<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_05_1343200</id>
	<title>The Arctic Is Leaking Methane</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267797180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>registerShift and other readers sent in news that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/science/earth/05methane.html">the Arctic Ocean seabed is leaking methane</a>. <i>"...climate experts familiar with the new research reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science that even though it does not suggest imminent climate catastrophe, it is important because of methane's role as a greenhouse gas. Although carbon dioxide is far more abundant and persistent in the atmosphere, ton for ton atmospheric methane traps at least 25 times as much heat. ... [One scientist] estimated that annual methane emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf total about seven teragrams. (A teragram is 1.1 million tons.) By some estimates, global methane emissions total about 500 teragrams a year. ...about 40 percent is natural, including the decomposition of organic materials in wetlands and frozen wetlands like permafrost."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>registerShift and other readers sent in news that the Arctic Ocean seabed is leaking methane .
" ...climate experts familiar with the new research reported in Friday 's issue of the journal Science that even though it does not suggest imminent climate catastrophe , it is important because of methane 's role as a greenhouse gas .
Although carbon dioxide is far more abundant and persistent in the atmosphere , ton for ton atmospheric methane traps at least 25 times as much heat .
... [ One scientist ] estimated that annual methane emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf total about seven teragrams .
( A teragram is 1.1 million tons .
) By some estimates , global methane emissions total about 500 teragrams a year .
...about 40 percent is natural , including the decomposition of organic materials in wetlands and frozen wetlands like permafrost .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>registerShift and other readers sent in news that the Arctic Ocean seabed is leaking methane.
"...climate experts familiar with the new research reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science that even though it does not suggest imminent climate catastrophe, it is important because of methane's role as a greenhouse gas.
Although carbon dioxide is far more abundant and persistent in the atmosphere, ton for ton atmospheric methane traps at least 25 times as much heat.
... [One scientist] estimated that annual methane emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf total about seven teragrams.
(A teragram is 1.1 million tons.
) By some estimates, global methane emissions total about 500 teragrams a year.
...about 40 percent is natural, including the decomposition of organic materials in wetlands and frozen wetlands like permafrost.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370860</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I blame the polar cows!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame the polar cows !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame the polar cows!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31387870</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1267958460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not only that, it is doing it in our general direction!</p></div><p>I'm glad I live in the Southern Hemisphere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , it is doing it in our general direction ! I 'm glad I live in the Southern Hemisphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, it is doing it in our general direction!I'm glad I live in the Southern Hemisphere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372982</id>
	<title>Re:Let It Burn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>CO2 is risky because it has a half-life of over a century.</i></p><p>Not according to scientists (peer reviewed paper below). People who claim CO2 is teh end of the wurld and has a half life of decades are environmental nutcases with an agenda and aren't trustworthy.</p><p><a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r" title="acs.org" rel="nofollow">http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r</a> [acs.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 is risky because it has a half-life of over a century.Not according to scientists ( peer reviewed paper below ) .
People who claim CO2 is teh end of the wurld and has a half life of decades are environmental nutcases with an agenda and are n't trustworthy.http : //pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r [ acs.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 is risky because it has a half-life of over a century.Not according to scientists (peer reviewed paper below).
People who claim CO2 is teh end of the wurld and has a half life of decades are environmental nutcases with an agenda and aren't trustworthy.http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r [acs.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370878</id>
	<title>OMG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we're all going to die...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we 're all going to die.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we're all going to die...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374098</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1267819380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....Remember, mother nature doesn't believe in politics. She doesn't even believe in us and doesn't consider us to be special in any way. (Sorry God!)".....</p><p>Your entire very erudite sounding post is based on your worldview, the assumption, belief, that there exists no God who controls what you call mother nature. If your assumptions, your belief, is wrong about the existence of God who made this earth and controls it, then the conclusions you make are also wrong.</p><p>Your Western materialistic, secular belief is contradicted by millions of others, specifically Christians. Neither your Western materialistic beliefs nor those of the Christians can be scientifically proven. Christians believe that the God who made, owns and controls the Earth made a promise as recorded in the Bible, his word to mankind:</p><p>Genesis 8:22  While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.</p><p>That to me, and millions of others is a far better scenario than that painted by you and other doomsayers.</p><p>Christian belief, contrary to yours, also holds that humans are a special creation of God made for eternal communion with him. Millions of us Christians celebrate this communion many times throughout the year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....Remember , mother nature does n't believe in politics .
She does n't even believe in us and does n't consider us to be special in any way .
( Sorry God !
) " .....Your entire very erudite sounding post is based on your worldview , the assumption , belief , that there exists no God who controls what you call mother nature .
If your assumptions , your belief , is wrong about the existence of God who made this earth and controls it , then the conclusions you make are also wrong.Your Western materialistic , secular belief is contradicted by millions of others , specifically Christians .
Neither your Western materialistic beliefs nor those of the Christians can be scientifically proven .
Christians believe that the God who made , owns and controls the Earth made a promise as recorded in the Bible , his word to mankind : Genesis 8 : 22 While the earth remains , seedtime and harvest , cold and heat , summer and winter , and day and night shall not cease.That to me , and millions of others is a far better scenario than that painted by you and other doomsayers.Christian belief , contrary to yours , also holds that humans are a special creation of God made for eternal communion with him .
Millions of us Christians celebrate this communion many times throughout the year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....Remember, mother nature doesn't believe in politics.
She doesn't even believe in us and doesn't consider us to be special in any way.
(Sorry God!
)".....Your entire very erudite sounding post is based on your worldview, the assumption, belief, that there exists no God who controls what you call mother nature.
If your assumptions, your belief, is wrong about the existence of God who made this earth and controls it, then the conclusions you make are also wrong.Your Western materialistic, secular belief is contradicted by millions of others, specifically Christians.
Neither your Western materialistic beliefs nor those of the Christians can be scientifically proven.
Christians believe that the God who made, owns and controls the Earth made a promise as recorded in the Bible, his word to mankind:Genesis 8:22  While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.That to me, and millions of others is a far better scenario than that painted by you and other doomsayers.Christian belief, contrary to yours, also holds that humans are a special creation of God made for eternal communion with him.
Millions of us Christians celebrate this communion many times throughout the year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370502</id>
	<title>Re:It's the waste of...</title>
	<author>ItsJustAPseudonym</author>
	<datestamp>1267802100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All that methane was locked-up in the ice long ago.  In those times, humans had much less of an impact on the environment, so the methane probably came from natural sources.  Therefore, it is not from "our ancestors crimes".<br>
<br>
The fact that it is being released NOW, however, is due to current effects, which may indeed be anthropogenic in origin.  i.e. We're screwing ourselves now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All that methane was locked-up in the ice long ago .
In those times , humans had much less of an impact on the environment , so the methane probably came from natural sources .
Therefore , it is not from " our ancestors crimes " .
The fact that it is being released NOW , however , is due to current effects , which may indeed be anthropogenic in origin .
i.e. We 're screwing ourselves now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that methane was locked-up in the ice long ago.
In those times, humans had much less of an impact on the environment, so the methane probably came from natural sources.
Therefore, it is not from "our ancestors crimes".
The fact that it is being released NOW, however, is due to current effects, which may indeed be anthropogenic in origin.
i.e. We're screwing ourselves now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371018</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Wiarumas</author>
	<datestamp>1267804800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, the ice cap is farting.  Slowly, silent, and deadly.  Isn't there a slang word that can be turned into a buzzword for that?  Ah, yes: silent but deadly.  It should make its way into white papers soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the ice cap is farting .
Slowly , silent , and deadly .
Is n't there a slang word that can be turned into a buzzword for that ?
Ah , yes : silent but deadly .
It should make its way into white papers soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the ice cap is farting.
Slowly, silent, and deadly.
Isn't there a slang word that can be turned into a buzzword for that?
Ah, yes: silent but deadly.
It should make its way into white papers soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373402</id>
	<title>Re:Let It Burn!</title>
	<author>pugugly</author>
	<datestamp>1267816200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ouch - I was familiar with the numbers, but not the curve.<br>So, fundamentally the effect is frontloaded, so the direct effect is to warm up faster and the indirect effect is to release more methane as it does so.<br>And, if I'm reading the formulae in the wiki article right, those numbers are direct effect numbers, not taking into account feedback loop effects. Understandable - much easier to calculate, less assumptions, but as methane leaks out of permafrost, it's going to cascade a lot.</p><p>We may have hit tipping point.</p><p>Pug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ouch - I was familiar with the numbers , but not the curve.So , fundamentally the effect is frontloaded , so the direct effect is to warm up faster and the indirect effect is to release more methane as it does so.And , if I 'm reading the formulae in the wiki article right , those numbers are direct effect numbers , not taking into account feedback loop effects .
Understandable - much easier to calculate , less assumptions , but as methane leaks out of permafrost , it 's going to cascade a lot.We may have hit tipping point.Pug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ouch - I was familiar with the numbers, but not the curve.So, fundamentally the effect is frontloaded, so the direct effect is to warm up faster and the indirect effect is to release more methane as it does so.And, if I'm reading the formulae in the wiki article right, those numbers are direct effect numbers, not taking into account feedback loop effects.
Understandable - much easier to calculate, less assumptions, but as methane leaks out of permafrost, it's going to cascade a lot.We may have hit tipping point.Pug</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370610</id>
	<title>Who farted???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267802580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mother Earth!!! *shocked look* *holds nose in disgust*</p><p>Factoid:  My captcha is "intimacy" - not something normally associated with passing gas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mother Earth ! ! !
* shocked look * * holds nose in disgust * Factoid : My captcha is " intimacy " - not something normally associated with passing gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mother Earth!!!
*shocked look* *holds nose in disgust*Factoid:  My captcha is "intimacy" - not something normally associated with passing gas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370330</id>
	<title>That explains the smell...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wasn't the Russians after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't the Russians after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't the Russians after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370746</id>
	<title>Re:1 teragram is not 1.1million tons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267803600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe tebigram as in 2^40 grams, not teragram.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe tebigram as in 2 ^ 40 grams , not teragram .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe tebigram as in 2^40 grams, not teragram.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31377834</id>
	<title>Make This Illegal (but think of the children)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267800780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our politicians should make this behavior of the Arctic Ocean illegal, which is a politicians' usual approach to such things. Please think of the children, however, and don't make their methane gas emissions illegal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our politicians should make this behavior of the Arctic Ocean illegal , which is a politicians ' usual approach to such things .
Please think of the children , however , and do n't make their methane gas emissions illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our politicians should make this behavior of the Arctic Ocean illegal, which is a politicians' usual approach to such things.
Please think of the children, however, and don't make their methane gas emissions illegal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374348</id>
	<title>Hence their new slogan</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267820340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The Arctic Ocean -- Earth's icehole!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Arctic Ocean -- Earth 's icehole !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Arctic Ocean -- Earth's icehole!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371434</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>Clevershutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267806780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that's where the smell is coming from.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that 's where the smell is coming from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that's where the smell is coming from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372418</id>
	<title>Re:"Natural" methane?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267811460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've pondered the same thing. You're the first person I've encountered who wonders why this is also.<br>My current theory is that we are very confused as to who we are.<br>Whose to say that industrialization isn't a naturally occurring thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've pondered the same thing .
You 're the first person I 've encountered who wonders why this is also.My current theory is that we are very confused as to who we are.Whose to say that industrialization is n't a naturally occurring thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've pondered the same thing.
You're the first person I've encountered who wonders why this is also.My current theory is that we are very confused as to who we are.Whose to say that industrialization isn't a naturally occurring thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374876</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267779900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So give that you are assuming that climate models are a sufficient basis for public policy, am I correct in assuming you are also absolutely in favour of global free trade? Can you point to any impassioned articles you have written on this subject, and the millions of lives that are lost each year as a result of not adopting this policy? You are clearly deeply concerned with things that will better humanity's future, so surely you must have written such things.</p></div><p>These are not real questions, but inflammatory accusations that the previous poster didn't do what YOU think he should if he is going talk about HIS concerns.</p><p>So, I'm curious. Are you in favor of global free trade? Do you think unilateral free trade with parties who do not fully embrace free trade is a good idea?</p><p>Similarly, I'm curious, do you think public policy related to the effects of climate change should be driven by what the experts on the subject believe will happen, or based only on effects we have already observed happening?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So give that you are assuming that climate models are a sufficient basis for public policy , am I correct in assuming you are also absolutely in favour of global free trade ?
Can you point to any impassioned articles you have written on this subject , and the millions of lives that are lost each year as a result of not adopting this policy ?
You are clearly deeply concerned with things that will better humanity 's future , so surely you must have written such things.These are not real questions , but inflammatory accusations that the previous poster did n't do what YOU think he should if he is going talk about HIS concerns.So , I 'm curious .
Are you in favor of global free trade ?
Do you think unilateral free trade with parties who do not fully embrace free trade is a good idea ? Similarly , I 'm curious , do you think public policy related to the effects of climate change should be driven by what the experts on the subject believe will happen , or based only on effects we have already observed happening ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So give that you are assuming that climate models are a sufficient basis for public policy, am I correct in assuming you are also absolutely in favour of global free trade?
Can you point to any impassioned articles you have written on this subject, and the millions of lives that are lost each year as a result of not adopting this policy?
You are clearly deeply concerned with things that will better humanity's future, so surely you must have written such things.These are not real questions, but inflammatory accusations that the previous poster didn't do what YOU think he should if he is going talk about HIS concerns.So, I'm curious.
Are you in favor of global free trade?
Do you think unilateral free trade with parties who do not fully embrace free trade is a good idea?Similarly, I'm curious, do you think public policy related to the effects of climate change should be driven by what the experts on the subject believe will happen, or based only on effects we have already observed happening?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622</id>
	<title>Re:Let It Burn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267802760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Methane being 25 times more hazardous to the climate than CO2 then surely even burning it in-situ would be ecologically sound byproduct is CO2 + 2H20</i></p><p>That's not true.  Methane's half-life in the atmosphere is so short that it is not a significant risk; in a year, all that methane is going to be CO2 anyway and only 1/25th as potent for global warming.</p><p>CO2 is risky because it has a half-life of over a century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Methane being 25 times more hazardous to the climate than CO2 then surely even burning it in-situ would be ecologically sound byproduct is CO2 + 2H20That 's not true .
Methane 's half-life in the atmosphere is so short that it is not a significant risk ; in a year , all that methane is going to be CO2 anyway and only 1/25th as potent for global warming.CO2 is risky because it has a half-life of over a century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Methane being 25 times more hazardous to the climate than CO2 then surely even burning it in-situ would be ecologically sound byproduct is CO2 + 2H20That's not true.
Methane's half-life in the atmosphere is so short that it is not a significant risk; in a year, all that methane is going to be CO2 anyway and only 1/25th as potent for global warming.CO2 is risky because it has a half-life of over a century.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304</id>
	<title>1 teragram is not 1.1million tons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is 1 Million tonnes.<br>it is 1 Megaton<br>it is 10^12 gram<br>it is 10^9 Kilogram<br>it is very easy to multiply with 10 in a 10 digit-system, so learn to do it right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is 1 Million tonnes.it is 1 Megatonit is 10 ^ 12 gramit is 10 ^ 9 Kilogramit is very easy to multiply with 10 in a 10 digit-system , so learn to do it right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is 1 Million tonnes.it is 1 Megatonit is 10^12 gramit is 10^9 Kilogramit is very easy to multiply with 10 in a 10 digit-system, so learn to do it right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372468</id>
	<title>Calling Lando Calrissian</title>
	<author>abbynormal brain</author>
	<datestamp>1267811760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but in all seriousness<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I see a lot of neat scientific ideas for many things, but I've never really seen much about "farming" our skies. Sure - Cloud City will more than likely be non-manned and mostly just equipment - but hey - it's a start</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but in all seriousness ... I see a lot of neat scientific ideas for many things , but I 've never really seen much about " farming " our skies .
Sure - Cloud City will more than likely be non-manned and mostly just equipment - but hey - it 's a start</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but in all seriousness ... I see a lot of neat scientific ideas for many things, but I've never really seen much about "farming" our skies.
Sure - Cloud City will more than likely be non-manned and mostly just equipment - but hey - it's a start</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31376266</id>
	<title>The Arctic is leaking methane...</title>
	<author>iliketrash</author>
	<datestamp>1267787520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I thought it was just me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I thought it was just me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I thought it was just me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373156</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>frogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1267815120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370412</id>
	<title>For those of us wondering...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A teragram is 1.1 million tons."</p><p>This is US (short) tons. Of course it is simply 1 million (metric, real) tons.<br>Let the unit war begin! Soon we will have passenger jets and mars probes crashing left and right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A teragram is 1.1 million tons .
" This is US ( short ) tons .
Of course it is simply 1 million ( metric , real ) tons.Let the unit war begin !
Soon we will have passenger jets and mars probes crashing left and right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A teragram is 1.1 million tons.
"This is US (short) tons.
Of course it is simply 1 million (metric, real) tons.Let the unit war begin!
Soon we will have passenger jets and mars probes crashing left and right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372004</id>
	<title>Aww, Arctic</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1267809420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was that you?!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was that you ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was that you?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373458</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>theguyfromsaturn</author>
	<datestamp>1267816440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that easy.  Although it is a lot of methane, it is not concentrated.  The cost and energy expense would probably be too great to collect.  That is why we use mines.  Not because some of the minerals found there cannot be found elsewhere in trace amounts, but because the energy cost (let alone the financial cost) of concentrating the resource may prove too great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that easy .
Although it is a lot of methane , it is not concentrated .
The cost and energy expense would probably be too great to collect .
That is why we use mines .
Not because some of the minerals found there can not be found elsewhere in trace amounts , but because the energy cost ( let alone the financial cost ) of concentrating the resource may prove too great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that easy.
Although it is a lot of methane, it is not concentrated.
The cost and energy expense would probably be too great to collect.
That is why we use mines.
Not because some of the minerals found there cannot be found elsewhere in trace amounts, but because the energy cost (let alone the financial cost) of concentrating the resource may prove too great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374788</id>
	<title>Re:Suicidal?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267822560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Show of hands... who out there is willing to eat less tasty cows, just because they fart less? Yeah, that's what I thought...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Show of hands... who out there is willing to eat less tasty cows , just because they fart less ?
Yeah , that 's what I thought.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show of hands... who out there is willing to eat less tasty cows, just because they fart less?
Yeah, that's what I thought...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370748</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267803600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, it is doing it in our general direction!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , it is doing it in our general direction !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, it is doing it in our general direction!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302</id>
	<title>My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1267806120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I'm happy about it because I think it is important.  Anyway since I spent a while putting my submission together, here it is for your (hopeful) enjoyment:</p><p>Will LIFE almost end AGAIN?  Another Great Dying?</p><p>I've said it before (http://slashdot.org/submission/1066423/Another-Permian-extinction-on-the-way?art\_pos=62, <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1056203/Global-Warming-Tipping-Point?art\_pos=71" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/submission/1056203/Global-Warming-Tipping-Point?art\_pos=71</a> [slashdot.org]) and I'll say it again: there may be a chance that we may be facing another Permian level extinction event. What is that you say? It was the greatest extinction event in earth's history (hence "The Great Dying") causing up to 96\% of all marine organisms to go extinct and 70\% of terrestrial vertebrates. Remember, these are entire SPECIES that went extinct, individual population losses were obviously higher. The cause? Well according to Wikipedia: "only one sufficiently powerful cause has been proposed for the global 10 reduction in the 13C/12C ratio: the release of methane from methane clathrates;[7]"</p><p>So, as you can see, I keep saying this because the stakes are so high.</p><p>Well now there are reports (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10010948) that the methane clathrates off of Eastern Siberia are releasing 8 million tons of methane a year. While currently "negligible" compared to global emissions of about 440 million tons: "The release of just a 'small fraction of the methane held in (the) East Siberian Arctic Shelf sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming,'" This WILL become more likely because: "If atmospheric temperatures rise, the hydrate stability zone will shift upward, leaving in its stead a layer of methane gas that has been freed from the hydrate cages. Pressure in that new layer of free gas would build, forcing the gas to shoot up." <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm</a> [sciencedaily.com]. Of course what's driving this is the quick rise in temperatures in the Arctic/Antarctic, temperatures there are rising twice as fast as the global average (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane). So even if we manage to keep the temperature rise BEFORE counting in the additional methane release to a very optimistic 2 celsius (3.6 degrees for Americans) it will be twice that for the arctic regions. Remember also that these articles are talking about just a small part of the arctic methane clathrate reserve (which is itself just a tiny part of the global reserve in all the deep sea sediments) and that it is coming out of out of the sea bed in other places too. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm).</p><p>If the temperature rises cause enough methane to come out to cause the temperature to rise even more we could be in for a very bad greenhouse effect. Methane is 20x more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are 500-2500 Gigatons of the stuff on the ocean floor compared to just 700 Gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. So if just 5\% of the stuff comes out, we've doubled the heat retained in this manner by the atmosphere!</p><p>Now I probably lost the climate-denialists/creationists/young-earthian/Republicans a while ago but to those of you still reading please consider that this is an EXISTENTIAL threat, that is it threatens our (humankind's) very existance. Maybe if temperatures soar into the mid-one hundreds, people will still be able to walk outside/in the winter/in Antarctica and exist in air-conditioned caves elsewhere but I think you'll agree we will have made our own hell on earth. So even if the chance of a semi-runaway greenhouse effect is very small we should really REALLY be careful. (To see the effect of a full runaway greenhouse effect, just visit Venus, hot enough to melt lead!).</p><p>Sure prediction, especially about the future, is hard. But the vast majority of climate scientists think we are headed for a cliff in the fog, fast. They may dis</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'm happy about it because I think it is important .
Anyway since I spent a while putting my submission together , here it is for your ( hopeful ) enjoyment : Will LIFE almost end AGAIN ?
Another Great Dying ? I 've said it before ( http : //slashdot.org/submission/1066423/Another-Permian-extinction-on-the-way ? art \ _pos = 62 , http : //slashdot.org/submission/1056203/Global-Warming-Tipping-Point ? art \ _pos = 71 [ slashdot.org ] ) and I 'll say it again : there may be a chance that we may be facing another Permian level extinction event .
What is that you say ?
It was the greatest extinction event in earth 's history ( hence " The Great Dying " ) causing up to 96 \ % of all marine organisms to go extinct and 70 \ % of terrestrial vertebrates .
Remember , these are entire SPECIES that went extinct , individual population losses were obviously higher .
The cause ?
Well according to Wikipedia : " only one sufficiently powerful cause has been proposed for the global 10 reduction in the 13C/12C ratio : the release of methane from methane clathrates ; [ 7 ] " So , as you can see , I keep saying this because the stakes are so high.Well now there are reports ( http : //abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory ? id = 10010948 ) that the methane clathrates off of Eastern Siberia are releasing 8 million tons of methane a year .
While currently " negligible " compared to global emissions of about 440 million tons : " The release of just a 'small fraction of the methane held in ( the ) East Siberian Arctic Shelf sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming, ' " This WILL become more likely because : " If atmospheric temperatures rise , the hydrate stability zone will shift upward , leaving in its stead a layer of methane gas that has been freed from the hydrate cages .
Pressure in that new layer of free gas would build , forcing the gas to shoot up .
" http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm [ sciencedaily.com ] .
Of course what 's driving this is the quick rise in temperatures in the Arctic/Antarctic , temperatures there are rising twice as fast as the global average ( http : //www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane ) .
So even if we manage to keep the temperature rise BEFORE counting in the additional methane release to a very optimistic 2 celsius ( 3.6 degrees for Americans ) it will be twice that for the arctic regions .
Remember also that these articles are talking about just a small part of the arctic methane clathrate reserve ( which is itself just a tiny part of the global reserve in all the deep sea sediments ) and that it is coming out of out of the sea bed in other places too .
( http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm ) .If the temperature rises cause enough methane to come out to cause the temperature to rise even more we could be in for a very bad greenhouse effect .
Methane is 20x more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are 500-2500 Gigatons of the stuff on the ocean floor compared to just 700 Gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere .
So if just 5 \ % of the stuff comes out , we 've doubled the heat retained in this manner by the atmosphere ! Now I probably lost the climate-denialists/creationists/young-earthian/Republicans a while ago but to those of you still reading please consider that this is an EXISTENTIAL threat , that is it threatens our ( humankind 's ) very existance .
Maybe if temperatures soar into the mid-one hundreds , people will still be able to walk outside/in the winter/in Antarctica and exist in air-conditioned caves elsewhere but I think you 'll agree we will have made our own hell on earth .
So even if the chance of a semi-runaway greenhouse effect is very small we should really REALLY be careful .
( To see the effect of a full runaway greenhouse effect , just visit Venus , hot enough to melt lead !
) .Sure prediction , especially about the future , is hard .
But the vast majority of climate scientists think we are headed for a cliff in the fog , fast .
They may dis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I'm happy about it because I think it is important.
Anyway since I spent a while putting my submission together, here it is for your (hopeful) enjoyment:Will LIFE almost end AGAIN?
Another Great Dying?I've said it before (http://slashdot.org/submission/1066423/Another-Permian-extinction-on-the-way?art\_pos=62, http://slashdot.org/submission/1056203/Global-Warming-Tipping-Point?art\_pos=71 [slashdot.org]) and I'll say it again: there may be a chance that we may be facing another Permian level extinction event.
What is that you say?
It was the greatest extinction event in earth's history (hence "The Great Dying") causing up to 96\% of all marine organisms to go extinct and 70\% of terrestrial vertebrates.
Remember, these are entire SPECIES that went extinct, individual population losses were obviously higher.
The cause?
Well according to Wikipedia: "only one sufficiently powerful cause has been proposed for the global 10 reduction in the 13C/12C ratio: the release of methane from methane clathrates;[7]"So, as you can see, I keep saying this because the stakes are so high.Well now there are reports (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10010948) that the methane clathrates off of Eastern Siberia are releasing 8 million tons of methane a year.
While currently "negligible" compared to global emissions of about 440 million tons: "The release of just a 'small fraction of the methane held in (the) East Siberian Arctic Shelf sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming,'" This WILL become more likely because: "If atmospheric temperatures rise, the hydrate stability zone will shift upward, leaving in its stead a layer of methane gas that has been freed from the hydrate cages.
Pressure in that new layer of free gas would build, forcing the gas to shoot up.
" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm [sciencedaily.com].
Of course what's driving this is the quick rise in temperatures in the Arctic/Antarctic, temperatures there are rising twice as fast as the global average (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane).
So even if we manage to keep the temperature rise BEFORE counting in the additional methane release to a very optimistic 2 celsius (3.6 degrees for Americans) it will be twice that for the arctic regions.
Remember also that these articles are talking about just a small part of the arctic methane clathrate reserve (which is itself just a tiny part of the global reserve in all the deep sea sediments) and that it is coming out of out of the sea bed in other places too.
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm).If the temperature rises cause enough methane to come out to cause the temperature to rise even more we could be in for a very bad greenhouse effect.
Methane is 20x more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are 500-2500 Gigatons of the stuff on the ocean floor compared to just 700 Gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So if just 5\% of the stuff comes out, we've doubled the heat retained in this manner by the atmosphere!Now I probably lost the climate-denialists/creationists/young-earthian/Republicans a while ago but to those of you still reading please consider that this is an EXISTENTIAL threat, that is it threatens our (humankind's) very existance.
Maybe if temperatures soar into the mid-one hundreds, people will still be able to walk outside/in the winter/in Antarctica and exist in air-conditioned caves elsewhere but I think you'll agree we will have made our own hell on earth.
So even if the chance of a semi-runaway greenhouse effect is very small we should really REALLY be careful.
(To see the effect of a full runaway greenhouse effect, just visit Venus, hot enough to melt lead!
).Sure prediction, especially about the future, is hard.
But the vast majority of climate scientists think we are headed for a cliff in the fog, fast.
They may dis</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373724</id>
	<title>Re:That explains the smell...</title>
	<author>graft</author>
	<datestamp>1267817580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As we all know, methane itself has no odor. The usual association of smell with methane is either (a) mercaptan added to fuel in order to make it easy to detect leaks, or (b) other smelly shit from your butt. Yes, your butt. We know it was you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we all know , methane itself has no odor .
The usual association of smell with methane is either ( a ) mercaptan added to fuel in order to make it easy to detect leaks , or ( b ) other smelly shit from your butt .
Yes , your butt .
We know it was you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we all know, methane itself has no odor.
The usual association of smell with methane is either (a) mercaptan added to fuel in order to make it easy to detect leaks, or (b) other smelly shit from your butt.
Yes, your butt.
We know it was you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371102</id>
	<title>Re:Let It Burn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267805160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're forgetting that the manmade global warming advocates like to latch onto every alarmist headline that they can and tout it everywhere. Such statements of fact merely get in the way of their agenda.</p><p>Can you say -1 flamebait, kids? I knew you could. Won't be the first time I get modded down for speaking the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting that the manmade global warming advocates like to latch onto every alarmist headline that they can and tout it everywhere .
Such statements of fact merely get in the way of their agenda.Can you say -1 flamebait , kids ?
I knew you could .
Wo n't be the first time I get modded down for speaking the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting that the manmade global warming advocates like to latch onto every alarmist headline that they can and tout it everywhere.
Such statements of fact merely get in the way of their agenda.Can you say -1 flamebait, kids?
I knew you could.
Won't be the first time I get modded down for speaking the truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371816</id>
	<title>Options!</title>
	<author>Fyrecrypts</author>
	<datestamp>1267808460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I can blame the dog OR the arctic ocean!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I can blame the dog OR the arctic ocean !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I can blame the dog OR the arctic ocean!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374744</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>Echoes64</author>
	<datestamp>1267822380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something like this has already been done.
See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad\_Max\_Beyond\_Thunderdome" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad\_Max\_Beyond\_Thunderdome</a> [wikipedia.org] <p><div class="quote"><p>"two men enter, one man leaves."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something like this has already been done .
See : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad \ _Max \ _Beyond \ _Thunderdome [ wikipedia.org ] " two men enter , one man leaves .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something like this has already been done.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad\_Max\_Beyond\_Thunderdome [wikipedia.org] "two men enter, one man leaves.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370442</id>
	<title>This will NOT stand!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quick! Someone make an impassioned plea to the U.N. to write a strongly worded letter informing the Arctic that its actions are unacceptable and intolerable. We must not abide this clear violation of greenhouse gas limitation policy. Please, be sure the letter is *strongly worded*!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick !
Someone make an impassioned plea to the U.N. to write a strongly worded letter informing the Arctic that its actions are unacceptable and intolerable .
We must not abide this clear violation of greenhouse gas limitation policy .
Please , be sure the letter is * strongly worded * ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick!
Someone make an impassioned plea to the U.N. to write a strongly worded letter informing the Arctic that its actions are unacceptable and intolerable.
We must not abide this clear violation of greenhouse gas limitation policy.
Please, be sure the letter is *strongly worded*!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370988</id>
	<title>Re:"Natural" methane?</title>
	<author>Bartles</author>
	<datestamp>1267804740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A natural source of CO2 is a source than cannot be taxed, regulated, or otherwise controlled by people claiming salvation from the impending apocalypse.  That is the only distinction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A natural source of CO2 is a source than can not be taxed , regulated , or otherwise controlled by people claiming salvation from the impending apocalypse .
That is the only distinction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A natural source of CO2 is a source than cannot be taxed, regulated, or otherwise controlled by people claiming salvation from the impending apocalypse.
That is the only distinction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372750</id>
	<title>Arctic Ocean seabed is leaking methane ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267813200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah and so's my ass. The arctic has probably been leaking methane for thousands of years. The only NEW s is that somebody's been sniffing ( pun intended ) around up there and measuring the quantity. Come back in ten or twenty years and see if the flow rate has changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah and so 's my ass .
The arctic has probably been leaking methane for thousands of years .
The only NEW s is that somebody 's been sniffing ( pun intended ) around up there and measuring the quantity .
Come back in ten or twenty years and see if the flow rate has changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah and so's my ass.
The arctic has probably been leaking methane for thousands of years.
The only NEW s is that somebody's been sniffing ( pun intended ) around up there and measuring the quantity.
Come back in ten or twenty years and see if the flow rate has changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31376784</id>
	<title>Time to stop blaming the cows</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1267790820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to stop blaming livestock farmers.<br>First, eat pastured meat, not CAFO products.<br>2nd, petro is a far greater contributor of methane.<br>3rd, natural methane sources are bigger than both of the above.</p><p>The largest, by far, most effective, by far, greenhouse gas is water vapor.<br>Humans are not the source of water vapor.<br>Breath in. Breath out. CO2, H2O.<br>Now go grow a tomato.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to stop blaming livestock farmers.First , eat pastured meat , not CAFO products.2nd , petro is a far greater contributor of methane.3rd , natural methane sources are bigger than both of the above.The largest , by far , most effective , by far , greenhouse gas is water vapor.Humans are not the source of water vapor.Breath in .
Breath out .
CO2 , H2O.Now go grow a tomato .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to stop blaming livestock farmers.First, eat pastured meat, not CAFO products.2nd, petro is a far greater contributor of methane.3rd, natural methane sources are bigger than both of the above.The largest, by far, most effective, by far, greenhouse gas is water vapor.Humans are not the source of water vapor.Breath in.
Breath out.
CO2, H2O.Now go grow a tomato.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371268</id>
	<title>Re:Old news</title>
	<author>NewbieProgrammerMan</author>
	<datestamp>1267806000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Releasing a press release causes earlier reports to become forgotten?  I didn't know that the archive of all news stories ever written is solely stored in Homer Simpson's brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Releasing a press release causes earlier reports to become forgotten ?
I did n't know that the archive of all news stories ever written is solely stored in Homer Simpson 's brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Releasing a press release causes earlier reports to become forgotten?
I didn't know that the archive of all news stories ever written is solely stored in Homer Simpson's brain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371154</id>
	<title>ho8o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267805400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">GAY NIIGERS from</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>GAY NIIGERS from [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GAY NIIGERS from [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371736</id>
	<title>Re:Sustainable</title>
	<author>BlortHorc</author>
	<datestamp>1267808220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude. Seriously.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nature seeks states of equilibrium</p></div><p>Really? You actually believe that shit? Next you'll tell me there is a large breasted Goddess who makes it all so.</p><p>Hogshit. Nature is as Darwin described, survival of the fittest, but that in no way guarantees that one species cannot fuck the whole biosphere up for the rest of the residents. There is a reason no one was alive to explain the statues on Easter Island, and to foolishly imagine that we could not manage the same thing globally is to thumb your nose simultaneously at humanity's ability to invent and destroy. And guess what? Humanity does not give a fuck for your opinion, it will move along as the unstoppable force it has been for generations.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I would love the sort of hippy nonsense you are spouting to be true, but the urge to survive is sadly very localised (i.e. you care about those you know), and the urge to say "like I give a fuck about them" is very very general.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude .
Seriously.Nature seeks states of equilibriumReally ?
You actually believe that shit ?
Next you 'll tell me there is a large breasted Goddess who makes it all so.Hogshit .
Nature is as Darwin described , survival of the fittest , but that in no way guarantees that one species can not fuck the whole biosphere up for the rest of the residents .
There is a reason no one was alive to explain the statues on Easter Island , and to foolishly imagine that we could not manage the same thing globally is to thumb your nose simultaneously at humanity 's ability to invent and destroy .
And guess what ?
Humanity does not give a fuck for your opinion , it will move along as the unstoppable force it has been for generations.Do n't get me wrong , I would love the sort of hippy nonsense you are spouting to be true , but the urge to survive is sadly very localised ( i.e .
you care about those you know ) , and the urge to say " like I give a fuck about them " is very very general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude.
Seriously.Nature seeks states of equilibriumReally?
You actually believe that shit?
Next you'll tell me there is a large breasted Goddess who makes it all so.Hogshit.
Nature is as Darwin described, survival of the fittest, but that in no way guarantees that one species cannot fuck the whole biosphere up for the rest of the residents.
There is a reason no one was alive to explain the statues on Easter Island, and to foolishly imagine that we could not manage the same thing globally is to thumb your nose simultaneously at humanity's ability to invent and destroy.
And guess what?
Humanity does not give a fuck for your opinion, it will move along as the unstoppable force it has been for generations.Don't get me wrong, I would love the sort of hippy nonsense you are spouting to be true, but the urge to survive is sadly very localised (i.e.
you care about those you know), and the urge to say "like I give a fuck about them" is very very general.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372058</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>xdor</author>
	<datestamp>1267809660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what we really need is bunch of airborne centrifuges over the high-emission areas<ul>
<li>East Siberian Arctic Shelf</li><li>Cattle yards</li><li>Anywhere Al Gore is speaking</li></ul><p>Obviously there would be energy expended, but ideally the harvested methane could be used to power the blimp-bourne centrifuges.  If NASA was still doing space work, the methane could also be used for methane-hydrogen space shots (you know, find another planet while "saving" this one)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what we really need is bunch of airborne centrifuges over the high-emission areas East Siberian Arctic ShelfCattle yardsAnywhere Al Gore is speakingObviously there would be energy expended , but ideally the harvested methane could be used to power the blimp-bourne centrifuges .
If NASA was still doing space work , the methane could also be used for methane-hydrogen space shots ( you know , find another planet while " saving " this one )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what we really need is bunch of airborne centrifuges over the high-emission areas
East Siberian Arctic ShelfCattle yardsAnywhere Al Gore is speakingObviously there would be energy expended, but ideally the harvested methane could be used to power the blimp-bourne centrifuges.
If NASA was still doing space work, the methane could also be used for methane-hydrogen space shots (you know, find another planet while "saving" this one)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370434</id>
	<title>Chuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, it's just a shame global warming isn't real. Then this story may actually have some relevance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , it 's just a shame global warming is n't real .
Then this story may actually have some relevance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, it's just a shame global warming isn't real.
Then this story may actually have some relevance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371802</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>teh kurisu</author>
	<datestamp>1267808400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was an <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/earthpoweroftheplanet/page1.shtml#atmosphere" title="bbc.co.uk">episode</a> [bbc.co.uk] of the BBC documentary "Earth: The Power of the Planet", where the presenter and his guide were in Siberia, dug a hole in the ice, and lit the escaping methane with a lighter.  They got quite an impressive sustained flame out of it.</p><p>If I remember correctly, the programme implied that it wasn't uncommon to be able to do this.  Of course there's no telling how many different takes they shot with how many different holes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an episode [ bbc.co.uk ] of the BBC documentary " Earth : The Power of the Planet " , where the presenter and his guide were in Siberia , dug a hole in the ice , and lit the escaping methane with a lighter .
They got quite an impressive sustained flame out of it.If I remember correctly , the programme implied that it was n't uncommon to be able to do this .
Of course there 's no telling how many different takes they shot with how many different holes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an episode [bbc.co.uk] of the BBC documentary "Earth: The Power of the Planet", where the presenter and his guide were in Siberia, dug a hole in the ice, and lit the escaping methane with a lighter.
They got quite an impressive sustained flame out of it.If I remember correctly, the programme implied that it wasn't uncommon to be able to do this.
Of course there's no telling how many different takes they shot with how many different holes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370302</id>
	<title>So am I.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>N/T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>N/T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>N/T</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370620</id>
	<title>A simple question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267802760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earth radiates at around 10 micrometers wavelength.  As far as I can tell, methane has no absorption bands near there.  So, why is it reckoned that methane is a potent greenhouse gas?  Curious minds want to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earth radiates at around 10 micrometers wavelength .
As far as I can tell , methane has no absorption bands near there .
So , why is it reckoned that methane is a potent greenhouse gas ?
Curious minds want to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earth radiates at around 10 micrometers wavelength.
As far as I can tell, methane has no absorption bands near there.
So, why is it reckoned that methane is a potent greenhouse gas?
Curious minds want to know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1267810260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do people think climate scientists are any different,</p> </div><p>Because they work in a field that is extremely messy and fraught with uncertainty and yet promote the results of their unphysical computational models as being virtually certain, and they lead their arguments with fearmongering language about the risk of dire consequences rather than the science.</p><p>If anyone believes that climate models are an adequate basis for public policy, then they also necessarily believe we ought to immediately implement global free trade, because economic models are of far higher quality than climate models, and the underlying processes are far better understood, and all economic models show that global free trade would be of vast economic benefit, to the extent of saving millions of human lives per year.</p><p>So give that you are assuming that climate models are a sufficient basis for public policy, am I correct in assuming you are also absolutely in favour of global free trade?  Can you point to any impassioned articles you have written on this subject, and the millions of lives that are lost each year as a result of not adopting this policy?  You are clearly deeply concerned with things that will better humanity's future, so surely you must have written such things.</p><p>If not, why not?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people think climate scientists are any different , Because they work in a field that is extremely messy and fraught with uncertainty and yet promote the results of their unphysical computational models as being virtually certain , and they lead their arguments with fearmongering language about the risk of dire consequences rather than the science.If anyone believes that climate models are an adequate basis for public policy , then they also necessarily believe we ought to immediately implement global free trade , because economic models are of far higher quality than climate models , and the underlying processes are far better understood , and all economic models show that global free trade would be of vast economic benefit , to the extent of saving millions of human lives per year.So give that you are assuming that climate models are a sufficient basis for public policy , am I correct in assuming you are also absolutely in favour of global free trade ?
Can you point to any impassioned articles you have written on this subject , and the millions of lives that are lost each year as a result of not adopting this policy ?
You are clearly deeply concerned with things that will better humanity 's future , so surely you must have written such things.If not , why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people think climate scientists are any different, Because they work in a field that is extremely messy and fraught with uncertainty and yet promote the results of their unphysical computational models as being virtually certain, and they lead their arguments with fearmongering language about the risk of dire consequences rather than the science.If anyone believes that climate models are an adequate basis for public policy, then they also necessarily believe we ought to immediately implement global free trade, because economic models are of far higher quality than climate models, and the underlying processes are far better understood, and all economic models show that global free trade would be of vast economic benefit, to the extent of saving millions of human lives per year.So give that you are assuming that climate models are a sufficient basis for public policy, am I correct in assuming you are also absolutely in favour of global free trade?
Can you point to any impassioned articles you have written on this subject, and the millions of lives that are lost each year as a result of not adopting this policy?
You are clearly deeply concerned with things that will better humanity's future, so surely you must have written such things.If not, why not?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371882</id>
	<title>Re:"Natural" methane?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1267808760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The word "natural" has multiple meanings. In context, it means "not man-made".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The word " natural " has multiple meanings .
In context , it means " not man-made " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word "natural" has multiple meanings.
In context, it means "not man-made".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372664</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>henryhayne</author>
	<datestamp>1267812840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Carbon Dioxide has never been the danger. It has been methane and land use that has been the majority of humanity's effect on the climate. Cutting down forest, building cities and suburbs, etc. have had significantly more effect than carbon dioxide, and will continue to do so. Meat animal herds (cows) probably have more effect than carbon dioxide.In fact the use of bio-fuels will have a negative effect on the climate. The only real answer in the long run is nuclear and geothermal power. This is not to suggest that carbon dioxide has no effect, just that our money and time is better spent elsewhere. The majority of the solar warming over the last 30 years correlates best with increases in solar radiation, but that which does not correlates as much with land development and increasing meat production as with atmospheric carbon dioxide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carbon Dioxide has never been the danger .
It has been methane and land use that has been the majority of humanity 's effect on the climate .
Cutting down forest , building cities and suburbs , etc .
have had significantly more effect than carbon dioxide , and will continue to do so .
Meat animal herds ( cows ) probably have more effect than carbon dioxide.In fact the use of bio-fuels will have a negative effect on the climate .
The only real answer in the long run is nuclear and geothermal power .
This is not to suggest that carbon dioxide has no effect , just that our money and time is better spent elsewhere .
The majority of the solar warming over the last 30 years correlates best with increases in solar radiation , but that which does not correlates as much with land development and increasing meat production as with atmospheric carbon dioxide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carbon Dioxide has never been the danger.
It has been methane and land use that has been the majority of humanity's effect on the climate.
Cutting down forest, building cities and suburbs, etc.
have had significantly more effect than carbon dioxide, and will continue to do so.
Meat animal herds (cows) probably have more effect than carbon dioxide.In fact the use of bio-fuels will have a negative effect on the climate.
The only real answer in the long run is nuclear and geothermal power.
This is not to suggest that carbon dioxide has no effect, just that our money and time is better spent elsewhere.
The majority of the solar warming over the last 30 years correlates best with increases in solar radiation, but that which does not correlates as much with land development and increasing meat production as with atmospheric carbon dioxide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374408</id>
	<title>Re:Let It Burn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267820640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Can you say -1 flamebait, kids? I knew you could. Won't be the first time I get modded down for speaking the truth.</p></div></blockquote><p>
People get modded down for speaking the truth.  They also get modded down for opening their stupid fucking mouths and spouting on about shit they know nothing about.  Luckily you're so fucking smart that there's NO WAY your "insight" could be confused with being a retarded fuckwit.  I hope you at least enjoy the fresh mountain air up on that cross.  Jagoff.
<br> <br>They laughed at Newton.  They laughed at Einstein.  But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you say -1 flamebait , kids ?
I knew you could .
Wo n't be the first time I get modded down for speaking the truth .
People get modded down for speaking the truth .
They also get modded down for opening their stupid fucking mouths and spouting on about shit they know nothing about .
Luckily you 're so fucking smart that there 's NO WAY your " insight " could be confused with being a retarded fuckwit .
I hope you at least enjoy the fresh mountain air up on that cross .
Jagoff . They laughed at Newton .
They laughed at Einstein .
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Can you say -1 flamebait, kids?
I knew you could.
Won't be the first time I get modded down for speaking the truth.
People get modded down for speaking the truth.
They also get modded down for opening their stupid fucking mouths and spouting on about shit they know nothing about.
Luckily you're so fucking smart that there's NO WAY your "insight" could be confused with being a retarded fuckwit.
I hope you at least enjoy the fresh mountain air up on that cross.
Jagoff.
 They laughed at Newton.
They laughed at Einstein.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370900</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Maniacal</author>
	<datestamp>1267804320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  It was the dog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
It was the dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
It was the dog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372430</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1267811520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For an even simpler solution: couldn't you just *ignite* the methane?  Then it would turn into CO2, which, while a greenhouse gas, is a much less powerful greenhouse gas.  And there's "very little" methane by mass compared to CO2 [1], so that would reduce its impact to a negligible fraction of the existing CO2's greenhouse effect.</p><p>The only problem I see is that it would melt surrounding ice and reduce the earth's albino, absorbing more heat from the sun.</p><p>[1]even after accounting for the 2.75x weight ratio of CO2 to CH4 in the combustion reaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For an even simpler solution : could n't you just * ignite * the methane ?
Then it would turn into CO2 , which , while a greenhouse gas , is a much less powerful greenhouse gas .
And there 's " very little " methane by mass compared to CO2 [ 1 ] , so that would reduce its impact to a negligible fraction of the existing CO2 's greenhouse effect.The only problem I see is that it would melt surrounding ice and reduce the earth 's albino , absorbing more heat from the sun .
[ 1 ] even after accounting for the 2.75x weight ratio of CO2 to CH4 in the combustion reaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For an even simpler solution: couldn't you just *ignite* the methane?
Then it would turn into CO2, which, while a greenhouse gas, is a much less powerful greenhouse gas.
And there's "very little" methane by mass compared to CO2 [1], so that would reduce its impact to a negligible fraction of the existing CO2's greenhouse effect.The only problem I see is that it would melt surrounding ice and reduce the earth's albino, absorbing more heat from the sun.
[1]even after accounting for the 2.75x weight ratio of CO2 to CH4 in the combustion reaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31378336</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267805940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your argument makes no sense.  If one does not write about everything that may benefit humanity, in the order that these things would bring about the most benefit (and according to whose estimation?), one should not propose any action that might benefit humanity?</p><p>And no, climate science does not hinge solely on computer simulations.  You seem to have missed all of the contributions by people collecting temperature and radiation data, ice cores, ice thickness, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument makes no sense .
If one does not write about everything that may benefit humanity , in the order that these things would bring about the most benefit ( and according to whose estimation ?
) , one should not propose any action that might benefit humanity ? And no , climate science does not hinge solely on computer simulations .
You seem to have missed all of the contributions by people collecting temperature and radiation data , ice cores , ice thickness , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument makes no sense.
If one does not write about everything that may benefit humanity, in the order that these things would bring about the most benefit (and according to whose estimation?
), one should not propose any action that might benefit humanity?And no, climate science does not hinge solely on computer simulations.
You seem to have missed all of the contributions by people collecting temperature and radiation data, ice cores, ice thickness, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372772</id>
	<title>How common is this?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1267813260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cant help but wonder if this is incredibly common, just that we've never looked for it. Sophisticated sonar capable of detecting "non-visible methane bubbles" hasn't been cheap enough for anyone but the millitary until very recently (<i>maybe</i> fiften years), which is about the same time they started detecting this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cant help but wonder if this is incredibly common , just that we 've never looked for it .
Sophisticated sonar capable of detecting " non-visible methane bubbles " has n't been cheap enough for anyone but the millitary until very recently ( maybe fiften years ) , which is about the same time they started detecting this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cant help but wonder if this is incredibly common, just that we've never looked for it.
Sophisticated sonar capable of detecting "non-visible methane bubbles" hasn't been cheap enough for anyone but the millitary until very recently (maybe fiften years), which is about the same time they started detecting this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371622</id>
	<title>Re:1 teragram is not 1.1million tons</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1267807680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 ton in the US is 2000 lbs (2e3).<br>1 kg is about 2.2 lbs.<br>1e12 grams(1 teragram) is 1e9 kg is 2.2e9 lbs<br>2.2e9 / 2e3 is 1.1e6</p><p>so yes, it is very easy, and it is 1.1m tons.</p><p>if you wish to take an article written for an american publication and interpret its units differently, that is entirely on you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ton in the US is 2000 lbs ( 2e3 ) .1 kg is about 2.2 lbs.1e12 grams ( 1 teragram ) is 1e9 kg is 2.2e9 lbs2.2e9 / 2e3 is 1.1e6so yes , it is very easy , and it is 1.1m tons.if you wish to take an article written for an american publication and interpret its units differently , that is entirely on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 ton in the US is 2000 lbs (2e3).1 kg is about 2.2 lbs.1e12 grams(1 teragram) is 1e9 kg is 2.2e9 lbs2.2e9 / 2e3 is 1.1e6so yes, it is very easy, and it is 1.1m tons.if you wish to take an article written for an american publication and interpret its units differently, that is entirely on you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371404</id>
	<title>Let's harvest it and burn it</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267806660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If converting Methane (CH4) to carbon dioxide (CO2) reduces its greenhouse effect by a factor of 25, while at the same time providing heat, electricity, or locomotion, then this seems like a no-brainer of a win-win situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If converting Methane ( CH4 ) to carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) reduces its greenhouse effect by a factor of 25 , while at the same time providing heat , electricity , or locomotion , then this seems like a no-brainer of a win-win situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If converting Methane (CH4) to carbon dioxide (CO2) reduces its greenhouse effect by a factor of 25, while at the same time providing heat, electricity, or locomotion, then this seems like a no-brainer of a win-win situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370396</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Researchers have measured methane in the region before.  Of course, now you can't find those reports because they're buried by this press release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Researchers have measured methane in the region before .
Of course , now you ca n't find those reports because they 're buried by this press release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Researchers have measured methane in the region before.
Of course, now you can't find those reports because they're buried by this press release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372724</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267813080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We dinosaurs are just doomed." -- General Galapagos</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We dinosaurs are just doomed .
" -- General Galapagos</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We dinosaurs are just doomed.
" -- General Galapagos</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370652</id>
	<title>Re:It's the waste of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267803000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We also know north america used to be under a few km of ice.  What's your point besides demonstrating that you're a complete tool?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We also know north america used to be under a few km of ice .
What 's your point besides demonstrating that you 're a complete tool ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We also know north america used to be under a few km of ice.
What's your point besides demonstrating that you're a complete tool?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31376554</id>
	<title>I knew it</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1267789320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These polar bears are farting waaaaaay too mcuh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These polar bears are farting waaaaaay too mcuh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These polar bears are farting waaaaaay too mcuh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31378438</id>
	<title>Re:So Much Evidence And Yet Business Interests Res</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267806900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world changes due to natural forces, we're one with nature, so anything that happens is ultimately natural?  And we should just go along with whatever's natural?  That seems to be your argument.  If your house was set alight by a lightning strike, would you sit there and let it burn?  It was a natural occurrence, after all.</p><p>Improved biodiversity?  You expect new species to evolve faster than they disappear, under conditions that are changing far more rapidly than those under which they evolved?</p><p>Yeah, we're adaptable.  But not being photosynthetic, we depend on other species.  Our existence probably isn't a big deal to the universe, but I'd like to ensure that future humans have the chance to live a reasonably comfortable existence, and putting pressure on a lot of other species won't help that.  You know what other things are pretty adaptable?  Cockroaches.  And crocodiles.  Personally, I'd prefer that some less adaptable species stay around too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world changes due to natural forces , we 're one with nature , so anything that happens is ultimately natural ?
And we should just go along with whatever 's natural ?
That seems to be your argument .
If your house was set alight by a lightning strike , would you sit there and let it burn ?
It was a natural occurrence , after all.Improved biodiversity ?
You expect new species to evolve faster than they disappear , under conditions that are changing far more rapidly than those under which they evolved ? Yeah , we 're adaptable .
But not being photosynthetic , we depend on other species .
Our existence probably is n't a big deal to the universe , but I 'd like to ensure that future humans have the chance to live a reasonably comfortable existence , and putting pressure on a lot of other species wo n't help that .
You know what other things are pretty adaptable ?
Cockroaches. And crocodiles .
Personally , I 'd prefer that some less adaptable species stay around too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world changes due to natural forces, we're one with nature, so anything that happens is ultimately natural?
And we should just go along with whatever's natural?
That seems to be your argument.
If your house was set alight by a lightning strike, would you sit there and let it burn?
It was a natural occurrence, after all.Improved biodiversity?
You expect new species to evolve faster than they disappear, under conditions that are changing far more rapidly than those under which they evolved?Yeah, we're adaptable.
But not being photosynthetic, we depend on other species.
Our existence probably isn't a big deal to the universe, but I'd like to ensure that future humans have the chance to live a reasonably comfortable existence, and putting pressure on a lot of other species won't help that.
You know what other things are pretty adaptable?
Cockroaches.  And crocodiles.
Personally, I'd prefer that some less adaptable species stay around too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31379950</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267879200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if I had a dime for every strawman and falacious rhetorical technique in your post I could buy an ice cream cone, and forget about the self induced impending end of civilization due to unmitigated greed, at least for a little while until it melted all over the seat of my SUV.</p><p>classic troll #464814, good work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if I had a dime for every strawman and falacious rhetorical technique in your post I could buy an ice cream cone , and forget about the self induced impending end of civilization due to unmitigated greed , at least for a little while until it melted all over the seat of my SUV.classic troll # 464814 , good work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if I had a dime for every strawman and falacious rhetorical technique in your post I could buy an ice cream cone, and forget about the self induced impending end of civilization due to unmitigated greed, at least for a little while until it melted all over the seat of my SUV.classic troll #464814, good work!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31376114</id>
	<title>A simple answer</title>
	<author>vuo</author>
	<datestamp>1267786560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The methane molecule is tetrahedral, but carbon dioxide is a linear O=C=O chain. There are many more ways to bend, stretch and twist the bonds in methane than in carbon dioxide, which can only bend and stretch asymmetrically (the symmetric stretch doesn't change the dipole moment and so it isn't infrared active). These additional bending modes correspond to more energy levels and more absorption peaks. The result is that given a reasonably smooth distribution - like that of solar and terrestial infrared - there is simply more energy absorbed to the peaks of methane than to the few peaks of carbon dioxide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The methane molecule is tetrahedral , but carbon dioxide is a linear O = C = O chain .
There are many more ways to bend , stretch and twist the bonds in methane than in carbon dioxide , which can only bend and stretch asymmetrically ( the symmetric stretch does n't change the dipole moment and so it is n't infrared active ) .
These additional bending modes correspond to more energy levels and more absorption peaks .
The result is that given a reasonably smooth distribution - like that of solar and terrestial infrared - there is simply more energy absorbed to the peaks of methane than to the few peaks of carbon dioxide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The methane molecule is tetrahedral, but carbon dioxide is a linear O=C=O chain.
There are many more ways to bend, stretch and twist the bonds in methane than in carbon dioxide, which can only bend and stretch asymmetrically (the symmetric stretch doesn't change the dipole moment and so it isn't infrared active).
These additional bending modes correspond to more energy levels and more absorption peaks.
The result is that given a reasonably smooth distribution - like that of solar and terrestial infrared - there is simply more energy absorbed to the peaks of methane than to the few peaks of carbon dioxide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371516</id>
	<title>Bloombox</title>
	<author>FathomIT</author>
	<datestamp>1267807260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad we can't simply hook this methane up to a Bloombox or fuelcell generator.  Wish we could do the same for the cows...and maybe some friends of mine too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad we ca n't simply hook this methane up to a Bloombox or fuelcell generator .
Wish we could do the same for the cows...and maybe some friends of mine too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad we can't simply hook this methane up to a Bloombox or fuelcell generator.
Wish we could do the same for the cows...and maybe some friends of mine too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371612</id>
	<title>Re:"Natural" methane?</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1267807620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the word "natural" is a lot shorter and less awkward than using "non-human-caused-" every time? You can argue semantics all you want, but it's a useful distinction to make, and it's clear enough to most of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the word " natural " is a lot shorter and less awkward than using " non-human-caused- " every time ?
You can argue semantics all you want , but it 's a useful distinction to make , and it 's clear enough to most of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the word "natural" is a lot shorter and less awkward than using "non-human-caused-" every time?
You can argue semantics all you want, but it's a useful distinction to make, and it's clear enough to most of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370570</id>
	<title>And so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267802460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>am I.</htmltext>
<tokenext>am I .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>am I.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370298</id>
	<title>Shoo-wee!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somebody light a match!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody light a match !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody light a match!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372374</id>
	<title>The global warming advocate's wet dream</title>
	<author>ffreeloader</author>
	<datestamp>1267811220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is it?  Ice caps cause global warming.  The coldest part of the world is now responsible for the earth getting warmer.</p><p>It's ironic how all of these natural sources of methane/CO2 have existed for thousands of years before industrialization or we had anyone telling us that global warming existed, but now all these naturally occurring phenomenons are serious problems which are destroying earth's climate.</p><p>Sorry, but I call bullshit. If all these naturally occurring phenomena are responsible for negative changes in earth's climate the earth would have become inhabitable long ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it ?
Ice caps cause global warming .
The coldest part of the world is now responsible for the earth getting warmer.It 's ironic how all of these natural sources of methane/CO2 have existed for thousands of years before industrialization or we had anyone telling us that global warming existed , but now all these naturally occurring phenomenons are serious problems which are destroying earth 's climate.Sorry , but I call bullshit .
If all these naturally occurring phenomena are responsible for negative changes in earth 's climate the earth would have become inhabitable long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it?
Ice caps cause global warming.
The coldest part of the world is now responsible for the earth getting warmer.It's ironic how all of these natural sources of methane/CO2 have existed for thousands of years before industrialization or we had anyone telling us that global warming existed, but now all these naturally occurring phenomenons are serious problems which are destroying earth's climate.Sorry, but I call bullshit.
If all these naturally occurring phenomena are responsible for negative changes in earth's climate the earth would have become inhabitable long ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370778</id>
	<title>Suicidal?</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1267803720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I remember correctly, there was a story on here recently about cows that produce less methane and, thus, are better for the environment and won't cause global warming.  So, is the fact that the Arctic releasing methane proof that it is suicidal?  (Or maybe the Arctic is just Mother Nature farting a little...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I remember correctly , there was a story on here recently about cows that produce less methane and , thus , are better for the environment and wo n't cause global warming .
So , is the fact that the Arctic releasing methane proof that it is suicidal ?
( Or maybe the Arctic is just Mother Nature farting a little... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I remember correctly, there was a story on here recently about cows that produce less methane and, thus, are better for the environment and won't cause global warming.
So, is the fact that the Arctic releasing methane proof that it is suicidal?
(Or maybe the Arctic is just Mother Nature farting a little...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373824</id>
	<title>Re:So Much Evidence And Yet Business Interests Res</title>
	<author>graft</author>
	<datestamp>1267818000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and species go extinct all the time. While I agree that we probably won't be able to create an environment that destroys life on this planet, I really DON'T want the way things end up getting fixed by the rest of the biosphere restoring homeostasis after our unfortunate disappearance.<blockquote><div><p>Meanwhile, Humans continue to become the most adaptable mammal on the planet.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Let me point out that in order to "adapt" you have to <i>change</i>, not keep doing the same damn thing and hoping it'll all get better, somehow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and species go extinct all the time .
While I agree that we probably wo n't be able to create an environment that destroys life on this planet , I really DO N'T want the way things end up getting fixed by the rest of the biosphere restoring homeostasis after our unfortunate disappearance.Meanwhile , Humans continue to become the most adaptable mammal on the planet .
Let me point out that in order to " adapt " you have to change , not keep doing the same damn thing and hoping it 'll all get better , somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and species go extinct all the time.
While I agree that we probably won't be able to create an environment that destroys life on this planet, I really DON'T want the way things end up getting fixed by the rest of the biosphere restoring homeostasis after our unfortunate disappearance.Meanwhile, Humans continue to become the most adaptable mammal on the planet.
Let me point out that in order to "adapt" you have to change, not keep doing the same damn thing and hoping it'll all get better, somehow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371832</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267808580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bit misleading.  "Greenhouse gases" are overwhelmingly made up of water vapor.  Yes, water vapor, the vast majority of which is evaporation from the oceans; you know that stuff that covers 75\% of the planet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit misleading .
" Greenhouse gases " are overwhelmingly made up of water vapor .
Yes , water vapor , the vast majority of which is evaporation from the oceans ; you know that stuff that covers 75 \ % of the planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit misleading.
"Greenhouse gases" are overwhelmingly made up of water vapor.
Yes, water vapor, the vast majority of which is evaporation from the oceans; you know that stuff that covers 75\% of the planet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370568</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1267802400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22756/?a=f" title="technologyreview.com">Yes</a> [technologyreview.com] <br> <br>
Obviously this comment is too short to be informative as I wrote it quickly. Gah.... I wish Slashdot would grow a bit over this time limitation for posts...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes [ technologyreview.com ] Obviously this comment is too short to be informative as I wrote it quickly .
Gah.... I wish Slashdot would grow a bit over this time limitation for posts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes [technologyreview.com]  
Obviously this comment is too short to be informative as I wrote it quickly.
Gah.... I wish Slashdot would grow a bit over this time limitation for posts...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372046</id>
	<title>Re:Sustainable</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1267809600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nature seeks states of equilibrium.</p></div><p>One might as well say, "Nature seeks extinction", as far more species have become extinct due to entirely natural processes than currently exist.</p><p>The Earth has become uninhabitable at least once already, with the build-up of a highly toxic gas that was the result of the natural metabolism of natural organisms, sometime between 1 billion and 500 million years ago.  This entirely natural process killed off very nearly every living thing, driving a vast range of single-celled species to extinction.  It also happened to open the door to complex multi-cellular life, which evolved from the few survivors, but that was an incidental side-effect.</p><p>It is the nature of life to use all resources to the maximum extent possible, and evolution is a locally optimizing "greedy" algorithm, at least to first order.  The only kind of "equilibrium" nature produces is that of a stalemated war, and that only temporarily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature seeks states of equilibrium.One might as well say , " Nature seeks extinction " , as far more species have become extinct due to entirely natural processes than currently exist.The Earth has become uninhabitable at least once already , with the build-up of a highly toxic gas that was the result of the natural metabolism of natural organisms , sometime between 1 billion and 500 million years ago .
This entirely natural process killed off very nearly every living thing , driving a vast range of single-celled species to extinction .
It also happened to open the door to complex multi-cellular life , which evolved from the few survivors , but that was an incidental side-effect.It is the nature of life to use all resources to the maximum extent possible , and evolution is a locally optimizing " greedy " algorithm , at least to first order .
The only kind of " equilibrium " nature produces is that of a stalemated war , and that only temporarily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature seeks states of equilibrium.One might as well say, "Nature seeks extinction", as far more species have become extinct due to entirely natural processes than currently exist.The Earth has become uninhabitable at least once already, with the build-up of a highly toxic gas that was the result of the natural metabolism of natural organisms, sometime between 1 billion and 500 million years ago.
This entirely natural process killed off very nearly every living thing, driving a vast range of single-celled species to extinction.
It also happened to open the door to complex multi-cellular life, which evolved from the few survivors, but that was an incidental side-effect.It is the nature of life to use all resources to the maximum extent possible, and evolution is a locally optimizing "greedy" algorithm, at least to first order.
The only kind of "equilibrium" nature produces is that of a stalemated war, and that only temporarily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370690</id>
	<title>Re:1 teragram is not 1.1million tons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267803300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I needed to get my fuck on last night so I headed to the bar.  There wasn't much available, but I was able to find this one chick.  She was a little too fat and her skin was kinda greasy, but whatever, I just needed a nut-hole for the night.  When we got home and I got her granny panties off, she had this funky smell, somewhat like unbaked bread.  Weird.  Anyway, I did the deed.</p><p>Today I wake up and there is a mushroom growing out of the end of my penis.  I can't break it off because the roots going way down inside.  I don't know what to do!</p><p>Help slashdot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I needed to get my fuck on last night so I headed to the bar .
There was n't much available , but I was able to find this one chick .
She was a little too fat and her skin was kinda greasy , but whatever , I just needed a nut-hole for the night .
When we got home and I got her granny panties off , she had this funky smell , somewhat like unbaked bread .
Weird. Anyway , I did the deed.Today I wake up and there is a mushroom growing out of the end of my penis .
I ca n't break it off because the roots going way down inside .
I do n't know what to do ! Help slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I needed to get my fuck on last night so I headed to the bar.
There wasn't much available, but I was able to find this one chick.
She was a little too fat and her skin was kinda greasy, but whatever, I just needed a nut-hole for the night.
When we got home and I got her granny panties off, she had this funky smell, somewhat like unbaked bread.
Weird.  Anyway, I did the deed.Today I wake up and there is a mushroom growing out of the end of my penis.
I can't break it off because the roots going way down inside.
I don't know what to do!Help slashdot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371068</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it just bought an iPhone with a fart app to be as popular as the other continents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it just bought an iPhone with a fart app to be as popular as the other continents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it just bought an iPhone with a fart app to be as popular as the other continents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371646</id>
	<title>Re:So Much Evidence And Yet Business Interests Res</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1267807740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world changed, has always changed, and will continue to change. Be it by our hand, or natures. One would argue it's one in the same. So would argue that extra CO2 and heat will *increase* vegetation and improve bio diversity that goes along with it. Meanwhile, Humans continue to become the most adaptable mammal on the planet. This did not happen over night.</p><p>Sit back, take a chill-pill, and relax. Oh, and burn some oil. Life thrives on carbon and CO2, for you are the LIFE GIVER!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world changed , has always changed , and will continue to change .
Be it by our hand , or natures .
One would argue it 's one in the same .
So would argue that extra CO2 and heat will * increase * vegetation and improve bio diversity that goes along with it .
Meanwhile , Humans continue to become the most adaptable mammal on the planet .
This did not happen over night.Sit back , take a chill-pill , and relax .
Oh , and burn some oil .
Life thrives on carbon and CO2 , for you are the LIFE GIVER !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world changed, has always changed, and will continue to change.
Be it by our hand, or natures.
One would argue it's one in the same.
So would argue that extra CO2 and heat will *increase* vegetation and improve bio diversity that goes along with it.
Meanwhile, Humans continue to become the most adaptable mammal on the planet.
This did not happen over night.Sit back, take a chill-pill, and relax.
Oh, and burn some oil.
Life thrives on carbon and CO2, for you are the LIFE GIVER!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31377178</id>
	<title>you can't reduce it to a single number</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1267793940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Global Warming Potential is bogus; you simply can't mix half-life and heating in a single number like that because the consequences of a long half life and high radiative forcing are entirely different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global Warming Potential is bogus ; you simply ca n't mix half-life and heating in a single number like that because the consequences of a long half life and high radiative forcing are entirely different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global Warming Potential is bogus; you simply can't mix half-life and heating in a single number like that because the consequences of a long half life and high radiative forcing are entirely different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370544</id>
	<title>So Much Evidence And Yet Business Interests Resist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267802340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a bunch of stupid humans we are. We're killing our planet and yet we have to fight these stupid, selfish, self-serving idiots who want to pollute a little longer, so they can buy that Hummer or McMansion. There is going to be hell to pay and all the Sen James Inhofe's of the world will suddenly disappear into the shadows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bunch of stupid humans we are .
We 're killing our planet and yet we have to fight these stupid , selfish , self-serving idiots who want to pollute a little longer , so they can buy that Hummer or McMansion .
There is going to be hell to pay and all the Sen James Inhofe 's of the world will suddenly disappear into the shadows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bunch of stupid humans we are.
We're killing our planet and yet we have to fight these stupid, selfish, self-serving idiots who want to pollute a little longer, so they can buy that Hummer or McMansion.
There is going to be hell to pay and all the Sen James Inhofe's of the world will suddenly disappear into the shadows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372196</id>
	<title>Better headline</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1267810260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Arctic Is Leaking Methane, as predicted by Global Warming."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Arctic Is Leaking Methane , as predicted by Global Warming .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Arctic Is Leaking Methane, as predicted by Global Warming.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370422</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>Mindcontrolled</author>
	<datestamp>1267801620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In most cases, probably not. The methane is seeping out at low local concentrations over a vast area - there is no huge concentrated deposit like it is the case with oil or natural gas. Instead it is dissolved at low concentrations in the soil. Pure, concentrated methane hydrate deposits exist and might be useable for fuel extraction, though. Those are usually deeper in the oceans, where the hydrate is stabilized by water pressure. Getting the stuff to the surface without prematurely releasing the methane due to the pressure reduction is non-trivial, though. I suppose oil and natural gas are too cheap to make harvesting such methane hydrate deposits economically viable at the moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In most cases , probably not .
The methane is seeping out at low local concentrations over a vast area - there is no huge concentrated deposit like it is the case with oil or natural gas .
Instead it is dissolved at low concentrations in the soil .
Pure , concentrated methane hydrate deposits exist and might be useable for fuel extraction , though .
Those are usually deeper in the oceans , where the hydrate is stabilized by water pressure .
Getting the stuff to the surface without prematurely releasing the methane due to the pressure reduction is non-trivial , though .
I suppose oil and natural gas are too cheap to make harvesting such methane hydrate deposits economically viable at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most cases, probably not.
The methane is seeping out at low local concentrations over a vast area - there is no huge concentrated deposit like it is the case with oil or natural gas.
Instead it is dissolved at low concentrations in the soil.
Pure, concentrated methane hydrate deposits exist and might be useable for fuel extraction, though.
Those are usually deeper in the oceans, where the hydrate is stabilized by water pressure.
Getting the stuff to the surface without prematurely releasing the methane due to the pressure reduction is non-trivial, though.
I suppose oil and natural gas are too cheap to make harvesting such methane hydrate deposits economically viable at the moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371432</id>
	<title>In other news.... I am leaking methane..</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1267806780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been leaking methane for some years now. Friends and co-workers have made the argument that I alone, contribute significantly to global warming and localized pollution, however, I am applying for a stimulus grant for research into myself as a viable energy source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been leaking methane for some years now .
Friends and co-workers have made the argument that I alone , contribute significantly to global warming and localized pollution , however , I am applying for a stimulus grant for research into myself as a viable energy source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been leaking methane for some years now.
Friends and co-workers have made the argument that I alone, contribute significantly to global warming and localized pollution, however, I am applying for a stimulus grant for research into myself as a viable energy source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371122</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>MattMattMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1267805280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And Al Gore would like to hold a massive concert series to raise awareness.  Lets call it, "Preparation: Hemorrhaging Seabed".  Kanye will be there!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And Al Gore would like to hold a massive concert series to raise awareness .
Lets call it , " Preparation : Hemorrhaging Seabed " .
Kanye will be there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Al Gore would like to hold a massive concert series to raise awareness.
Lets call it, "Preparation: Hemorrhaging Seabed".
Kanye will be there!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372990</id>
	<title>In congress library units</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone convert teragrams of carbon to burning congress libraries units?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone convert teragrams of carbon to burning congress libraries units ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone convert teragrams of carbon to burning congress libraries units?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373068</id>
	<title>Re:So Much Evidence And Yet Business Interests Res</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"self-serving idiots who want to pollute a little longer, so they can buy that Hummer or McMansion."</p><p>Except the ones doing the polluting are too often the smaller guys.</p><p>Every nasty ass, fuel spilling crappy car on the road is owned by some shithead that thinks it's cool he's got a tuner that's slow and makes noise because he's ignorant, or some joe who drives a 30 year old pickup that puts out more gasoline in it's exhaust than my compact injects into the piston chamber.  That Hummer driver puts out less crap exhaust and gets better mileage than the crappy ass early 1990s pickup, and with less side products in the exhaust too, despite his vehicle probably weighing half a ton more.</p><p>And most rich people, they don't drive Hummers anyways.  Most are driving Q5s or G class Mercedes, some are even going to clean diesel.</p><p>I'd argue too that there are more crappy ass semis and black smoke spewing dump truck diesels than Hummers on the road, and more miles put on the former.</p><p>The McMansion probably runs on geothermal, and if not, has better fuel economy and less soot production with it's cleaner boiler or propane than the circa 1985 fuel oil boilers that still predominate in much of the US.  Most large home are modern and recently built in the US, and have great fuel economy compared to the tract of real estate that was put up that were uninsulated pieces of crap that have barely been updated and weren't lived in by the class of people you are railing against.  There are more wrongly insulated homes built it the last 30 years than the Tyvek wrapped ones in the last 15.  I live in a well sealed but old home that is half the size of my parents' but easily burns 2x the fuel cost, and they've got a 15 year old heating/cooling unit that they're replacing this year; the newer units are easily 50\% more efficient.</p><p>You want to save people energy?  Run gas lines out to old neighborhoods, so people convert from oil tog gas.  That alone will save more energy and get more efficient burners into an area than your wannabe green energy economy, at a fraction of the cost, and with far less government subsidy involvement.</p><p>Your anger is simply stupid and misdirected.  Maybe the McMansion owner got rich selling fuel to meet demand, but it's the sum total of the smaller guy's consumption that is the problem.  Call it a mini-China if you will; each person's per capita use is probably less, but the sheer number negates any argument that the predominate fuel users are the "lower" classes.  *WE* have a large middle class, isn't that part of the point of your anger anyways, that against the rich "few?".</p><p>You can direct your anger at class warfare all you want, but the fact still remains, most green energy in the consumer world is consumed by the rich, not the poor.  Of course, you'll argue that you have to take from the rich to give to the poor to improve the situation, but that overlooks the sheer simple fact that the greatest energy consuming producers are not the ones you are pointing the finger at.</p><p>And I'll say this--I've run into people like you many times in real life.  I always ask where they get their energy from, what they drive, etc.  Not one has solar panels or wind turbines where they live.  Not one who has an option to choose their electrical producer has done so on the basis of greenness; they do so on price.  Most are against nuclear.  Most still drive drive a vehicle, most of them SUVs too.  Most live in cities, yet drive miles to go on a hike, and think it's quaint to rent out a place where they burn wood (and if you are a energy circle person, you know that is worse than using wood as building material).</p><p>When Obama went green, I doubt he had a roof packed with turbines and solar shingles or panels on his Chicago home.</p><p>In nay case, you want someone else to pay for stuff you ought to be doing right now for yourself.  That's robbery, not being green.</p><p>The fact still remains that I see more wind powered pumps, farms, and buildings in rural and suburban areas than urban.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" self-serving idiots who want to pollute a little longer , so they can buy that Hummer or McMansion .
" Except the ones doing the polluting are too often the smaller guys.Every nasty ass , fuel spilling crappy car on the road is owned by some shithead that thinks it 's cool he 's got a tuner that 's slow and makes noise because he 's ignorant , or some joe who drives a 30 year old pickup that puts out more gasoline in it 's exhaust than my compact injects into the piston chamber .
That Hummer driver puts out less crap exhaust and gets better mileage than the crappy ass early 1990s pickup , and with less side products in the exhaust too , despite his vehicle probably weighing half a ton more.And most rich people , they do n't drive Hummers anyways .
Most are driving Q5s or G class Mercedes , some are even going to clean diesel.I 'd argue too that there are more crappy ass semis and black smoke spewing dump truck diesels than Hummers on the road , and more miles put on the former.The McMansion probably runs on geothermal , and if not , has better fuel economy and less soot production with it 's cleaner boiler or propane than the circa 1985 fuel oil boilers that still predominate in much of the US .
Most large home are modern and recently built in the US , and have great fuel economy compared to the tract of real estate that was put up that were uninsulated pieces of crap that have barely been updated and were n't lived in by the class of people you are railing against .
There are more wrongly insulated homes built it the last 30 years than the Tyvek wrapped ones in the last 15 .
I live in a well sealed but old home that is half the size of my parents ' but easily burns 2x the fuel cost , and they 've got a 15 year old heating/cooling unit that they 're replacing this year ; the newer units are easily 50 \ % more efficient.You want to save people energy ?
Run gas lines out to old neighborhoods , so people convert from oil tog gas .
That alone will save more energy and get more efficient burners into an area than your wannabe green energy economy , at a fraction of the cost , and with far less government subsidy involvement.Your anger is simply stupid and misdirected .
Maybe the McMansion owner got rich selling fuel to meet demand , but it 's the sum total of the smaller guy 's consumption that is the problem .
Call it a mini-China if you will ; each person 's per capita use is probably less , but the sheer number negates any argument that the predominate fuel users are the " lower " classes .
* WE * have a large middle class , is n't that part of the point of your anger anyways , that against the rich " few ?
" .You can direct your anger at class warfare all you want , but the fact still remains , most green energy in the consumer world is consumed by the rich , not the poor .
Of course , you 'll argue that you have to take from the rich to give to the poor to improve the situation , but that overlooks the sheer simple fact that the greatest energy consuming producers are not the ones you are pointing the finger at.And I 'll say this--I 've run into people like you many times in real life .
I always ask where they get their energy from , what they drive , etc .
Not one has solar panels or wind turbines where they live .
Not one who has an option to choose their electrical producer has done so on the basis of greenness ; they do so on price .
Most are against nuclear .
Most still drive drive a vehicle , most of them SUVs too .
Most live in cities , yet drive miles to go on a hike , and think it 's quaint to rent out a place where they burn wood ( and if you are a energy circle person , you know that is worse than using wood as building material ) .When Obama went green , I doubt he had a roof packed with turbines and solar shingles or panels on his Chicago home.In nay case , you want someone else to pay for stuff you ought to be doing right now for yourself .
That 's robbery , not being green.The fact still remains that I see more wind powered pumps , farms , and buildings in rural and suburban areas than urban .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"self-serving idiots who want to pollute a little longer, so they can buy that Hummer or McMansion.
"Except the ones doing the polluting are too often the smaller guys.Every nasty ass, fuel spilling crappy car on the road is owned by some shithead that thinks it's cool he's got a tuner that's slow and makes noise because he's ignorant, or some joe who drives a 30 year old pickup that puts out more gasoline in it's exhaust than my compact injects into the piston chamber.
That Hummer driver puts out less crap exhaust and gets better mileage than the crappy ass early 1990s pickup, and with less side products in the exhaust too, despite his vehicle probably weighing half a ton more.And most rich people, they don't drive Hummers anyways.
Most are driving Q5s or G class Mercedes, some are even going to clean diesel.I'd argue too that there are more crappy ass semis and black smoke spewing dump truck diesels than Hummers on the road, and more miles put on the former.The McMansion probably runs on geothermal, and if not, has better fuel economy and less soot production with it's cleaner boiler or propane than the circa 1985 fuel oil boilers that still predominate in much of the US.
Most large home are modern and recently built in the US, and have great fuel economy compared to the tract of real estate that was put up that were uninsulated pieces of crap that have barely been updated and weren't lived in by the class of people you are railing against.
There are more wrongly insulated homes built it the last 30 years than the Tyvek wrapped ones in the last 15.
I live in a well sealed but old home that is half the size of my parents' but easily burns 2x the fuel cost, and they've got a 15 year old heating/cooling unit that they're replacing this year; the newer units are easily 50\% more efficient.You want to save people energy?
Run gas lines out to old neighborhoods, so people convert from oil tog gas.
That alone will save more energy and get more efficient burners into an area than your wannabe green energy economy, at a fraction of the cost, and with far less government subsidy involvement.Your anger is simply stupid and misdirected.
Maybe the McMansion owner got rich selling fuel to meet demand, but it's the sum total of the smaller guy's consumption that is the problem.
Call it a mini-China if you will; each person's per capita use is probably less, but the sheer number negates any argument that the predominate fuel users are the "lower" classes.
*WE* have a large middle class, isn't that part of the point of your anger anyways, that against the rich "few?
".You can direct your anger at class warfare all you want, but the fact still remains, most green energy in the consumer world is consumed by the rich, not the poor.
Of course, you'll argue that you have to take from the rich to give to the poor to improve the situation, but that overlooks the sheer simple fact that the greatest energy consuming producers are not the ones you are pointing the finger at.And I'll say this--I've run into people like you many times in real life.
I always ask where they get their energy from, what they drive, etc.
Not one has solar panels or wind turbines where they live.
Not one who has an option to choose their electrical producer has done so on the basis of greenness; they do so on price.
Most are against nuclear.
Most still drive drive a vehicle, most of them SUVs too.
Most live in cities, yet drive miles to go on a hike, and think it's quaint to rent out a place where they burn wood (and if you are a energy circle person, you know that is worse than using wood as building material).When Obama went green, I doubt he had a roof packed with turbines and solar shingles or panels on his Chicago home.In nay case, you want someone else to pay for stuff you ought to be doing right now for yourself.
That's robbery, not being green.The fact still remains that I see more wind powered pumps, farms, and buildings in rural and suburban areas than urban.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370348</id>
	<title>It's the waste of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...past civilizations, possibly arctic such (today we have evidence of the poles once having a warm, tropic climate) emerging for us, as a form of price to pay for our ancestors' cimres; these past civilizations' crimes against Gaia. And we, in turn, are of course doing a great job of leaving nice presents behind for future civilizations to suffer from.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...past civilizations , possibly arctic such ( today we have evidence of the poles once having a warm , tropic climate ) emerging for us , as a form of price to pay for our ancestors ' cimres ; these past civilizations ' crimes against Gaia .
And we , in turn , are of course doing a great job of leaving nice presents behind for future civilizations to suffer from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...past civilizations, possibly arctic such (today we have evidence of the poles once having a warm, tropic climate) emerging for us, as a form of price to pay for our ancestors' cimres; these past civilizations' crimes against Gaia.
And we, in turn, are of course doing a great job of leaving nice presents behind for future civilizations to suffer from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374452</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1267820880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If anyone believes that climate models are an adequate basis for public policy, then they also necessarily believe we ought to immediately implement global free trade, because economic models are of far higher quality than climate models, and the underlying processes are far better understood, and all economic models show that global free trade would be of vast economic benefit, to the extent of saving millions of human lives per year.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I accept the results of climate models.  And despite your laughable statement that "economic models are of far higher quality than climate models" (which they aren't, because physics is better understood than economic thoery), I accept the value of global free trade.
<br> <br>Got any more questions, asshole?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone believes that climate models are an adequate basis for public policy , then they also necessarily believe we ought to immediately implement global free trade , because economic models are of far higher quality than climate models , and the underlying processes are far better understood , and all economic models show that global free trade would be of vast economic benefit , to the extent of saving millions of human lives per year .
I accept the results of climate models .
And despite your laughable statement that " economic models are of far higher quality than climate models " ( which they are n't , because physics is better understood than economic thoery ) , I accept the value of global free trade .
Got any more questions , asshole ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone believes that climate models are an adequate basis for public policy, then they also necessarily believe we ought to immediately implement global free trade, because economic models are of far higher quality than climate models, and the underlying processes are far better understood, and all economic models show that global free trade would be of vast economic benefit, to the extent of saving millions of human lives per year.
I accept the results of climate models.
And despite your laughable statement that "economic models are of far higher quality than climate models" (which they aren't, because physics is better understood than economic thoery), I accept the value of global free trade.
Got any more questions, asshole?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371660</id>
	<title>South Park was right</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267807800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blame Canada</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blame Canada</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blame Canada</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31376674</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>fugue</author>
	<datestamp>1267790040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe, if it all comes out through just a few holes.  That would also have a possible benefit of taking a very potent greenhouse gas and turning it into a less potent greenhouse gas (and CO\_2 is easier to sequester if we get around to fixing the problem that things that need CO\_2 are more limited by clearcutting and climate destruction and so forth than by any dearth of CO\_2).

<p>Basically, we need to stop burning carbon.  The only good thing about burning carbon is that it adds essentially "free" energy to the economy models so the economists don't have to do any real work.  Is it good to be less bad?  If we're resolved to destroy the whole ecosphere, is it better to do it more slowly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , if it all comes out through just a few holes .
That would also have a possible benefit of taking a very potent greenhouse gas and turning it into a less potent greenhouse gas ( and CO \ _2 is easier to sequester if we get around to fixing the problem that things that need CO \ _2 are more limited by clearcutting and climate destruction and so forth than by any dearth of CO \ _2 ) .
Basically , we need to stop burning carbon .
The only good thing about burning carbon is that it adds essentially " free " energy to the economy models so the economists do n't have to do any real work .
Is it good to be less bad ?
If we 're resolved to destroy the whole ecosphere , is it better to do it more slowly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, if it all comes out through just a few holes.
That would also have a possible benefit of taking a very potent greenhouse gas and turning it into a less potent greenhouse gas (and CO\_2 is easier to sequester if we get around to fixing the problem that things that need CO\_2 are more limited by clearcutting and climate destruction and so forth than by any dearth of CO\_2).
Basically, we need to stop burning carbon.
The only good thing about burning carbon is that it adds essentially "free" energy to the economy models so the economists don't have to do any real work.
Is it good to be less bad?
If we're resolved to destroy the whole ecosphere, is it better to do it more slowly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ice cap is farting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ice cap is farting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ice cap is farting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370806</id>
	<title>Stop Decomposition!</title>
	<author>Ngarrang</author>
	<datestamp>1267803840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is destroying our planet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is destroying our planet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is destroying our planet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373394</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1267816200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the vast majority of medical experts told you that you had a disease that was curable but only if you acted quickly wouldn't you do so?</p></div><p>Suppose one believes the full corpus of scientific literature on AGW.  What do you do next?  The IPCC report says that trends don't predict an extinction level event, but *do* constitute a certain amount of cost to global society.  Do we have a model that says if we put Treaty X into effect as soon as possible we avert all that cost?  Well how much of it CAN we avert?  And how much does that affect the world around us?  Will China comply?  Do we lose even more of our manufacturing industry?  Does it bite into GDP? Jobs?
<br> <br>
It's not as black and white as "slam on the brakes".  There's real costs and potentially real benefits that have to be weighed, and I don't see literature that realistically shows either is higher than the other (though I'm willing to be pointed to sources).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the vast majority of medical experts told you that you had a disease that was curable but only if you acted quickly would n't you do so ? Suppose one believes the full corpus of scientific literature on AGW .
What do you do next ?
The IPCC report says that trends do n't predict an extinction level event , but * do * constitute a certain amount of cost to global society .
Do we have a model that says if we put Treaty X into effect as soon as possible we avert all that cost ?
Well how much of it CAN we avert ?
And how much does that affect the world around us ?
Will China comply ?
Do we lose even more of our manufacturing industry ?
Does it bite into GDP ?
Jobs ? It 's not as black and white as " slam on the brakes " .
There 's real costs and potentially real benefits that have to be weighed , and I do n't see literature that realistically shows either is higher than the other ( though I 'm willing to be pointed to sources ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the vast majority of medical experts told you that you had a disease that was curable but only if you acted quickly wouldn't you do so?Suppose one believes the full corpus of scientific literature on AGW.
What do you do next?
The IPCC report says that trends don't predict an extinction level event, but *do* constitute a certain amount of cost to global society.
Do we have a model that says if we put Treaty X into effect as soon as possible we avert all that cost?
Well how much of it CAN we avert?
And how much does that affect the world around us?
Will China comply?
Do we lose even more of our manufacturing industry?
Does it bite into GDP?
Jobs?
 
It's not as black and white as "slam on the brakes".
There's real costs and potentially real benefits that have to be weighed, and I don't see literature that realistically shows either is higher than the other (though I'm willing to be pointed to sources).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370314</id>
	<title>Are we not able to ...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1267801080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we not able to bottle this up, and use it as a source of gas, for vehicles, it seems a waste that all this methane is being<br>seeped out, and yet we are not catching it, bottling it up and using it for ourselves...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we not able to bottle this up , and use it as a source of gas , for vehicles , it seems a waste that all this methane is beingseeped out , and yet we are not catching it , bottling it up and using it for ourselves... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we not able to bottle this up, and use it as a source of gas, for vehicles, it seems a waste that all this methane is beingseeped out, and yet we are not catching it, bottling it up and using it for ourselves...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370708</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1267803420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So we need a huge canopy to collect all the methane in...<br> <br>Quick! Someone call the Scientologists!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So we need a huge canopy to collect all the methane in... Quick ! Someone call the Scientologists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we need a huge canopy to collect all the methane in... Quick! Someone call the Scientologists!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370978</id>
	<title>What's the big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have teragram emissions every time I eat Taco Bell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have teragram emissions every time I eat Taco Bell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have teragram emissions every time I eat Taco Bell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31395430</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267968540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Venus is a hell of a lot closer to the sun and has no oceans to act as a sink for gases, heat. The stupid idea that the temperatures might rise to the mid 100's ignores reality. I would have thought that anyone who has watched the muppets would not shake their hands in the air and run around like kermit the frog, but it appears that chicken little.....er wisebabo, is the sort of person who likes to jump out of closets and yell BOO! at people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Venus is a hell of a lot closer to the sun and has no oceans to act as a sink for gases , heat .
The stupid idea that the temperatures might rise to the mid 100 's ignores reality .
I would have thought that anyone who has watched the muppets would not shake their hands in the air and run around like kermit the frog , but it appears that chicken little.....er wisebabo , is the sort of person who likes to jump out of closets and yell BOO !
at people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Venus is a hell of a lot closer to the sun and has no oceans to act as a sink for gases, heat.
The stupid idea that the temperatures might rise to the mid 100's ignores reality.
I would have thought that anyone who has watched the muppets would not shake their hands in the air and run around like kermit the frog, but it appears that chicken little.....er wisebabo, is the sort of person who likes to jump out of closets and yell BOO!
at people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</id>
	<title>Fuel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267800900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So can it be capped and used for fuel?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So can it be capped and used for fuel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So can it be capped and used for fuel?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371790</id>
	<title>Re:1 teragram is not 1.1million tons</title>
	<author>sedmonds</author>
	<datestamp>1267808400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A tonne is 1000 kg.  A ton is 2000 lbs.  Unless you're in Britain, then it's 1016 lbs.

1 teragram is (very approximately) 2200x10^9 lbs.  Or 1.1 million tons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A tonne is 1000 kg .
A ton is 2000 lbs .
Unless you 're in Britain , then it 's 1016 lbs .
1 teragram is ( very approximately ) 2200x10 ^ 9 lbs .
Or 1.1 million tons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A tonne is 1000 kg.
A ton is 2000 lbs.
Unless you're in Britain, then it's 1016 lbs.
1 teragram is (very approximately) 2200x10^9 lbs.
Or 1.1 million tons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372270</id>
	<title>This seems like an appropriate place to ask.</title>
	<author>Phizzle</author>
	<datestamp>1267810620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Does anyone know how much "green house" gasses are contributed by volcanic activity? </b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know how much " green house " gasses are contributed by volcanic activity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know how much "green house" gasses are contributed by volcanic activity? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372226</id>
	<title>Re:Let It Burn!</title>
	<author>hazem</author>
	<datestamp>1267810440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>CO2 is risky because it has a half-life of over a century.</i></p><p>I ask this in earnest - what do you mean that CO2 has this half-life a century?  What happens to it?  I thought it was pretty stable and not likely to break down into other compounds (unless from strong UV in the upper atmosphere?)  Or is it because it bleeds off into space?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 is risky because it has a half-life of over a century.I ask this in earnest - what do you mean that CO2 has this half-life a century ?
What happens to it ?
I thought it was pretty stable and not likely to break down into other compounds ( unless from strong UV in the upper atmosphere ?
) Or is it because it bleeds off into space ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 is risky because it has a half-life of over a century.I ask this in earnest - what do you mean that CO2 has this half-life a century?
What happens to it?
I thought it was pretty stable and not likely to break down into other compounds (unless from strong UV in the upper atmosphere?
)  Or is it because it bleeds off into space?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372852</id>
	<title>Re:Sustainable</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267813740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nature seeks a state of equilibrium eh? Are you sure you're viewing the system in a large enough context? Granted, it is typical for the universe to evolve towards a state of higher entropy (moving towards equilibrium). However, that state, in the large scope of things, probably doesn't involve  a nice, balanced, life supporting, self-sustaining planet like Earth. It probably involves lots of tiny subatomic particles.
<br> <br>
The point is, it's easy to look at our planet and say, "See, the Earth seeks equilibrium." I don't know that is true though. It may appear to be the case because, to us, the world appears to be a very large system. As such, from our perspective, it is easy to see such a large system as not having any forms of degeneracy (possibly because the world is still very young, much like our own race was some 20,000 years ago when we supposedly worked in equilibrium). However, given a broad enough context, it may be that this world is actually burning itself in a very unsustainable fashion. Perhaps that progressive decay towards more entropy is really the only true, 'nature,' in the universe. That is to say, just because it looks like this world is in equilibrium, it may not be. There are still quite a few world-scale phenomena that we do not understand fully to be able to make such claims.
<br> <br>
As such, I think decrying our Darwinian (read competitive) instincts as unnatural because they don't work into a basic idea of world equilibrium (a theory that doesn't seem to have reasonably large scope evidence to support it) is nothing more than a thought exercise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature seeks a state of equilibrium eh ?
Are you sure you 're viewing the system in a large enough context ?
Granted , it is typical for the universe to evolve towards a state of higher entropy ( moving towards equilibrium ) .
However , that state , in the large scope of things , probably does n't involve a nice , balanced , life supporting , self-sustaining planet like Earth .
It probably involves lots of tiny subatomic particles .
The point is , it 's easy to look at our planet and say , " See , the Earth seeks equilibrium .
" I do n't know that is true though .
It may appear to be the case because , to us , the world appears to be a very large system .
As such , from our perspective , it is easy to see such a large system as not having any forms of degeneracy ( possibly because the world is still very young , much like our own race was some 20,000 years ago when we supposedly worked in equilibrium ) .
However , given a broad enough context , it may be that this world is actually burning itself in a very unsustainable fashion .
Perhaps that progressive decay towards more entropy is really the only true , 'nature, ' in the universe .
That is to say , just because it looks like this world is in equilibrium , it may not be .
There are still quite a few world-scale phenomena that we do not understand fully to be able to make such claims .
As such , I think decrying our Darwinian ( read competitive ) instincts as unnatural because they do n't work into a basic idea of world equilibrium ( a theory that does n't seem to have reasonably large scope evidence to support it ) is nothing more than a thought exercise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature seeks a state of equilibrium eh?
Are you sure you're viewing the system in a large enough context?
Granted, it is typical for the universe to evolve towards a state of higher entropy (moving towards equilibrium).
However, that state, in the large scope of things, probably doesn't involve  a nice, balanced, life supporting, self-sustaining planet like Earth.
It probably involves lots of tiny subatomic particles.
The point is, it's easy to look at our planet and say, "See, the Earth seeks equilibrium.
" I don't know that is true though.
It may appear to be the case because, to us, the world appears to be a very large system.
As such, from our perspective, it is easy to see such a large system as not having any forms of degeneracy (possibly because the world is still very young, much like our own race was some 20,000 years ago when we supposedly worked in equilibrium).
However, given a broad enough context, it may be that this world is actually burning itself in a very unsustainable fashion.
Perhaps that progressive decay towards more entropy is really the only true, 'nature,' in the universe.
That is to say, just because it looks like this world is in equilibrium, it may not be.
There are still quite a few world-scale phenomena that we do not understand fully to be able to make such claims.
As such, I think decrying our Darwinian (read competitive) instincts as unnatural because they don't work into a basic idea of world equilibrium (a theory that doesn't seem to have reasonably large scope evidence to support it) is nothing more than a thought exercise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374494</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267821180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now I probably lost the climate-denialists/creationists/young-earthian/Republicans a while ago </p></div><p>When you start making a point and then lose your credibility by revealing yourself to be a climate-fanatic/anti-religious/mother-earth-worshipping/leftist by childishly slinging epithets, why, yes, you DID lose me and probably others too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I probably lost the climate-denialists/creationists/young-earthian/Republicans a while ago When you start making a point and then lose your credibility by revealing yourself to be a climate-fanatic/anti-religious/mother-earth-worshipping/leftist by childishly slinging epithets , why , yes , you DID lose me and probably others too .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I probably lost the climate-denialists/creationists/young-earthian/Republicans a while ago When you start making a point and then lose your credibility by revealing yourself to be a climate-fanatic/anti-religious/mother-earth-worshipping/leftist by childishly slinging epithets, why, yes, you DID lose me and probably others too ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556</id>
	<title>"Natural" methane?</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1267802340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder what exactly "natural" methane is. When it comes from decomposing matter in permafrost, it's "natural" methane, when it comes from the digestion process of human-bred ungulates it's "unnatural" methane? I find it interesting how nothing humans do is considered "natural" despite that we are born here, eat here, shit here, and die here. I wonder just what is so "unnatural" about the human race, especially considering that we now supposedly reject magical thinking that he is divinely created and now believe he is an advanced ape. Yet his impact on his environment is always "unnatural" and impure and somehow different than that of any other species.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what exactly " natural " methane is .
When it comes from decomposing matter in permafrost , it 's " natural " methane , when it comes from the digestion process of human-bred ungulates it 's " unnatural " methane ?
I find it interesting how nothing humans do is considered " natural " despite that we are born here , eat here , shit here , and die here .
I wonder just what is so " unnatural " about the human race , especially considering that we now supposedly reject magical thinking that he is divinely created and now believe he is an advanced ape .
Yet his impact on his environment is always " unnatural " and impure and somehow different than that of any other species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what exactly "natural" methane is.
When it comes from decomposing matter in permafrost, it's "natural" methane, when it comes from the digestion process of human-bred ungulates it's "unnatural" methane?
I find it interesting how nothing humans do is considered "natural" despite that we are born here, eat here, shit here, and die here.
I wonder just what is so "unnatural" about the human race, especially considering that we now supposedly reject magical thinking that he is divinely created and now believe he is an advanced ape.
Yet his impact on his environment is always "unnatural" and impure and somehow different than that of any other species.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370320</id>
	<title>You know who else is leaking methane?</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1267801140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yo' momma.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::rimshot::<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::in before the other yo momma jokes::</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yo ' momma .
: : rimshot : : : : in before the other yo momma jokes : :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yo' momma.
::rimshot:: ::in before the other yo momma jokes::</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371448</id>
	<title>Re:Let It Burn!</title>
	<author>pixelpusher220</author>
	<datestamp>1267806840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane" title="wikipedia.org">Linky</a> [wikipedia.org]: <br> <br>
Methane has a large effect for a brief period (a net lifetime of 8.4 years in the atmosphere) <br> <br>
Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high 'global warming potential' of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years).<br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global\_warming\_potential" title="wikipedia.org">Global Warming Potential</a> [wikipedia.org] is a relative scale which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is by convention equal to 1).<br> <br>
So methane is 70 times worse then CO2 over 20 years and 25 times worse over 100 years.  Not exactly insignificant...</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Linky [ wikipedia.org ] : Methane has a large effect for a brief period ( a net lifetime of 8.4 years in the atmosphere ) Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high 'global warming potential ' of 72 ( averaged over 20 years ) or 25 ( averaged over 100 years ) .
Global Warming Potential [ wikipedia.org ] is a relative scale which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of carbon dioxide ( whose GWP is by convention equal to 1 ) .
So methane is 70 times worse then CO2 over 20 years and 25 times worse over 100 years .
Not exactly insignificant.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Linky [wikipedia.org]:  
Methane has a large effect for a brief period (a net lifetime of 8.4 years in the atmosphere)  
Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high 'global warming potential' of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years).
Global Warming Potential [wikipedia.org] is a relative scale which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is by convention equal to 1).
So methane is 70 times worse then CO2 over 20 years and 25 times worse over 100 years.
Not exactly insignificant...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370782</id>
	<title>Bovine emissions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267803720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They failed to mention that another large source of methane is the digestive systems of all of the worlds bovine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They failed to mention that another large source of methane is the digestive systems of all of the worlds bovine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They failed to mention that another large source of methane is the digestive systems of all of the worlds bovine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370370</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here....</title>
	<author>Van Cutter Romney</author>
	<datestamp>1267801440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seen <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/30/022246" title="slashdot.org">already</a> [slashdot.org].
<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but can we do something about it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seen already [ slashdot.org ] .
...but can we do something about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seen already [slashdot.org].
...but can we do something about it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372288</id>
	<title>Re:1 teragram is not 1.1million tons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267810680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no such thing as a "tonne" in a purely metric system. There is a megagram, but its similarity to the Imperial long ton is purely coincidental.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no such thing as a " tonne " in a purely metric system .
There is a megagram , but its similarity to the Imperial long ton is purely coincidental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no such thing as a "tonne" in a purely metric system.
There is a megagram, but its similarity to the Imperial long ton is purely coincidental.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31395504</id>
	<title>Re:Suicidal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267969020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I remember correctly, there was a story on here recently about cows that produce less methane and, thus, are better for the environment and won't cause global warming.  So, is the fact that the Arctic releasing methane proof that it is suicidal?  (Or maybe the Arctic is just Mother Nature farting a little...)</p></div><p>What we need are genetically modified arctic cows which suck up methane with their butts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I remember correctly , there was a story on here recently about cows that produce less methane and , thus , are better for the environment and wo n't cause global warming .
So , is the fact that the Arctic releasing methane proof that it is suicidal ?
( Or maybe the Arctic is just Mother Nature farting a little... ) What we need are genetically modified arctic cows which suck up methane with their butts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I remember correctly, there was a story on here recently about cows that produce less methane and, thus, are better for the environment and won't cause global warming.
So, is the fact that the Arctic releasing methane proof that it is suicidal?
(Or maybe the Arctic is just Mother Nature farting a little...)What we need are genetically modified arctic cows which suck up methane with their butts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370346</id>
	<title>Re:1 teragram is not 1.1million tons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>tons as in 2000 pounds not tonnes</htmltext>
<tokenext>tons as in 2000 pounds not tonnes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tons as in 2000 pounds not tonnes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370814</id>
	<title>Re:1 teragram is not 1.1million tons</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1267803840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>374 million yotta-yocto-angstrom-parsecs</htmltext>
<tokenext>374 million yotta-yocto-angstrom-parsecs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>374 million yotta-yocto-angstrom-parsecs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372104</id>
	<title>quick fix</title>
	<author>nottheusualsuspect</author>
	<datestamp>1267809840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could we not just light a match? Seems to work wonders on the unusual methane levels in the lavatory.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could we not just light a match ?
Seems to work wonders on the unusual methane levels in the lavatory.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could we not just light a match?
Seems to work wonders on the unusual methane levels in the lavatory.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370392</id>
	<title>Let It Burn!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Methane being 25 times more hazardous to the climate than CO2 then surely even burning it in-situ would be ecologically sound byproduct is CO2 + 2H20</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Methane being 25 times more hazardous to the climate than CO2 then surely even burning it in-situ would be ecologically sound byproduct is CO2 + 2H20</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Methane being 25 times more hazardous to the climate than CO2 then surely even burning it in-situ would be ecologically sound byproduct is CO2 + 2H20</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371372</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267806480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sarah Palin: yeah, I could smell it from my back yard!  That's why we Alaskans own the rights to this new energy source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sarah Palin : yeah , I could smell it from my back yard !
That 's why we Alaskans own the rights to this new energy source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sarah Palin: yeah, I could smell it from my back yard!
That's why we Alaskans own the rights to this new energy source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371754</id>
	<title>methane is not increasing for unknow reasons</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1267808280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a while atmospheric mehane was increasing.  Then it <a href="http://www.semp.us/publications/biot\_reader.php?BiotID=431" title="www.semp.us"> stopped increasing </a> [www.semp.us] a few years ago.  No one really understands why.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a while atmospheric mehane was increasing .
Then it stopped increasing [ www.semp.us ] a few years ago .
No one really understands why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a while atmospheric mehane was increasing.
Then it  stopped increasing  [www.semp.us] a few years ago.
No one really understands why.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31378312</id>
	<title>Re:So Much Evidence And Yet Business Interests Res</title>
	<author>curmudgeon99</author>
	<datestamp>1267805700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>You idiot.</b> <br>
<br>
Earth's vegetation evolved to fit the current weather pattern. We are causing a temperature change in 200 years that used to take 1 Million years. This is not a trivial thing like it getting slightly warmer. This is a catastrophe. You are the most stupid person I have encountered in years. You are a total and absolute fool. This climate change is the worst calamity that could have happened. If even 1\% of the scientific problems that are expected actually happen, it will not be possible for us to live in any way shapeor form like we do now. This climate change thing includes catastrophic floods in Boston, New York City, Los Angeles, Miami and Houston to name just the American cities. Every plant will be screwed up and will die. Permafrost that has gathered CO2 and methane will melt, as is just now being seen in the Arctic as methane bubbles up. <br>
<br>
And head in the sand morons will stand back quietly, not drawing to everyone's attention that they were against pouring water on the fire, having counseled to let that fire just "burn itself out." <br>
<br>
Business just wants to profit a little longer by being free to continue polluting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You idiot .
Earth 's vegetation evolved to fit the current weather pattern .
We are causing a temperature change in 200 years that used to take 1 Million years .
This is not a trivial thing like it getting slightly warmer .
This is a catastrophe .
You are the most stupid person I have encountered in years .
You are a total and absolute fool .
This climate change is the worst calamity that could have happened .
If even 1 \ % of the scientific problems that are expected actually happen , it will not be possible for us to live in any way shapeor form like we do now .
This climate change thing includes catastrophic floods in Boston , New York City , Los Angeles , Miami and Houston to name just the American cities .
Every plant will be screwed up and will die .
Permafrost that has gathered CO2 and methane will melt , as is just now being seen in the Arctic as methane bubbles up .
And head in the sand morons will stand back quietly , not drawing to everyone 's attention that they were against pouring water on the fire , having counseled to let that fire just " burn itself out .
" Business just wants to profit a little longer by being free to continue polluting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You idiot.
Earth's vegetation evolved to fit the current weather pattern.
We are causing a temperature change in 200 years that used to take 1 Million years.
This is not a trivial thing like it getting slightly warmer.
This is a catastrophe.
You are the most stupid person I have encountered in years.
You are a total and absolute fool.
This climate change is the worst calamity that could have happened.
If even 1\% of the scientific problems that are expected actually happen, it will not be possible for us to live in any way shapeor form like we do now.
This climate change thing includes catastrophic floods in Boston, New York City, Los Angeles, Miami and Houston to name just the American cities.
Every plant will be screwed up and will die.
Permafrost that has gathered CO2 and methane will melt, as is just now being seen in the Arctic as methane bubbles up.
And head in the sand morons will stand back quietly, not drawing to everyone's attention that they were against pouring water on the fire, having counseled to let that fire just "burn itself out.
" 

Business just wants to profit a little longer by being free to continue polluting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371414</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267806660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>OH NO... the world farted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OH NO... the world farted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OH NO... the world farted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373448</id>
	<title>Re:This will NOT stand!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267816380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before you do this, give me a few minutes.. I'd like to establish a corporation that will service the new methane credit market and convince congress to enact my policies for swindling the world.. uhhh, i mean saving the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you do this , give me a few minutes.. I 'd like to establish a corporation that will service the new methane credit market and convince congress to enact my policies for swindling the world.. uhhh , i mean saving the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you do this, give me a few minutes.. I'd like to establish a corporation that will service the new methane credit market and convince congress to enact my policies for swindling the world.. uhhh, i mean saving the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370972</id>
	<title>Sustainable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nature seeks states of equilibrium. The question is not whether we are a part of nature. The question is whether we are hurtling the earth's climate toward  a state of equilibrium that destroys our civilization.</p><p>This does not require the entire earth to become inhospitable. But if there are enough strains on world resources, it will end up putting us through decades of misery which may result in catastrophic wars, food shortages, and the loss of all coastal communities.</p><p>Famines have killed millions in the past, and are still killing millions in Africa. Right now we have easily exploitable resources that allow us to enjoy a certain quality of life, but we are dangerously close to depleting a number of those resources to new low states of equilibrium. Add in unpredictable droughts, rising sea levels, and the loss of many glaciers that supply freshwater through natural processes, and you can see why people are worried.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature seeks states of equilibrium .
The question is not whether we are a part of nature .
The question is whether we are hurtling the earth 's climate toward a state of equilibrium that destroys our civilization.This does not require the entire earth to become inhospitable .
But if there are enough strains on world resources , it will end up putting us through decades of misery which may result in catastrophic wars , food shortages , and the loss of all coastal communities.Famines have killed millions in the past , and are still killing millions in Africa .
Right now we have easily exploitable resources that allow us to enjoy a certain quality of life , but we are dangerously close to depleting a number of those resources to new low states of equilibrium .
Add in unpredictable droughts , rising sea levels , and the loss of many glaciers that supply freshwater through natural processes , and you can see why people are worried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature seeks states of equilibrium.
The question is not whether we are a part of nature.
The question is whether we are hurtling the earth's climate toward  a state of equilibrium that destroys our civilization.This does not require the entire earth to become inhospitable.
But if there are enough strains on world resources, it will end up putting us through decades of misery which may result in catastrophic wars, food shortages, and the loss of all coastal communities.Famines have killed millions in the past, and are still killing millions in Africa.
Right now we have easily exploitable resources that allow us to enjoy a certain quality of life, but we are dangerously close to depleting a number of those resources to new low states of equilibrium.
Add in unpredictable droughts, rising sea levels, and the loss of many glaciers that supply freshwater through natural processes, and you can see why people are worried.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370784</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>AdamThor</author>
	<datestamp>1267803720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Global Warming Stinks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global Warming Stinks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global Warming Stinks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31395634</id>
	<title>Re:Fuel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267969680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this guy lets you.</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv1FKByjy3w</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this guy lets you.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Nv1FKByjy3w</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this guy lets you.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv1FKByjy3w</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374748</id>
	<title>Re:My submission was scooped! :)</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1267822440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems backwards. Rising air temperature does not necessarily imply rising temperature in the hydrate stability zone (it may make for a more effective thermocline), and increases in pressure due to glacial melt should make the hydrates more stable, not less. So what you should get is a larger hydrate stability zone. I agree that once the methane below the HSZ is released as a gas, the HSZ is probably not going to recapture much of it on the way up. There must be some negative feedback built into the loop somewhere, because if it is truly positive feedback, it should have spiraled out of control long ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems backwards .
Rising air temperature does not necessarily imply rising temperature in the hydrate stability zone ( it may make for a more effective thermocline ) , and increases in pressure due to glacial melt should make the hydrates more stable , not less .
So what you should get is a larger hydrate stability zone .
I agree that once the methane below the HSZ is released as a gas , the HSZ is probably not going to recapture much of it on the way up .
There must be some negative feedback built into the loop somewhere , because if it is truly positive feedback , it should have spiraled out of control long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems backwards.
Rising air temperature does not necessarily imply rising temperature in the hydrate stability zone (it may make for a more effective thermocline), and increases in pressure due to glacial melt should make the hydrates more stable, not less.
So what you should get is a larger hydrate stability zone.
I agree that once the methane below the HSZ is released as a gas, the HSZ is probably not going to recapture much of it on the way up.
There must be some negative feedback built into the loop somewhere, because if it is truly positive feedback, it should have spiraled out of control long ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371264</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Dracophile</author>
	<datestamp>1267806000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note to self: "Wasn't me, honey"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note to self : " Was n't me , honey "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note to self: "Wasn't me, honey"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370430</id>
	<title>Scientists find Earths butthole!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267801680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's reeking of methane!</p><p>Next task, ask Al Gore why it's so dam cold!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's reeking of methane ! Next task , ask Al Gore why it 's so dam cold !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's reeking of methane!Next task, ask Al Gore why it's so dam cold!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372028</id>
	<title>Re:1 teragram is not 1.1million tons</title>
	<author>DeadCatX2</author>
	<datestamp>1267809540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=1+teragram+to+tons" title="google.com">The Great Google disagrees with you</a> [google.com]</p><p>1 teragram = 1 102 311.31 short tons</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Great Google disagrees with you [ google.com ] 1 teragram = 1 102 311.31 short tons</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Great Google disagrees with you [google.com]1 teragram = 1 102 311.31 short tons</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370794</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1267803780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which tells us Earth's hind end is the northern hemisphere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which tells us Earth 's hind end is the northern hemisphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which tells us Earth's hind end is the northern hemisphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370344</id>
	<title>excuse me</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1267801320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>better out than in</htmltext>
<tokenext>better out than in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>better out than in</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371248</id>
	<title>Re:"Natural" methane?</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1267805880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firstly: unnatural doesn't mean supernatural.  It's idiomatic.</p><p>Secondly: humans capacity for technological development allows us to usurp common and typical natural feedback mechanisms that limit effects of any other species' activities.  This allows us to regularly or contiually have potential effects typical only of relatively uncommon events such as major volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes or worse (for us and every other organism).</p><p>Finally: we have the ability to comprehend that there are unintended consequences to our actions and deliberately choose to ignore even the consideration of these even when we can reasonably predict dire results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly : unnatural does n't mean supernatural .
It 's idiomatic.Secondly : humans capacity for technological development allows us to usurp common and typical natural feedback mechanisms that limit effects of any other species ' activities .
This allows us to regularly or contiually have potential effects typical only of relatively uncommon events such as major volcanic eruptions , meteor strikes or worse ( for us and every other organism ) .Finally : we have the ability to comprehend that there are unintended consequences to our actions and deliberately choose to ignore even the consideration of these even when we can reasonably predict dire results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firstly: unnatural doesn't mean supernatural.
It's idiomatic.Secondly: humans capacity for technological development allows us to usurp common and typical natural feedback mechanisms that limit effects of any other species' activities.
This allows us to regularly or contiually have potential effects typical only of relatively uncommon events such as major volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes or worse (for us and every other organism).Finally: we have the ability to comprehend that there are unintended consequences to our actions and deliberately choose to ignore even the consideration of these even when we can reasonably predict dire results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373278</id>
	<title>Re:Sustainable</title>
	<author>catchblue22</author>
	<datestamp>1267815660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Dude. Seriously.</p><blockquote><div><p>Nature seeks states of equilibrium</p></div></blockquote><p>

Really? You actually believe that shit? Next you'll tell me there is a large breasted Goddess who makes it all so.</p></div></blockquote><p>The above post is an example of the profound decay in the intellectual level of the public.  It is devoid of logic and reason.  It is an irrational appeal to emotion and prejudice.  If this post is an indicator of the intellectual life of "educated" members of the public, then God help us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude .
Seriously.Nature seeks states of equilibrium Really ?
You actually believe that shit ?
Next you 'll tell me there is a large breasted Goddess who makes it all so.The above post is an example of the profound decay in the intellectual level of the public .
It is devoid of logic and reason .
It is an irrational appeal to emotion and prejudice .
If this post is an indicator of the intellectual life of " educated " members of the public , then God help us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude.
Seriously.Nature seeks states of equilibrium

Really?
You actually believe that shit?
Next you'll tell me there is a large breasted Goddess who makes it all so.The above post is an example of the profound decay in the intellectual level of the public.
It is devoid of logic and reason.
It is an irrational appeal to emotion and prejudice.
If this post is an indicator of the intellectual life of "educated" members of the public, then God help us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372928</id>
	<title>quality of people</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1267814040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I didn't want to get into an argument about the science of Global Warming.  Too much heat and not enough light has been wasted for me to go there.  Besides, I am not a climatologist, are you?</p><p>Rather I wanted to point out something.  The only way for the conclusions (and by and large all I've seen from these guys are estimates and probabilities, not certainties), to be way off would be if there was a huge CONSPIRACY within the scientific community on this subject.  Sort of like how the creationists think all of the biologists must be going off somewhere to work on a master plan to deceive everyone that evolution is true.  Having known some professional, tenured scientists myself I just don't buy it; the reason why scientists get into a field that pays little, poor recognition, insane amounts of work (teaching and publishing) is because many (most?) are driven by the highest of motives.  That's why I mentioned investment bankers; when times are really rough like when the U.S. cancelled the SCC (super conducting collider) some physicists no longer had prospects in doing research.  So they went over to "the Dark Side" (which is how they invariably put working in investment banking).  Working at a tech startup, a very bright guy I knew wanted, once he made his millions, to become an astro-physicist.  For fame or fortune?  Of course not, he loved science.</p><p>So I find it impossible to believe that the vast majority of all these climatologists are willfully deceiving us (or themselves).  Sure there is peer pressure, sure they make mistakes.  But they ARE TRAINED SCIENTISTS and they know more than almost any of us the limits of their models and their evidence.  (Just going through your oral defense of your thesis will teach you that).  Also you seem to think that models are the ONLY thing these guys have going; after decades of research there is a gigantic body of knowledge that is growing.  And you know what?  By and large it supports the general consensus.</p><p>Finally there is the fact that if one, or a group of them, could really make a good case that Global Warming won't happen they would become (scientifically) IMMORTAL.  Remember, it is not the followers who become written up in textbooks, it is the ones who make BOLD (meaning contrary to orthodoxy) predictions and WHO ARE PROVEN RIGHT.  Ultimately remember popularity counts for NOTHING in Science.  Science is not politics or law or history; your peers don't decide NATURE is the ultimate decider.</p><p>In this case it'll be EASY we won't have to wait long.  If someone were to make a scientifically plausible claim that GW is not gonna happen well we will know in probably well less than a human lifetime.  It doesn't even matter if they are still alive ~ Mendel published his results on genetics and it was ignored well after his death.  However, when it was determined that he was RIGHT and that he was the FIRST to come up with his laws on heredity, well now he's in every Biology textbook in every country in the world (well excepting some places I guess in the U.S.).  This is the kind of immortality every true scientist craves, maybe you don't understand it but I'm sure a lot of the climatologists do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I did n't want to get into an argument about the science of Global Warming .
Too much heat and not enough light has been wasted for me to go there .
Besides , I am not a climatologist , are you ? Rather I wanted to point out something .
The only way for the conclusions ( and by and large all I 've seen from these guys are estimates and probabilities , not certainties ) , to be way off would be if there was a huge CONSPIRACY within the scientific community on this subject .
Sort of like how the creationists think all of the biologists must be going off somewhere to work on a master plan to deceive everyone that evolution is true .
Having known some professional , tenured scientists myself I just do n't buy it ; the reason why scientists get into a field that pays little , poor recognition , insane amounts of work ( teaching and publishing ) is because many ( most ?
) are driven by the highest of motives .
That 's why I mentioned investment bankers ; when times are really rough like when the U.S. cancelled the SCC ( super conducting collider ) some physicists no longer had prospects in doing research .
So they went over to " the Dark Side " ( which is how they invariably put working in investment banking ) .
Working at a tech startup , a very bright guy I knew wanted , once he made his millions , to become an astro-physicist .
For fame or fortune ?
Of course not , he loved science.So I find it impossible to believe that the vast majority of all these climatologists are willfully deceiving us ( or themselves ) .
Sure there is peer pressure , sure they make mistakes .
But they ARE TRAINED SCIENTISTS and they know more than almost any of us the limits of their models and their evidence .
( Just going through your oral defense of your thesis will teach you that ) .
Also you seem to think that models are the ONLY thing these guys have going ; after decades of research there is a gigantic body of knowledge that is growing .
And you know what ?
By and large it supports the general consensus.Finally there is the fact that if one , or a group of them , could really make a good case that Global Warming wo n't happen they would become ( scientifically ) IMMORTAL .
Remember , it is not the followers who become written up in textbooks , it is the ones who make BOLD ( meaning contrary to orthodoxy ) predictions and WHO ARE PROVEN RIGHT .
Ultimately remember popularity counts for NOTHING in Science .
Science is not politics or law or history ; your peers do n't decide NATURE is the ultimate decider.In this case it 'll be EASY we wo n't have to wait long .
If someone were to make a scientifically plausible claim that GW is not gon na happen well we will know in probably well less than a human lifetime .
It does n't even matter if they are still alive ~ Mendel published his results on genetics and it was ignored well after his death .
However , when it was determined that he was RIGHT and that he was the FIRST to come up with his laws on heredity , well now he 's in every Biology textbook in every country in the world ( well excepting some places I guess in the U.S. ) .
This is the kind of immortality every true scientist craves , maybe you do n't understand it but I 'm sure a lot of the climatologists do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I didn't want to get into an argument about the science of Global Warming.
Too much heat and not enough light has been wasted for me to go there.
Besides, I am not a climatologist, are you?Rather I wanted to point out something.
The only way for the conclusions (and by and large all I've seen from these guys are estimates and probabilities, not certainties), to be way off would be if there was a huge CONSPIRACY within the scientific community on this subject.
Sort of like how the creationists think all of the biologists must be going off somewhere to work on a master plan to deceive everyone that evolution is true.
Having known some professional, tenured scientists myself I just don't buy it; the reason why scientists get into a field that pays little, poor recognition, insane amounts of work (teaching and publishing) is because many (most?
) are driven by the highest of motives.
That's why I mentioned investment bankers; when times are really rough like when the U.S. cancelled the SCC (super conducting collider) some physicists no longer had prospects in doing research.
So they went over to "the Dark Side" (which is how they invariably put working in investment banking).
Working at a tech startup, a very bright guy I knew wanted, once he made his millions, to become an astro-physicist.
For fame or fortune?
Of course not, he loved science.So I find it impossible to believe that the vast majority of all these climatologists are willfully deceiving us (or themselves).
Sure there is peer pressure, sure they make mistakes.
But they ARE TRAINED SCIENTISTS and they know more than almost any of us the limits of their models and their evidence.
(Just going through your oral defense of your thesis will teach you that).
Also you seem to think that models are the ONLY thing these guys have going; after decades of research there is a gigantic body of knowledge that is growing.
And you know what?
By and large it supports the general consensus.Finally there is the fact that if one, or a group of them, could really make a good case that Global Warming won't happen they would become (scientifically) IMMORTAL.
Remember, it is not the followers who become written up in textbooks, it is the ones who make BOLD (meaning contrary to orthodoxy) predictions and WHO ARE PROVEN RIGHT.
Ultimately remember popularity counts for NOTHING in Science.
Science is not politics or law or history; your peers don't decide NATURE is the ultimate decider.In this case it'll be EASY we won't have to wait long.
If someone were to make a scientifically plausible claim that GW is not gonna happen well we will know in probably well less than a human lifetime.
It doesn't even matter if they are still alive ~ Mendel published his results on genetics and it was ignored well after his death.
However, when it was determined that he was RIGHT and that he was the FIRST to come up with his laws on heredity, well now he's in every Biology textbook in every country in the world (well excepting some places I guess in the U.S.).
This is the kind of immortality every true scientist craves, maybe you don't understand it but I'm sure a lot of the climatologists do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373782</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>graft</author>
	<datestamp>1267817760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, not the ice cap, but clathrate hydrate crystals - methane hydrates that are frozen at the bottom of the ocean. Now that the Arctic is warming up thanks to Al Gore and his lies, those methane hydrates are being leaked into the atmosphere. This is what we call "negative feedback". Sound the gongs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , not the ice cap , but clathrate hydrate crystals - methane hydrates that are frozen at the bottom of the ocean .
Now that the Arctic is warming up thanks to Al Gore and his lies , those methane hydrates are being leaked into the atmosphere .
This is what we call " negative feedback " .
Sound the gongs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, not the ice cap, but clathrate hydrate crystals - methane hydrates that are frozen at the bottom of the ocean.
Now that the Arctic is warming up thanks to Al Gore and his lies, those methane hydrates are being leaked into the atmosphere.
This is what we call "negative feedback".
Sound the gongs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31376674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31377178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31378336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31387870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31379950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31378438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31395634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31395504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31378312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31376114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31395430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_05_1343200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31376114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31395504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31376674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31395634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370622
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371102
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374408
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372226
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372982
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371448
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373402
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31377178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31379950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31378336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31395430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31374748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31387870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31378312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31378438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31373068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31372270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31370370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_05_1343200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_05_1343200.31371404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
