<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_1924221</id>
	<title>Unfriendly Climate Greets Gore At Apple Meeting</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267288500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Apple's shareholder meeting this week took on a Jerry Springer vibe, with <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021\_3-10459872-260.html">harsh comments about Al Gore</a>, former VP and Apple board member, setting the tone. Several stockholders took turns either bashing or praising Gore's high-profile views on climate change. Apple shareholder Shelton Ehrlich urged against Gore's re-election to the board, claiming that Gore 'has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted. If [the] advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected.' Hey, at least he <a href="http://presentationzen.blogs.com/presentationzen/2006/06/duarte\_design\_h.html">moved a few copies of Keynote</a>, Shelton. Shareholders introduced proposals regarding Apple's environmental impact &mdash; one asking Apple to commit publicly to greenhouse gas reduction goals and to publish a formal sustainability report; another proposing that Apple's board establish a sustainability committee. These proposals were rejected by shareholders. However, preliminary voting results indicated that Gore was re-elected to Apple's Board."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Apple 's shareholder meeting this week took on a Jerry Springer vibe , with harsh comments about Al Gore , former VP and Apple board member , setting the tone .
Several stockholders took turns either bashing or praising Gore 's high-profile views on climate change .
Apple shareholder Shelton Ehrlich urged against Gore 's re-election to the board , claiming that Gore 'has become a laughingstock .
The glaciers have not melted .
If [ the ] advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he does n't need to be re-elected .
' Hey , at least he moved a few copies of Keynote , Shelton .
Shareholders introduced proposals regarding Apple 's environmental impact    one asking Apple to commit publicly to greenhouse gas reduction goals and to publish a formal sustainability report ; another proposing that Apple 's board establish a sustainability committee .
These proposals were rejected by shareholders .
However , preliminary voting results indicated that Gore was re-elected to Apple 's Board .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Apple's shareholder meeting this week took on a Jerry Springer vibe, with harsh comments about Al Gore, former VP and Apple board member, setting the tone.
Several stockholders took turns either bashing or praising Gore's high-profile views on climate change.
Apple shareholder Shelton Ehrlich urged against Gore's re-election to the board, claiming that Gore 'has become a laughingstock.
The glaciers have not melted.
If [the] advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected.
' Hey, at least he moved a few copies of Keynote, Shelton.
Shareholders introduced proposals regarding Apple's environmental impact — one asking Apple to commit publicly to greenhouse gas reduction goals and to publish a formal sustainability report; another proposing that Apple's board establish a sustainability committee.
These proposals were rejected by shareholders.
However, preliminary voting results indicated that Gore was re-elected to Apple's Board.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303694</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Auckerman</author>
	<datestamp>1267389540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.</i>

Saying the previous poster is demonizing is a bit harsh, don't you think.  That being said...

The physical properties of CO2 are well known.  It's heat capacity and spectral data aren't something people can deny.  How it interacts with the solar radiation is very well understood.  It is a green house gas.  Even the scientists who have looked at the data and disagree with man made global warming aren't going to say it isn't a green house gas.  They are going to say that it's concentration level isn't high enough to be a problem and that other causes are more significant.

There are people out there, usually politicians and/or business leaders, telling laymen that CO2 is completely harmless and scientists are involved in a big conspiracy to make us all Amish.  Anyone who falls in that category DESERVES to be "demonized".  Anti-intellicualism is not something to be proud of and should be condemned.

I remember a time with SO2 as a cause of acid rain was "debated" in political theater.  Everything from acid rain doesn't exist, to capping SO2 emissions will kill the economy, to acid is more complex than anyone could ever understand so we shouldn't do anything.  Same damn thing we see with GW deniers.

P.S.  You know what a REPUBLICAN president signed into law.  Cap and trade for SO2 emissions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you , sir , are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you .
Saying the previous poster is demonizing is a bit harsh , do n't you think .
That being said.. . The physical properties of CO2 are well known .
It 's heat capacity and spectral data are n't something people can deny .
How it interacts with the solar radiation is very well understood .
It is a green house gas .
Even the scientists who have looked at the data and disagree with man made global warming are n't going to say it is n't a green house gas .
They are going to say that it 's concentration level is n't high enough to be a problem and that other causes are more significant .
There are people out there , usually politicians and/or business leaders , telling laymen that CO2 is completely harmless and scientists are involved in a big conspiracy to make us all Amish .
Anyone who falls in that category DESERVES to be " demonized " .
Anti-intellicualism is not something to be proud of and should be condemned .
I remember a time with SO2 as a cause of acid rain was " debated " in political theater .
Everything from acid rain does n't exist , to capping SO2 emissions will kill the economy , to acid is more complex than anyone could ever understand so we should n't do anything .
Same damn thing we see with GW deniers .
P.S. You know what a REPUBLICAN president signed into law .
Cap and trade for SO2 emissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.
Saying the previous poster is demonizing is a bit harsh, don't you think.
That being said...

The physical properties of CO2 are well known.
It's heat capacity and spectral data aren't something people can deny.
How it interacts with the solar radiation is very well understood.
It is a green house gas.
Even the scientists who have looked at the data and disagree with man made global warming aren't going to say it isn't a green house gas.
They are going to say that it's concentration level isn't high enough to be a problem and that other causes are more significant.
There are people out there, usually politicians and/or business leaders, telling laymen that CO2 is completely harmless and scientists are involved in a big conspiracy to make us all Amish.
Anyone who falls in that category DESERVES to be "demonized".
Anti-intellicualism is not something to be proud of and should be condemned.
I remember a time with SO2 as a cause of acid rain was "debated" in political theater.
Everything from acid rain doesn't exist, to capping SO2 emissions will kill the economy, to acid is more complex than anyone could ever understand so we shouldn't do anything.
Same damn thing we see with GW deniers.
P.S.  You know what a REPUBLICAN president signed into law.
Cap and trade for SO2 emissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302946</id>
	<title>Article is Flamebait</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1267294800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stunning that something as obviously slanted and ignorant as the posting made slashdot.
<p>
Oh, right - it's slashdot. Where no one reads TFA and everyone thinks "the Market will fix it". Like Magic.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stunning that something as obviously slanted and ignorant as the posting made slashdot .
Oh , right - it 's slashdot .
Where no one reads TFA and everyone thinks " the Market will fix it " .
Like Magic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stunning that something as obviously slanted and ignorant as the posting made slashdot.
Oh, right - it's slashdot.
Where no one reads TFA and everyone thinks "the Market will fix it".
Like Magic.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303680</id>
	<title>Re:Don't understand the hostility...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267389300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wrong.  Or more accurately, you have no idea if that statement is accurate.  Neither does anyone else.  We can't model daily weather patterns, the ludicris idea that we can predict global climate changes anything better than basic historical cycles is just silly.</p><p>We really don't KNOW what more CO2 will do.  We have theories.</p><p>We also don't know what effect adding massive amounts of wind and solar farms will do to the climate, and you're a complete freaking idiot if you think it will have no effect.</p><p>EVERYTHING effects EVERYTHING else in the universe, even if very subtly and the system is simply far to complex to accurately  model and make statements like your own.</p><p>More CO2 could make the equatoral region into massive deserts, but that may also turn higher latitudes into awesome places to live now that more forms of live can live in regions that were formally uninhabitable by most life on Earth.  Sure we'll loss some species, but thats what happens.</p><p>Thats not likely, don't be me wrong, I don't think thats what would happen, but no one actually knows, anyone who says they do is just ignorant and arrogant.  Claiming to be able to predict anything about the climate is about like claiming you understand quantum mechanics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the theories are wrong , reducing green-house emissions ( etc ) wo n't hurt anything but the pocket book.Wrong .
Or more accurately , you have no idea if that statement is accurate .
Neither does anyone else .
We ca n't model daily weather patterns , the ludicris idea that we can predict global climate changes anything better than basic historical cycles is just silly.We really do n't KNOW what more CO2 will do .
We have theories.We also do n't know what effect adding massive amounts of wind and solar farms will do to the climate , and you 're a complete freaking idiot if you think it will have no effect.EVERYTHING effects EVERYTHING else in the universe , even if very subtly and the system is simply far to complex to accurately model and make statements like your own.More CO2 could make the equatoral region into massive deserts , but that may also turn higher latitudes into awesome places to live now that more forms of live can live in regions that were formally uninhabitable by most life on Earth .
Sure we 'll loss some species , but thats what happens.Thats not likely , do n't be me wrong , I do n't think thats what would happen , but no one actually knows , anyone who says they do is just ignorant and arrogant .
Claiming to be able to predict anything about the climate is about like claiming you understand quantum mechanics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book.Wrong.
Or more accurately, you have no idea if that statement is accurate.
Neither does anyone else.
We can't model daily weather patterns, the ludicris idea that we can predict global climate changes anything better than basic historical cycles is just silly.We really don't KNOW what more CO2 will do.
We have theories.We also don't know what effect adding massive amounts of wind and solar farms will do to the climate, and you're a complete freaking idiot if you think it will have no effect.EVERYTHING effects EVERYTHING else in the universe, even if very subtly and the system is simply far to complex to accurately  model and make statements like your own.More CO2 could make the equatoral region into massive deserts, but that may also turn higher latitudes into awesome places to live now that more forms of live can live in regions that were formally uninhabitable by most life on Earth.
Sure we'll loss some species, but thats what happens.Thats not likely, don't be me wrong, I don't think thats what would happen, but no one actually knows, anyone who says they do is just ignorant and arrogant.
Claiming to be able to predict anything about the climate is about like claiming you understand quantum mechanics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303034</id>
	<title>Re:Tora! Tora! Tora!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And yes, I know, there are liberals that do it too. I don't think they're in charge of the left.</p></div><p>Actually, the liberals in charge of the left have picked up the habit of ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them and then dismissing contrary viewpoints out-of-hand because the people who espouse those contrary viewpoints are judged to be idiots/bigots/selfish/hypocrites/etc.  Robert Gibbs, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi do this on a regular basis, much as they did with the Tea Party groups (claiming that the participants are mere fringe elements with astroturf tendencies and therefore don't need to be listened to), and it resulted in the Democrats losing their 60th seat in the Senate in a race that should have been a sure thing.</p><p>Conservatives are no better, throwing around scare jargon like "socialism" instead of focusing on the actual issues.  The important thing to realize is that there's ample blame to distribute to both groups when it comes to politicians no longer representing the people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yes , I know , there are liberals that do it too .
I do n't think they 're in charge of the left.Actually , the liberals in charge of the left have picked up the habit of ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them and then dismissing contrary viewpoints out-of-hand because the people who espouse those contrary viewpoints are judged to be idiots/bigots/selfish/hypocrites/etc .
Robert Gibbs , Harry Reid , and Nancy Pelosi do this on a regular basis , much as they did with the Tea Party groups ( claiming that the participants are mere fringe elements with astroturf tendencies and therefore do n't need to be listened to ) , and it resulted in the Democrats losing their 60th seat in the Senate in a race that should have been a sure thing.Conservatives are no better , throwing around scare jargon like " socialism " instead of focusing on the actual issues .
The important thing to realize is that there 's ample blame to distribute to both groups when it comes to politicians no longer representing the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yes, I know, there are liberals that do it too.
I don't think they're in charge of the left.Actually, the liberals in charge of the left have picked up the habit of ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them and then dismissing contrary viewpoints out-of-hand because the people who espouse those contrary viewpoints are judged to be idiots/bigots/selfish/hypocrites/etc.
Robert Gibbs, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi do this on a regular basis, much as they did with the Tea Party groups (claiming that the participants are mere fringe elements with astroturf tendencies and therefore don't need to be listened to), and it resulted in the Democrats losing their 60th seat in the Senate in a race that should have been a sure thing.Conservatives are no better, throwing around scare jargon like "socialism" instead of focusing on the actual issues.
The important thing to realize is that there's ample blame to distribute to both groups when it comes to politicians no longer representing the people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304708</id>
	<title>Dear Denialists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267363500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know words are very difficult for you to deal with, so here is a little picture to explain everything regarding climate change</p><p>http://www.goingonabearhunt.com/?p=209</p><p>You're welcome. There no need to thank me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know words are very difficult for you to deal with , so here is a little picture to explain everything regarding climate changehttp : //www.goingonabearhunt.com/ ? p = 209You 're welcome .
There no need to thank me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know words are very difficult for you to deal with, so here is a little picture to explain everything regarding climate changehttp://www.goingonabearhunt.com/?p=209You're welcome.
There no need to thank me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303550</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>gijoel</author>
	<datestamp>1267387740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684</id>
	<title>Flamewar imminent</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1267292700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're practically begging the denialists to come out and play.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...oh, it's a kdawson article.  Carry on, then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're practically begging the denialists to come out and play .
...oh , it 's a kdawson article .
Carry on , then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're practically begging the denialists to come out and play.
...oh, it's a kdawson article.
Carry on, then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303794</id>
	<title>Re:Equally Lazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267347780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGW? Please share. And I hope you meant climate scientists in that statement. All real scientists, I'm sure, question AGW, for that is the methodology of science. It's the denialism that abounds and the grasping at each minor error and pointing to it as proof that climate scientists know nothing of what they study that is so off-putting. Anyone who claims to "disbelieve" global warming is not a real (or good) scientist. A real scientist may wonder at the extent that humans cause global warming (or cooling!) and be interested in studies that decrease the error of current estimates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGW ?
Please share .
And I hope you meant climate scientists in that statement .
All real scientists , I 'm sure , question AGW , for that is the methodology of science .
It 's the denialism that abounds and the grasping at each minor error and pointing to it as proof that climate scientists know nothing of what they study that is so off-putting .
Anyone who claims to " disbelieve " global warming is not a real ( or good ) scientist .
A real scientist may wonder at the extent that humans cause global warming ( or cooling !
) and be interested in studies that decrease the error of current estimates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGW?
Please share.
And I hope you meant climate scientists in that statement.
All real scientists, I'm sure, question AGW, for that is the methodology of science.
It's the denialism that abounds and the grasping at each minor error and pointing to it as proof that climate scientists know nothing of what they study that is so off-putting.
Anyone who claims to "disbelieve" global warming is not a real (or good) scientist.
A real scientist may wonder at the extent that humans cause global warming (or cooling!
) and be interested in studies that decrease the error of current estimates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303068</id>
	<title>Re:Flamewar imminent</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1267296000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I simply credit it to the "I can do it!" attitude that leads people to become engineers or CS people in the first place.  The sense that you're smart enough to understand everything and capable enough to figure everything out.  Even when you're not.  It's a great attitude to have in an engineer, but it has the side effect of them assuming that they know more than people who <i>actually do</i> know what they're talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I simply credit it to the " I can do it !
" attitude that leads people to become engineers or CS people in the first place .
The sense that you 're smart enough to understand everything and capable enough to figure everything out .
Even when you 're not .
It 's a great attitude to have in an engineer , but it has the side effect of them assuming that they know more than people who actually do know what they 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I simply credit it to the "I can do it!
" attitude that leads people to become engineers or CS people in the first place.
The sense that you're smart enough to understand everything and capable enough to figure everything out.
Even when you're not.
It's a great attitude to have in an engineer, but it has the side effect of them assuming that they know more than people who actually do know what they're talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1267388940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This got +5 Insightful?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.</p></div><p>There wasn't any demonization in the original post. There's a difference between dismissal and demonization.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.</p></div><p>...but that, on the other hand, comes close, in addition to being laughably irrational. People who are seriously interested in financial gain, if they go into the sciences at all, certainly aren't going to pick <i>climatology</i> as their cash cow. And once ensconced in climatology, there's no particular financial incentive to espouse any particular theory. "Hey, I really made a bundle off of my latest paper on upper-atmosphere particulates in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes." Riiiiiiight.</p><p>As with religious fundamentalists who like to argue that science is a religion, absurd accusations of this sort usually say a great deal more about the accuser than the accused.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This got + 5 Insightful ? And you , sir , are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.There was n't any demonization in the original post .
There 's a difference between dismissal and demonization.On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain....but that , on the other hand , comes close , in addition to being laughably irrational .
People who are seriously interested in financial gain , if they go into the sciences at all , certainly are n't going to pick climatology as their cash cow .
And once ensconced in climatology , there 's no particular financial incentive to espouse any particular theory .
" Hey , I really made a bundle off of my latest paper on upper-atmosphere particulates in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes .
" Riiiiiiight.As with religious fundamentalists who like to argue that science is a religion , absurd accusations of this sort usually say a great deal more about the accuser than the accused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This got +5 Insightful?And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.There wasn't any demonization in the original post.
There's a difference between dismissal and demonization.On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain....but that, on the other hand, comes close, in addition to being laughably irrational.
People who are seriously interested in financial gain, if they go into the sciences at all, certainly aren't going to pick climatology as their cash cow.
And once ensconced in climatology, there's no particular financial incentive to espouse any particular theory.
"Hey, I really made a bundle off of my latest paper on upper-atmosphere particulates in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes.
" Riiiiiiight.As with religious fundamentalists who like to argue that science is a religion, absurd accusations of this sort usually say a great deal more about the accuser than the accused.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303506</id>
	<title>Re:Tora! Tora! Tora!</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1267387320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we talking about the same left? Because a certain U.S President is widely considered pretty leftie, and whatever his faults, I don't seem him resorting to ridicule.</p><p>I gather from your post you consider yourself apart from both the right and the left. But you clearly share their preference for being in attack mode. The fact that you attack them for being in attack mode doesn't make it any better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we talking about the same left ?
Because a certain U.S President is widely considered pretty leftie , and whatever his faults , I do n't seem him resorting to ridicule.I gather from your post you consider yourself apart from both the right and the left .
But you clearly share their preference for being in attack mode .
The fact that you attack them for being in attack mode does n't make it any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we talking about the same left?
Because a certain U.S President is widely considered pretty leftie, and whatever his faults, I don't seem him resorting to ridicule.I gather from your post you consider yourself apart from both the right and the left.
But you clearly share their preference for being in attack mode.
The fact that you attack them for being in attack mode doesn't make it any better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303732</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267390140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you think pumping millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every single day can't possibly have any effect?</p><p>That's why it's called denial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you think pumping millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every single day ca n't possibly have any effect ? That 's why it 's called denial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you think pumping millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every single day can't possibly have any effect?That's why it's called denial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31308074</id>
	<title>Gore is the greatest man who ever devoted his life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the people. Apple full of republtards that explains alot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the people .
Apple full of republtards that explains alot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the people.
Apple full of republtards that explains alot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307272</id>
	<title>Good account of the rest of what was said here</title>
	<author>bob\_calder</author>
	<datestamp>1267383240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comic Relief at Apple&rsquo;s Shareholder Meeting article by Chaffin at Mac Observer<br>Some quotes: "Why are we being inundated with policies that have nothing to do with [Apple as a company]?!?! These people are Socialists and want us to be slaves to the government, GOD DAMNIT!"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I also wonder if he's the same HP shareholder named Shelton Ehrlich who told a reporter that he didn't think HP's Chairman had done anything wrong by hiring private investigators to spy on company employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comic Relief at Apple    s Shareholder Meeting article by Chaffin at Mac ObserverSome quotes : " Why are we being inundated with policies that have nothing to do with [ Apple as a company ] ? ! ? !
These people are Socialists and want us to be slaves to the government , GOD DAMNIT !
" ... I also wonder if he 's the same HP shareholder named Shelton Ehrlich who told a reporter that he did n't think HP 's Chairman had done anything wrong by hiring private investigators to spy on company employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comic Relief at Apple’s Shareholder Meeting article by Chaffin at Mac ObserverSome quotes: "Why are we being inundated with policies that have nothing to do with [Apple as a company]?!?!
These people are Socialists and want us to be slaves to the government, GOD DAMNIT!
" ... I also wonder if he's the same HP shareholder named Shelton Ehrlich who told a reporter that he didn't think HP's Chairman had done anything wrong by hiring private investigators to spy on company employees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305602</id>
	<title>Plenty of glaciers have been rapidly melting.</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1267371840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.doublexposure.net/photos.html" title="doublexposure.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.doublexposure.net/photos.html</a> [doublexposure.net]

Yeah, couldn't be due to mankind's actions though because we're all God's children. If carbon emissions could cause such devastation, God wouldn't have invented Hummers. Or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.doublexposure.net/photos.html [ doublexposure.net ] Yeah , could n't be due to mankind 's actions though because we 're all God 's children .
If carbon emissions could cause such devastation , God would n't have invented Hummers .
Or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.doublexposure.net/photos.html [doublexposure.net]

Yeah, couldn't be due to mankind's actions though because we're all God's children.
If carbon emissions could cause such devastation, God wouldn't have invented Hummers.
Or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307714</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267386300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most corporate board members aren't the brightest individuals out their.  They are usually full of white males who were raised by millionaire parents who were able to pull strings to get them into Harvard or Yale.  Think George W. Bush type of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most corporate board members are n't the brightest individuals out their .
They are usually full of white males who were raised by millionaire parents who were able to pull strings to get them into Harvard or Yale .
Think George W. Bush type of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most corporate board members aren't the brightest individuals out their.
They are usually full of white males who were raised by millionaire parents who were able to pull strings to get them into Harvard or Yale.
Think George W. Bush type of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302668</id>
	<title>Fools.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, at least the shareholders aren't buying into "sustainability" scam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least the shareholders are n't buying into " sustainability " scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least the shareholders aren't buying into "sustainability" scam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303250</id>
	<title>News?</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1267298220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are generally unethical baboons. Investors and shareholders are 2^N times more unethical and are less than just baboons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are generally unethical baboons .
Investors and shareholders are 2 ^ N times more unethical and are less than just baboons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are generally unethical baboons.
Investors and shareholders are 2^N times more unethical and are less than just baboons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304018</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1267350900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who are seriously interested in financial gain, if they go into the sciences at all, certainly aren't going to pick climatology as their cash cow.</p></div><p>Climate science is a multi-billion dollar industry, and if they said "hey, everything is cool!" there would be no reason to allocate any more money to it.</p><p>Be that as it may, what exactly is so sacred about AGW theories that is beyond examination?  Nothing deserves that status.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are seriously interested in financial gain , if they go into the sciences at all , certainly are n't going to pick climatology as their cash cow.Climate science is a multi-billion dollar industry , and if they said " hey , everything is cool !
" there would be no reason to allocate any more money to it.Be that as it may , what exactly is so sacred about AGW theories that is beyond examination ?
Nothing deserves that status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are seriously interested in financial gain, if they go into the sciences at all, certainly aren't going to pick climatology as their cash cow.Climate science is a multi-billion dollar industry, and if they said "hey, everything is cool!
" there would be no reason to allocate any more money to it.Be that as it may, what exactly is so sacred about AGW theories that is beyond examination?
Nothing deserves that status.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304984</id>
	<title>Re:Flamewar imminent</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1267366860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is a slight against engineers to imply that most of the people coming here are engineers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is a slight against engineers to imply that most of the people coming here are engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is a slight against engineers to imply that most of the people coming here are engineers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303510</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267387380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet you seem to think that a very short (geologically) period of study about the Earths climate is accurate, without any real knowledge of whats going on.  All we can do is make educated guesses based on historical evidence that we don't actually really know is even right.</p><p>The whole thing is relatively new science using layers apon layers of theoretical data that is derived from other theoretical data that NO ONE ANYWHERE CAN ACTUALLY VERIFY since no one was keeping records for the last<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 2 or 3 million years.</p><p>You're problem is that you think you and your 'group' is so smart that they know whats going on and no one else could possibly have a valid thought, your group keeps using the same battle cry that the world is going to end, yet DAY AFTER DAY the evidence your group is using gets shown to be at best inaccurate, in many cases its just fucking wrong, and the more studying and investigation that goes into global warming, the more it comes out that those screaming about it are lying to get people to believe them.</p><p>Pot, Kettle, Black.</p><p>Stop thinking your group is so fucking smart when you start getting your way  (more research and concern) and everyone else starts realizing you've been crying wolf and talking about shit you don't actually understand or can't even get the fucking math right on.</p><p>Then come back and have a discussion without arrogance and ignorance, THEN<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and ONLY THEN, may be we can actually determine how much of a problem it is, IF we even have anything to do with it as a species and most importantly, if theres a damn thing we can do to stop it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... heres a hint, until we can adjust the Earths orbit to be stable, not cyclic, as well as the Suns power output, and millions of other things that have far more impact on our climate than CO2 output from fossil fuels.</p><p>Its easy to call other people dumb when you're entirely ignorant of the topic of conversation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet you seem to think that a very short ( geologically ) period of study about the Earths climate is accurate , without any real knowledge of whats going on .
All we can do is make educated guesses based on historical evidence that we do n't actually really know is even right.The whole thing is relatively new science using layers apon layers of theoretical data that is derived from other theoretical data that NO ONE ANYWHERE CAN ACTUALLY VERIFY since no one was keeping records for the last ... oh ... 2 or 3 million years.You 're problem is that you think you and your 'group ' is so smart that they know whats going on and no one else could possibly have a valid thought , your group keeps using the same battle cry that the world is going to end , yet DAY AFTER DAY the evidence your group is using gets shown to be at best inaccurate , in many cases its just fucking wrong , and the more studying and investigation that goes into global warming , the more it comes out that those screaming about it are lying to get people to believe them.Pot , Kettle , Black.Stop thinking your group is so fucking smart when you start getting your way ( more research and concern ) and everyone else starts realizing you 've been crying wolf and talking about shit you do n't actually understand or ca n't even get the fucking math right on.Then come back and have a discussion without arrogance and ignorance , THEN ... and ONLY THEN , may be we can actually determine how much of a problem it is , IF we even have anything to do with it as a species and most importantly , if theres a damn thing we can do to stop it ... heres a hint , until we can adjust the Earths orbit to be stable , not cyclic , as well as the Suns power output , and millions of other things that have far more impact on our climate than CO2 output from fossil fuels.Its easy to call other people dumb when you 're entirely ignorant of the topic of conversation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet you seem to think that a very short (geologically) period of study about the Earths climate is accurate, without any real knowledge of whats going on.
All we can do is make educated guesses based on historical evidence that we don't actually really know is even right.The whole thing is relatively new science using layers apon layers of theoretical data that is derived from other theoretical data that NO ONE ANYWHERE CAN ACTUALLY VERIFY since no one was keeping records for the last ... oh ... 2 or 3 million years.You're problem is that you think you and your 'group' is so smart that they know whats going on and no one else could possibly have a valid thought, your group keeps using the same battle cry that the world is going to end, yet DAY AFTER DAY the evidence your group is using gets shown to be at best inaccurate, in many cases its just fucking wrong, and the more studying and investigation that goes into global warming, the more it comes out that those screaming about it are lying to get people to believe them.Pot, Kettle, Black.Stop thinking your group is so fucking smart when you start getting your way  (more research and concern) and everyone else starts realizing you've been crying wolf and talking about shit you don't actually understand or can't even get the fucking math right on.Then come back and have a discussion without arrogance and ignorance, THEN ... and ONLY THEN, may be we can actually determine how much of a problem it is, IF we even have anything to do with it as a species and most importantly, if theres a damn thing we can do to stop it ... heres a hint, until we can adjust the Earths orbit to be stable, not cyclic, as well as the Suns power output, and millions of other things that have far more impact on our climate than CO2 output from fossil fuels.Its easy to call other people dumb when you're entirely ignorant of the topic of conversation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302924</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1267294680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> it is currently a which hunt on both sides.</p></div><p>Well, man, don't leave me hanging! Which hunt is it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is currently a which hunt on both sides.Well , man , do n't leave me hanging !
Which hunt is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it is currently a which hunt on both sides.Well, man, don't leave me hanging!
Which hunt is it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303468</id>
	<title>Re:Equally Lazy</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1267300500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You defend TTT with more TTT. How lame is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You defend TTT with more TTT .
How lame is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You defend TTT with more TTT.
How lame is that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303082</id>
	<title>Re:Tora! Tora! Tora!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm feeding a troll. However, if you want to see the attack types, sit down at a bar at a ski resort, and point to the organic beer on tap and say "what's that". When the barkeep says it's an organic lager, say "no, thanks. I don't do organic food." Someone will say "why" and respond with "I can't morally support lowering crop yields while people are starving in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>." I've found that even though I'm a right-wing nutjob, I've got nothing on the hatred and attack mentality of your average college-educated type. It's scarry. Who needs conspiracy theories when there are people like that. I fear the world my daughters will live in. They're either going to be property under Sharia or free to do anything they can afford to be taxed for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm feeding a troll .
However , if you want to see the attack types , sit down at a bar at a ski resort , and point to the organic beer on tap and say " what 's that " .
When the barkeep says it 's an organic lager , say " no , thanks .
I do n't do organic food .
" Someone will say " why " and respond with " I ca n't morally support lowering crop yields while people are starving in .
" I 've found that even though I 'm a right-wing nutjob , I 've got nothing on the hatred and attack mentality of your average college-educated type .
It 's scarry .
Who needs conspiracy theories when there are people like that .
I fear the world my daughters will live in .
They 're either going to be property under Sharia or free to do anything they can afford to be taxed for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm feeding a troll.
However, if you want to see the attack types, sit down at a bar at a ski resort, and point to the organic beer on tap and say "what's that".
When the barkeep says it's an organic lager, say "no, thanks.
I don't do organic food.
" Someone will say "why" and respond with "I can't morally support lowering crop yields while people are starving in .
" I've found that even though I'm a right-wing nutjob, I've got nothing on the hatred and attack mentality of your average college-educated type.
It's scarry.
Who needs conspiracy theories when there are people like that.
I fear the world my daughters will live in.
They're either going to be property under Sharia or free to do anything they can afford to be taxed for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303548</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>wall0159</author>
	<datestamp>1267387740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're implying that:</p><p>1. people who accept poor salaries and working conditions to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of truth and knowledge are as likely to "ignore scientific evidence for financial gain" as those who pursue power and wealth in big business.<br>2. every person on Earth is biased and corruptible to exactly the same extent.</p><p>I would dispute both those claims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but I think you 're implying that : 1. people who accept poor salaries and working conditions to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of truth and knowledge are as likely to " ignore scientific evidence for financial gain " as those who pursue power and wealth in big business.2 .
every person on Earth is biased and corruptible to exactly the same extent.I would dispute both those claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're implying that:1. people who accept poor salaries and working conditions to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of truth and knowledge are as likely to "ignore scientific evidence for financial gain" as those who pursue power and wealth in big business.2.
every person on Earth is biased and corruptible to exactly the same extent.I would dispute both those claims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305082</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs comments on Apple's $40B in cash reserves</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267367700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, you establish your agreement with the philosophy of keeping a large cash reserve in order to facilitate taking risks.</p><p>&gt;&gt; <i>he argued--convincingly, IMO--that a company like Apple that takes risks needs the safety net of cash in the bank.</i></p><p>Then you assert that the investors would prefer draining the cash reserve for the sake of an immediate distribution.</p><p>&gt;&gt; <i>Given his two hypothetical choices, if the stock price isn't going to change, any investor would prefer the one with a cash distribution.</i></p><p>Are you arguing your own point, or are you claiming that the investors are idiots?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you establish your agreement with the philosophy of keeping a large cash reserve in order to facilitate taking risks. &gt; &gt; he argued--convincingly , IMO--that a company like Apple that takes risks needs the safety net of cash in the bank.Then you assert that the investors would prefer draining the cash reserve for the sake of an immediate distribution. &gt; &gt; Given his two hypothetical choices , if the stock price is n't going to change , any investor would prefer the one with a cash distribution.Are you arguing your own point , or are you claiming that the investors are idiots ?
        -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you establish your agreement with the philosophy of keeping a large cash reserve in order to facilitate taking risks.&gt;&gt; he argued--convincingly, IMO--that a company like Apple that takes risks needs the safety net of cash in the bank.Then you assert that the investors would prefer draining the cash reserve for the sake of an immediate distribution.&gt;&gt; Given his two hypothetical choices, if the stock price isn't going to change, any investor would prefer the one with a cash distribution.Are you arguing your own point, or are you claiming that the investors are idiots?
        -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307322</id>
	<title>Re:Flamewar imminent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267383480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno. I personally think that businesspeople and salespeople are the ones with the 'can-do' attitude. However, it's that attitude that gets them into some trouble, sometimes (lies, quarterly goals, etc).</p><p>Engineers and "CS people", on the other hand, are more of a "I know it can be done, here's how" caliber. That's not really 'can-do'. It's more 'how-to'. As a matter of fact, I won't even include so-called 'CS people', unless said 'CS person' has a degree in Electronic Engineering. It's THAT discipline that computers were borne from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno .
I personally think that businesspeople and salespeople are the ones with the 'can-do ' attitude .
However , it 's that attitude that gets them into some trouble , sometimes ( lies , quarterly goals , etc ) .Engineers and " CS people " , on the other hand , are more of a " I know it can be done , here 's how " caliber .
That 's not really 'can-do' .
It 's more 'how-to' .
As a matter of fact , I wo n't even include so-called 'CS people ' , unless said 'CS person ' has a degree in Electronic Engineering .
It 's THAT discipline that computers were borne from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno.
I personally think that businesspeople and salespeople are the ones with the 'can-do' attitude.
However, it's that attitude that gets them into some trouble, sometimes (lies, quarterly goals, etc).Engineers and "CS people", on the other hand, are more of a "I know it can be done, here's how" caliber.
That's not really 'can-do'.
It's more 'how-to'.
As a matter of fact, I won't even include so-called 'CS people', unless said 'CS person' has a degree in Electronic Engineering.
It's THAT discipline that computers were borne from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303022</id>
	<title>Re:Article is Flamebait</title>
	<author>rmushkatblat</author>
	<datestamp>1267295460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The market will indeed fix it.  Cap-n-trade isn't a market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The market will indeed fix it .
Cap-n-trade is n't a market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The market will indeed fix it.
Cap-n-trade isn't a market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304346</id>
	<title>Shareholders voting against the public interest</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1267357140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>one asking Apple to commit publicly to greenhouse gas reduction goals and to publish a formal sustainability report; another proposing that Apple's board establish a sustainability committee. These proposals were rejected by shareholders</p></div></blockquote><p>Shareholders Care More About Bottom Line Than Environment.</p><p>Film at 11.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>one asking Apple to commit publicly to greenhouse gas reduction goals and to publish a formal sustainability report ; another proposing that Apple 's board establish a sustainability committee .
These proposals were rejected by shareholdersShareholders Care More About Bottom Line Than Environment.Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one asking Apple to commit publicly to greenhouse gas reduction goals and to publish a formal sustainability report; another proposing that Apple's board establish a sustainability committee.
These proposals were rejected by shareholdersShareholders Care More About Bottom Line Than Environment.Film at 11.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31310830</id>
	<title>Re:Don't understand the hostility...</title>
	<author>Mr Bubble</author>
	<datestamp>1267367280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with your comments about being pragmatic and developing viable alternatives, but I disagree that the chief obstacle is "greenie eco-nuts". It takes a lot of capital to fund major changes in energy infrastructure and, despite such successes as the highway system, the Internet, the GI Bill, etc., government spending is vilified as wasteful and arrogant - never mind that it's OK to waste a trillion in Iraq and several hundred billion on tax cuts for the oppressed wealthy. If it weren't for the pressure from entrenched corporate interests like Exxon and their lackeys in government and the vilification of any meaningful investment in clean energy from the government to get things rolling, we would be creating these technologies. Many of us "greenie eco-nuts" feel that a more energy-efficient economy is possible without lowering the standard of living - indeed, we feel that it could only boost the economy. ( having said that, I don't think reducing the amount of salad shooters and talking bass we purchase reduces our standard of living ). I wish the Democrats had some balls and had come into office with a martial plan for energy independence and had rammed it through congress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your comments about being pragmatic and developing viable alternatives , but I disagree that the chief obstacle is " greenie eco-nuts " .
It takes a lot of capital to fund major changes in energy infrastructure and , despite such successes as the highway system , the Internet , the GI Bill , etc. , government spending is vilified as wasteful and arrogant - never mind that it 's OK to waste a trillion in Iraq and several hundred billion on tax cuts for the oppressed wealthy .
If it were n't for the pressure from entrenched corporate interests like Exxon and their lackeys in government and the vilification of any meaningful investment in clean energy from the government to get things rolling , we would be creating these technologies .
Many of us " greenie eco-nuts " feel that a more energy-efficient economy is possible without lowering the standard of living - indeed , we feel that it could only boost the economy .
( having said that , I do n't think reducing the amount of salad shooters and talking bass we purchase reduces our standard of living ) .
I wish the Democrats had some balls and had come into office with a martial plan for energy independence and had rammed it through congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your comments about being pragmatic and developing viable alternatives, but I disagree that the chief obstacle is "greenie eco-nuts".
It takes a lot of capital to fund major changes in energy infrastructure and, despite such successes as the highway system, the Internet, the GI Bill, etc., government spending is vilified as wasteful and arrogant - never mind that it's OK to waste a trillion in Iraq and several hundred billion on tax cuts for the oppressed wealthy.
If it weren't for the pressure from entrenched corporate interests like Exxon and their lackeys in government and the vilification of any meaningful investment in clean energy from the government to get things rolling, we would be creating these technologies.
Many of us "greenie eco-nuts" feel that a more energy-efficient economy is possible without lowering the standard of living - indeed, we feel that it could only boost the economy.
( having said that, I don't think reducing the amount of salad shooters and talking bass we purchase reduces our standard of living ).
I wish the Democrats had some balls and had come into office with a martial plan for energy independence and had rammed it through congress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307106</id>
	<title>Cool it and think risk management</title>
	<author>Kestrelflier</author>
	<datestamp>1267382040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some important points are commonly lost in the climate change debate, not helped by the fact that the loudest voices are as likely to be motivated by ideology as informed by science.</p><p>There are few certainties- even the strongest advocates accept the increase by 2050 could be anything from 1 degree (manageable) to 5 degrees (catastrophic).  There is definitely a finite probability (in my judgemement- but I'm not a climate scientist- high) that the planet is getting warmer, and also a finite probability (in my judgement less high but still significant) that the effect is man made.</p><p>So why don't we just cool it a bit, and see climate change policy for what it is- an exercise in risk management.</p><p>I don't think I'm about to wreck my car, and my house probably isn't going to burn down, but I insure both, because either event would hurt me seriously.  I apply the classic risk management approach:<br>concern=probability of occurence * severity of consequence.</p><p>How about the same logic to the planet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some important points are commonly lost in the climate change debate , not helped by the fact that the loudest voices are as likely to be motivated by ideology as informed by science.There are few certainties- even the strongest advocates accept the increase by 2050 could be anything from 1 degree ( manageable ) to 5 degrees ( catastrophic ) .
There is definitely a finite probability ( in my judgemement- but I 'm not a climate scientist- high ) that the planet is getting warmer , and also a finite probability ( in my judgement less high but still significant ) that the effect is man made.So why do n't we just cool it a bit , and see climate change policy for what it is- an exercise in risk management.I do n't think I 'm about to wreck my car , and my house probably is n't going to burn down , but I insure both , because either event would hurt me seriously .
I apply the classic risk management approach : concern = probability of occurence * severity of consequence.How about the same logic to the planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some important points are commonly lost in the climate change debate, not helped by the fact that the loudest voices are as likely to be motivated by ideology as informed by science.There are few certainties- even the strongest advocates accept the increase by 2050 could be anything from 1 degree (manageable) to 5 degrees (catastrophic).
There is definitely a finite probability (in my judgemement- but I'm not a climate scientist- high) that the planet is getting warmer, and also a finite probability (in my judgement less high but still significant) that the effect is man made.So why don't we just cool it a bit, and see climate change policy for what it is- an exercise in risk management.I don't think I'm about to wreck my car, and my house probably isn't going to burn down, but I insure both, because either event would hurt me seriously.
I apply the classic risk management approach:concern=probability of occurence * severity of consequence.How about the same logic to the planet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303738</id>
	<title>Re:Equally Lazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267390200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>even though there are tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGW</p></div></blockquote><p>Name five. Since I'm sure we disagree on what qualifies as carefully thought out, the criteria can be "peer-reviewed article appearing in a climate science journal since 1993 that disagrees with the existence of anthropogenic global warming". The most prominent <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">study</a> [sciencemag.org] on the subject couldn't find a single one of the 928 sampled, but of course it's nearly six years old now, so perhaps there's been a big upsurge that no-one noticed.</p><p>Remember before copy-pasting from any of the usual lists to make sure the article actually opposes the consensus (it doesn't) and that the author hasn't released a statement denouncing denialists for misrepresenting their work (they probably have). Also keep in mind that Energy and Environment doesn't engage in actual peer review, and that neither economics nor petroleum geology count as climate science.</p><p>You dislike being compared to the birthers, but the tons of great articles refuting anthropogenic global warming are every bit as fictional as Barack Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, and even more ridiculous. After all, a birth certificate is the sort of thing that could be conceivably concealed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>even though there are tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGWName five .
Since I 'm sure we disagree on what qualifies as carefully thought out , the criteria can be " peer-reviewed article appearing in a climate science journal since 1993 that disagrees with the existence of anthropogenic global warming " .
The most prominent study [ sciencemag.org ] on the subject could n't find a single one of the 928 sampled , but of course it 's nearly six years old now , so perhaps there 's been a big upsurge that no-one noticed.Remember before copy-pasting from any of the usual lists to make sure the article actually opposes the consensus ( it does n't ) and that the author has n't released a statement denouncing denialists for misrepresenting their work ( they probably have ) .
Also keep in mind that Energy and Environment does n't engage in actual peer review , and that neither economics nor petroleum geology count as climate science.You dislike being compared to the birthers , but the tons of great articles refuting anthropogenic global warming are every bit as fictional as Barack Obama 's Kenyan birth certificate , and even more ridiculous .
After all , a birth certificate is the sort of thing that could be conceivably concealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even though there are tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGWName five.
Since I'm sure we disagree on what qualifies as carefully thought out, the criteria can be "peer-reviewed article appearing in a climate science journal since 1993 that disagrees with the existence of anthropogenic global warming".
The most prominent study [sciencemag.org] on the subject couldn't find a single one of the 928 sampled, but of course it's nearly six years old now, so perhaps there's been a big upsurge that no-one noticed.Remember before copy-pasting from any of the usual lists to make sure the article actually opposes the consensus (it doesn't) and that the author hasn't released a statement denouncing denialists for misrepresenting their work (they probably have).
Also keep in mind that Energy and Environment doesn't engage in actual peer review, and that neither economics nor petroleum geology count as climate science.You dislike being compared to the birthers, but the tons of great articles refuting anthropogenic global warming are every bit as fictional as Barack Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, and even more ridiculous.
After all, a birth certificate is the sort of thing that could be conceivably concealed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</id>
	<title>Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1267293900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, apple stockholders must be really dumb.</p><p>Because, seriously?  Al Gore's movie came out like a couple years ago, and global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years.  How is that not common knowledge?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , apple stockholders must be really dumb.Because , seriously ?
Al Gore 's movie came out like a couple years ago , and global climate change is n't something that you 're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years .
How is that not common knowledge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, apple stockholders must be really dumb.Because, seriously?
Al Gore's movie came out like a couple years ago, and global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years.
How is that not common knowledge?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305492</id>
	<title>Climategate was a paranoid farce in a teacup</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1267371180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>cf. 'climategate', overrated as it may be</i> <br>
<br>
Climategate was not overrated -- it was a paranoid farce in a teacup, <i> <b>but let me explain further</b> </i>.
<br>
<br>
These are just <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY" title="youtube.com">two</a> [youtube.com] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4" title="youtube.com">videos</a> [youtube.com] among many that demonstrate just how out to lunch climate gate is.<br>
<br>
Of course, you could just go and read the sources yourself and decide if the CRU scientists really did anything wrong. Can *you* find a single example?</htmltext>
<tokenext>cf .
'climategate ' , overrated as it may be Climategate was not overrated -- it was a paranoid farce in a teacup , but let me explain further .
These are just two [ youtube.com ] videos [ youtube.com ] among many that demonstrate just how out to lunch climate gate is .
Of course , you could just go and read the sources yourself and decide if the CRU scientists really did anything wrong .
Can * you * find a single example ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cf.
'climategate', overrated as it may be 

Climategate was not overrated -- it was a paranoid farce in a teacup,  but let me explain further .
These are just two [youtube.com] videos [youtube.com] among many that demonstrate just how out to lunch climate gate is.
Of course, you could just go and read the sources yourself and decide if the CRU scientists really did anything wrong.
Can *you* find a single example?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302966</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1267294980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, you expect lack of knowledge on an issue to stop people from commenting on it?  You *don't* expect to hear straw men?</p><p>Random straw man example: the "glaciers aren't melting" comment.  First off, <a href="http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Glacier\_Mass\_Balance\_Map.png" title="nasa.gov">most glaciers are in decline</a> [nasa.gov], so they're wrong.  But more importantly, <i>AGW does not mean that all glaciers will decline</i>.  Glacier melt rates certainly affect rate of flow.  But so does snowfall rate, and there are a good number of lesser factors (for example, how strongly pack ice holds back the front of the glacier).  Some glaciers almost never experience temperatures above freezing, so melt rate isn't a significant issue for them; it's all about the balance between snowfall and discharge rate (which partly depends on pack ice if it reaches the sea).  Snowfall rate and how well pack ice is retained depends on how weather patterns and ocean currents and temperatures change in the area.  In most areas, the average precipitation increases in AGW scenarios.  Oceans generally warm (although not evenly, thanks in large part to thermohaline cycling).  And ocean currents vary.  So you can't make any general comment about how all glaciers will react.</p><p>A good example of something that's been misused by *Gore*, to be even-handed here, is Kilimanjaro.  Gore cited it as an example of climate change.  It was probably one of the worst cases he could have picked.  The summit of Kilimanjaro almost never goes above freezing.  The rate of glacier change is a balance between snowfall and sublimation.  Most (although not all) papers on the subject indicate that the balance of these two has indeed shifted due to human activity -- but primarily the raising of food in the region, not warming.</p><p>It's really a shame that Gore picked that case, because most glacier declines that have been studied have been determined to be primarily due to warming (esp. inland/temperate/mountain glaciers).   But not Kilimanjaro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you expect lack of knowledge on an issue to stop people from commenting on it ?
You * do n't * expect to hear straw men ? Random straw man example : the " glaciers are n't melting " comment .
First off , most glaciers are in decline [ nasa.gov ] , so they 're wrong .
But more importantly , AGW does not mean that all glaciers will decline .
Glacier melt rates certainly affect rate of flow .
But so does snowfall rate , and there are a good number of lesser factors ( for example , how strongly pack ice holds back the front of the glacier ) .
Some glaciers almost never experience temperatures above freezing , so melt rate is n't a significant issue for them ; it 's all about the balance between snowfall and discharge rate ( which partly depends on pack ice if it reaches the sea ) .
Snowfall rate and how well pack ice is retained depends on how weather patterns and ocean currents and temperatures change in the area .
In most areas , the average precipitation increases in AGW scenarios .
Oceans generally warm ( although not evenly , thanks in large part to thermohaline cycling ) .
And ocean currents vary .
So you ca n't make any general comment about how all glaciers will react.A good example of something that 's been misused by * Gore * , to be even-handed here , is Kilimanjaro .
Gore cited it as an example of climate change .
It was probably one of the worst cases he could have picked .
The summit of Kilimanjaro almost never goes above freezing .
The rate of glacier change is a balance between snowfall and sublimation .
Most ( although not all ) papers on the subject indicate that the balance of these two has indeed shifted due to human activity -- but primarily the raising of food in the region , not warming.It 's really a shame that Gore picked that case , because most glacier declines that have been studied have been determined to be primarily due to warming ( esp .
inland/temperate/mountain glaciers ) .
But not Kilimanjaro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you expect lack of knowledge on an issue to stop people from commenting on it?
You *don't* expect to hear straw men?Random straw man example: the "glaciers aren't melting" comment.
First off, most glaciers are in decline [nasa.gov], so they're wrong.
But more importantly, AGW does not mean that all glaciers will decline.
Glacier melt rates certainly affect rate of flow.
But so does snowfall rate, and there are a good number of lesser factors (for example, how strongly pack ice holds back the front of the glacier).
Some glaciers almost never experience temperatures above freezing, so melt rate isn't a significant issue for them; it's all about the balance between snowfall and discharge rate (which partly depends on pack ice if it reaches the sea).
Snowfall rate and how well pack ice is retained depends on how weather patterns and ocean currents and temperatures change in the area.
In most areas, the average precipitation increases in AGW scenarios.
Oceans generally warm (although not evenly, thanks in large part to thermohaline cycling).
And ocean currents vary.
So you can't make any general comment about how all glaciers will react.A good example of something that's been misused by *Gore*, to be even-handed here, is Kilimanjaro.
Gore cited it as an example of climate change.
It was probably one of the worst cases he could have picked.
The summit of Kilimanjaro almost never goes above freezing.
The rate of glacier change is a balance between snowfall and sublimation.
Most (although not all) papers on the subject indicate that the balance of these two has indeed shifted due to human activity -- but primarily the raising of food in the region, not warming.It's really a shame that Gore picked that case, because most glacier declines that have been studied have been determined to be primarily due to warming (esp.
inland/temperate/mountain glaciers).
But not Kilimanjaro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302874</id>
	<title>Climate Change Policy Hinges On Keynote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267294320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><i>He would call their cell and say "I heard about these bees in South America, check it out for me" or "I came up with a way to make this section more powerful, why don't you think about this or that."</i></p><p>In other words, the most important issue is Design -- evidence and science are for adding a marginal logical appeal to the ethos and pathos that really matter!  The problem with this, of course, is that the entire movement becomes premised on bullshit -- even if climate change is true, what matters is public opinion and not that actual concrete and specific harms. So we end up overlooking the serious synergistic problems and long-term solutions for short-term marketable hype (think: hybrids)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : He would call their cell and say " I heard about these bees in South America , check it out for me " or " I came up with a way to make this section more powerful , why do n't you think about this or that .
" In other words , the most important issue is Design -- evidence and science are for adding a marginal logical appeal to the ethos and pathos that really matter !
The problem with this , of course , is that the entire movement becomes premised on bullshit -- even if climate change is true , what matters is public opinion and not that actual concrete and specific harms .
So we end up overlooking the serious synergistic problems and long-term solutions for short-term marketable hype ( think : hybrids )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:He would call their cell and say "I heard about these bees in South America, check it out for me" or "I came up with a way to make this section more powerful, why don't you think about this or that.
"In other words, the most important issue is Design -- evidence and science are for adding a marginal logical appeal to the ethos and pathos that really matter!
The problem with this, of course, is that the entire movement becomes premised on bullshit -- even if climate change is true, what matters is public opinion and not that actual concrete and specific harms.
So we end up overlooking the serious synergistic problems and long-term solutions for short-term marketable hype (think: hybrids)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304456</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267359660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you should have mentioned in which cycle are we currently in. That'd be the ice-age-a-coming cycle, of course. The planet is moving away from the Sun and it's gonna be a whole lotta penguins everywhere<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you should have mentioned in which cycle are we currently in .
That 'd be the ice-age-a-coming cycle , of course .
The planet is moving away from the Sun and it 's gon na be a whole lotta penguins everywhere : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you should have mentioned in which cycle are we currently in.
That'd be the ice-age-a-coming cycle, of course.
The planet is moving away from the Sun and it's gonna be a whole lotta penguins everywhere :p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303054</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1267295880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years.</p></div></blockquote><p>Clearly you have not seen Al Gore's movie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>global climate change is n't something that you 're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years.Clearly you have not seen Al Gore 's movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years.Clearly you have not seen Al Gore's movie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31308052</id>
	<title>Salem hypothesis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the environmental equivalent to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem\_hypothesis" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Salem hypothesis</a> [wikipedia.org].  Personally, I attribute it to (1) engineers being relatively socially and politically conservative compared to others with advanced science and mathematical training (such as actual scientists), and more importantly, (2) a disparity between what engineers <em>think</em> they know about science and actual science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the environmental equivalent to the Salem hypothesis [ wikipedia.org ] .
Personally , I attribute it to ( 1 ) engineers being relatively socially and politically conservative compared to others with advanced science and mathematical training ( such as actual scientists ) , and more importantly , ( 2 ) a disparity between what engineers think they know about science and actual science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the environmental equivalent to the Salem hypothesis [wikipedia.org].
Personally, I attribute it to (1) engineers being relatively socially and politically conservative compared to others with advanced science and mathematical training (such as actual scientists), and more importantly, (2) a disparity between what engineers think they know about science and actual science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304862</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267365360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years.</p></div><p>But when Al Gore says that glaciers will completely disappear in 15 years, that's dramatic, but if people point out that changing slightly in a cyclic trend is common, nope, that's not taking into account the long picture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>global climate change is n't something that you 're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years.But when Al Gore says that glaciers will completely disappear in 15 years , that 's dramatic , but if people point out that changing slightly in a cyclic trend is common , nope , that 's not taking into account the long picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years.But when Al Gore says that glaciers will completely disappear in 15 years, that's dramatic, but if people point out that changing slightly in a cyclic trend is common, nope, that's not taking into account the long picture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078</id>
	<title>Equally Lazy</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1267296060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding, they'll tell you Al Gore can't keep his facts straight. Suggest that GWB's anti-terror strategy is a disaster, and they'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama's real name.</i></p><p>Why is it not equally lazy to paint all "right wingers" as Birthers, and people who cannot argue with science even though there are tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGW - in many aspects turning out to be right in doing so?  Those who questioned "glaciers melting before 2035" were laughed at as loons before and told the science was carefully studied, when it turned out it was not.  Why can YOU not believe there are and can be scientists who do not agree with the current AGW theories?</p><p>Your whole post frankly struck me as full of such lazy stereotyping, with no effort on your part made to understand the reasoning behind those who do not buy into the same group-think you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding , they 'll tell you Al Gore ca n't keep his facts straight .
Suggest that GWB 's anti-terror strategy is a disaster , and they 'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama 's real name.Why is it not equally lazy to paint all " right wingers " as Birthers , and people who can not argue with science even though there are tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGW - in many aspects turning out to be right in doing so ?
Those who questioned " glaciers melting before 2035 " were laughed at as loons before and told the science was carefully studied , when it turned out it was not .
Why can YOU not believe there are and can be scientists who do not agree with the current AGW theories ? Your whole post frankly struck me as full of such lazy stereotyping , with no effort on your part made to understand the reasoning behind those who do not buy into the same group-think you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding, they'll tell you Al Gore can't keep his facts straight.
Suggest that GWB's anti-terror strategy is a disaster, and they'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama's real name.Why is it not equally lazy to paint all "right wingers" as Birthers, and people who cannot argue with science even though there are tons of carefully thought out articles from real scientists questioning AGW - in many aspects turning out to be right in doing so?
Those who questioned "glaciers melting before 2035" were laughed at as loons before and told the science was carefully studied, when it turned out it was not.
Why can YOU not believe there are and can be scientists who do not agree with the current AGW theories?Your whole post frankly struck me as full of such lazy stereotyping, with no effort on your part made to understand the reasoning behind those who do not buy into the same group-think you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to give you a hug, man. (But I won't. I respect your personal space.)</p><p>
I'm one of those guys who suspects that global warming is probably a real phenomenon, but that its coverage in the media is mostly-fake, its coverage in science proper is mildly biased and exxagerated as an institutional matter (cf. 'climategate', overrated as it may be) and the public policy prescriptions that are preached by Al Gore are mostly nonsense. But more importantly, the state of the "debate" is shameful.
</p><p>Do I get to be called a "denialist" too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to give you a hug , man .
( But I wo n't .
I respect your personal space .
) I 'm one of those guys who suspects that global warming is probably a real phenomenon , but that its coverage in the media is mostly-fake , its coverage in science proper is mildly biased and exxagerated as an institutional matter ( cf .
'climategate ' , overrated as it may be ) and the public policy prescriptions that are preached by Al Gore are mostly nonsense .
But more importantly , the state of the " debate " is shameful .
Do I get to be called a " denialist " too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to give you a hug, man.
(But I won't.
I respect your personal space.
)
I'm one of those guys who suspects that global warming is probably a real phenomenon, but that its coverage in the media is mostly-fake, its coverage in science proper is mildly biased and exxagerated as an institutional matter (cf.
'climategate', overrated as it may be) and the public policy prescriptions that are preached by Al Gore are mostly nonsense.
But more importantly, the state of the "debate" is shameful.
Do I get to be called a "denialist" too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303064</id>
	<title>keep the politicians out of science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should keep the politicians out of science, it discredits the process.  Facts can speak for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should keep the politicians out of science , it discredits the process .
Facts can speak for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should keep the politicians out of science, it discredits the process.
Facts can speak for themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303266</id>
	<title>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303088</id>
	<title>DumbdotNewsforIdiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, slashdot commenters must be really dumb.</p><p>Because, seriously? There are nine hundred and some million shares of Apple stock on the market, and extrapolating from a single loudmouthed shareholder, who was voted down on the issue in question no less, to the views of all of the thousands of others is completely unjustifiable.  How is that not common sense?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , slashdot commenters must be really dumb.Because , seriously ?
There are nine hundred and some million shares of Apple stock on the market , and extrapolating from a single loudmouthed shareholder , who was voted down on the issue in question no less , to the views of all of the thousands of others is completely unjustifiable .
How is that not common sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, slashdot commenters must be really dumb.Because, seriously?
There are nine hundred and some million shares of Apple stock on the market, and extrapolating from a single loudmouthed shareholder, who was voted down on the issue in question no less, to the views of all of the thousands of others is completely unjustifiable.
How is that not common sense?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303502</id>
	<title>Re:Don't understand the hostility...</title>
	<author>techno-vampire</author>
	<datestamp>1267387260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>(regardless of the fact that the global warming models actually predict this kind of thing)</i> <p>
Actually, the models were <b>corrected</b> to "predict" this after the fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( regardless of the fact that the global warming models actually predict this kind of thing ) Actually , the models were corrected to " predict " this after the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(regardless of the fact that the global warming models actually predict this kind of thing) 
Actually, the models were corrected to "predict" this after the fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303652</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has you seen a manbearpig around?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has you seen a manbearpig around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has you seen a manbearpig around?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303910</id>
	<title>Very doubtful total cost is calculated</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1267349280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can buy a counter-current heat exchanger that recuperates about 40\% of the heat (you have to have a mixing shower faucet, or whatever it is called, to use this). You have the same comfortable showers, except that you use less energy.</i></p><p>In the end I am doubtful if this is true.</p><p>Sure you use somewhat less energy in heating water.   But you had to use energy creating that device.  You had to expend energy installing it, and you also have to expend energy on potential repairs for introducing complexity into a system that had none.  And what about the loss of heat from additional plumbing needed to route water to and out of the exchanger?</p><p>In the end it seems like a focused effort to try and take a minute off your shower every day would save far less.  Basically nothing is as simple as you make it out to be when you are talking about energy, everything has a lot more complexity when you look into details and there are many paths to try and reduce energy use that are equally valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can buy a counter-current heat exchanger that recuperates about 40 \ % of the heat ( you have to have a mixing shower faucet , or whatever it is called , to use this ) .
You have the same comfortable showers , except that you use less energy.In the end I am doubtful if this is true.Sure you use somewhat less energy in heating water .
But you had to use energy creating that device .
You had to expend energy installing it , and you also have to expend energy on potential repairs for introducing complexity into a system that had none .
And what about the loss of heat from additional plumbing needed to route water to and out of the exchanger ? In the end it seems like a focused effort to try and take a minute off your shower every day would save far less .
Basically nothing is as simple as you make it out to be when you are talking about energy , everything has a lot more complexity when you look into details and there are many paths to try and reduce energy use that are equally valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can buy a counter-current heat exchanger that recuperates about 40\% of the heat (you have to have a mixing shower faucet, or whatever it is called, to use this).
You have the same comfortable showers, except that you use less energy.In the end I am doubtful if this is true.Sure you use somewhat less energy in heating water.
But you had to use energy creating that device.
You had to expend energy installing it, and you also have to expend energy on potential repairs for introducing complexity into a system that had none.
And what about the loss of heat from additional plumbing needed to route water to and out of the exchanger?In the end it seems like a focused effort to try and take a minute off your shower every day would save far less.
Basically nothing is as simple as you make it out to be when you are talking about energy, everything has a lot more complexity when you look into details and there are many paths to try and reduce energy use that are equally valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304294</id>
	<title>Re:Hi folks formwarm Cali and India</title>
	<author>LogicalError</author>
	<datestamp>1267356000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"GLOBAL" temperature is not the same as "LOCAL" temperature, and it's measured across an entire year.
Just because we have an unusual cold year in the northern hemisphere, does not say a damn thing about the validity of AGW.
Perhaps if we have cold winters for a decade and the summers aren't much warmer than usual, THEN you can draw your conclusions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" GLOBAL " temperature is not the same as " LOCAL " temperature , and it 's measured across an entire year .
Just because we have an unusual cold year in the northern hemisphere , does not say a damn thing about the validity of AGW .
Perhaps if we have cold winters for a decade and the summers are n't much warmer than usual , THEN you can draw your conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"GLOBAL" temperature is not the same as "LOCAL" temperature, and it's measured across an entire year.
Just because we have an unusual cold year in the northern hemisphere, does not say a damn thing about the validity of AGW.
Perhaps if we have cold winters for a decade and the summers aren't much warmer than usual, THEN you can draw your conclusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304064</id>
	<title>Re:Hi folks formwarm Cali and India</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1267351620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Come to Midwest to get the feel of global 'warming', we had about 2 days in Feb where temperature reached 30 Fahrenheit.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Either you are joking, or don't understand the difference between "weather" and "climate".<br>
Hint: What you experienced was "weather".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come to Midwest to get the feel of global 'warming ' , we had about 2 days in Feb where temperature reached 30 Fahrenheit .
Either you are joking , or do n't understand the difference between " weather " and " climate " .
Hint : What you experienced was " weather " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come to Midwest to get the feel of global 'warming', we had about 2 days in Feb where temperature reached 30 Fahrenheit.
Either you are joking, or don't understand the difference between "weather" and "climate".
Hint: What you experienced was "weather".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303604</id>
	<title>Jobs comments on Apple's $40B in cash reserves</title>
	<author>1 a bee</author>
	<datestamp>1267388460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Despite its title, the article references a number of other goings in Apple's shareholder meeting. One passage that stood out to me concerned a number of exchanges Steve Jobs had with shareholders regarding what to do with Apple's substantial cash reserves. Proposals ranged from distributing the spoils as dividends to shareholders to investing in the Tesla motor company. FTA:
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To that [last proposal], Jobs replied he was planning on throwing "a toga party" with the money instead.</p></div><p>
Then turning more serious, he argued--convincingly, IMO--that a company like Apple that takes risks needs the safety net of cash in the bank. This next comment by him, however--if I'm not reading it out of context--is plainly a gaffe:
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Jobs also rejected the idea of giving stockowners more of that cash through dividends because, he said, he believed the stock price, currently at $201.60 a share, would be unaffected either way. He asked one shareholder, "Would you rather be a company with our same stock price and $40 billion in cash, or a company with the same stock price and no cash?"</p></div><p>
Given his two hypothetical choices, if the stock price isn't going to change, any investor would prefer the one with a cash distribution. (To the shareholder, it would be an example of unlocking value.) Conversely, for any officer of the company, it is preferable to be sitting on a $40B cash hoard. So when Jobs presented that false hypothetical dichotomy, he forgot he was addressing shareholders and not Apple insiders, and instead presented a glimpse of his conflicted interests.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite its title , the article references a number of other goings in Apple 's shareholder meeting .
One passage that stood out to me concerned a number of exchanges Steve Jobs had with shareholders regarding what to do with Apple 's substantial cash reserves .
Proposals ranged from distributing the spoils as dividends to shareholders to investing in the Tesla motor company .
FTA : To that [ last proposal ] , Jobs replied he was planning on throwing " a toga party " with the money instead .
Then turning more serious , he argued--convincingly , IMO--that a company like Apple that takes risks needs the safety net of cash in the bank .
This next comment by him , however--if I 'm not reading it out of context--is plainly a gaffe : Jobs also rejected the idea of giving stockowners more of that cash through dividends because , he said , he believed the stock price , currently at $ 201.60 a share , would be unaffected either way .
He asked one shareholder , " Would you rather be a company with our same stock price and $ 40 billion in cash , or a company with the same stock price and no cash ?
" Given his two hypothetical choices , if the stock price is n't going to change , any investor would prefer the one with a cash distribution .
( To the shareholder , it would be an example of unlocking value .
) Conversely , for any officer of the company , it is preferable to be sitting on a $ 40B cash hoard .
So when Jobs presented that false hypothetical dichotomy , he forgot he was addressing shareholders and not Apple insiders , and instead presented a glimpse of his conflicted interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Despite its title, the article references a number of other goings in Apple's shareholder meeting.
One passage that stood out to me concerned a number of exchanges Steve Jobs had with shareholders regarding what to do with Apple's substantial cash reserves.
Proposals ranged from distributing the spoils as dividends to shareholders to investing in the Tesla motor company.
FTA:
To that [last proposal], Jobs replied he was planning on throwing "a toga party" with the money instead.
Then turning more serious, he argued--convincingly, IMO--that a company like Apple that takes risks needs the safety net of cash in the bank.
This next comment by him, however--if I'm not reading it out of context--is plainly a gaffe:
Jobs also rejected the idea of giving stockowners more of that cash through dividends because, he said, he believed the stock price, currently at $201.60 a share, would be unaffected either way.
He asked one shareholder, "Would you rather be a company with our same stock price and $40 billion in cash, or a company with the same stock price and no cash?
"
Given his two hypothetical choices, if the stock price isn't going to change, any investor would prefer the one with a cash distribution.
(To the shareholder, it would be an example of unlocking value.
) Conversely, for any officer of the company, it is preferable to be sitting on a $40B cash hoard.
So when Jobs presented that false hypothetical dichotomy, he forgot he was addressing shareholders and not Apple insiders, and instead presented a glimpse of his conflicted interests.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303038</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because your not think different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because your not think different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because your not think different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303672</id>
	<title>Re:Equally Lazy</title>
	<author>Akzo</author>
	<datestamp>1267389240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They seem to believe that once you manage to oust all your critics your argument becomes true... or at least you get more $$$</htmltext>
<tokenext>They seem to believe that once you manage to oust all your critics your argument becomes true... or at least you get more $ $ $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They seem to believe that once you manage to oust all your critics your argument becomes true... or at least you get more $$$</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302756</id>
	<title>Re:Flamewar imminent</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1267293360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476540&amp;cid=30419250" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476540&amp;cid=30419250</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>'nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1476540&amp;cid = 30419250 [ slashdot.org ] 'nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476540&amp;cid=30419250 [slashdot.org]'nuff said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302910</id>
	<title>Re:Tora! Tora! Tora!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267294560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there are people that way on both sides of the debate. In fact, regardless of the position you take you are going to be torn down by someone. If you don't believe in warming, you are an industry shill, if you do believe in warming, you are a communist out to destroy people's livelihoods.
<br>
I just wish all this carbon credit and sustainability nonsense would go away until we've dealt with things like heavy metal toxicity, industrial runoff, and other environmentally destructive things happening now . Once the fish kills and red tides that happen regularly now are taken care of we can start worrying about things that will, at worst, affect the planet several decades from now in the most outlandish doomsday scenarios. As an added bonus there will be decades more data to base trend prediction on to silence once and for all any debate from either side about not having reliable data to fit projections to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there are people that way on both sides of the debate .
In fact , regardless of the position you take you are going to be torn down by someone .
If you do n't believe in warming , you are an industry shill , if you do believe in warming , you are a communist out to destroy people 's livelihoods .
I just wish all this carbon credit and sustainability nonsense would go away until we 've dealt with things like heavy metal toxicity , industrial runoff , and other environmentally destructive things happening now .
Once the fish kills and red tides that happen regularly now are taken care of we can start worrying about things that will , at worst , affect the planet several decades from now in the most outlandish doomsday scenarios .
As an added bonus there will be decades more data to base trend prediction on to silence once and for all any debate from either side about not having reliable data to fit projections to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there are people that way on both sides of the debate.
In fact, regardless of the position you take you are going to be torn down by someone.
If you don't believe in warming, you are an industry shill, if you do believe in warming, you are a communist out to destroy people's livelihoods.
I just wish all this carbon credit and sustainability nonsense would go away until we've dealt with things like heavy metal toxicity, industrial runoff, and other environmentally destructive things happening now .
Once the fish kills and red tides that happen regularly now are taken care of we can start worrying about things that will, at worst, affect the planet several decades from now in the most outlandish doomsday scenarios.
As an added bonus there will be decades more data to base trend prediction on to silence once and for all any debate from either side about not having reliable data to fit projections to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303192</id>
	<title>Re:Don't understand the hostility...</title>
	<author>hsthompson69</author>
	<datestamp>1267297320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be more specific.  Which global warming model predicted massive blizzards in the northern hemisphere in 2010?  Point to the source code if available.</p><p>Hurting the pocket book can be the difference between life and death for millions of people in poverty, especially in Africa.</p><p>Insofar as gleeful mocking, that's par for the course when you make an idiot out of yourself by pushing pseudo-science.  Real science means a falsifiable hypothesis, not a group of a hundred "models", of which one may have predicted more snow, another predicted less snow, then claiming your predictions are right no matter what happens.</p><p>I just can't believe that natural global climate change deniers have had such a lock on the public discourse for so long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be more specific .
Which global warming model predicted massive blizzards in the northern hemisphere in 2010 ?
Point to the source code if available.Hurting the pocket book can be the difference between life and death for millions of people in poverty , especially in Africa.Insofar as gleeful mocking , that 's par for the course when you make an idiot out of yourself by pushing pseudo-science .
Real science means a falsifiable hypothesis , not a group of a hundred " models " , of which one may have predicted more snow , another predicted less snow , then claiming your predictions are right no matter what happens.I just ca n't believe that natural global climate change deniers have had such a lock on the public discourse for so long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be more specific.
Which global warming model predicted massive blizzards in the northern hemisphere in 2010?
Point to the source code if available.Hurting the pocket book can be the difference between life and death for millions of people in poverty, especially in Africa.Insofar as gleeful mocking, that's par for the course when you make an idiot out of yourself by pushing pseudo-science.
Real science means a falsifiable hypothesis, not a group of a hundred "models", of which one may have predicted more snow, another predicted less snow, then claiming your predictions are right no matter what happens.I just can't believe that natural global climate change deniers have had such a lock on the public discourse for so long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302948</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1267294800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you sir have hit the nail on the head. there is often very little science on both sides this debate. a lot of the ranting reminds me of an emotional 13yo girl screaming about how we have to save the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you sir have hit the nail on the head .
there is often very little science on both sides this debate .
a lot of the ranting reminds me of an emotional 13yo girl screaming about how we have to save the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you sir have hit the nail on the head.
there is often very little science on both sides this debate.
a lot of the ranting reminds me of an emotional 13yo girl screaming about how we have to save the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302856</id>
	<title>Re:Flamewar imminent</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1267294140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Feilding, Campbell-Newman and a few other engineers that couldn't do it and got into politics are batshit insane but most of the rest of us are not.<br>The problem is we are turning into societies that love technology but really hate the underlying science.  All the "don't tell me about it until I can buy it at Walmart" posts that are starting to infest this site are a symptom of that.  They just want magic and are starting to think just talking about physical things can make them real instead of the process of people knowing how to do things and then making it real.<br>It's bad news that reality involves tradeoffs to make things fit and they never want to hear the bad news.  We've had a century of nearly free energy with the tradeoff of altering the atmosphere, and various idiots would not believe that even if we could tell them what time it's going to rain tomorrow morning.  Others demand to know details like that and do not understand that wide trends can be predicted without knowing to the second when it's going to start raining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Feilding , Campbell-Newman and a few other engineers that could n't do it and got into politics are batshit insane but most of the rest of us are not.The problem is we are turning into societies that love technology but really hate the underlying science .
All the " do n't tell me about it until I can buy it at Walmart " posts that are starting to infest this site are a symptom of that .
They just want magic and are starting to think just talking about physical things can make them real instead of the process of people knowing how to do things and then making it real.It 's bad news that reality involves tradeoffs to make things fit and they never want to hear the bad news .
We 've had a century of nearly free energy with the tradeoff of altering the atmosphere , and various idiots would not believe that even if we could tell them what time it 's going to rain tomorrow morning .
Others demand to know details like that and do not understand that wide trends can be predicted without knowing to the second when it 's going to start raining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feilding, Campbell-Newman and a few other engineers that couldn't do it and got into politics are batshit insane but most of the rest of us are not.The problem is we are turning into societies that love technology but really hate the underlying science.
All the "don't tell me about it until I can buy it at Walmart" posts that are starting to infest this site are a symptom of that.
They just want magic and are starting to think just talking about physical things can make them real instead of the process of people knowing how to do things and then making it real.It's bad news that reality involves tradeoffs to make things fit and they never want to hear the bad news.
We've had a century of nearly free energy with the tradeoff of altering the atmosphere, and various idiots would not believe that even if we could tell them what time it's going to rain tomorrow morning.
Others demand to know details like that and do not understand that wide trends can be predicted without knowing to the second when it's going to start raining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305460</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1267370880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.</i> <br>
<br>
With all due respect, there was <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF\_Rmlio&amp;feature=player\_embedded" title="youtube.com">consensus on the science in 1979</a> [youtube.com]. The talk includes a very good section about how political action groups have muddied the waters and turned the debate "laughable".<br>
<br>
I think <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8" title="youtube.com">this short video</a> [youtube.com] deftly serves as an example of how the debate is enacted.<br>
<br>
Also, David Suzuki has an <a href="http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate\_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp" title="davidsuzuki.org">excellent page on the topic of AGW</a> [davidsuzuki.org]. You don't think he's one of those ignoring science for financial gain do you?<br>
<br>
btw, the merits of the arguments can be assessed independent of the motives of each "side". All you got to do is read the sources yourself. It is not a daunting as it seems, because you will <i> <b>very quickly discover that one side is just completely full of !#\%@</b> </i></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you , sir , are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you .
With all due respect , there was consensus on the science in 1979 [ youtube.com ] .
The talk includes a very good section about how political action groups have muddied the waters and turned the debate " laughable " .
I think this short video [ youtube.com ] deftly serves as an example of how the debate is enacted .
Also , David Suzuki has an excellent page on the topic of AGW [ davidsuzuki.org ] .
You do n't think he 's one of those ignoring science for financial gain do you ?
btw , the merits of the arguments can be assessed independent of the motives of each " side " .
All you got to do is read the sources yourself .
It is not a daunting as it seems , because you will very quickly discover that one side is just completely full of ! # \ % @</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.
With all due respect, there was consensus on the science in 1979 [youtube.com].
The talk includes a very good section about how political action groups have muddied the waters and turned the debate "laughable".
I think this short video [youtube.com] deftly serves as an example of how the debate is enacted.
Also, David Suzuki has an excellent page on the topic of AGW [davidsuzuki.org].
You don't think he's one of those ignoring science for financial gain do you?
btw, the merits of the arguments can be assessed independent of the motives of each "side".
All you got to do is read the sources yourself.
It is not a daunting as it seems, because you will  very quickly discover that one side is just completely full of !#\%@ </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303092</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1267296240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.</p><p>On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.</p></div><p>Yes, but one side also happens to be wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.Yes , but one side also happens to be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.Yes, but one side also happens to be wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303954</id>
	<title>Re:The fallacy of the other path</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1267349940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you believe in God? Because you have just stated you must. After all, the consequence for being wrong is fairly horrific since a lifetime here is nothing compared to an infinity of afterlife, right?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Actually, I don't know what I believe.  My wife died of a brain tumor four years ago - seven weeks from diagnosis to death - and I still can't wrap my mind around it.  I *hope* there's a God, and, by extension, something beyond this life - for her and that the Universe wouldn't make sense without someone like her it in somewhere - but I don't think I believe there is, because she's gone and it didn't make any sense.
</p><p>
In either case, I want to go where ever she's gone when I die, especially if it's "nowhere", so we can be together again, even if abstractly.  The fact that I may be wrong either way is what keeps me from going to look for her now.  If she's there, I know she'll wait.  If not, then it won't matter.  Either way, this life has little to offer me now.
</p><p>
In any case, comparing one's belief in God with the concept of "first, do no harm" is a bit of a stretch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you believe in God ?
Because you have just stated you must .
After all , the consequence for being wrong is fairly horrific since a lifetime here is nothing compared to an infinity of afterlife , right ?
Actually , I do n't know what I believe .
My wife died of a brain tumor four years ago - seven weeks from diagnosis to death - and I still ca n't wrap my mind around it .
I * hope * there 's a God , and , by extension , something beyond this life - for her and that the Universe would n't make sense without someone like her it in somewhere - but I do n't think I believe there is , because she 's gone and it did n't make any sense .
In either case , I want to go where ever she 's gone when I die , especially if it 's " nowhere " , so we can be together again , even if abstractly .
The fact that I may be wrong either way is what keeps me from going to look for her now .
If she 's there , I know she 'll wait .
If not , then it wo n't matter .
Either way , this life has little to offer me now .
In any case , comparing one 's belief in God with the concept of " first , do no harm " is a bit of a stretch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you believe in God?
Because you have just stated you must.
After all, the consequence for being wrong is fairly horrific since a lifetime here is nothing compared to an infinity of afterlife, right?
Actually, I don't know what I believe.
My wife died of a brain tumor four years ago - seven weeks from diagnosis to death - and I still can't wrap my mind around it.
I *hope* there's a God, and, by extension, something beyond this life - for her and that the Universe wouldn't make sense without someone like her it in somewhere - but I don't think I believe there is, because she's gone and it didn't make any sense.
In either case, I want to go where ever she's gone when I die, especially if it's "nowhere", so we can be together again, even if abstractly.
The fact that I may be wrong either way is what keeps me from going to look for her now.
If she's there, I know she'll wait.
If not, then it won't matter.
Either way, this life has little to offer me now.
In any case, comparing one's belief in God with the concept of "first, do no harm" is a bit of a stretch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305812</id>
	<title>Not the first election he's won...</title>
	<author>justinmikehunt</author>
	<datestamp>1267373340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>However, preliminary voting results indicated that Gore was re-elected to Apple's Board.</i> <br> <br>

Even though he's received the shareholder's majority vote, he's expected to lose the Apple electoral college vote.</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , preliminary voting results indicated that Gore was re-elected to Apple 's Board .
Even though he 's received the shareholder 's majority vote , he 's expected to lose the Apple electoral college vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, preliminary voting results indicated that Gore was re-elected to Apple's Board.
Even though he's received the shareholder's majority vote, he's expected to lose the Apple electoral college vote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303568</id>
	<title>Re:Equally Lazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267387980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm actually saddened to see politics playing a role in science at all. people get all bitchy at the thought of scientists who believe in creation (whic really has no bearing on application of science whatsoever, yet for some reason its perfectly accepted that these guys are biased or in some cases literally taking bribes to publish "science" that is fudged to mimic political views. what a mad world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm actually saddened to see politics playing a role in science at all .
people get all bitchy at the thought of scientists who believe in creation ( whic really has no bearing on application of science whatsoever , yet for some reason its perfectly accepted that these guys are biased or in some cases literally taking bribes to publish " science " that is fudged to mimic political views .
what a mad world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm actually saddened to see politics playing a role in science at all.
people get all bitchy at the thought of scientists who believe in creation (whic really has no bearing on application of science whatsoever, yet for some reason its perfectly accepted that these guys are biased or in some cases literally taking bribes to publish "science" that is fudged to mimic political views.
what a mad world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303508</id>
	<title>Re:Equally Lazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267387320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please help us understand the reasoning of "those who do not buy into group-think."  Where are these "tons of articles?"  They don't seem to get published in peer-reviewed journals.  And "AGW theory" and the contents of IPCC reports are not the same thing.  The science is in the peer-reviewed literature.  The first part of the IPCC report is meant to be a summary of that literature.  The 2035 claim (caught by scientists who do not necessarily disagree with AGW theory, as you suggest) was in a second part that specifically incorporated non-peer-reviewed reports, an idea that I disagree with.  But clearly, criticism directed at the IPCC is meaningless in terms of rejecting AGW if the same criticism cannot be leveled at the peer-reviewed literature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please help us understand the reasoning of " those who do not buy into group-think .
" Where are these " tons of articles ?
" They do n't seem to get published in peer-reviewed journals .
And " AGW theory " and the contents of IPCC reports are not the same thing .
The science is in the peer-reviewed literature .
The first part of the IPCC report is meant to be a summary of that literature .
The 2035 claim ( caught by scientists who do not necessarily disagree with AGW theory , as you suggest ) was in a second part that specifically incorporated non-peer-reviewed reports , an idea that I disagree with .
But clearly , criticism directed at the IPCC is meaningless in terms of rejecting AGW if the same criticism can not be leveled at the peer-reviewed literature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please help us understand the reasoning of "those who do not buy into group-think.
"  Where are these "tons of articles?
"  They don't seem to get published in peer-reviewed journals.
And "AGW theory" and the contents of IPCC reports are not the same thing.
The science is in the peer-reviewed literature.
The first part of the IPCC report is meant to be a summary of that literature.
The 2035 claim (caught by scientists who do not necessarily disagree with AGW theory, as you suggest) was in a second part that specifically incorporated non-peer-reviewed reports, an idea that I disagree with.
But clearly, criticism directed at the IPCC is meaningless in terms of rejecting AGW if the same criticism cannot be leveled at the peer-reviewed literature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305730</id>
	<title>Some people shut put down the political blinders</title>
	<author>tmp31416</author>
	<datestamp>1267372680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read about Sheldon Whatsisface's comment:</p><p>"...Gore 'has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>I am appalled.  This individual is clearly a unilingual-never-left-his-neighbourhood-right-winger who 99\% probability watches only Fox News and listens only to Limbaugh, Savage and other far-right wing-nuts.  Has this individual ever traveled abroad, watched/read foreign media, even just talked to people from outside the USA?</p><p>People across the globe are already living the consequences of climate change, the landscape is changing and, yes, glaciers are melting (amongst other things).</p><p>It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, it doesn't matter how much money you are making, the size of your house or its location, your life will be, sooner or later, impacted by climate change.  Mother Nature does not give a flying f**k who you are, and will not leave you unaffected by extreme weather or floods or... because you're a right-wing Jzeebus-lovin', bible-thumping "murkan".  She's a bitch.  And anyone denying it won't change that fact.</p><p>This individual should travel and see the world for himself.  Maybe then he'd stop making such stupid statements.</p><p>I think this quote I once read on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. should be read and reflected upon by as many people as possible:</p><p>"Earth is a production system without backups"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read about Sheldon Whatsisface 's comment : " ...Gore 'has become a laughingstock .
The glaciers have not melted .
... " I am appalled .
This individual is clearly a unilingual-never-left-his-neighbourhood-right-winger who 99 \ % probability watches only Fox News and listens only to Limbaugh , Savage and other far-right wing-nuts .
Has this individual ever traveled abroad , watched/read foreign media , even just talked to people from outside the USA ? People across the globe are already living the consequences of climate change , the landscape is changing and , yes , glaciers are melting ( amongst other things ) .It does n't matter what side of the political spectrum you are on , it does n't matter how much money you are making , the size of your house or its location , your life will be , sooner or later , impacted by climate change .
Mother Nature does not give a flying f * * k who you are , and will not leave you unaffected by extreme weather or floods or... because you 're a right-wing Jzeebus-lovin ' , bible-thumping " murkan " .
She 's a bitch .
And anyone denying it wo n't change that fact.This individual should travel and see the world for himself .
Maybe then he 'd stop making such stupid statements.I think this quote I once read on / .
should be read and reflected upon by as many people as possible : " Earth is a production system without backups "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read about Sheldon Whatsisface's comment:"...Gore 'has become a laughingstock.
The glaciers have not melted.
..."I am appalled.
This individual is clearly a unilingual-never-left-his-neighbourhood-right-winger who 99\% probability watches only Fox News and listens only to Limbaugh, Savage and other far-right wing-nuts.
Has this individual ever traveled abroad, watched/read foreign media, even just talked to people from outside the USA?People across the globe are already living the consequences of climate change, the landscape is changing and, yes, glaciers are melting (amongst other things).It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, it doesn't matter how much money you are making, the size of your house or its location, your life will be, sooner or later, impacted by climate change.
Mother Nature does not give a flying f**k who you are, and will not leave you unaffected by extreme weather or floods or... because you're a right-wing Jzeebus-lovin', bible-thumping "murkan".
She's a bitch.
And anyone denying it won't change that fact.This individual should travel and see the world for himself.
Maybe then he'd stop making such stupid statements.I think this quote I once read on /.
should be read and reflected upon by as many people as possible:"Earth is a production system without backups"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304126</id>
	<title>Global climate CHANGE</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1267352760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is about the change in temperature, and shifting weather pattens. Not about how hot it is.
</p><p>You can spot a denialist by how they focus on the current outside temp. like a smoker with cancer, one lung, no lyrnax, claiming that smoking hasn't killed him yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is about the change in temperature , and shifting weather pattens .
Not about how hot it is .
You can spot a denialist by how they focus on the current outside temp .
like a smoker with cancer , one lung , no lyrnax , claiming that smoking has n't killed him yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is about the change in temperature, and shifting weather pattens.
Not about how hot it is.
You can spot a denialist by how they focus on the current outside temp.
like a smoker with cancer, one lung, no lyrnax, claiming that smoking hasn't killed him yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31313102</id>
	<title>Cut the guy a break</title>
	<author>mangodhamma</author>
	<datestamp>1267435200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a big fan of Big Al but cut the guy a break. He's a publicist not a scientist. The IPCC is supposed to be the gatekeeper on good science and they dropped the ball, not Gore. Gore and a lot of other well intentioned people have had to bear the brunt of another shoddy UN process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a big fan of Big Al but cut the guy a break .
He 's a publicist not a scientist .
The IPCC is supposed to be the gatekeeper on good science and they dropped the ball , not Gore .
Gore and a lot of other well intentioned people have had to bear the brunt of another shoddy UN process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a big fan of Big Al but cut the guy a break.
He's a publicist not a scientist.
The IPCC is supposed to be the gatekeeper on good science and they dropped the ball, not Gore.
Gore and a lot of other well intentioned people have had to bear the brunt of another shoddy UN process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</id>
	<title>Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267293900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.</p><p>On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.</p><p>Science got way lost in the middle of this whole debate.  Indeed the very term "debate" is laughable, as it is currently a which hunt on both sides.</p><p>And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.Science got way lost in the middle of this whole debate .
Indeed the very term " debate " is laughable , as it is currently a which hunt on both sides.And you , sir , are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.Science got way lost in the middle of this whole debate.
Indeed the very term "debate" is laughable, as it is currently a which hunt on both sides.And you, sir, are not helping by demonizing those who think differently than you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303332</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267299120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Global warming is definitely real. Nobody with any brains actually denies anymore that warming is taking place.</p><p>Nobody. (Seriously - find a few of your "respected" sources and actually look at their statements. Even the oil companies admit that warming is taking place. Even Bush and his cadre of cronies admitted that warming is taking place. Even the so-called skeptical scientists who love to be contrarian admit that warming is taking place. There is no credible source that denies actual global warming).</p><p>What denialists with any credibility (which is not much) have now moved on to is whether it is anthropological (and most of the skeptics have eventually admitted that too), and whether it is beneficial or not, and whether it is cost effective to combat.</p><p>The fact that you and Superkendall are in doubts about any of the basic established facts just shows that you are both ignorant of the actual debate. You should probably just keep your mouths shut and educate yourselves a little more, instead of doing the typical geek thing of spending two minutes reading an internet summary and then basing your entire opinion off of that.</p><p>(And no, Penn and Teller, or Fox "News" don't count as a source of knowledge).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global warming is definitely real .
Nobody with any brains actually denies anymore that warming is taking place.Nobody .
( Seriously - find a few of your " respected " sources and actually look at their statements .
Even the oil companies admit that warming is taking place .
Even Bush and his cadre of cronies admitted that warming is taking place .
Even the so-called skeptical scientists who love to be contrarian admit that warming is taking place .
There is no credible source that denies actual global warming ) .What denialists with any credibility ( which is not much ) have now moved on to is whether it is anthropological ( and most of the skeptics have eventually admitted that too ) , and whether it is beneficial or not , and whether it is cost effective to combat.The fact that you and Superkendall are in doubts about any of the basic established facts just shows that you are both ignorant of the actual debate .
You should probably just keep your mouths shut and educate yourselves a little more , instead of doing the typical geek thing of spending two minutes reading an internet summary and then basing your entire opinion off of that .
( And no , Penn and Teller , or Fox " News " do n't count as a source of knowledge ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global warming is definitely real.
Nobody with any brains actually denies anymore that warming is taking place.Nobody.
(Seriously - find a few of your "respected" sources and actually look at their statements.
Even the oil companies admit that warming is taking place.
Even Bush and his cadre of cronies admitted that warming is taking place.
Even the so-called skeptical scientists who love to be contrarian admit that warming is taking place.
There is no credible source that denies actual global warming).What denialists with any credibility (which is not much) have now moved on to is whether it is anthropological (and most of the skeptics have eventually admitted that too), and whether it is beneficial or not, and whether it is cost effective to combat.The fact that you and Superkendall are in doubts about any of the basic established facts just shows that you are both ignorant of the actual debate.
You should probably just keep your mouths shut and educate yourselves a little more, instead of doing the typical geek thing of spending two minutes reading an internet summary and then basing your entire opinion off of that.
(And no, Penn and Teller, or Fox "News" don't count as a source of knowledge).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304950</id>
	<title>Re:Tora! Tora! Tora!</title>
	<author>NoOneInParticular</author>
	<datestamp>1267366500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And I think we've all pretty well seen for ourselves that government isn't the answer, it's the problem. To truly screw things up requires a law and a bureaucracy.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Uhm, where have you been living past couple of years? What I have seen in the world is that for a truly epic fail, you need deregulation and the assumption that the market will not destroy itself. I know: in your version of reality the failure of the market is proof that there was too much interference, but the fact of the matter is that (a) there is only one thing worse than a government monopoly, and that's a corporate one, and (b) a laissez-faire market breeds corporate monopolies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I think we 've all pretty well seen for ourselves that government is n't the answer , it 's the problem .
To truly screw things up requires a law and a bureaucracy .
Uhm , where have you been living past couple of years ?
What I have seen in the world is that for a truly epic fail , you need deregulation and the assumption that the market will not destroy itself .
I know : in your version of reality the failure of the market is proof that there was too much interference , but the fact of the matter is that ( a ) there is only one thing worse than a government monopoly , and that 's a corporate one , and ( b ) a laissez-faire market breeds corporate monopolies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I think we've all pretty well seen for ourselves that government isn't the answer, it's the problem.
To truly screw things up requires a law and a bureaucracy.
Uhm, where have you been living past couple of years?
What I have seen in the world is that for a truly epic fail, you need deregulation and the assumption that the market will not destroy itself.
I know: in your version of reality the failure of the market is proof that there was too much interference, but the fact of the matter is that (a) there is only one thing worse than a government monopoly, and that's a corporate one, and (b) a laissez-faire market breeds corporate monopolies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302632</id>
	<title>Horsecock and sodomy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sodomy and horsecock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sodomy and horsecock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sodomy and horsecock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302962</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>tpstigers</author>
	<datestamp>1267294920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummm, really, like this comment is like, you know, like,  YOU KNOW?

And scored as:  Insightful.

Think about that, people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm , really , like this comment is like , you know , like , YOU KNOW ?
And scored as : Insightful .
Think about that , people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm, really, like this comment is like, you know, like,  YOU KNOW?
And scored as:  Insightful.
Think about that, people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303050</id>
	<title>The fallacy of the other path</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't understand the mocking and hostility of the opponents of climate-change theory toward the supporters.</i></p><p>Pretty simple, the naturally human instinct is payback for years of mockery.  And indeed why should only one side be allowed vitrol and mockery and demand it not be turned against them when the tide of fate ebbs for them?</p><p>I don't think it's productive but it's understandable, and honestly well deserved.</p><p><i>Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book. I know this is no small thing, especially in the context of a global economy and global competition, but the consequences of ignoring things if man-made climate change is a reality are bad.</i></p><p>Do you believe in God?  Because you have just stated you must.  After all, the consequence for being wrong is fairly horrific since a lifetime here is nothing compared to an infinity of afterlife, right?</p><p>Such is the power of the <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-precautionary-principle-and-global-warming/" title="pajamasmedia.com" rel="nofollow">Precautionary Principal</a> [pajamasmedia.com] which is what your argument relies upon.</p><p>Here is what I know from years of traveling the world.  If you want to see true devastation, you have only to travel to where people are generally poor. It's hard to save a forest when millions are looking for firewood (see: Haiti).</p><p>So you claim we should look upon hurting people in an economic downturn as a small consequence to avert potential disaster, but all I can envision is a global environmental cataclysm as economies fall and people do what they do best - survive at any cost.</p><p>Far better to invest heavily in alternative energy now, like nuclear and solar, so that we can all get off the oil train.  The chances of GW actually causing enough problems to really bother us all before we can make that happen are to my mind exceedingly low vs. the certainty of what happens when we make a whole lot of people poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the mocking and hostility of the opponents of climate-change theory toward the supporters.Pretty simple , the naturally human instinct is payback for years of mockery .
And indeed why should only one side be allowed vitrol and mockery and demand it not be turned against them when the tide of fate ebbs for them ? I do n't think it 's productive but it 's understandable , and honestly well deserved.Even if the theories are wrong , reducing green-house emissions ( etc ) wo n't hurt anything but the pocket book .
I know this is no small thing , especially in the context of a global economy and global competition , but the consequences of ignoring things if man-made climate change is a reality are bad.Do you believe in God ?
Because you have just stated you must .
After all , the consequence for being wrong is fairly horrific since a lifetime here is nothing compared to an infinity of afterlife , right ? Such is the power of the Precautionary Principal [ pajamasmedia.com ] which is what your argument relies upon.Here is what I know from years of traveling the world .
If you want to see true devastation , you have only to travel to where people are generally poor .
It 's hard to save a forest when millions are looking for firewood ( see : Haiti ) .So you claim we should look upon hurting people in an economic downturn as a small consequence to avert potential disaster , but all I can envision is a global environmental cataclysm as economies fall and people do what they do best - survive at any cost.Far better to invest heavily in alternative energy now , like nuclear and solar , so that we can all get off the oil train .
The chances of GW actually causing enough problems to really bother us all before we can make that happen are to my mind exceedingly low vs. the certainty of what happens when we make a whole lot of people poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the mocking and hostility of the opponents of climate-change theory toward the supporters.Pretty simple, the naturally human instinct is payback for years of mockery.
And indeed why should only one side be allowed vitrol and mockery and demand it not be turned against them when the tide of fate ebbs for them?I don't think it's productive but it's understandable, and honestly well deserved.Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book.
I know this is no small thing, especially in the context of a global economy and global competition, but the consequences of ignoring things if man-made climate change is a reality are bad.Do you believe in God?
Because you have just stated you must.
After all, the consequence for being wrong is fairly horrific since a lifetime here is nothing compared to an infinity of afterlife, right?Such is the power of the Precautionary Principal [pajamasmedia.com] which is what your argument relies upon.Here is what I know from years of traveling the world.
If you want to see true devastation, you have only to travel to where people are generally poor.
It's hard to save a forest when millions are looking for firewood (see: Haiti).So you claim we should look upon hurting people in an economic downturn as a small consequence to avert potential disaster, but all I can envision is a global environmental cataclysm as economies fall and people do what they do best - survive at any cost.Far better to invest heavily in alternative energy now, like nuclear and solar, so that we can all get off the oil train.
The chances of GW actually causing enough problems to really bother us all before we can make that happen are to my mind exceedingly low vs. the certainty of what happens when we make a whole lot of people poor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31312280</id>
	<title>In my opinion, the solutions don't change</title>
	<author>OrwellianLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1267383060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether or not you believe that AGW is significantly raising overall GW (which hasn't been concluded), we still have the problem of pollution. I grew up in a very, very polluted area where you were much more likely to develop asthma.


I believe that we should work to reduce pollution, including carbon emissions. We can recycle more, develop various renewable resources (solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, etc) WHILE drilling for oil. America's power infrastructure needs to be updated (which will go along nicely with the adding of various renewable energy sources). Along with this, we can cease our involvement in the Middle East (to a degree), saving on "defense" spending and "rebuilding" spending. Our dependence on oil isn't going to dissolve-- we still use oil for manufacturing and energy (which we can reduce).


Recycling conserves our resources, reduces pollution, and minimizes landfills (I hear that we have a process of converting trash into energy).


Essentially, quit polluting-- to stop pollution.


So the next time you're conversing with a "denialist,"  present my argument to them. I haven't met a single person who disagreed with me. Hell, we can spur growth in the economy (lots of jobs), create a new American industry that doesn't depend on "intellectual property," reduce pollution, save vital resources, save government funds (we can give out loans, not bailouts), reduce our involvement in the Middle East which will undoubtedly halt terrorism (less recruits, less money, less public support).


I doubt it will go how it should (AMERICAN POLITICS, FUCK YEAH), but you shouldn't bitch about someone's plan without supporting a better plan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not you believe that AGW is significantly raising overall GW ( which has n't been concluded ) , we still have the problem of pollution .
I grew up in a very , very polluted area where you were much more likely to develop asthma .
I believe that we should work to reduce pollution , including carbon emissions .
We can recycle more , develop various renewable resources ( solar , wind , nuclear , hydro , etc ) WHILE drilling for oil .
America 's power infrastructure needs to be updated ( which will go along nicely with the adding of various renewable energy sources ) .
Along with this , we can cease our involvement in the Middle East ( to a degree ) , saving on " defense " spending and " rebuilding " spending .
Our dependence on oil is n't going to dissolve-- we still use oil for manufacturing and energy ( which we can reduce ) .
Recycling conserves our resources , reduces pollution , and minimizes landfills ( I hear that we have a process of converting trash into energy ) .
Essentially , quit polluting-- to stop pollution .
So the next time you 're conversing with a " denialist , " present my argument to them .
I have n't met a single person who disagreed with me .
Hell , we can spur growth in the economy ( lots of jobs ) , create a new American industry that does n't depend on " intellectual property , " reduce pollution , save vital resources , save government funds ( we can give out loans , not bailouts ) , reduce our involvement in the Middle East which will undoubtedly halt terrorism ( less recruits , less money , less public support ) .
I doubt it will go how it should ( AMERICAN POLITICS , FUCK YEAH ) , but you should n't bitch about someone 's plan without supporting a better plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not you believe that AGW is significantly raising overall GW (which hasn't been concluded), we still have the problem of pollution.
I grew up in a very, very polluted area where you were much more likely to develop asthma.
I believe that we should work to reduce pollution, including carbon emissions.
We can recycle more, develop various renewable resources (solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, etc) WHILE drilling for oil.
America's power infrastructure needs to be updated (which will go along nicely with the adding of various renewable energy sources).
Along with this, we can cease our involvement in the Middle East (to a degree), saving on "defense" spending and "rebuilding" spending.
Our dependence on oil isn't going to dissolve-- we still use oil for manufacturing and energy (which we can reduce).
Recycling conserves our resources, reduces pollution, and minimizes landfills (I hear that we have a process of converting trash into energy).
Essentially, quit polluting-- to stop pollution.
So the next time you're conversing with a "denialist,"  present my argument to them.
I haven't met a single person who disagreed with me.
Hell, we can spur growth in the economy (lots of jobs), create a new American industry that doesn't depend on "intellectual property," reduce pollution, save vital resources, save government funds (we can give out loans, not bailouts), reduce our involvement in the Middle East which will undoubtedly halt terrorism (less recruits, less money, less public support).
I doubt it will go how it should (AMERICAN POLITICS, FUCK YEAH), but you shouldn't bitch about someone's plan without supporting a better plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305182</id>
	<title>Re:Don't understand the hostility...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1267368660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much of the weather in North America this year is a well understood consequence of El Nino.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much of the weather in North America this year is a well understood consequence of El Nino .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much of the weather in North America this year is a well understood consequence of El Nino.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303198</id>
	<title>Excuse me?</title>
	<author>qazwart</author>
	<datestamp>1267297380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One comment by a single share holder doesn't set a "tone". I've seen videos of the meeting, and you always have share holders like this. Not only that, but this same person was widely booed by other share holders as he ranted against Al Gore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One comment by a single share holder does n't set a " tone " .
I 've seen videos of the meeting , and you always have share holders like this .
Not only that , but this same person was widely booed by other share holders as he ranted against Al Gore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One comment by a single share holder doesn't set a "tone".
I've seen videos of the meeting, and you always have share holders like this.
Not only that, but this same person was widely booed by other share holders as he ranted against Al Gore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307476</id>
	<title>Al Gore's boat, and my boat</title>
	<author>scifiber\_phil</author>
	<datestamp>1267384620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Al Gore's 100 ft. houseboat: <br>
<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hits-the-waves-with-a-massive-new-houseboat/" title="pajamasmedia.com" rel="nofollow">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hits-the-waves-with-a-massive-new-houseboat/</a> [pajamasmedia.com] <br>
my boat: <br>
cheap 8 ft. kayak <br>
Yet, he gets to lecture me about carbon usage. Gore is a lightening rod of bad PR for everything he touches. That alone should make the Apple stockholders wary for electing him to the board. Making energy so expensive that the poor cannot afford it, while allowing the wealthy to use as much as they want through "carbon offsets" is one of the most despicable scams ever floated. Mr. Gore, if the planet is in such danger, then lead by example. Put on Gandi's loincloth first before telling the rest of us that we are wearing too much clothing. If we must use less energy, so be it. Then ration it. Then, if I have enough to last all month, Mr. Gore will be in the dark in his freezing cold home for three and a half weeks. By the way, Mr. Gore, the science is not settled simply because you say that it is. The bottom line: 1. don't lecture me 2. Stop trying to take money out of my pocket and putting it in yours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Al Gore 's 100 ft. houseboat : http : //pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hits-the-waves-with-a-massive-new-houseboat/ [ pajamasmedia.com ] my boat : cheap 8 ft. kayak Yet , he gets to lecture me about carbon usage .
Gore is a lightening rod of bad PR for everything he touches .
That alone should make the Apple stockholders wary for electing him to the board .
Making energy so expensive that the poor can not afford it , while allowing the wealthy to use as much as they want through " carbon offsets " is one of the most despicable scams ever floated .
Mr. Gore , if the planet is in such danger , then lead by example .
Put on Gandi 's loincloth first before telling the rest of us that we are wearing too much clothing .
If we must use less energy , so be it .
Then ration it .
Then , if I have enough to last all month , Mr. Gore will be in the dark in his freezing cold home for three and a half weeks .
By the way , Mr. Gore , the science is not settled simply because you say that it is .
The bottom line : 1. do n't lecture me 2 .
Stop trying to take money out of my pocket and putting it in yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al Gore's 100 ft. houseboat: 
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hits-the-waves-with-a-massive-new-houseboat/ [pajamasmedia.com] 
my boat: 
cheap 8 ft. kayak 
Yet, he gets to lecture me about carbon usage.
Gore is a lightening rod of bad PR for everything he touches.
That alone should make the Apple stockholders wary for electing him to the board.
Making energy so expensive that the poor cannot afford it, while allowing the wealthy to use as much as they want through "carbon offsets" is one of the most despicable scams ever floated.
Mr. Gore, if the planet is in such danger, then lead by example.
Put on Gandi's loincloth first before telling the rest of us that we are wearing too much clothing.
If we must use less energy, so be it.
Then ration it.
Then, if I have enough to last all month, Mr. Gore will be in the dark in his freezing cold home for three and a half weeks.
By the way, Mr. Gore, the science is not settled simply because you say that it is.
The bottom line: 1. don't lecture me 2.
Stop trying to take money out of my pocket and putting it in yours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303590</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267388220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, Apple zealotry AND global warming denialism.</p><p>What a bizarre mix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , Apple zealotry AND global warming denialism.What a bizarre mix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, Apple zealotry AND global warming denialism.What a bizarre mix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303750</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267390320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are used to listen to the word of the Prophet (Jobs). The same probably applied for Gore. Were you expecting anything less?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are used to listen to the word of the Prophet ( Jobs ) .
The same probably applied for Gore .
Were you expecting anything less ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are used to listen to the word of the Prophet (Jobs).
The same probably applied for Gore.
Were you expecting anything less?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31310110</id>
	<title>Re:Clearly</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1267361340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He has been <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56631/" title="theonion.com">working on it</a> [theonion.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>He has been working on it [ theonion.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He has been working on it [theonion.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307232</id>
	<title>Polling</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1267382940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd think all these right-wing leaders would disregard all polling instead of basing most their actions upon it.  Polling is way less accurate but similar to a lot of scientific predictions. Such as long term climate predictions.</p><p>The truth is many of them believe the stuff, they just don't care and can make money opposing it (or exploiting it) -- after all, most are LAWYERS and are trained to fight for BS even when in personal disagreement OR they leverage what facts they can to meet the goal ---  the goal being to make money by getting the client what they want.  The client is supposed to be the voters.... (which is bad enough, since they don't care about their distant neighbors enough either.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think all these right-wing leaders would disregard all polling instead of basing most their actions upon it .
Polling is way less accurate but similar to a lot of scientific predictions .
Such as long term climate predictions.The truth is many of them believe the stuff , they just do n't care and can make money opposing it ( or exploiting it ) -- after all , most are LAWYERS and are trained to fight for BS even when in personal disagreement OR they leverage what facts they can to meet the goal --- the goal being to make money by getting the client what they want .
The client is supposed to be the voters.... ( which is bad enough , since they do n't care about their distant neighbors enough either .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think all these right-wing leaders would disregard all polling instead of basing most their actions upon it.
Polling is way less accurate but similar to a lot of scientific predictions.
Such as long term climate predictions.The truth is many of them believe the stuff, they just don't care and can make money opposing it (or exploiting it) -- after all, most are LAWYERS and are trained to fight for BS even when in personal disagreement OR they leverage what facts they can to meet the goal ---  the goal being to make money by getting the client what they want.
The client is supposed to be the voters.... (which is bad enough, since they don't care about their distant neighbors enough either.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304618</id>
	<title>'Trendy' brand, 'trendy' shareholders.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1267362360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they just turned 180 degrees, because some conservative media outlets made a big fuss about something they (deliberately) misunderstood and misrepresented, and now, in lieu of scientific data, suddenly, al gore is 'laughing stock' and climate change is no more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>a normal questioning and criticism of VALID data, which should happen (and actually mandatory) for many science projects, has been enough for those people to ditch the entire thing, because some conservative national tvs made a big fuss about it. trendy as far as trends go. also speaks volumes about the attitudes of apple fans and their responses to criticism. god forbid if you question anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they just turned 180 degrees , because some conservative media outlets made a big fuss about something they ( deliberately ) misunderstood and misrepresented , and now , in lieu of scientific data , suddenly , al gore is 'laughing stock ' and climate change is no more ...a normal questioning and criticism of VALID data , which should happen ( and actually mandatory ) for many science projects , has been enough for those people to ditch the entire thing , because some conservative national tvs made a big fuss about it .
trendy as far as trends go .
also speaks volumes about the attitudes of apple fans and their responses to criticism .
god forbid if you question anything .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they just turned 180 degrees, because some conservative media outlets made a big fuss about something they (deliberately) misunderstood and misrepresented, and now, in lieu of scientific data, suddenly, al gore is 'laughing stock' and climate change is no more ...a normal questioning and criticism of VALID data, which should happen (and actually mandatory) for many science projects, has been enough for those people to ditch the entire thing, because some conservative national tvs made a big fuss about it.
trendy as far as trends go.
also speaks volumes about the attitudes of apple fans and their responses to criticism.
god forbid if you question anything ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31324964</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>szilagyi</author>
	<datestamp>1267451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's plenty of room for both sides to be wrong.  Seems like any issue important enough for public debate with two "sides", i.e., where real money is at stake so significant numbers of people care, subtle details like the actual truth get lost in all the excitement.</p><p>In this case, I apparently get to choose between "omg z ices r melting buy my carbon credits or you hate cute little polar bear cubs" and "omg yesterday it was cold out god will never change the climate the liberals just like 2 eet ur babies".  I guess I should look on the bright side and keep reminding myself that both "sides" are slightly not wrong sometimes.  Yay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's plenty of room for both sides to be wrong .
Seems like any issue important enough for public debate with two " sides " , i.e. , where real money is at stake so significant numbers of people care , subtle details like the actual truth get lost in all the excitement.In this case , I apparently get to choose between " omg z ices r melting buy my carbon credits or you hate cute little polar bear cubs " and " omg yesterday it was cold out god will never change the climate the liberals just like 2 eet ur babies " .
I guess I should look on the bright side and keep reminding myself that both " sides " are slightly not wrong sometimes .
Yay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's plenty of room for both sides to be wrong.
Seems like any issue important enough for public debate with two "sides", i.e., where real money is at stake so significant numbers of people care, subtle details like the actual truth get lost in all the excitement.In this case, I apparently get to choose between "omg z ices r melting buy my carbon credits or you hate cute little polar bear cubs" and "omg yesterday it was cold out god will never change the climate the liberals just like 2 eet ur babies".
I guess I should look on the bright side and keep reminding myself that both "sides" are slightly not wrong sometimes.
Yay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307176</id>
	<title>Re:Don't understand the hostility...</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1267382580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book.</i> <br> <br>because the attack on science is well funded by those who stand to lose out if society acts in a timely manner.  just like they said tobacco was perfectly safe, leaded gas didn't hurt anyone, and asbestos was something we should build our homes with.<br> <br>as a group, people are generally ethical in their actions, so when something people like to do is shown to be harmful, it is fairly easy to persuade that it's not really harmful and the people saying it is harmful are filthy liars, because we don't like to give things up, but also do not want to be doing harm, so rejecting the science is emotionally easy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the theories are wrong , reducing green-house emissions ( etc ) wo n't hurt anything but the pocket book .
because the attack on science is well funded by those who stand to lose out if society acts in a timely manner .
just like they said tobacco was perfectly safe , leaded gas did n't hurt anyone , and asbestos was something we should build our homes with .
as a group , people are generally ethical in their actions , so when something people like to do is shown to be harmful , it is fairly easy to persuade that it 's not really harmful and the people saying it is harmful are filthy liars , because we do n't like to give things up , but also do not want to be doing harm , so rejecting the science is emotionally easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book.
because the attack on science is well funded by those who stand to lose out if society acts in a timely manner.
just like they said tobacco was perfectly safe, leaded gas didn't hurt anyone, and asbestos was something we should build our homes with.
as a group, people are generally ethical in their actions, so when something people like to do is shown to be harmful, it is fairly easy to persuade that it's not really harmful and the people saying it is harmful are filthy liars, because we don't like to give things up, but also do not want to be doing harm, so rejecting the science is emotionally easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306116</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1267375560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does, "because seriously" mean? Is that a sentence?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does , " because seriously " mean ?
Is that a sentence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does, "because seriously" mean?
Is that a sentence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302852</id>
	<title>Re:Tora! Tora! Tora!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267294080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically "Tora" translates to "Tiger" or in the case of the film, to attack or otherwise confront.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically " Tora " translates to " Tiger " or in the case of the film , to attack or otherwise confront .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically "Tora" translates to "Tiger" or in the case of the film, to attack or otherwise confront.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31308962</id>
	<title>Al Gore is a Hypocrite</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1267352700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Al Gore is a Hypocrite.<br>He talks the talk and demands that we walk the walk.<br>He pollutes more in a year than my entire family will in our lifetimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Al Gore is a Hypocrite.He talks the talk and demands that we walk the walk.He pollutes more in a year than my entire family will in our lifetimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al Gore is a Hypocrite.He talks the talk and demands that we walk the walk.He pollutes more in a year than my entire family will in our lifetimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302638</id>
	<title>Clearly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Al Gore must melt the glaciers to retain his position on Apple's board</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Al Gore must melt the glaciers to retain his position on Apple 's board</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al Gore must melt the glaciers to retain his position on Apple's board</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303234</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>quantaman</author>
	<datestamp>1267297920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't confuse two the public debate with the scientific debate.</p><p>The public debate is as screwy as any political debate.</p><p>But I'm don't think that the actual scientists are remotely as compromised as the denialists claim they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confuse two the public debate with the scientific debate.The public debate is as screwy as any political debate.But I 'm do n't think that the actual scientists are remotely as compromised as the denialists claim they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confuse two the public debate with the scientific debate.The public debate is as screwy as any political debate.But I'm don't think that the actual scientists are remotely as compromised as the denialists claim they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304940</id>
	<title>Re:The fallacy of the other path</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267366440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you believe in God? Because you have just stated you must.</p></div><p>No he did not. Nowhere did the parent poster mention God.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Such is the power of the Precautionary Principal</p></div><p>Such is the power of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy\_bias" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Normalcy Bias</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you believe in God ?
Because you have just stated you must.No he did not .
Nowhere did the parent poster mention God.Such is the power of the Precautionary PrincipalSuch is the power of Normalcy Bias [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you believe in God?
Because you have just stated you must.No he did not.
Nowhere did the parent poster mention God.Such is the power of the Precautionary PrincipalSuch is the power of Normalcy Bias [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303066</id>
	<title>Re:Don't understand the hostility...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us acknowledge the presence of global warming but have this antiquated idea that government shouldn't step in--that it should be our decision as to whether or not we do anything about it. Because in the end this is just going to be another big power-grab and erosion of rights by the US government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us acknowledge the presence of global warming but have this antiquated idea that government should n't step in--that it should be our decision as to whether or not we do anything about it .
Because in the end this is just going to be another big power-grab and erosion of rights by the US government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us acknowledge the presence of global warming but have this antiquated idea that government shouldn't step in--that it should be our decision as to whether or not we do anything about it.
Because in the end this is just going to be another big power-grab and erosion of rights by the US government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31331828</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1267554000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget, there are a number of people, "grass roots" types, who have become totally enthralled with politics by smear and propaganda. Thus, if Al Gore has been making money, he must be evil, propagandizing theories he doesn't believe so he can sell carbon offsets; although those who accuse him of that are normally those who proclaim that everything must be made into a commercial business in order to have value. I didn't hear them objecting to Cheney's ties to Halliburton and the extremely favorable contracts that they got in Iraq.

Then there are those who may know a thing or two about science, but only a thing or two. They seem to believe that if you a) flood the offices of the British warming scientists with requests for information, then it proves a conspiracy if when, later, b) someone steals the e-mails and finds some resentful e-mails, and that proves that the theory is wrong; who think that if you can show that one fact is questionable, the whole theory has crashed; who look at a graph that goes up steadily except for one brief period in one year, and then forever trumpet, "But the temperatures are not rising!" They don't seem to care that this requires knowing collaboration between huge, worldwide organizations and the absolute corruption of one respected scientific body after another.

They are not Creationists or truly crazy religionists, they are just doing politics. In fact, what they're saying shows a profound disrespect for science, because they are putting politics over science. In a society that depends on technology for the preservation of our civilization, this is extremely dangerous, and proof that we don't have a "conservative" movement at all in America, but a rabidly reactionary one. When Glenn Beck, who is the most popular voice of "conservatives" today, says that "progressives" are the problem, and then proceeds to speak of progressives as a cancer, that's just a tiny bit like calling Jews "rats," and "vermin." William Buckley, who did not give liberals an easy ride, would be disgusted with the movement conservatives today, as he was with McCarthy, and the John Birch Society, and other effluences of mindless hatred of everything modern, or, in his last days, of the neocons who took us to war in Iraq.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget , there are a number of people , " grass roots " types , who have become totally enthralled with politics by smear and propaganda .
Thus , if Al Gore has been making money , he must be evil , propagandizing theories he does n't believe so he can sell carbon offsets ; although those who accuse him of that are normally those who proclaim that everything must be made into a commercial business in order to have value .
I did n't hear them objecting to Cheney 's ties to Halliburton and the extremely favorable contracts that they got in Iraq .
Then there are those who may know a thing or two about science , but only a thing or two .
They seem to believe that if you a ) flood the offices of the British warming scientists with requests for information , then it proves a conspiracy if when , later , b ) someone steals the e-mails and finds some resentful e-mails , and that proves that the theory is wrong ; who think that if you can show that one fact is questionable , the whole theory has crashed ; who look at a graph that goes up steadily except for one brief period in one year , and then forever trumpet , " But the temperatures are not rising !
" They do n't seem to care that this requires knowing collaboration between huge , worldwide organizations and the absolute corruption of one respected scientific body after another .
They are not Creationists or truly crazy religionists , they are just doing politics .
In fact , what they 're saying shows a profound disrespect for science , because they are putting politics over science .
In a society that depends on technology for the preservation of our civilization , this is extremely dangerous , and proof that we do n't have a " conservative " movement at all in America , but a rabidly reactionary one .
When Glenn Beck , who is the most popular voice of " conservatives " today , says that " progressives " are the problem , and then proceeds to speak of progressives as a cancer , that 's just a tiny bit like calling Jews " rats , " and " vermin .
" William Buckley , who did not give liberals an easy ride , would be disgusted with the movement conservatives today , as he was with McCarthy , and the John Birch Society , and other effluences of mindless hatred of everything modern , or , in his last days , of the neocons who took us to war in Iraq .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget, there are a number of people, "grass roots" types, who have become totally enthralled with politics by smear and propaganda.
Thus, if Al Gore has been making money, he must be evil, propagandizing theories he doesn't believe so he can sell carbon offsets; although those who accuse him of that are normally those who proclaim that everything must be made into a commercial business in order to have value.
I didn't hear them objecting to Cheney's ties to Halliburton and the extremely favorable contracts that they got in Iraq.
Then there are those who may know a thing or two about science, but only a thing or two.
They seem to believe that if you a) flood the offices of the British warming scientists with requests for information, then it proves a conspiracy if when, later, b) someone steals the e-mails and finds some resentful e-mails, and that proves that the theory is wrong; who think that if you can show that one fact is questionable, the whole theory has crashed; who look at a graph that goes up steadily except for one brief period in one year, and then forever trumpet, "But the temperatures are not rising!
" They don't seem to care that this requires knowing collaboration between huge, worldwide organizations and the absolute corruption of one respected scientific body after another.
They are not Creationists or truly crazy religionists, they are just doing politics.
In fact, what they're saying shows a profound disrespect for science, because they are putting politics over science.
In a society that depends on technology for the preservation of our civilization, this is extremely dangerous, and proof that we don't have a "conservative" movement at all in America, but a rabidly reactionary one.
When Glenn Beck, who is the most popular voice of "conservatives" today, says that "progressives" are the problem, and then proceeds to speak of progressives as a cancer, that's just a tiny bit like calling Jews "rats," and "vermin.
" William Buckley, who did not give liberals an easy ride, would be disgusted with the movement conservatives today, as he was with McCarthy, and the John Birch Society, and other effluences of mindless hatred of everything modern, or, in his last days, of the neocons who took us to war in Iraq.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305102</id>
	<title>Shelton is the idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shelton is the idiot: the glaciers ARE melting. But I guess that his whacko environmental issues aren't affecting Apple Stock, so he's fine with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shelton is the idiot : the glaciers ARE melting .
But I guess that his whacko environmental issues are n't affecting Apple Stock , so he 's fine with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shelton is the idiot: the glaciers ARE melting.
But I guess that his whacko environmental issues aren't affecting Apple Stock, so he's fine with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303642</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267388880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Random straw man example: the "glaciers aren't melting" comment. First off, most glaciers are in decline [nasa.gov], so they're wrong.</p></div></blockquote><p>You do realize, they've been in decline for about the last 18k years, right?  Since the last glacial period.</p><p>No one who knows whats going on denies they are retreating.  The argue is that the reason its happening and what it will mean for is.  The argument revolves around one group of people who think humans are far more impacting on the planet than science suggests, and how the other group doesn't really think our species has much to do with it or much control over it, mostly due to the evidence that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this happened thousands of times before humans even existed.</p><p>The ice age was ending long before we started speaking.  The 'glaciers have melted' thousands of times.</p><p>The climate is changing, no one anywhere is arguing that.  Everyone talks about how the Earth has changing and getting warmer, but everyone who does that conveniently ignores the fact that the planet has done this before, and has gotten far hotter, and its doing EXACTLY WHAT IT SHOULD BE DURING THIS PART OF THE CYCLE according to data we have.</p><blockquote><div><p>It's really a shame that Gore picked that case</p></div></blockquote><p>No, its really fortunate that he did.  It makes it easier for some people to realize that he's nothing more than a politician doing whatever he can to get attention and actually doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.  Its that kind of crap that makes people think global warming is a bunch of bullshit.  Its hard to argue for something when it seems like every week more peer review shows that the existing statements about whats 'going to happen' and whats 'happening' are just bullshit exaggeration.  Makes it really hard to be taken seriously when you keep getting shown up as a liar or being nice, a horrible inaccurate excuse for a scientist.  Sure ignorant people like yourself who haven't actually looked at the data will continue to treat it like a religion, but no one can stop nutjobs who blindly believe what someone says without thinking for themselves.</p><p>I know global warming exists.  I've seen the studies and the histories.  I've done some research on my own into these studies.  The only conclusion you can come to is 'this isn't something new, its happened thousands and thousands of times before and will happen thousands and thousands of times again.  Other than that, you really can't make predictions.  We can't even accurately model daily weather, and you want to argue that we understand and can modify long term global climates?  If we can't predict day to day weather patterns reliably, WTF makes you think we can predict the outcome of those patterns repeating with theoretical outside input that we've never modeled before?  Stop treating science like a religion and treat it logically, that is after all what science is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Random straw man example : the " glaciers are n't melting " comment .
First off , most glaciers are in decline [ nasa.gov ] , so they 're wrong.You do realize , they 've been in decline for about the last 18k years , right ?
Since the last glacial period.No one who knows whats going on denies they are retreating .
The argue is that the reason its happening and what it will mean for is .
The argument revolves around one group of people who think humans are far more impacting on the planet than science suggests , and how the other group does n't really think our species has much to do with it or much control over it , mostly due to the evidence that ... this happened thousands of times before humans even existed.The ice age was ending long before we started speaking .
The 'glaciers have melted ' thousands of times.The climate is changing , no one anywhere is arguing that .
Everyone talks about how the Earth has changing and getting warmer , but everyone who does that conveniently ignores the fact that the planet has done this before , and has gotten far hotter , and its doing EXACTLY WHAT IT SHOULD BE DURING THIS PART OF THE CYCLE according to data we have.It 's really a shame that Gore picked that caseNo , its really fortunate that he did .
It makes it easier for some people to realize that he 's nothing more than a politician doing whatever he can to get attention and actually does n't know what the fuck he 's talking about .
Its that kind of crap that makes people think global warming is a bunch of bullshit .
Its hard to argue for something when it seems like every week more peer review shows that the existing statements about whats 'going to happen ' and whats 'happening ' are just bullshit exaggeration .
Makes it really hard to be taken seriously when you keep getting shown up as a liar or being nice , a horrible inaccurate excuse for a scientist .
Sure ignorant people like yourself who have n't actually looked at the data will continue to treat it like a religion , but no one can stop nutjobs who blindly believe what someone says without thinking for themselves.I know global warming exists .
I 've seen the studies and the histories .
I 've done some research on my own into these studies .
The only conclusion you can come to is 'this is n't something new , its happened thousands and thousands of times before and will happen thousands and thousands of times again .
Other than that , you really ca n't make predictions .
We ca n't even accurately model daily weather , and you want to argue that we understand and can modify long term global climates ?
If we ca n't predict day to day weather patterns reliably , WTF makes you think we can predict the outcome of those patterns repeating with theoretical outside input that we 've never modeled before ?
Stop treating science like a religion and treat it logically , that is after all what science is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Random straw man example: the "glaciers aren't melting" comment.
First off, most glaciers are in decline [nasa.gov], so they're wrong.You do realize, they've been in decline for about the last 18k years, right?
Since the last glacial period.No one who knows whats going on denies they are retreating.
The argue is that the reason its happening and what it will mean for is.
The argument revolves around one group of people who think humans are far more impacting on the planet than science suggests, and how the other group doesn't really think our species has much to do with it or much control over it, mostly due to the evidence that ... this happened thousands of times before humans even existed.The ice age was ending long before we started speaking.
The 'glaciers have melted' thousands of times.The climate is changing, no one anywhere is arguing that.
Everyone talks about how the Earth has changing and getting warmer, but everyone who does that conveniently ignores the fact that the planet has done this before, and has gotten far hotter, and its doing EXACTLY WHAT IT SHOULD BE DURING THIS PART OF THE CYCLE according to data we have.It's really a shame that Gore picked that caseNo, its really fortunate that he did.
It makes it easier for some people to realize that he's nothing more than a politician doing whatever he can to get attention and actually doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Its that kind of crap that makes people think global warming is a bunch of bullshit.
Its hard to argue for something when it seems like every week more peer review shows that the existing statements about whats 'going to happen' and whats 'happening' are just bullshit exaggeration.
Makes it really hard to be taken seriously when you keep getting shown up as a liar or being nice, a horrible inaccurate excuse for a scientist.
Sure ignorant people like yourself who haven't actually looked at the data will continue to treat it like a religion, but no one can stop nutjobs who blindly believe what someone says without thinking for themselves.I know global warming exists.
I've seen the studies and the histories.
I've done some research on my own into these studies.
The only conclusion you can come to is 'this isn't something new, its happened thousands and thousands of times before and will happen thousands and thousands of times again.
Other than that, you really can't make predictions.
We can't even accurately model daily weather, and you want to argue that we understand and can modify long term global climates?
If we can't predict day to day weather patterns reliably, WTF makes you think we can predict the outcome of those patterns repeating with theoretical outside input that we've never modeled before?
Stop treating science like a religion and treat it logically, that is after all what science is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305674</id>
	<title>Oh, they haven't melted yet, let's continue...</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1267372260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>subj.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>subj .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>subj.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303720</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267390020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you really comparing government grants to private sector money?</p><p>So what's the government's incentive to 'buy' scientists into supporting the idea that humanity is affecting the climate?</p><p>Oh, that whole "world government power grab" thing?  Yeah, that's why you're a crank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you really comparing government grants to private sector money ? So what 's the government 's incentive to 'buy ' scientists into supporting the idea that humanity is affecting the climate ? Oh , that whole " world government power grab " thing ?
Yeah , that 's why you 're a crank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you really comparing government grants to private sector money?So what's the government's incentive to 'buy' scientists into supporting the idea that humanity is affecting the climate?Oh, that whole "world government power grab" thing?
Yeah, that's why you're a crank.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31442328</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1268339700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those who ignore the science are the AGW deniers. The science clearly shows AGW.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who ignore the science are the AGW deniers .
The science clearly shows AGW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who ignore the science are the AGW deniers.
The science clearly shows AGW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305538</id>
	<title>People don't trust science, they never did.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267371420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People don't trust science, nor scientists. Most of us like the friends that make us feel good and not those that tells us unpleasant truths. Not long ago, people "believed" that the earth was the center of the universe and were against the idea that the earth orbits around the sun. Why should it be different now? The "theory" that the earth goes around the sun seems obvious now, but it took a lot time and "prove" for people to accept it. Unfortunately, I am not sure we have the time to get persuaded before it is too late to do something about the climate crisis. Yes, yes, I do accept the theory that the earth is getting warmer by the emissions of CO2, and in consequence there will be catastrophic changes in the weather pattern for us (nature will adapt, as always). Generally, I trust more the general scientific consensus around the global warming theory, than my limited empirical and anecdotal knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't trust science , nor scientists .
Most of us like the friends that make us feel good and not those that tells us unpleasant truths .
Not long ago , people " believed " that the earth was the center of the universe and were against the idea that the earth orbits around the sun .
Why should it be different now ?
The " theory " that the earth goes around the sun seems obvious now , but it took a lot time and " prove " for people to accept it .
Unfortunately , I am not sure we have the time to get persuaded before it is too late to do something about the climate crisis .
Yes , yes , I do accept the theory that the earth is getting warmer by the emissions of CO2 , and in consequence there will be catastrophic changes in the weather pattern for us ( nature will adapt , as always ) .
Generally , I trust more the general scientific consensus around the global warming theory , than my limited empirical and anecdotal knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't trust science, nor scientists.
Most of us like the friends that make us feel good and not those that tells us unpleasant truths.
Not long ago, people "believed" that the earth was the center of the universe and were against the idea that the earth orbits around the sun.
Why should it be different now?
The "theory" that the earth goes around the sun seems obvious now, but it took a lot time and "prove" for people to accept it.
Unfortunately, I am not sure we have the time to get persuaded before it is too late to do something about the climate crisis.
Yes, yes, I do accept the theory that the earth is getting warmer by the emissions of CO2, and in consequence there will be catastrophic changes in the weather pattern for us (nature will adapt, as always).
Generally, I trust more the general scientific consensus around the global warming theory, than my limited empirical and anecdotal knowledge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303768</id>
	<title>Wait...</title>
	<author>FatSean</author>
	<datestamp>1267390620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand that the energy interests are buying scientists who deny that human activity is causing climate change.  Changing technology would hurt or destroy their profit centers.</p><p>But what is the government's incentive again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that the energy interests are buying scientists who deny that human activity is causing climate change .
Changing technology would hurt or destroy their profit centers.But what is the government 's incentive again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that the energy interests are buying scientists who deny that human activity is causing climate change.
Changing technology would hurt or destroy their profit centers.But what is the government's incentive again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303184</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267297260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So cut out the middle man and go straight to the scientific evidence, it should stand or fall on its own merits. Sure, there's a lot of effort involved in that, but if you take the position that the whole field is so horribly corrupted you can't trust a single expert, you haven't got much of a choice.</p><p>I would imagine that one side would be much happier than the other at the suggestion that people should throw their hands up and say "they're all as bad as each other, I give up".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So cut out the middle man and go straight to the scientific evidence , it should stand or fall on its own merits .
Sure , there 's a lot of effort involved in that , but if you take the position that the whole field is so horribly corrupted you ca n't trust a single expert , you have n't got much of a choice.I would imagine that one side would be much happier than the other at the suggestion that people should throw their hands up and say " they 're all as bad as each other , I give up " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So cut out the middle man and go straight to the scientific evidence, it should stand or fall on its own merits.
Sure, there's a lot of effort involved in that, but if you take the position that the whole field is so horribly corrupted you can't trust a single expert, you haven't got much of a choice.I would imagine that one side would be much happier than the other at the suggestion that people should throw their hands up and say "they're all as bad as each other, I give up".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303660</id>
	<title>Re:Is this problem worse in the US?</title>
	<author>rmushkatblat</author>
	<datestamp>1267389060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't seem to understand:<p>
Alternative energy sources (wind, solar, etc, NOT nuclear) are MORE expensive in the LONG RUN, even considering the enormous tax deductions (which other people have to pay for, by the way).
</p><p>
That's forgetting that solar panels initially cost about, what, $20k to set up?  And then there's maintenance and cleaning..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't seem to understand : Alternative energy sources ( wind , solar , etc , NOT nuclear ) are MORE expensive in the LONG RUN , even considering the enormous tax deductions ( which other people have to pay for , by the way ) .
That 's forgetting that solar panels initially cost about , what , $ 20k to set up ?
And then there 's maintenance and cleaning. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't seem to understand:
Alternative energy sources (wind, solar, etc, NOT nuclear) are MORE expensive in the LONG RUN, even considering the enormous tax deductions (which other people have to pay for, by the way).
That's forgetting that solar panels initially cost about, what, $20k to set up?
And then there's maintenance and cleaning..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304598</id>
	<title>Re:Flamewar imminent</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1267362120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The bigger question is why denialists cluster around Slashdot in the first place.</p><p>Oh, wait. I know the answer:</p><p> <b> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2240157/" title="slate.com">ENGINEERS ARE BATSHIT INSANE</a> [slate.com] </b> </p><p>(Yes, computer science proper is pure mathematics, and most people employ a bit of both in their jobs. But it's well-known that the only people crazier than engineers are mathematicians.)</p></div><p>Computer scientists [more like programmers self-taught mainly around here] aren't Engineers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bigger question is why denialists cluster around Slashdot in the first place.Oh , wait .
I know the answer : ENGINEERS ARE BATSHIT INSANE [ slate.com ] ( Yes , computer science proper is pure mathematics , and most people employ a bit of both in their jobs .
But it 's well-known that the only people crazier than engineers are mathematicians .
) Computer scientists [ more like programmers self-taught mainly around here ] are n't Engineers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bigger question is why denialists cluster around Slashdot in the first place.Oh, wait.
I know the answer:  ENGINEERS ARE BATSHIT INSANE [slate.com]  (Yes, computer science proper is pure mathematics, and most people employ a bit of both in their jobs.
But it's well-known that the only people crazier than engineers are mathematicians.
)Computer scientists [more like programmers self-taught mainly around here] aren't Engineers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31328412</id>
	<title>Al Gore is a cock goobling parasite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267535580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See above<br>And when did this site get so freaking slow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See aboveAnd when did this site get so freaking slow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See aboveAnd when did this site get so freaking slow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305642</id>
	<title>Re: free energy?</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1267372140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In what sense has all that coal, gas and oil been free?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In what sense has all that coal , gas and oil been free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what sense has all that coal, gas and oil been free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303610</id>
	<title>Hi folks formwarm Cali and India</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1267388520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is easy to discuss the warming from your warm home. Come to Midwest to get the feel of global 'warming', we had about 2 days in Feb where temperature reached 30 Fahrenheit. rest of it was much colder, and any places have still 15 inches of snow cover.</p><p>Al Gore is welcome too, but he'd spend thousands in order to warm up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is easy to discuss the warming from your warm home .
Come to Midwest to get the feel of global 'warming ' , we had about 2 days in Feb where temperature reached 30 Fahrenheit .
rest of it was much colder , and any places have still 15 inches of snow cover.Al Gore is welcome too , but he 'd spend thousands in order to warm up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is easy to discuss the warming from your warm home.
Come to Midwest to get the feel of global 'warming', we had about 2 days in Feb where temperature reached 30 Fahrenheit.
rest of it was much colder, and any places have still 15 inches of snow cover.Al Gore is welcome too, but he'd spend thousands in order to warm up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307182</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267382580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"People who are seriously interested in financial gain, if they go into the sciences at all, certainly aren't going to pick climatology as their cash cow"</p><p>Of course they are.  It has the greatest potential impact of a 3 trillion dollar a year worldwide marketplace.  What are you, naive?  It's the same argument "you guys" use when going after big oil--you want government subsidies to be backed out, so that green energy "has a chance."</p><p>And besides, what's your comparative control?  iow, as opposed to what else a scientist with dollars on their mind would go into?  Chemistry, physics, biology?  All, including climatology and weather reporting, has the backing of massive federal dollars, in both government jobs and agencies, career paths therein, and grant money.</p><p>Further, climatology, in respect to the influences economically such as carbon credits and other proposals, has a larger policy and political power influence change/delta than all of the other 3 combined.  That factor alone, the potential of impact, is a huge driving force, and has major underpinnings with money since it influences where money is going and spent.  The political influence and underlying dollars there alone is enough to get people thinking, even if their intentions started out pure.</p><p>I would argue that climatology has far more upside and impact financially than any of the other 3 for personal gain, if for that political factor alone.  Look at Gore's investments and his financials.  It's not as if he's disengaged himself for any personal investments or, if there are any, dedicating 100\% to charity.  Even Gates and Buffett are better intended philanthropically than he.</p><p>One area I'm familiar with is molecular biology.  There used to be huge potential gain there in the mid-90s.  Still is, but less to a personal extent.  And today, there is still massive fighting for dollars and minds.  Climatology has a greater impact, impacting the energy market, which is what, 3 trillion US dollars a year worldwide, and you are freaking telling me there is little power, influence, or personal gain to be involved?</p><p>Even a fool should be able to see that they are trying to create a marketplace, to get a cut of the energy money spent, whether directly or through even the simple chaning of the often stated government subsidies.  You can't argue for or against government involvement with the current subsidies of the oil market, without indicating to everyone with a few decent neurons that this influences the entire investment and cost structure of the energy marketplace, from research to new technologies.</p><p>Look at the 2 major economic proposals.  One, cut oil subsidies.  Well, that means oil costs more, and more money flows into "green" tech.  Gee, what happens then?  Investment strategy changes, more jobs in that area, more gain for the climatology and their ilk crowd.  Two, carbon credits.  Similar scenario.  Sure, it's not guaranteed, it's not maybe the main reason, but you've got to be kidding me if you don't think hundreds of million a year to start and billions easily in the near future isn't in the cards.</p><p>I'll say this again, as I've mentioned in on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. before--until climatologists completely step aside their own personal economic gain in this, no one will really believe their claim, and their prime proponent (while not a climatologist) Gore is the KEY figure into why people disbelief since his personal fortune has risen since he's been involved.  People complain about W's oil money connections made prior to his political office; look at Gore's money from the green movement after his political office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" People who are seriously interested in financial gain , if they go into the sciences at all , certainly are n't going to pick climatology as their cash cow " Of course they are .
It has the greatest potential impact of a 3 trillion dollar a year worldwide marketplace .
What are you , naive ?
It 's the same argument " you guys " use when going after big oil--you want government subsidies to be backed out , so that green energy " has a chance .
" And besides , what 's your comparative control ?
iow , as opposed to what else a scientist with dollars on their mind would go into ?
Chemistry , physics , biology ?
All , including climatology and weather reporting , has the backing of massive federal dollars , in both government jobs and agencies , career paths therein , and grant money.Further , climatology , in respect to the influences economically such as carbon credits and other proposals , has a larger policy and political power influence change/delta than all of the other 3 combined .
That factor alone , the potential of impact , is a huge driving force , and has major underpinnings with money since it influences where money is going and spent .
The political influence and underlying dollars there alone is enough to get people thinking , even if their intentions started out pure.I would argue that climatology has far more upside and impact financially than any of the other 3 for personal gain , if for that political factor alone .
Look at Gore 's investments and his financials .
It 's not as if he 's disengaged himself for any personal investments or , if there are any , dedicating 100 \ % to charity .
Even Gates and Buffett are better intended philanthropically than he.One area I 'm familiar with is molecular biology .
There used to be huge potential gain there in the mid-90s .
Still is , but less to a personal extent .
And today , there is still massive fighting for dollars and minds .
Climatology has a greater impact , impacting the energy market , which is what , 3 trillion US dollars a year worldwide , and you are freaking telling me there is little power , influence , or personal gain to be involved ? Even a fool should be able to see that they are trying to create a marketplace , to get a cut of the energy money spent , whether directly or through even the simple chaning of the often stated government subsidies .
You ca n't argue for or against government involvement with the current subsidies of the oil market , without indicating to everyone with a few decent neurons that this influences the entire investment and cost structure of the energy marketplace , from research to new technologies.Look at the 2 major economic proposals .
One , cut oil subsidies .
Well , that means oil costs more , and more money flows into " green " tech .
Gee , what happens then ?
Investment strategy changes , more jobs in that area , more gain for the climatology and their ilk crowd .
Two , carbon credits .
Similar scenario .
Sure , it 's not guaranteed , it 's not maybe the main reason , but you 've got to be kidding me if you do n't think hundreds of million a year to start and billions easily in the near future is n't in the cards.I 'll say this again , as I 've mentioned in on / .
before--until climatologists completely step aside their own personal economic gain in this , no one will really believe their claim , and their prime proponent ( while not a climatologist ) Gore is the KEY figure into why people disbelief since his personal fortune has risen since he 's been involved .
People complain about W 's oil money connections made prior to his political office ; look at Gore 's money from the green movement after his political office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"People who are seriously interested in financial gain, if they go into the sciences at all, certainly aren't going to pick climatology as their cash cow"Of course they are.
It has the greatest potential impact of a 3 trillion dollar a year worldwide marketplace.
What are you, naive?
It's the same argument "you guys" use when going after big oil--you want government subsidies to be backed out, so that green energy "has a chance.
"And besides, what's your comparative control?
iow, as opposed to what else a scientist with dollars on their mind would go into?
Chemistry, physics, biology?
All, including climatology and weather reporting, has the backing of massive federal dollars, in both government jobs and agencies, career paths therein, and grant money.Further, climatology, in respect to the influences economically such as carbon credits and other proposals, has a larger policy and political power influence change/delta than all of the other 3 combined.
That factor alone, the potential of impact, is a huge driving force, and has major underpinnings with money since it influences where money is going and spent.
The political influence and underlying dollars there alone is enough to get people thinking, even if their intentions started out pure.I would argue that climatology has far more upside and impact financially than any of the other 3 for personal gain, if for that political factor alone.
Look at Gore's investments and his financials.
It's not as if he's disengaged himself for any personal investments or, if there are any, dedicating 100\% to charity.
Even Gates and Buffett are better intended philanthropically than he.One area I'm familiar with is molecular biology.
There used to be huge potential gain there in the mid-90s.
Still is, but less to a personal extent.
And today, there is still massive fighting for dollars and minds.
Climatology has a greater impact, impacting the energy market, which is what, 3 trillion US dollars a year worldwide, and you are freaking telling me there is little power, influence, or personal gain to be involved?Even a fool should be able to see that they are trying to create a marketplace, to get a cut of the energy money spent, whether directly or through even the simple chaning of the often stated government subsidies.
You can't argue for or against government involvement with the current subsidies of the oil market, without indicating to everyone with a few decent neurons that this influences the entire investment and cost structure of the energy marketplace, from research to new technologies.Look at the 2 major economic proposals.
One, cut oil subsidies.
Well, that means oil costs more, and more money flows into "green" tech.
Gee, what happens then?
Investment strategy changes, more jobs in that area, more gain for the climatology and their ilk crowd.
Two, carbon credits.
Similar scenario.
Sure, it's not guaranteed, it's not maybe the main reason, but you've got to be kidding me if you don't think hundreds of million a year to start and billions easily in the near future isn't in the cards.I'll say this again, as I've mentioned in on /.
before--until climatologists completely step aside their own personal economic gain in this, no one will really believe their claim, and their prime proponent (while not a climatologist) Gore is the KEY figure into why people disbelief since his personal fortune has risen since he's been involved.
People complain about W's oil money connections made prior to his political office; look at Gore's money from the green movement after his political office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302940</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1267294740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the comments on Slashdot earlier today are any indication, it is whoever is loudest that gets the attention, not who is actually representative of the demographics of the group as a whole.  In this case, the bashing of Gore was self-selecting.  Those who were very against what Gore was advocating spoke up loudly leaving the remainder of the group that was outspoken to either defend or bash Gore.  After CRU it wasn't hard to see how general opinion of Gore would go into the toilet for some people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the comments on Slashdot earlier today are any indication , it is whoever is loudest that gets the attention , not who is actually representative of the demographics of the group as a whole .
In this case , the bashing of Gore was self-selecting .
Those who were very against what Gore was advocating spoke up loudly leaving the remainder of the group that was outspoken to either defend or bash Gore .
After CRU it was n't hard to see how general opinion of Gore would go into the toilet for some people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the comments on Slashdot earlier today are any indication, it is whoever is loudest that gets the attention, not who is actually representative of the demographics of the group as a whole.
In this case, the bashing of Gore was self-selecting.
Those who were very against what Gore was advocating spoke up loudly leaving the remainder of the group that was outspoken to either defend or bash Gore.
After CRU it wasn't hard to see how general opinion of Gore would go into the toilet for some people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31332390</id>
	<title>Re:Don't understand the hostility...</title>
	<author>Swift2001</author>
	<datestamp>1267555860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you know you have to be a bomb-throwing hippie so you can be ridiculed? That's the way the GOP always portrays the transition to a state where we have ample energy, much of which does not makes various sheikhs into billionaires.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you know you have to be a bomb-throwing hippie so you can be ridiculed ?
That 's the way the GOP always portrays the transition to a state where we have ample energy , much of which does not makes various sheikhs into billionaires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you know you have to be a bomb-throwing hippie so you can be ridiculed?
That's the way the GOP always portrays the transition to a state where we have ample energy, much of which does not makes various sheikhs into billionaires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816</id>
	<title>Tora! Tora! Tora!</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1267293840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's Japanese for "Attack! Attack! Attack!" and it seems to be the mantra of the right. No, not the right, there are smart right-wingers who actually acknowledge that there are real environmental problems we can't ignore. After all, doesn't conservativism have some connection with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation\_movement" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">conservation</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><p>Let's call them the Lazy Right. Coming up with arguments is too much work, so all they want to talk about is how stupid and evil liberals are. If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding, they'll tell you Al Gore can't keep his facts straight. Suggest that GWB's anti-terror strategy is a disaster, and they'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama's real name. I once posted a comment on Amazon casting doubt on the whole EMP peril thing, and somebody who disagreed with me said "The only thing you've proven to me is that there really are dire consequences to having hyper-obsequious mothers who breast feed their children until they're 11."</p><p>Come one people. Maybe you're right, and we're wrong. But you'll never know until you give up all the stupid trolling and start having a real argument.</p><p>And yes, I know, there are liberals that do it too. I don't think they're in charge of the left. And even if they are, how does that justify responding in kind?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's Japanese for " Attack !
Attack ! Attack !
" and it seems to be the mantra of the right .
No , not the right , there are smart right-wingers who actually acknowledge that there are real environmental problems we ca n't ignore .
After all , does n't conservativism have some connection with conservation [ wikipedia.org ] ? Let 's call them the Lazy Right .
Coming up with arguments is too much work , so all they want to talk about is how stupid and evil liberals are .
If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding , they 'll tell you Al Gore ca n't keep his facts straight .
Suggest that GWB 's anti-terror strategy is a disaster , and they 'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama 's real name .
I once posted a comment on Amazon casting doubt on the whole EMP peril thing , and somebody who disagreed with me said " The only thing you 've proven to me is that there really are dire consequences to having hyper-obsequious mothers who breast feed their children until they 're 11 .
" Come one people .
Maybe you 're right , and we 're wrong .
But you 'll never know until you give up all the stupid trolling and start having a real argument.And yes , I know , there are liberals that do it too .
I do n't think they 're in charge of the left .
And even if they are , how does that justify responding in kind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's Japanese for "Attack!
Attack! Attack!
" and it seems to be the mantra of the right.
No, not the right, there are smart right-wingers who actually acknowledge that there are real environmental problems we can't ignore.
After all, doesn't conservativism have some connection with conservation [wikipedia.org]?Let's call them the Lazy Right.
Coming up with arguments is too much work, so all they want to talk about is how stupid and evil liberals are.
If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding, they'll tell you Al Gore can't keep his facts straight.
Suggest that GWB's anti-terror strategy is a disaster, and they'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama's real name.
I once posted a comment on Amazon casting doubt on the whole EMP peril thing, and somebody who disagreed with me said "The only thing you've proven to me is that there really are dire consequences to having hyper-obsequious mothers who breast feed their children until they're 11.
"Come one people.
Maybe you're right, and we're wrong.
But you'll never know until you give up all the stupid trolling and start having a real argument.And yes, I know, there are liberals that do it too.
I don't think they're in charge of the left.
And even if they are, how does that justify responding in kind?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303312</id>
	<title>Why am I not surprised...</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1267298820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that Al Gore uses a mac? Is he a board member at Starbucks too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that Al Gore uses a mac ?
Is he a board member at Starbucks too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that Al Gore uses a mac?
Is he a board member at Starbucks too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304058</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1267351560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A good example of something that's been misused by *Gore*, to be even-handed here, is Kilimanjaro. Gore cited it as an example of climate change. It was probably one of the worst cases he could have picked. The summit of Kilimanjaro almost never goes above freezing. The rate of glacier change is a balance between snowfall and sublimation. Most (although not all) papers on the subject indicate that the balance of these two has indeed shifted due to human activity -- but primarily the raising of food in the region, not warming.</p></div><p>Don't be so sure.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The observed surface lowering is now partially the result of surface melting, a recent phenomenon as confirmed by obser- vations of the ice cores drilled to bedrock in 2000. The upper 65 cm of the 49-m NIF core 3 is the only portion containing elongated bubbles, channels, and open voids characteristic of extensive melting (Fig. 3A) and refreezing; these features are not observed in the lower sections of any cores (Fig. 3B). This finding is significant, because it confirms the absence of surface melting for the prior 11 millennia.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/30/0906029106.full.pdf+html" title="pnas.org">LG Thompson (2009)</a> [pnas.org]</p><p>In addition, the current drought is not unprecedented. But the assignation of blame, so to speak, is complicated by the relatively poor instrumental record in the region.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A good example of something that 's been misused by * Gore * , to be even-handed here , is Kilimanjaro .
Gore cited it as an example of climate change .
It was probably one of the worst cases he could have picked .
The summit of Kilimanjaro almost never goes above freezing .
The rate of glacier change is a balance between snowfall and sublimation .
Most ( although not all ) papers on the subject indicate that the balance of these two has indeed shifted due to human activity -- but primarily the raising of food in the region , not warming.Do n't be so sure.The observed surface lowering is now partially the result of surface melting , a recent phenomenon as confirmed by obser- vations of the ice cores drilled to bedrock in 2000 .
The upper 65 cm of the 49-m NIF core 3 is the only portion containing elongated bubbles , channels , and open voids characteristic of extensive melting ( Fig .
3A ) and refreezing ; these features are not observed in the lower sections of any cores ( Fig .
3B ) . This finding is significant , because it confirms the absence of surface melting for the prior 11 millennia .
LG Thompson ( 2009 ) [ pnas.org ] In addition , the current drought is not unprecedented .
But the assignation of blame , so to speak , is complicated by the relatively poor instrumental record in the region .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good example of something that's been misused by *Gore*, to be even-handed here, is Kilimanjaro.
Gore cited it as an example of climate change.
It was probably one of the worst cases he could have picked.
The summit of Kilimanjaro almost never goes above freezing.
The rate of glacier change is a balance between snowfall and sublimation.
Most (although not all) papers on the subject indicate that the balance of these two has indeed shifted due to human activity -- but primarily the raising of food in the region, not warming.Don't be so sure.The observed surface lowering is now partially the result of surface melting, a recent phenomenon as confirmed by obser- vations of the ice cores drilled to bedrock in 2000.
The upper 65 cm of the 49-m NIF core 3 is the only portion containing elongated bubbles, channels, and open voids characteristic of extensive melting (Fig.
3A) and refreezing; these features are not observed in the lower sections of any cores (Fig.
3B). This finding is significant, because it confirms the absence of surface melting for the prior 11 millennia.
LG Thompson (2009) [pnas.org]In addition, the current drought is not unprecedented.
But the assignation of blame, so to speak, is complicated by the relatively poor instrumental record in the region.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31308050</id>
	<title>Proposals rejected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267389060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With every company proposal comes a document that covers each proposal in detail, giving both the boards position on each proposal, and the counter position (if there is one).</p><p>In these Apple environmental proposals, the board recommended that they not be adopted, because Apple effectively already provides similar reporting and goals (though less formal), and already has people working towards sustainability, though it is not a board committee.</p><p>Apple's board stated that the proposals are unnecessary.  And the stockholders, who usually vote with the board, agreed.  So voting down the proposals was not necessary anti-environmental, and much more so anti-bureaucratic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With every company proposal comes a document that covers each proposal in detail , giving both the boards position on each proposal , and the counter position ( if there is one ) .In these Apple environmental proposals , the board recommended that they not be adopted , because Apple effectively already provides similar reporting and goals ( though less formal ) , and already has people working towards sustainability , though it is not a board committee.Apple 's board stated that the proposals are unnecessary .
And the stockholders , who usually vote with the board , agreed .
So voting down the proposals was not necessary anti-environmental , and much more so anti-bureaucratic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With every company proposal comes a document that covers each proposal in detail, giving both the boards position on each proposal, and the counter position (if there is one).In these Apple environmental proposals, the board recommended that they not be adopted, because Apple effectively already provides similar reporting and goals (though less formal), and already has people working towards sustainability, though it is not a board committee.Apple's board stated that the proposals are unnecessary.
And the stockholders, who usually vote with the board, agreed.
So voting down the proposals was not necessary anti-environmental, and much more so anti-bureaucratic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31322494</id>
	<title>Re:Clearly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267439760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly, there was one shareholder Al couldn't gore!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , there was one shareholder Al could n't gore !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, there was one shareholder Al couldn't gore!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303582</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>jessica8484</author>
	<datestamp>1267388160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
need to be focus and careful what r u talk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>need to be focus and careful what r u talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
need to be focus and careful what r u talk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303004</id>
	<title>Are they doing crack?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never heard ANYONE claim all the glaciers would melt over the last ten years. The largest glaciers are over 10,000 feet thick. If we sent in the air force to bomb them with thermite they wouldn't melt in ten years. He said expect major changes over the next 100 years not 10 years and he never once claimed the end of all glaciers even in a 100 years. I don't know which side is whackier the ones claiming the world is ending or the ones denying anything is happening in the first place. I live in central Maine and we have spring weather right now while the center of the country is dealing with record snow. That's climate change but the glaciers still won't melt overnight. The worst numbers I heard were half of Greenland melting in a 100 years with 300 years more likely and some claiming a 1,000 years. Most actually thought Antarctica would remain largely unaffected but there's evidence of melt there as well. Will half of it melt in the next 100 years? No. I've yet to hear a single source claiming that, a reliable source no some wacko that thinks the world is going to end on their watch. The climate is changing whether you agree with Al Gore or not. Belief in Al Gore has nothing to do with climate change. If you want sudden change I'd look out for asteroids 10 to 20+ miles across. Otherwise you'll have to be patient. Climate change takes time and it doesn't care who supports it or is against it or which political party is in control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never heard ANYONE claim all the glaciers would melt over the last ten years .
The largest glaciers are over 10,000 feet thick .
If we sent in the air force to bomb them with thermite they would n't melt in ten years .
He said expect major changes over the next 100 years not 10 years and he never once claimed the end of all glaciers even in a 100 years .
I do n't know which side is whackier the ones claiming the world is ending or the ones denying anything is happening in the first place .
I live in central Maine and we have spring weather right now while the center of the country is dealing with record snow .
That 's climate change but the glaciers still wo n't melt overnight .
The worst numbers I heard were half of Greenland melting in a 100 years with 300 years more likely and some claiming a 1,000 years .
Most actually thought Antarctica would remain largely unaffected but there 's evidence of melt there as well .
Will half of it melt in the next 100 years ?
No. I 've yet to hear a single source claiming that , a reliable source no some wacko that thinks the world is going to end on their watch .
The climate is changing whether you agree with Al Gore or not .
Belief in Al Gore has nothing to do with climate change .
If you want sudden change I 'd look out for asteroids 10 to 20 + miles across .
Otherwise you 'll have to be patient .
Climate change takes time and it does n't care who supports it or is against it or which political party is in control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never heard ANYONE claim all the glaciers would melt over the last ten years.
The largest glaciers are over 10,000 feet thick.
If we sent in the air force to bomb them with thermite they wouldn't melt in ten years.
He said expect major changes over the next 100 years not 10 years and he never once claimed the end of all glaciers even in a 100 years.
I don't know which side is whackier the ones claiming the world is ending or the ones denying anything is happening in the first place.
I live in central Maine and we have spring weather right now while the center of the country is dealing with record snow.
That's climate change but the glaciers still won't melt overnight.
The worst numbers I heard were half of Greenland melting in a 100 years with 300 years more likely and some claiming a 1,000 years.
Most actually thought Antarctica would remain largely unaffected but there's evidence of melt there as well.
Will half of it melt in the next 100 years?
No. I've yet to hear a single source claiming that, a reliable source no some wacko that thinks the world is going to end on their watch.
The climate is changing whether you agree with Al Gore or not.
Belief in Al Gore has nothing to do with climate change.
If you want sudden change I'd look out for asteroids 10 to 20+ miles across.
Otherwise you'll have to be patient.
Climate change takes time and it doesn't care who supports it or is against it or which political party is in control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305592</id>
	<title>I think I smell hyberbole =)</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1267371780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Clearly you have not seen Al Gore's movie.<i> <br>
<br>
What part of Al Gore's movie suggests that we sill see a dramatic change in a couple of years???<br>
<br>
I mean...<br>
<br>
??????????
<br>
<br>
I think I smell hyberbole =)</i></i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you have not seen Al Gore 's movie .
What part of Al Gore 's movie suggests that we sill see a dramatic change in a couple of years ? ? ?
I mean.. .
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? I think I smell hyberbole = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you have not seen Al Gore's movie.
What part of Al Gore's movie suggests that we sill see a dramatic change in a couple of years???
I mean...
??????????


I think I smell hyberbole =)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303514</id>
	<title>Re:Tora! Tora! Tora!</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1267387500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want one problem to go away until we've dealt with the other? Sorry, these things don't wait their turns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want one problem to go away until we 've dealt with the other ?
Sorry , these things do n't wait their turns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want one problem to go away until we've dealt with the other?
Sorry, these things don't wait their turns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303422</id>
	<title>Re:Article is Flamebait</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1267300020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>interestingly enough, a lot of greens don't like cap and trade because they feel that it is a case of capitalism and markets intruding into areas that they do not belong.  A lot of people have taken issue with the conecpt of cap and trade because of some of the problems that are apparent in the EU implementation.  Such as fraudulent Carbon offsets along with general greenwashing.  Then there's opposition to Gore's advocacy of a Carbon tax as it is looked upon as being just another route to tax people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>interestingly enough , a lot of greens do n't like cap and trade because they feel that it is a case of capitalism and markets intruding into areas that they do not belong .
A lot of people have taken issue with the conecpt of cap and trade because of some of the problems that are apparent in the EU implementation .
Such as fraudulent Carbon offsets along with general greenwashing .
Then there 's opposition to Gore 's advocacy of a Carbon tax as it is looked upon as being just another route to tax people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>interestingly enough, a lot of greens don't like cap and trade because they feel that it is a case of capitalism and markets intruding into areas that they do not belong.
A lot of people have taken issue with the conecpt of cap and trade because of some of the problems that are apparent in the EU implementation.
Such as fraudulent Carbon offsets along with general greenwashing.
Then there's opposition to Gore's advocacy of a Carbon tax as it is looked upon as being just another route to tax people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305286</id>
	<title>Re:Is this problem worse in the US?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1267369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are painting us with a rather strange brush. To date, each time 'society at large' in the United States has spoken about creationism, it has been to say "No, that isn't science, you can't teach that in a science class."</p><p>I once met a Catholic, European biologist that made a distinction between micro and macro evolution. As an American with an engineering degree, I was a little mystified, but I didn't really map those ideas on to larger groups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are painting us with a rather strange brush .
To date , each time 'society at large ' in the United States has spoken about creationism , it has been to say " No , that is n't science , you ca n't teach that in a science class .
" I once met a Catholic , European biologist that made a distinction between micro and macro evolution .
As an American with an engineering degree , I was a little mystified , but I did n't really map those ideas on to larger groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are painting us with a rather strange brush.
To date, each time 'society at large' in the United States has spoken about creationism, it has been to say "No, that isn't science, you can't teach that in a science class.
"I once met a Catholic, European biologist that made a distinction between micro and macro evolution.
As an American with an engineering degree, I was a little mystified, but I didn't really map those ideas on to larger groups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928</id>
	<title>Don't understand the hostility...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1267294680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand the mocking and hostility of the opponents of climate-change theory toward the supporters.  I'm sure there is bad behavior on the other side, but the vitriol of the non-believers really confuses me - the recent gleeful mocking on all the Fox News programs during the recent snow storms comes to mind (regardless of the fact that the global warming models actually predict this kind of thing).
<p>
Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book.  I know this is no small thing, especially in the context of a global economy and global competition, but the consequences of ignoring things if man-made climate change is a reality are bad.
</p><p>
Flame me unbelievers, but not too much lest you warm the planet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the mocking and hostility of the opponents of climate-change theory toward the supporters .
I 'm sure there is bad behavior on the other side , but the vitriol of the non-believers really confuses me - the recent gleeful mocking on all the Fox News programs during the recent snow storms comes to mind ( regardless of the fact that the global warming models actually predict this kind of thing ) .
Even if the theories are wrong , reducing green-house emissions ( etc ) wo n't hurt anything but the pocket book .
I know this is no small thing , especially in the context of a global economy and global competition , but the consequences of ignoring things if man-made climate change is a reality are bad .
Flame me unbelievers , but not too much lest you warm the planet : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the mocking and hostility of the opponents of climate-change theory toward the supporters.
I'm sure there is bad behavior on the other side, but the vitriol of the non-believers really confuses me - the recent gleeful mocking on all the Fox News programs during the recent snow storms comes to mind (regardless of the fact that the global warming models actually predict this kind of thing).
Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book.
I know this is no small thing, especially in the context of a global economy and global competition, but the consequences of ignoring things if man-made climate change is a reality are bad.
Flame me unbelievers, but not too much lest you warm the planet :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305226</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267369020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then why the fuck use the term denier?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why the fuck use the term denier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why the fuck use the term denier?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306394</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.</i></p><p><i>On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain."</i></p><p>But only one of those produced a peer-reviewed scientific report that is 99.9\% correct,<br>and it's not the one who makes record profits year after year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain .
" But only one of those produced a peer-reviewed scientific report that is 99.9 \ % correct,and it 's not the one who makes record profits year after year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One one side you have people who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.On the other side you have... those who ignore scientific evidence for financial gain.
"But only one of those produced a peer-reviewed scientific report that is 99.9\% correct,and it's not the one who makes record profits year after year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306600</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you are clueless.  There is huge financial gain in espousing GW theory as a climatologist.  You don't get grants otherwise.  You don't get published otherwise.  You might loose your job.  But espouse GW and you're in the hip crowd and grants and publishing are much easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you are clueless .
There is huge financial gain in espousing GW theory as a climatologist .
You do n't get grants otherwise .
You do n't get published otherwise .
You might loose your job .
But espouse GW and you 're in the hip crowd and grants and publishing are much easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you are clueless.
There is huge financial gain in espousing GW theory as a climatologist.
You don't get grants otherwise.
You don't get published otherwise.
You might loose your job.
But espouse GW and you're in the hip crowd and grants and publishing are much easier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303446</id>
	<title>Re:Tora! Tora! Tora!</title>
	<author>gujo-odori</author>
	<datestamp>1267300200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you think it's not the mantra of the left, too?</p><p>Most on the left aren't evil (although a good many are), but the argument for stupid is a lot stronger, at least in the area of economics and government control. They sure believe in a lot of fairy tales where taxation and government power are concerned. If you want prosperity, low taxes are an essential component. That's so basic I can't believe there are people who don't understand it. And I think we've all pretty well seen for ourselves that government isn't the answer, it's the problem. To truly screw things up requires a law and a bureaucracy. That doesn't mean I favor anarchy or all-out libertarianism, but the government today is far too large, and utterly unresponsive to the people, as large governments always are. The amount of freedom we have lost in this country over the past 40 years is truly astonishing. If you weren't here 40 years ago, you probably find it difficult to imagine how messed up things are today. We have zero tolerance for just about everything, especially for freedom and self-responsibility.</p><p>To be fair, many on the right these days also don't seem to understand that government is more often the problem rather than the solution. The government sure got bigger on GWB's watch and as far as I can tell it did not in any way get better. Just the opposite.</p><p>Obama's not going to do anything to change that, either. A member of the big government party inherits a huge government, complete with TSA, from his predecessor who is a member of the party that's supposed to by small government but isn't anymore. What more could a socialist-leaning leftist want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you think it 's not the mantra of the left , too ? Most on the left are n't evil ( although a good many are ) , but the argument for stupid is a lot stronger , at least in the area of economics and government control .
They sure believe in a lot of fairy tales where taxation and government power are concerned .
If you want prosperity , low taxes are an essential component .
That 's so basic I ca n't believe there are people who do n't understand it .
And I think we 've all pretty well seen for ourselves that government is n't the answer , it 's the problem .
To truly screw things up requires a law and a bureaucracy .
That does n't mean I favor anarchy or all-out libertarianism , but the government today is far too large , and utterly unresponsive to the people , as large governments always are .
The amount of freedom we have lost in this country over the past 40 years is truly astonishing .
If you were n't here 40 years ago , you probably find it difficult to imagine how messed up things are today .
We have zero tolerance for just about everything , especially for freedom and self-responsibility.To be fair , many on the right these days also do n't seem to understand that government is more often the problem rather than the solution .
The government sure got bigger on GWB 's watch and as far as I can tell it did not in any way get better .
Just the opposite.Obama 's not going to do anything to change that , either .
A member of the big government party inherits a huge government , complete with TSA , from his predecessor who is a member of the party that 's supposed to by small government but is n't anymore .
What more could a socialist-leaning leftist want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you think it's not the mantra of the left, too?Most on the left aren't evil (although a good many are), but the argument for stupid is a lot stronger, at least in the area of economics and government control.
They sure believe in a lot of fairy tales where taxation and government power are concerned.
If you want prosperity, low taxes are an essential component.
That's so basic I can't believe there are people who don't understand it.
And I think we've all pretty well seen for ourselves that government isn't the answer, it's the problem.
To truly screw things up requires a law and a bureaucracy.
That doesn't mean I favor anarchy or all-out libertarianism, but the government today is far too large, and utterly unresponsive to the people, as large governments always are.
The amount of freedom we have lost in this country over the past 40 years is truly astonishing.
If you weren't here 40 years ago, you probably find it difficult to imagine how messed up things are today.
We have zero tolerance for just about everything, especially for freedom and self-responsibility.To be fair, many on the right these days also don't seem to understand that government is more often the problem rather than the solution.
The government sure got bigger on GWB's watch and as far as I can tell it did not in any way get better.
Just the opposite.Obama's not going to do anything to change that, either.
A member of the big government party inherits a huge government, complete with TSA, from his predecessor who is a member of the party that's supposed to by small government but isn't anymore.
What more could a socialist-leaning leftist want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307804</id>
	<title>Melting Snow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267386960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly the Apple shareholders haven't been watching the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver for the past two weeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly the Apple shareholders have n't been watching the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver for the past two weeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly the Apple shareholders haven't been watching the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver for the past two weeks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303922</id>
	<title>Yes you do.</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1267349520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to have an opinion on the topic do some research, don't listen to the vacuum heads on tv - 99 of the channels are only after ratings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to have an opinion on the topic do some research , do n't listen to the vacuum heads on tv - 99 of the channels are only after ratings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to have an opinion on the topic do some research, don't listen to the vacuum heads on tv - 99 of the channels are only after ratings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302744</id>
	<title>Re:Flamewar imminent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267293300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"denialists", eh? I guess we can infer from that that you will be in there trolling...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" denialists " , eh ?
I guess we can infer from that that you will be in there trolling.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"denialists", eh?
I guess we can infer from that that you will be in there trolling...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306694</id>
	<title>Re:Who are the denailists?</title>
	<author>Shadowkahn</author>
	<datestamp>1267379340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's plenty of money available to a credentialed scientist who, either because he's wrong, or because he just wants money, is willing to deny environmental changes. Many very large business interests, the oil companies by far not the least among them, have a vested interest in convincing governments that nothing they're doing could possibly be responsible for anything that is happening to the planet, and by the way nothing is happening to the planet, honest.</p><p>The more people, and by extension, governments, become convinced that global warming is a) happening, b) bad, and c) possibly exacerbated by human activities, the more regulations will be imposed that will cut into their vast profits.</p><p>We saw a very similar showdown back when leaded gasoline was still common. Despite knowing since the 20's that leaded gasoline was quite literally poisoning everyone who made or used it, and knowing since the same time that there were alternative ways to incorporate anti-knock agents in gasoline, Standard Oil (that would be the same industry that is now arguing against the concept of global warming) insisted that leaded gasoline was perfectly safe - right up until the 1976 phaseout, and despite the fact that they were knowingly killing off their own plant workers with their lead.</p><p>And we saw the same thing in the fight against DDT.</p><p>Given that a corporation's only motivation is that of profit, literally every view put forth by one is inherently suspect. The very fact that oil companies are denying global warming is enough to bring intense scrutiny upon that claim, because we can be sure that they would not make such claims, true or not, if they were not attempting to profit, or protect profits, with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's plenty of money available to a credentialed scientist who , either because he 's wrong , or because he just wants money , is willing to deny environmental changes .
Many very large business interests , the oil companies by far not the least among them , have a vested interest in convincing governments that nothing they 're doing could possibly be responsible for anything that is happening to the planet , and by the way nothing is happening to the planet , honest.The more people , and by extension , governments , become convinced that global warming is a ) happening , b ) bad , and c ) possibly exacerbated by human activities , the more regulations will be imposed that will cut into their vast profits.We saw a very similar showdown back when leaded gasoline was still common .
Despite knowing since the 20 's that leaded gasoline was quite literally poisoning everyone who made or used it , and knowing since the same time that there were alternative ways to incorporate anti-knock agents in gasoline , Standard Oil ( that would be the same industry that is now arguing against the concept of global warming ) insisted that leaded gasoline was perfectly safe - right up until the 1976 phaseout , and despite the fact that they were knowingly killing off their own plant workers with their lead.And we saw the same thing in the fight against DDT.Given that a corporation 's only motivation is that of profit , literally every view put forth by one is inherently suspect .
The very fact that oil companies are denying global warming is enough to bring intense scrutiny upon that claim , because we can be sure that they would not make such claims , true or not , if they were not attempting to profit , or protect profits , with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's plenty of money available to a credentialed scientist who, either because he's wrong, or because he just wants money, is willing to deny environmental changes.
Many very large business interests, the oil companies by far not the least among them, have a vested interest in convincing governments that nothing they're doing could possibly be responsible for anything that is happening to the planet, and by the way nothing is happening to the planet, honest.The more people, and by extension, governments, become convinced that global warming is a) happening, b) bad, and c) possibly exacerbated by human activities, the more regulations will be imposed that will cut into their vast profits.We saw a very similar showdown back when leaded gasoline was still common.
Despite knowing since the 20's that leaded gasoline was quite literally poisoning everyone who made or used it, and knowing since the same time that there were alternative ways to incorporate anti-knock agents in gasoline, Standard Oil (that would be the same industry that is now arguing against the concept of global warming) insisted that leaded gasoline was perfectly safe - right up until the 1976 phaseout, and despite the fact that they were knowingly killing off their own plant workers with their lead.And we saw the same thing in the fight against DDT.Given that a corporation's only motivation is that of profit, literally every view put forth by one is inherently suspect.
The very fact that oil companies are denying global warming is enough to bring intense scrutiny upon that claim, because we can be sure that they would not make such claims, true or not, if they were not attempting to profit, or protect profits, with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303430</id>
	<title>Re:Tora! Tora! Tora!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267300020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the liberals in charge of the left"</p><p>Good one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the liberals in charge of the left " Good one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the liberals in charge of the left"Good one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304416</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267358700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modeling large scale climate changes is EASIER than modeling daily weather, for essentially the same reason that it is easier to guess how many people there are in a room than to give an accurate count: you are only interested in averages, small changes are irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modeling large scale climate changes is EASIER than modeling daily weather , for essentially the same reason that it is easier to guess how many people there are in a room than to give an accurate count : you are only interested in averages , small changes are irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modeling large scale climate changes is EASIER than modeling daily weather, for essentially the same reason that it is easier to guess how many people there are in a room than to give an accurate count: you are only interested in averages, small changes are irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302890</id>
	<title>Re:Horsecock and sodomy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267294380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So who likes <a href="http://horseloving.com/start.php?&amp;a\_aid=ea697fc8&amp;a\_bid=12d59b2f" title="horseloving.com" rel="nofollow">ponies?</a> [horseloving.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>So who likes ponies ?
[ horseloving.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So who likes ponies?
[horseloving.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303932</id>
	<title>Re:Don't understand the hostility...</title>
	<author>ChromeAeonium</author>
	<datestamp>1267349580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book.</p></div><p>I think the problem is that that is the wrong approach.  So many of the greenie eco-nuts seem to have this mindset that helping the environment means hurting ourselves, and that's where the problems start.  Check it out:</p><p>We improve our energy grid with nuclear energy. We use the newest models, the ones that recycle the 'waste,' the only thing it releases into the enviroment is steam.  That cuts out all the nasty of coal.  Meanwhile, we research solar to make it more usable than it is now.  That makes energy cheaper, which helps manufacturing ect. and improves the economy.</p><p>We really need to develop an alternative to oil.  Either hydrogen power, or a biofuel, and not corn, something decent, like desert based enclosed algae farms. Once a suitable solution is found, we put it into mass production.  This cuts off the huge amounts of money we send to foreign oil sources, and if it works well enough, cuts the cost of travel &amp; shipping, and may even provide an export, possibly cuts off terrorism funding, which really improves the economy.</p><p>We improve our agriculture.  We diversify our crops, do improvement work to breed commercially viable species of new crops, which will reduce the amount of inputs that are needed to keep crops pest and disease free.  We develop and grow more locally adapted varieties of traditional crops, and grow the new ones in the best possible areas.  In both cases, use techniques like intercroping and crop rotation to further reduce the need for inputs like pesticides and fertilizers.  In all cases, we develop new traits that can be inserted via genetic engineering to further reduce inputs and increase yields, as well as open up previously inariable land for cultivation.  This lowers food prices, might even increase overall health, and improves the economy.</p><p>Certainty, of course, it must be stated that regulation must happen, but whether AGW is real or not, who wants to be breathing in smoke and drinking polluted water anyway?  Again, rather than saying 'Waah, industry!' what we need to do is ask, 'How can we develop cost effective solutions to maintain air/water quality without a significant decrease in business?'</p><p>We need to get over this mindset that green technology and green lifestyles must by necessity hurt the economy.  We don't need to go back to the caves, we need to go back to the labs.  Green technology is good for the economy.  Greenie technology, on the other hand, the feel good hippy-dippy stuff, that's another story, but if done right, there is no problem whatsoever.  Everybody wins.  If man is causing global warming, this is what we should do, and even if it isn't us, we should do this sort of stuff anyway.  What we should do is clear.  That there is a political controversy is just baffling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the theories are wrong , reducing green-house emissions ( etc ) wo n't hurt anything but the pocket book.I think the problem is that that is the wrong approach .
So many of the greenie eco-nuts seem to have this mindset that helping the environment means hurting ourselves , and that 's where the problems start .
Check it out : We improve our energy grid with nuclear energy .
We use the newest models , the ones that recycle the 'waste, ' the only thing it releases into the enviroment is steam .
That cuts out all the nasty of coal .
Meanwhile , we research solar to make it more usable than it is now .
That makes energy cheaper , which helps manufacturing ect .
and improves the economy.We really need to develop an alternative to oil .
Either hydrogen power , or a biofuel , and not corn , something decent , like desert based enclosed algae farms .
Once a suitable solution is found , we put it into mass production .
This cuts off the huge amounts of money we send to foreign oil sources , and if it works well enough , cuts the cost of travel &amp; shipping , and may even provide an export , possibly cuts off terrorism funding , which really improves the economy.We improve our agriculture .
We diversify our crops , do improvement work to breed commercially viable species of new crops , which will reduce the amount of inputs that are needed to keep crops pest and disease free .
We develop and grow more locally adapted varieties of traditional crops , and grow the new ones in the best possible areas .
In both cases , use techniques like intercroping and crop rotation to further reduce the need for inputs like pesticides and fertilizers .
In all cases , we develop new traits that can be inserted via genetic engineering to further reduce inputs and increase yields , as well as open up previously inariable land for cultivation .
This lowers food prices , might even increase overall health , and improves the economy.Certainty , of course , it must be stated that regulation must happen , but whether AGW is real or not , who wants to be breathing in smoke and drinking polluted water anyway ?
Again , rather than saying 'Waah , industry !
' what we need to do is ask , 'How can we develop cost effective solutions to maintain air/water quality without a significant decrease in business ?
'We need to get over this mindset that green technology and green lifestyles must by necessity hurt the economy .
We do n't need to go back to the caves , we need to go back to the labs .
Green technology is good for the economy .
Greenie technology , on the other hand , the feel good hippy-dippy stuff , that 's another story , but if done right , there is no problem whatsoever .
Everybody wins .
If man is causing global warming , this is what we should do , and even if it is n't us , we should do this sort of stuff anyway .
What we should do is clear .
That there is a political controversy is just baffling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the theories are wrong, reducing green-house emissions (etc) won't hurt anything but the pocket book.I think the problem is that that is the wrong approach.
So many of the greenie eco-nuts seem to have this mindset that helping the environment means hurting ourselves, and that's where the problems start.
Check it out:We improve our energy grid with nuclear energy.
We use the newest models, the ones that recycle the 'waste,' the only thing it releases into the enviroment is steam.
That cuts out all the nasty of coal.
Meanwhile, we research solar to make it more usable than it is now.
That makes energy cheaper, which helps manufacturing ect.
and improves the economy.We really need to develop an alternative to oil.
Either hydrogen power, or a biofuel, and not corn, something decent, like desert based enclosed algae farms.
Once a suitable solution is found, we put it into mass production.
This cuts off the huge amounts of money we send to foreign oil sources, and if it works well enough, cuts the cost of travel &amp; shipping, and may even provide an export, possibly cuts off terrorism funding, which really improves the economy.We improve our agriculture.
We diversify our crops, do improvement work to breed commercially viable species of new crops, which will reduce the amount of inputs that are needed to keep crops pest and disease free.
We develop and grow more locally adapted varieties of traditional crops, and grow the new ones in the best possible areas.
In both cases, use techniques like intercroping and crop rotation to further reduce the need for inputs like pesticides and fertilizers.
In all cases, we develop new traits that can be inserted via genetic engineering to further reduce inputs and increase yields, as well as open up previously inariable land for cultivation.
This lowers food prices, might even increase overall health, and improves the economy.Certainty, of course, it must be stated that regulation must happen, but whether AGW is real or not, who wants to be breathing in smoke and drinking polluted water anyway?
Again, rather than saying 'Waah, industry!
' what we need to do is ask, 'How can we develop cost effective solutions to maintain air/water quality without a significant decrease in business?
'We need to get over this mindset that green technology and green lifestyles must by necessity hurt the economy.
We don't need to go back to the caves, we need to go back to the labs.
Green technology is good for the economy.
Greenie technology, on the other hand, the feel good hippy-dippy stuff, that's another story, but if done right, there is no problem whatsoever.
Everybody wins.
If man is causing global warming, this is what we should do, and even if it isn't us, we should do this sort of stuff anyway.
What we should do is clear.
That there is a political controversy is just baffling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303520</id>
	<title>Is this problem worse in the US?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267387500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, people are nice to each other and the fact that people are entitled to their own opinion is taken very far. In my country, people are blunt and tell you if you're wrong (and why). If you live in a country where myths like creation are vigorously propagated, discussion about it is discouraged and ignoring facts is encouraged, isn't the US at a natural disadvantage when it comes to discussing factual issues? People can only too easily mistake their opinion for true/a fact, and not as something that may be in for a rewrite. This is exacerbated by the drive of the more outspoken (conservative, if I may say so) people to push their thoughts on others. We have (a minority of) creationists in our country too. We let them keep their thoughts and they don't bother us with theirs.</p><p>After years on slashdot, I still am often taken aback by lines of reasoning that boil down to: xyz is expensive, so phenomenon pqr does (not) exist). Uh, gulp. In this specific case of global warming: What can possibly be wrong with taking a couple of measures that make the initial cost go up and the cost of use go down. You pay the same (in the end), but do longer with a resource. Some allergy that the state could come up with a sensible idea is enough to throw some people into fits (look at the signature lines of several posters here on slashdot). There isn't a law of nature that says that *everything* a government proposes is wrong.</p><p>Saving energy can be so easy. For some homes: Take taking a shower. The water that drains is still warm. You can buy a counter-current heat exchanger that recuperates about 40\% of the heat (you have to have a mixing shower faucet, or whatever it is called, to use this). You have the same comfortable showers, except that you use less energy. The important difference is that the initial outlay is higher (but your energy bill is lower). The unborn can't bid with you for that energy. Do you really have the liberty to waste it, our is it OK if a government looking further than the next election says: Hm, we're going to introduce some bills to encourage you to reconsider wasting that energy.</p><p>Bert</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , people are nice to each other and the fact that people are entitled to their own opinion is taken very far .
In my country , people are blunt and tell you if you 're wrong ( and why ) .
If you live in a country where myths like creation are vigorously propagated , discussion about it is discouraged and ignoring facts is encouraged , is n't the US at a natural disadvantage when it comes to discussing factual issues ?
People can only too easily mistake their opinion for true/a fact , and not as something that may be in for a rewrite .
This is exacerbated by the drive of the more outspoken ( conservative , if I may say so ) people to push their thoughts on others .
We have ( a minority of ) creationists in our country too .
We let them keep their thoughts and they do n't bother us with theirs.After years on slashdot , I still am often taken aback by lines of reasoning that boil down to : xyz is expensive , so phenomenon pqr does ( not ) exist ) .
Uh , gulp .
In this specific case of global warming : What can possibly be wrong with taking a couple of measures that make the initial cost go up and the cost of use go down .
You pay the same ( in the end ) , but do longer with a resource .
Some allergy that the state could come up with a sensible idea is enough to throw some people into fits ( look at the signature lines of several posters here on slashdot ) .
There is n't a law of nature that says that * everything * a government proposes is wrong.Saving energy can be so easy .
For some homes : Take taking a shower .
The water that drains is still warm .
You can buy a counter-current heat exchanger that recuperates about 40 \ % of the heat ( you have to have a mixing shower faucet , or whatever it is called , to use this ) .
You have the same comfortable showers , except that you use less energy .
The important difference is that the initial outlay is higher ( but your energy bill is lower ) .
The unborn ca n't bid with you for that energy .
Do you really have the liberty to waste it , our is it OK if a government looking further than the next election says : Hm , we 're going to introduce some bills to encourage you to reconsider wasting that energy.Bert</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, people are nice to each other and the fact that people are entitled to their own opinion is taken very far.
In my country, people are blunt and tell you if you're wrong (and why).
If you live in a country where myths like creation are vigorously propagated, discussion about it is discouraged and ignoring facts is encouraged, isn't the US at a natural disadvantage when it comes to discussing factual issues?
People can only too easily mistake their opinion for true/a fact, and not as something that may be in for a rewrite.
This is exacerbated by the drive of the more outspoken (conservative, if I may say so) people to push their thoughts on others.
We have (a minority of) creationists in our country too.
We let them keep their thoughts and they don't bother us with theirs.After years on slashdot, I still am often taken aback by lines of reasoning that boil down to: xyz is expensive, so phenomenon pqr does (not) exist).
Uh, gulp.
In this specific case of global warming: What can possibly be wrong with taking a couple of measures that make the initial cost go up and the cost of use go down.
You pay the same (in the end), but do longer with a resource.
Some allergy that the state could come up with a sensible idea is enough to throw some people into fits (look at the signature lines of several posters here on slashdot).
There isn't a law of nature that says that *everything* a government proposes is wrong.Saving energy can be so easy.
For some homes: Take taking a shower.
The water that drains is still warm.
You can buy a counter-current heat exchanger that recuperates about 40\% of the heat (you have to have a mixing shower faucet, or whatever it is called, to use this).
You have the same comfortable showers, except that you use less energy.
The important difference is that the initial outlay is higher (but your energy bill is lower).
The unborn can't bid with you for that energy.
Do you really have the liberty to waste it, our is it OK if a government looking further than the next election says: Hm, we're going to introduce some bills to encourage you to reconsider wasting that energy.Bert</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303374</id>
	<title>Re:Flamewar imminent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267299480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because many Slashdotters are arrogant idiots sitting alone in their parents' basements, completely out of touch with reality, moaning and shaking their fists at the "Lib'ruls" who they think are taking over the world?</p><p>The denialists are similar, except that they get out into the world sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because many Slashdotters are arrogant idiots sitting alone in their parents ' basements , completely out of touch with reality , moaning and shaking their fists at the " Lib'ruls " who they think are taking over the world ? The denialists are similar , except that they get out into the world sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because many Slashdotters are arrogant idiots sitting alone in their parents' basements, completely out of touch with reality, moaning and shaking their fists at the "Lib'ruls" who they think are taking over the world?The denialists are similar, except that they get out into the world sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31320330</id>
	<title>Re:Thunk dumb.</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1267474860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GW crowd will tell you that any decrease in glacerization is proof of Global Warming. However, if the glaciers start to increase, that will also be proog of Global Warming.</p><p>After Katrina, we were told that hurricanes would get worse and worse every year due to Global Warming. When the next year was devoid of hurricanes, this was claimed to have been caused by Global Warming.</p><p>Apparently, and change in the weather is proof of Global Warming. More rain, Global Warming. Less rain, Global Warming. Warmer weather, Global Warming. Cooler weather, Global Warming. Cloudy skys, Global Warming. Clear skys, Global Warming.</p><p>It doesn't matter what you consider, it's all caused by Global Warming. Even earthquakes have been blaimed on Global Warming. No evidence can be used to disprove Global Warming, because everything is taken as proof of it. Until someone can come up with a method that would disprove it, it is a religion and not science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GW crowd will tell you that any decrease in glacerization is proof of Global Warming .
However , if the glaciers start to increase , that will also be proog of Global Warming.After Katrina , we were told that hurricanes would get worse and worse every year due to Global Warming .
When the next year was devoid of hurricanes , this was claimed to have been caused by Global Warming.Apparently , and change in the weather is proof of Global Warming .
More rain , Global Warming .
Less rain , Global Warming .
Warmer weather , Global Warming .
Cooler weather , Global Warming .
Cloudy skys , Global Warming .
Clear skys , Global Warming.It does n't matter what you consider , it 's all caused by Global Warming .
Even earthquakes have been blaimed on Global Warming .
No evidence can be used to disprove Global Warming , because everything is taken as proof of it .
Until someone can come up with a method that would disprove it , it is a religion and not science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GW crowd will tell you that any decrease in glacerization is proof of Global Warming.
However, if the glaciers start to increase, that will also be proog of Global Warming.After Katrina, we were told that hurricanes would get worse and worse every year due to Global Warming.
When the next year was devoid of hurricanes, this was claimed to have been caused by Global Warming.Apparently, and change in the weather is proof of Global Warming.
More rain, Global Warming.
Less rain, Global Warming.
Warmer weather, Global Warming.
Cooler weather, Global Warming.
Cloudy skys, Global Warming.
Clear skys, Global Warming.It doesn't matter what you consider, it's all caused by Global Warming.
Even earthquakes have been blaimed on Global Warming.
No evidence can be used to disprove Global Warming, because everything is taken as proof of it.
Until someone can come up with a method that would disprove it, it is a religion and not science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754</id>
	<title>Re:Flamewar imminent</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1267293360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bigger question is why denialists cluster around Slashdot in the first place.</p><p>Oh, wait. I know the answer:</p><p><b> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2240157/" title="slate.com" rel="nofollow">ENGINEERS ARE BATSHIT INSANE</a> [slate.com] </b></p><p>(Yes, computer science proper is pure mathematics, and most people employ a bit of both in their jobs. But it's well-known that the only people crazier than engineers are mathematicians.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bigger question is why denialists cluster around Slashdot in the first place.Oh , wait .
I know the answer : ENGINEERS ARE BATSHIT INSANE [ slate.com ] ( Yes , computer science proper is pure mathematics , and most people employ a bit of both in their jobs .
But it 's well-known that the only people crazier than engineers are mathematicians .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bigger question is why denialists cluster around Slashdot in the first place.Oh, wait.
I know the answer: ENGINEERS ARE BATSHIT INSANE [slate.com] (Yes, computer science proper is pure mathematics, and most people employ a bit of both in their jobs.
But it's well-known that the only people crazier than engineers are mathematicians.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31312108</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One comment by a single share holder doesn't set a "tone". I've seen videos of the meeting, and you always have share holders like this. Not only that, but this same person was widely booed by other share holders as he ranted against Al Gore.</p></div><p>Exactly right. I expected to read about some kind of shareholder rebellion. It was one perennial malcontent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One comment by a single share holder does n't set a " tone " .
I 've seen videos of the meeting , and you always have share holders like this .
Not only that , but this same person was widely booed by other share holders as he ranted against Al Gore.Exactly right .
I expected to read about some kind of shareholder rebellion .
It was one perennial malcontent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One comment by a single share holder doesn't set a "tone".
I've seen videos of the meeting, and you always have share holders like this.
Not only that, but this same person was widely booed by other share holders as he ranted against Al Gore.Exactly right.
I expected to read about some kind of shareholder rebellion.
It was one perennial malcontent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303198</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31312108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31310110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31322494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31324964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31442328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31331828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31320330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31310830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31308052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31332390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1924221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302856
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307232
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31308052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303092
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31324964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302924
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303644
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307182
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306694
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304018
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31442328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303006
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303732
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303922
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303332
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303652
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305492
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31331828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31308050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31312108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31332390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31310830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31308962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31310110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31322494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31307714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31306116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31302966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303642
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304416
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31320330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31304126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1924221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31303604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1924221.31305082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
