate change is wrong.</p><p>UN treaties and money aren't going to stop the developing world from using fossil fuels. The only surefire way to get off of coal is to develop something that is cheaper. Instead of giving money to developing countries to bribe them not to pollute, we should invest the money in new technology, so that in 10, 20, 30 years we can say "here, this is cheaper than coal and doesn't pollute".</p><p>I think both of his points are important to consider, though I don't agree with him completely. There are risks to his solution - what if our investments don't bear fruit, and coal is still the cheapest energy source in 30 years? What if climate change causes political destabilization so we don't have enough time to get finished?</p><p>I don't think anybody has a perfect solution, but I do think that Lomborg contributes positively to the debate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read his books , but I live in Denmark so Lomborg gets quite a bit of press here , especially under the climate change conference in December .
In interviews he 's always come across as a pragmatist more than a skeptic.He has two main arguments : 1 ) Think about the return on investment.Let 's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars .
Is it worth the investment ?
What do we really get out of it ?
How many other problems could have been fixed with that money ? 2 ) The current approach to fighting climate change is wrong.UN treaties and money are n't going to stop the developing world from using fossil fuels .
The only surefire way to get off of coal is to develop something that is cheaper .
Instead of giving money to developing countries to bribe them not to pollute , we should invest the money in new technology , so that in 10 , 20 , 30 years we can say " here , this is cheaper than coal and does n't pollute " .I think both of his points are important to consider , though I do n't agree with him completely .
There are risks to his solution - what if our investments do n't bear fruit , and coal is still the cheapest energy source in 30 years ?
What if climate change causes political destabilization so we do n't have enough time to get finished ? I do n't think anybody has a perfect solution , but I do think that Lomborg contributes positively to the debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read his books, but I live in Denmark so Lomborg gets quite a bit of press here, especially under the climate change conference in December.
In interviews he's always come across as a pragmatist more than a skeptic.He has two main arguments:1) Think about the return on investment.Let's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars.
Is it worth the investment?
What do we really get out of it?
How many other problems could have been fixed with that money?2) The current approach to fighting climate change is wrong.UN treaties and money aren't going to stop the developing world from using fossil fuels.
The only surefire way to get off of coal is to develop something that is cheaper.
Instead of giving money to developing countries to bribe them not to pollute, we should invest the money in new technology, so that in 10, 20, 30 years we can say "here, this is cheaper than coal and doesn't pollute".I think both of his points are important to consider, though I don't agree with him completely.
There are risks to his solution - what if our investments don't bear fruit, and coal is still the cheapest energy source in 30 years?
What if climate change causes political destabilization so we don't have enough time to get finished?I don't think anybody has a perfect solution, but I do think that Lomborg contributes positively to the debate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242922</id>
	<title>missing the point.</title>
	<author>mmjcon147</author>
	<datestamp>1266929880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares if this guy is telling the truth or not.
Neither side has any credibility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares if this guy is telling the truth or not .
Neither side has any credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares if this guy is telling the truth or not.
Neither side has any credibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242278</id>
	<title>Re:Lomborg has a response</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1266921060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question: Is "The Lomborg Deception" peer-reviewed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : Is " The Lomborg Deception " peer-reviewed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: Is "The Lomborg Deception" peer-reviewed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244896</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>doconnor</author>
	<datestamp>1266942780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Raising gas taxes would both pressure car companies to build more efficient cars and encourage people to live closer to work, probably sacrificing living space.</p><p>In the end it would be up to the individual to decide, rather then have the decision made by the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Raising gas taxes would both pressure car companies to build more efficient cars and encourage people to live closer to work , probably sacrificing living space.In the end it would be up to the individual to decide , rather then have the decision made by the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raising gas taxes would both pressure car companies to build more efficient cars and encourage people to live closer to work, probably sacrificing living space.In the end it would be up to the individual to decide, rather then have the decision made by the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241546</id>
	<title>Re:Lomborg has a response</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1266868620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If lomborg had any faith in the veracity of his "science" he would publish it in peer-reviewed journals. As it stands his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj\%C3\%B8rn\_Lomborg#Publications" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">solitary journal publication</a> [wikipedia.org] was in a sociology journal.
<br> <br>
Considering the mountain of propoganda surrounding the issue of AGW (on both sides) any sane spectator will quite rightly continue to ignore his rants until he has the balls to submit them to formal scientific scrutiny.
<br> <br>
This is not to say that your link is not informative in the current context and IMHO should be modded as such, just that it's contents are not worth the electrons they are written with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If lomborg had any faith in the veracity of his " science " he would publish it in peer-reviewed journals .
As it stands his solitary journal publication [ wikipedia.org ] was in a sociology journal .
Considering the mountain of propoganda surrounding the issue of AGW ( on both sides ) any sane spectator will quite rightly continue to ignore his rants until he has the balls to submit them to formal scientific scrutiny .
This is not to say that your link is not informative in the current context and IMHO should be modded as such , just that it 's contents are not worth the electrons they are written with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If lomborg had any faith in the veracity of his "science" he would publish it in peer-reviewed journals.
As it stands his solitary journal publication [wikipedia.org] was in a sociology journal.
Considering the mountain of propoganda surrounding the issue of AGW (on both sides) any sane spectator will quite rightly continue to ignore his rants until he has the balls to submit them to formal scientific scrutiny.
This is not to say that your link is not informative in the current context and IMHO should be modded as such, just that it's contents are not worth the electrons they are written with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242206</id>
	<title>Dairy farming - for public good or for money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266920160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>just as we're grateful that some people are willing to be dairy farmers</p></div></blockquote><p>That's the strangest thing to say. Do you know they actually make money from it? I don't think they would do it otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>just as we 're grateful that some people are willing to be dairy farmersThat 's the strangest thing to say .
Do you know they actually make money from it ?
I do n't think they would do it otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just as we're grateful that some people are willing to be dairy farmersThat's the strangest thing to say.
Do you know they actually make money from it?
I don't think they would do it otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242298</id>
	<title>Most of what you need to know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266921420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about both sides of the climate change debate, courtesy of Dr. Feynman, 1974  http://www.gorgorat.com/#54</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about both sides of the climate change debate , courtesy of Dr. Feynman , 1974 http : //www.gorgorat.com/ # 54</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about both sides of the climate change debate, courtesy of Dr. Feynman, 1974  http://www.gorgorat.com/#54</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243406</id>
	<title>Re:He's more pragmatic than skeptic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266934380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars. Is it worth the investment?</p></div><p>Don't you think we should spend *more* than a trillion dollars? A trillion dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars .
Is it worth the investment ? Do n't you think we should spend * more * than a trillion dollars ?
A trillion dollars is n't exactly a lot of money these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say we can cool the earth one degree by spending a trillion dollars.
Is it worth the investment?Don't you think we should spend *more* than a trillion dollars?
A trillion dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242048</id>
	<title>Lomborg's response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266917760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic\_items/118-file/BL\%20reply\%20to\%20Howard\%20Friel.pdf" title="lomborg.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic\_items/118-file/BL\%20reply\%20to\%20Howard\%20Friel.pdf</a> [lomborg.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic \ _items/118-file/BL \ % 20reply \ % 20to \ % 20Howard \ % 20Friel.pdf [ lomborg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic\_items/118-file/BL\%20reply\%20to\%20Howard\%20Friel.pdf [lomborg.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241308</id>
	<title>Already knew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266866580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone who says global warming is false doesn't need to have a book written about them to know they're full of it. Also, I'll be willing to wait 20 years for nanobots to fix the environment. No point in worrying for another second about the environment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who says global warming is false does n't need to have a book written about them to know they 're full of it .
Also , I 'll be willing to wait 20 years for nanobots to fix the environment .
No point in worrying for another second about the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who says global warming is false doesn't need to have a book written about them to know they're full of it.
Also, I'll be willing to wait 20 years for nanobots to fix the environment.
No point in worrying for another second about the environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242306</id>
	<title>Potential maximum annual removals</title>
	<author>emilper</author>
	<datestamp>1266921540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice fine article<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... except they did not check their own sources<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "It found that bear populations are indeed declining where the Arctic is warming.", while their source attributes the decline to  hunting, and even uses "Potential maximum annual removals" that are almost double than "Historical annual removals (5 yr mean)" to predict population declines<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I stopped reading at that point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Newsweek editors must think their subscribers are morons if they publish something like that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... good thing I am not a subscriber<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice fine article ... except they did not check their own sources ... " It found that bear populations are indeed declining where the Arctic is warming .
" , while their source attributes the decline to hunting , and even uses " Potential maximum annual removals " that are almost double than " Historical annual removals ( 5 yr mean ) " to predict population declines ...I stopped reading at that point ... Newsweek editors must think their subscribers are morons if they publish something like that ... good thing I am not a subscriber ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice fine article ... except they did not check their own sources ... "It found that bear populations are indeed declining where the Arctic is warming.
", while their source attributes the decline to  hunting, and even uses "Potential maximum annual removals" that are almost double than "Historical annual removals (5 yr mean)" to predict population declines ...I stopped reading at that point ... Newsweek editors must think their subscribers are morons if they publish something like that ... good thing I am not a subscriber ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241456</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Again</title>
	<author>Capsaicin</author>
	<datestamp>1266868020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>How many times do these theories need to be debunked before denialist nutjobs give up their crusade against rational science? It's like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics.</i> </p><p>The problem is that people are trying to use climate science to debunk the denialists.  That's obviously not the appropriate discipline to consult on such matters.  Psychology and psychiatry are.</p><p>And yes, it's <i>exactly</i> like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times do these theories need to be debunked before denialist nutjobs give up their crusade against rational science ?
It 's like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics .
The problem is that people are trying to use climate science to debunk the denialists .
That 's obviously not the appropriate discipline to consult on such matters .
Psychology and psychiatry are.And yes , it 's exactly like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How many times do these theories need to be debunked before denialist nutjobs give up their crusade against rational science?
It's like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics.
The problem is that people are trying to use climate science to debunk the denialists.
That's obviously not the appropriate discipline to consult on such matters.
Psychology and psychiatry are.And yes, it's exactly like dealing with a bunch of raving Creationist lunatics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242440</id>
	<title>Re:The whole argument is tedious...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266923760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the path the environmental lobby is demanding we take is in the trillions of dollars. so i can only assume you are being misleading on purpose when you say "some money". would you care to re word that as "a fuck load of money"?<p>
you also attempt to make the case that spending trillions on cutting CO2 is only going to cost money, when it could in fact result in other environmental problems. what if we destroy millions of HA's of forest to plant bio crops only to find out AGW is fake?</p><p>
this is the real world with grown up decisions to be made, and they shouldn't be made lightly.</p><p>
oh and to suggest the human race won't survive global warming.... fuck you watch too many hollywood movies son.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the path the environmental lobby is demanding we take is in the trillions of dollars .
so i can only assume you are being misleading on purpose when you say " some money " .
would you care to re word that as " a fuck load of money " ?
you also attempt to make the case that spending trillions on cutting CO2 is only going to cost money , when it could in fact result in other environmental problems .
what if we destroy millions of HA 's of forest to plant bio crops only to find out AGW is fake ?
this is the real world with grown up decisions to be made , and they should n't be made lightly .
oh and to suggest the human race wo n't survive global warming.... fuck you watch too many hollywood movies son .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the path the environmental lobby is demanding we take is in the trillions of dollars.
so i can only assume you are being misleading on purpose when you say "some money".
would you care to re word that as "a fuck load of money"?
you also attempt to make the case that spending trillions on cutting CO2 is only going to cost money, when it could in fact result in other environmental problems.
what if we destroy millions of HA's of forest to plant bio crops only to find out AGW is fake?
this is the real world with grown up decisions to be made, and they shouldn't be made lightly.
oh and to suggest the human race won't survive global warming.... fuck you watch too many hollywood movies son.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298</id>
	<title>Lomborg has a response</title>
	<author>ralphbecket</author>
	<datestamp>1266866340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure everybody here will be interested in reading Lomborg's <a href="http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic\_items/118-file/BL\%20reply\%20to\%20Howard\%20Friel.pdf" title="lomborg.com">response</a> [lomborg.com] before forming an opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure everybody here will be interested in reading Lomborg 's response [ lomborg.com ] before forming an opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure everybody here will be interested in reading Lomborg's response [lomborg.com] before forming an opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241508</id>
	<title>Friel has a poor record in the realm of neutrality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266868380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>https://www.amazon.com/dp/1880831147?tag=commondreams-20&amp;camp=0&amp;creative=0&amp;linkCode=as1&amp;creativeASIN=1880831147&amp;adid=0C788Y6PAJ4WTVVQ3K5T&amp;</p><p>Edited by Friel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>https : //www.amazon.com/dp/1880831147 ? tag = commondreams-20&amp;camp = 0&amp;creative = 0&amp;linkCode = as1&amp;creativeASIN = 1880831147&amp;adid = 0C788Y6PAJ4WTVVQ3K5T&amp;Edited by Friel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>https://www.amazon.com/dp/1880831147?tag=commondreams-20&amp;camp=0&amp;creative=0&amp;linkCode=as1&amp;creativeASIN=1880831147&amp;adid=0C788Y6PAJ4WTVVQ3K5T&amp;Edited by Friel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244934</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1266943020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the US creates a cap and trade system that rewards innovators and penalizes fossil fuel users, there is no doubt an explosion of innovation will arrive in the field.</p></div><p>If all people with only one head are beheaded at the age of 40, there will no doubt be an explosion of innovation. Is the innovation worth the cost imposed on society?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US creates a cap and trade system that rewards innovators and penalizes fossil fuel users , there is no doubt an explosion of innovation will arrive in the field.If all people with only one head are beheaded at the age of 40 , there will no doubt be an explosion of innovation .
Is the innovation worth the cost imposed on society ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US creates a cap and trade system that rewards innovators and penalizes fossil fuel users, there is no doubt an explosion of innovation will arrive in the field.If all people with only one head are beheaded at the age of 40, there will no doubt be an explosion of innovation.
Is the innovation worth the cost imposed on society?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31260228</id>
	<title>Even Lomborg doesn't believe Lomborg anymore</title>
	<author>baxissimo</author>
	<datestamp>1265130180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interestingly, Lomborg recently wrote an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/opinion/25lomborg.html?\_r=2" title="nytimes.com">op-ed in the New York Times</a> [nytimes.com] where he spouts many views about what we need to do to fix the CO2 problem, seemingly forgetting entirely that he used to claim that it wasn't a problem that needed to be solved.   Seems even Lomborg is skeptical of his own former skeptical self these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , Lomborg recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times [ nytimes.com ] where he spouts many views about what we need to do to fix the CO2 problem , seemingly forgetting entirely that he used to claim that it was n't a problem that needed to be solved .
Seems even Lomborg is skeptical of his own former skeptical self these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, Lomborg recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times [nytimes.com] where he spouts many views about what we need to do to fix the CO2 problem, seemingly forgetting entirely that he used to claim that it wasn't a problem that needed to be solved.
Seems even Lomborg is skeptical of his own former skeptical self these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247100</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the teabaggers.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eat Smeat!</p><p><a href="http://smeat.net/sightings/waterworld3.jpg" title="smeat.net">http://smeat.net/sightings/waterworld3.jpg</a> [smeat.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat Smeat ! http : //smeat.net/sightings/waterworld3.jpg [ smeat.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat Smeat!http://smeat.net/sightings/waterworld3.jpg [smeat.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242144</id>
	<title>Re:Cue the teabaggers.</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1266919380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming. This is also true.</p></div><p>True? That has been shown over and over, infact if you want a 'smoking gun' you could look at some simple measurements: Mankind has increased greenhouse gas 40\% over pre industrial levels. This issue is convenient ignored, because this is kind of a damning direct epirical measurement. The real question is how much it is going to warm up or more specifically is a given ammount of warming a minor issue or a epic fucktastrophe.
<br> <br>
Now, I don't know if you would call that a smoking gun, but to me that really smokes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming .
This is also true.True ?
That has been shown over and over , infact if you want a 'smoking gun ' you could look at some simple measurements : Mankind has increased greenhouse gas 40 \ % over pre industrial levels .
This issue is convenient ignored , because this is kind of a damning direct epirical measurement .
The real question is how much it is going to warm up or more specifically is a given ammount of warming a minor issue or a epic fucktastrophe .
Now , I do n't know if you would call that a smoking gun , but to me that really smokes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, it has not been shown that humans are the primary cause of this warming.
This is also true.True?
That has been shown over and over, infact if you want a 'smoking gun' you could look at some simple measurements: Mankind has increased greenhouse gas 40\% over pre industrial levels.
This issue is convenient ignored, because this is kind of a damning direct epirical measurement.
The real question is how much it is going to warm up or more specifically is a given ammount of warming a minor issue or a epic fucktastrophe.
Now, I don't know if you would call that a smoking gun, but to me that really smokes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242634</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Again</title>
	<author>sien</author>
	<datestamp>1266926340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is what climate scientist Edward Cook wrote regarding the accuracy of dendroclimatology:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I<br>almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will<br>show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know<br>with certainty that we know fuck-all).</p></div><p>From the <a href="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=356&amp;filename=1062592331.txt" title="eastangliaemails.com">climategate emails</a> [eastangliaemails.com]</p><p>Here is what Phil Jones said in his <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">BBC interview</a> [bbc.co.uk] regarding the Medieval Warm Period:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?</p><p>There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.</p><p>Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.</p><p>We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.</p></div><p>So Phil Jones is unsure if the MWP was global in extent and Edward Cook thinks we have very little idea at all. Perhaps the certainty in wikipedia is overstated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is what climate scientist Edward Cook wrote regarding the accuracy of dendroclimatology : Without trying to prejudice this work , but also because of what Ialmost think I know to be the case , the results of this study willshow that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty ( i.e .
we knowwith certainty that we know fuck-all ) .From the climategate emails [ eastangliaemails.com ] Here is what Phil Jones said in his BBC interview [ bbc.co.uk ] regarding the Medieval Warm Period : There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period ( MWP ) was global or not .
If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon , would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented ? There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not .
The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America , the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia .
For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere .
There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.Of course , if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today ( based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH ) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented .
On the other hand , if the MWP was global , but was less warm that today , then current warmth would be unprecedented.We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another .
We can not , therefore , make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.So Phil Jones is unsure if the MWP was global in extent and Edward Cook thinks we have very little idea at all .
Perhaps the certainty in wikipedia is overstated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is what climate scientist Edward Cook wrote regarding the accuracy of dendroclimatology:Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what Ialmost think I know to be the case, the results of this study willshow that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e.
we knowwith certainty that we know fuck-all).From the climategate emails [eastangliaemails.com]Here is what Phil Jones said in his BBC interview [bbc.co.uk] regarding the Medieval Warm Period:There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not.
If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not.
The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere.
There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.
On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another.
We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.So Phil Jones is unsure if the MWP was global in extent and Edward Cook thinks we have very little idea at all.
Perhaps the certainty in wikipedia is overstated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244720</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1266941820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are ways that have not even been brought forward to curb energy usage that have not even been exploited yet. How many<br>of us travel to work every day and there is really no need for us to physically be there, hell the numbers are probably almost<br>a third of the work force at any given company. What if a huge tax break was given for telecommute workers, if effective it<br>would greatly reduce the consumption of fuel. Not only would you save fuel in commutes but also in the maintenance of facilities etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are ways that have not even been brought forward to curb energy usage that have not even been exploited yet .
How manyof us travel to work every day and there is really no need for us to physically be there , hell the numbers are probably almosta third of the work force at any given company .
What if a huge tax break was given for telecommute workers , if effective itwould greatly reduce the consumption of fuel .
Not only would you save fuel in commutes but also in the maintenance of facilities etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are ways that have not even been brought forward to curb energy usage that have not even been exploited yet.
How manyof us travel to work every day and there is really no need for us to physically be there, hell the numbers are probably almosta third of the work force at any given company.
What if a huge tax break was given for telecommute workers, if effective itwould greatly reduce the consumption of fuel.
Not only would you save fuel in commutes but also in the maintenance of facilities etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241666</id>
	<title>Politics, Politics, Politics</title>
	<author>Dthief</author>
	<datestamp>1266956460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you read through the article you realize that both sides are whiney little children.

As a scientist I'm offended by all of this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read through the article you realize that both sides are whiney little children .
As a scientist I 'm offended by all of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read through the article you realize that both sides are whiney little children.
As a scientist I'm offended by all of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31388630</id>
	<title>Lomborg was ruled incompetent, not dishonest</title>
	<author>textureglitch</author>
	<datestamp>1267969680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Friel's book may or may not be a valid critique of Bj&#248;rn Lomborg's work, but that doesn't change the fact that when it came out, Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was investigated by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj\%C3\%B8rn\_Lomborg#DCSD\_investigation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty</a> [wikipedia.org] and <b>found to be scientifically dishonest</b>, but that Lomborg was not guilty of gross negligence because of his lack of expertise in the field.</p><p>In other words, he was deemed incompetent, not dishonest.</p><p>However, in his subsequent work over the years, I think it's safe to say he's not only dishonest, but forcefully dishonest with his repeated, controversial stances against climate science and his willfull misinterpretations.<br>Lomborg has a Ph.D. in political science. He has no training in climatology, meteorology, biology, physical sciences, or anything that would allow him to actually understand the science of the issues he's publically talking about.</p><p>What Lomborg is doing is "meta-science" where he's selectively collecting other people's research without understanding any of it, and massaging it to fit his agenda. This sort of research aggregation is the most error-prone of all and quickly deteriorates into pure statistics based on numbers of which you have no understanding. The results are absolutely meaningless because you're no longer finding the statistic significance of facts, you're finding the statistic significance of research papers.</p><p>The investigative committee cited of "the skeptical environmentalist":<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Fabrication of data;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5. Plagiarism;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.</p><p>The original biologist who submitted a complaint to the committee still maintains <a href="http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/" title="lomborg-errors.dk" rel="nofollow">a website listing all the errors of Lomborg's work.</a> [lomborg-errors.dk]</p><p>Bj&#248;rn Lomborg is no better than all the other nutcases on anti-climate blogs claiming they've found discrepancies in the scientific literature, when in fact the issue is that reading a lot of these scientific climatology papers requires at least a graduate-level understanding of statistics, biology, oceanography, etc, etc.</p><p>You wouldn't expect a meaningful result if you had a bunch of old ladies from the local knitting club review the specifications for the latest CERN particle accelerators. I don't know why people think climate science is any different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Friel 's book may or may not be a valid critique of Bj   rn Lomborg 's work , but that does n't change the fact that when it came out , Lomborg 's book " The Skeptical Environmentalist " was investigated by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty [ wikipedia.org ] and found to be scientifically dishonest , but that Lomborg was not guilty of gross negligence because of his lack of expertise in the field.In other words , he was deemed incompetent , not dishonest.However , in his subsequent work over the years , I think it 's safe to say he 's not only dishonest , but forcefully dishonest with his repeated , controversial stances against climate science and his willfull misinterpretations.Lomborg has a Ph.D. in political science .
He has no training in climatology , meteorology , biology , physical sciences , or anything that would allow him to actually understand the science of the issues he 's publically talking about.What Lomborg is doing is " meta-science " where he 's selectively collecting other people 's research without understanding any of it , and massaging it to fit his agenda .
This sort of research aggregation is the most error-prone of all and quickly deteriorates into pure statistics based on numbers of which you have no understanding .
The results are absolutely meaningless because you 're no longer finding the statistic significance of facts , you 're finding the statistic significance of research papers.The investigative committee cited of " the skeptical environmentalist " :       1 .
Fabrication of data ;       2 .
Selective discarding of unwanted results ( selective citation ) ;       3 .
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods ;       4 .
Distorted interpretation of conclusions ;       5 .
Plagiarism ;       6 .
Deliberate misinterpretation of others ' results.The original biologist who submitted a complaint to the committee still maintains a website listing all the errors of Lomborg 's work .
[ lomborg-errors.dk ] Bj   rn Lomborg is no better than all the other nutcases on anti-climate blogs claiming they 've found discrepancies in the scientific literature , when in fact the issue is that reading a lot of these scientific climatology papers requires at least a graduate-level understanding of statistics , biology , oceanography , etc , etc.You would n't expect a meaningful result if you had a bunch of old ladies from the local knitting club review the specifications for the latest CERN particle accelerators .
I do n't know why people think climate science is any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friel's book may or may not be a valid critique of Bjørn Lomborg's work, but that doesn't change the fact that when it came out, Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was investigated by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty [wikipedia.org] and found to be scientifically dishonest, but that Lomborg was not guilty of gross negligence because of his lack of expertise in the field.In other words, he was deemed incompetent, not dishonest.However, in his subsequent work over the years, I think it's safe to say he's not only dishonest, but forcefully dishonest with his repeated, controversial stances against climate science and his willfull misinterpretations.Lomborg has a Ph.D. in political science.
He has no training in climatology, meteorology, biology, physical sciences, or anything that would allow him to actually understand the science of the issues he's publically talking about.What Lomborg is doing is "meta-science" where he's selectively collecting other people's research without understanding any of it, and massaging it to fit his agenda.
This sort of research aggregation is the most error-prone of all and quickly deteriorates into pure statistics based on numbers of which you have no understanding.
The results are absolutely meaningless because you're no longer finding the statistic significance of facts, you're finding the statistic significance of research papers.The investigative committee cited of "the skeptical environmentalist":
      1.
Fabrication of data;
      2.
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
      3.
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
      4.
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
      5.
Plagiarism;
      6.
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.The original biologist who submitted a complaint to the committee still maintains a website listing all the errors of Lomborg's work.
[lomborg-errors.dk]Bjørn Lomborg is no better than all the other nutcases on anti-climate blogs claiming they've found discrepancies in the scientific literature, when in fact the issue is that reading a lot of these scientific climatology papers requires at least a graduate-level understanding of statistics, biology, oceanography, etc, etc.You wouldn't expect a meaningful result if you had a bunch of old ladies from the local knitting club review the specifications for the latest CERN particle accelerators.
I don't know why people think climate science is any different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242168</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>linhares</author>
	<datestamp>1266919680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing?</p></div><p>Everybody knew there was a housing bubble.  Very few expected the... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law\_of\_Unintended\_Consequences" title="wikipedia.org">wait for it... </a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing ? Everybody knew there was a housing bubble .
Very few expected the... wait for it... [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing?Everybody knew there was a housing bubble.
Very few expected the... wait for it...  [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241560</id>
	<title>Re:Yet Again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266955260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not different than arguing with creationists, Richard Hoagland, 9/11 truthers, or holocaust deniers.

They've made up their minds, the facts be damned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not different than arguing with creationists , Richard Hoagland , 9/11 truthers , or holocaust deniers .
They 've made up their minds , the facts be damned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not different than arguing with creationists, Richard Hoagland, 9/11 truthers, or holocaust deniers.
They've made up their minds, the facts be damned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241902</id>
	<title>Population.. er.. climate control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266915840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>can only be sold to you if you demand it. Great job everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>can only be sold to you if you demand it .
Great job everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can only be sold to you if you demand it.
Great job everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404</id>
	<title>Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1266867420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it really matter if we are warming the planet or not?</p><p>Even if we are how are we going to fix it? Limit CO2 emissions by something like cap and trade? Great concept but India, China etc are not going to play in<br>a game that is detrimental to their growing manufacturing industries. Or perhaps we create green energy solutions, problem is none of those solutions are cost<br>effective to be self sustaining.   If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it really matter if we are warming the planet or not ? Even if we are how are we going to fix it ?
Limit CO2 emissions by something like cap and trade ?
Great concept but India , China etc are not going to play ina game that is detrimental to their growing manufacturing industries .
Or perhaps we create green energy solutions , problem is none of those solutions are costeffective to be self sustaining .
If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it really matter if we are warming the planet or not?Even if we are how are we going to fix it?
Limit CO2 emissions by something like cap and trade?
Great concept but India, China etc are not going to play ina game that is detrimental to their growing manufacturing industries.
Or perhaps we create green energy solutions, problem is none of those solutions are costeffective to be self sustaining.
If we are warming the planet who is to say it is not actually a positive thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241528</id>
	<title>This is like the Bigfoot argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266868560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By that I mean there will be people that believe what they want no matter what the evidence. To be clear I mean there's zero solid evidence of Bigfoot yet some will always believe in it. I find it bizarre that people refuse to accept we are having an impact on the environment. The evidence is everywhere. I'm not talking global warming both sides of that argument are bordering on religion I'm talking how much the world has changed. Look at common resources. Ever watch any of the logging shows? What they are cutting now are so small no one would have bothered with them 20 or 30 years ago but in many areas it's all that's left and it's so bad that when they do find old growth trees the lumber mills aren't even set up for them. They are simply too rare to bother with. Look at swordfish. They said 200 years ago you could all but walk across the Grand Banks because of all the fish. Now the swordfish they take are virtually all immature fish that have yet to reproduce. Most fisheries have collapsed, a fact. When was the last time you saw a butterfly? How many and how often? When I was growing up you'd see them by the hundreds virtually any summer day. Now I see a few a year. Same with frogs. Most great apes are down to a few percent of their original populations. It'd take a good sneeze to wipe them out and they are our closest relatives. People say the snow storms proved global warming was a hoax. Well guess what I live in central Maine and we have already lost most of our snow and it's getting up into the 50s. This is supposed to be the worst time of year for snow and cold. Don't believe anyone or any study if you want. Trust your eyes. I see radical change everywhere I look. What people still can't get through their heads is the warming is overall and we are experiencing both extreme hot and cold days. It's the average that is towards warming. The real point is we are headed for more extreme weather and that is very bad. With species extinction people need to understand it took hundreds of millions of years to create this much diversity and it will take that long to restore it. Even if it came back in a few million years look at it this way we've been around for 200,000. That means no human will ever see it this diverse again. We will have evolved into something else by then. Don't care? Well guess what, no one knows how many species we can loose before we face a general collapse of the environment. We are in the middle of one of the worst extinction events in Earth's history and we are the cause and there's no debate about that one. Most species are dying from habitat loss, we call them cities. Most of the rest either from exploitation or things like pollution and invasive species we are importing. Most of us will live to see fish a luxury for the rich and the last wild tigers and gorillas dead. The population is projected to max out at 50\% more than it is now so it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By that I mean there will be people that believe what they want no matter what the evidence .
To be clear I mean there 's zero solid evidence of Bigfoot yet some will always believe in it .
I find it bizarre that people refuse to accept we are having an impact on the environment .
The evidence is everywhere .
I 'm not talking global warming both sides of that argument are bordering on religion I 'm talking how much the world has changed .
Look at common resources .
Ever watch any of the logging shows ?
What they are cutting now are so small no one would have bothered with them 20 or 30 years ago but in many areas it 's all that 's left and it 's so bad that when they do find old growth trees the lumber mills are n't even set up for them .
They are simply too rare to bother with .
Look at swordfish .
They said 200 years ago you could all but walk across the Grand Banks because of all the fish .
Now the swordfish they take are virtually all immature fish that have yet to reproduce .
Most fisheries have collapsed , a fact .
When was the last time you saw a butterfly ?
How many and how often ?
When I was growing up you 'd see them by the hundreds virtually any summer day .
Now I see a few a year .
Same with frogs .
Most great apes are down to a few percent of their original populations .
It 'd take a good sneeze to wipe them out and they are our closest relatives .
People say the snow storms proved global warming was a hoax .
Well guess what I live in central Maine and we have already lost most of our snow and it 's getting up into the 50s .
This is supposed to be the worst time of year for snow and cold .
Do n't believe anyone or any study if you want .
Trust your eyes .
I see radical change everywhere I look .
What people still ca n't get through their heads is the warming is overall and we are experiencing both extreme hot and cold days .
It 's the average that is towards warming .
The real point is we are headed for more extreme weather and that is very bad .
With species extinction people need to understand it took hundreds of millions of years to create this much diversity and it will take that long to restore it .
Even if it came back in a few million years look at it this way we 've been around for 200,000 .
That means no human will ever see it this diverse again .
We will have evolved into something else by then .
Do n't care ?
Well guess what , no one knows how many species we can loose before we face a general collapse of the environment .
We are in the middle of one of the worst extinction events in Earth 's history and we are the cause and there 's no debate about that one .
Most species are dying from habitat loss , we call them cities .
Most of the rest either from exploitation or things like pollution and invasive species we are importing .
Most of us will live to see fish a luxury for the rich and the last wild tigers and gorillas dead .
The population is projected to max out at 50 \ % more than it is now so it 's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By that I mean there will be people that believe what they want no matter what the evidence.
To be clear I mean there's zero solid evidence of Bigfoot yet some will always believe in it.
I find it bizarre that people refuse to accept we are having an impact on the environment.
The evidence is everywhere.
I'm not talking global warming both sides of that argument are bordering on religion I'm talking how much the world has changed.
Look at common resources.
Ever watch any of the logging shows?
What they are cutting now are so small no one would have bothered with them 20 or 30 years ago but in many areas it's all that's left and it's so bad that when they do find old growth trees the lumber mills aren't even set up for them.
They are simply too rare to bother with.
Look at swordfish.
They said 200 years ago you could all but walk across the Grand Banks because of all the fish.
Now the swordfish they take are virtually all immature fish that have yet to reproduce.
Most fisheries have collapsed, a fact.
When was the last time you saw a butterfly?
How many and how often?
When I was growing up you'd see them by the hundreds virtually any summer day.
Now I see a few a year.
Same with frogs.
Most great apes are down to a few percent of their original populations.
It'd take a good sneeze to wipe them out and they are our closest relatives.
People say the snow storms proved global warming was a hoax.
Well guess what I live in central Maine and we have already lost most of our snow and it's getting up into the 50s.
This is supposed to be the worst time of year for snow and cold.
Don't believe anyone or any study if you want.
Trust your eyes.
I see radical change everywhere I look.
What people still can't get through their heads is the warming is overall and we are experiencing both extreme hot and cold days.
It's the average that is towards warming.
The real point is we are headed for more extreme weather and that is very bad.
With species extinction people need to understand it took hundreds of millions of years to create this much diversity and it will take that long to restore it.
Even if it came back in a few million years look at it this way we've been around for 200,000.
That means no human will ever see it this diverse again.
We will have evolved into something else by then.
Don't care?
Well guess what, no one knows how many species we can loose before we face a general collapse of the environment.
We are in the middle of one of the worst extinction events in Earth's history and we are the cause and there's no debate about that one.
Most species are dying from habitat loss, we call them cities.
Most of the rest either from exploitation or things like pollution and invasive species we are importing.
Most of us will live to see fish a luxury for the rich and the last wild tigers and gorillas dead.
The population is projected to max out at 50\% more than it is now so it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243024</id>
	<title>Re:Does it matter that it exists or not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266930600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you just spout nonsense that comes off the top of your head? Or do you actually believe the crap that you write?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you just spout nonsense that comes off the top of your head ?
Or do you actually believe the crap that you write ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you just spout nonsense that comes off the top of your head?
Or do you actually believe the crap that you write?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31279804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31257372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31252466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31257524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31251202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31258556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31253088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31252366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31248028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31257558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31249522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0158232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31253968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31248028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241644
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31252366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31252466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242144
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241346
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242024
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31279804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31251202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242384
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31246888
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245260
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31253968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241588
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31257558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242940
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245066
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243030
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243720
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244720
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242522
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31258556
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31257372
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244896
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244078
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243024
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244934
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31257524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244236
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31253088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31245564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31244564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31249522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31242286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31247682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31243186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0158232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0158232.31241812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
