<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_26_1342258</id>
	<title>Disputed Island Disappears Into Sea</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1269613680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>RawJoe writes <i>"India and Bangladesh have argued for almost 30 years over control of a tiny island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have ended the argument for them: <a href="http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/indian-island-submerged\_2010-03-25">the island's gone</a>. From the article: 'New Moore Island, in the Sunderbans, has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols, he said. "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>RawJoe writes " India and Bangladesh have argued for almost 30 years over control of a tiny island in the Bay of Bengal .
Now rising sea levels have ended the argument for them : the island 's gone .
From the article : 'New Moore Island , in the Sunderbans , has been completely submerged , said oceanographer Sugata Hazra , a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta .
Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols , he said .
" What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking , has been resolved by global warming , " said Hazra .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RawJoe writes "India and Bangladesh have argued for almost 30 years over control of a tiny island in the Bay of Bengal.
Now rising sea levels have ended the argument for them: the island's gone.
From the article: 'New Moore Island, in the Sunderbans, has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta.
Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols, he said.
"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628236</id>
	<title>Re:"Always attribute to global warming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269625500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious.  How does it feel to be so completely and utterly wrong?  What was it like the moment you realized you had been totally pwned?  What did this do to you?  Tell me.  And remember, this is for posterity so be honest.  How do you feel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious .
How does it feel to be so completely and utterly wrong ?
What was it like the moment you realized you had been totally pwned ?
What did this do to you ?
Tell me .
And remember , this is for posterity so be honest .
How do you feel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious.
How does it feel to be so completely and utterly wrong?
What was it like the moment you realized you had been totally pwned?
What did this do to you?
Tell me.
And remember, this is for posterity so be honest.
How do you feel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625980</id>
	<title>Hey, wait a minute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought global warming was a myth?  Darth Cheney said so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought global warming was a myth ?
Darth Cheney said so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought global warming was a myth?
Darth Cheney said so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626378</id>
	<title>Re:"Always attribute to global warming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!  Global Warming...the left's choice of religion designed to enslave mankind.  Nevermind that the Earth has changed from the moment it was formed, that islands have come and gone throughout history.  It's all because of GLOBAL WARMING!  Now bow down to your Global Warming Pope (Al Gore).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
Global Warming...the left 's choice of religion designed to enslave mankind .
Nevermind that the Earth has changed from the moment it was formed , that islands have come and gone throughout history .
It 's all because of GLOBAL WARMING !
Now bow down to your Global Warming Pope ( Al Gore ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
Global Warming...the left's choice of religion designed to enslave mankind.
Nevermind that the Earth has changed from the moment it was formed, that islands have come and gone throughout history.
It's all because of GLOBAL WARMING!
Now bow down to your Global Warming Pope (Al Gore).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626456</id>
	<title>Sandbar, not island</title>
	<author>Orgasmatron</author>
	<datestamp>1269619020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a sandbar in an estuary.  It first accumulated enough silt to poke above the surface back in 1974, and was never more than 2 meters high.  In addition, the nearest tide gauge is showing +0.54 (+/- 0.52, heh) mm per year rise in sea level, meaning that it would have taken nearly 4000 years for the local change in sea level to have caused it to disappear.</p><p>If you insist on bringing up global warming, you have to blame the sandbar's emergence on global cooling during the 70s and notice that we are now back where we started.  A much wiser choice would be to simply notice that rivers flush crap down stream, and ignore this "island" the way we ignore all the other sandbars and ephemera.</p><p><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/bengal-island-succumbs-to-global-warming-nonsense-ap-gets-nutty-over-loss-of-a-sandbar/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/bengal-island-succumbs-to-global-warming-nonsense-ap-gets-nutty-over-loss-of-a-sandbar/</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Talpatti\_Island" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Talpatti\_Island</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Move along, nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a sandbar in an estuary .
It first accumulated enough silt to poke above the surface back in 1974 , and was never more than 2 meters high .
In addition , the nearest tide gauge is showing + 0.54 ( + /- 0.52 , heh ) mm per year rise in sea level , meaning that it would have taken nearly 4000 years for the local change in sea level to have caused it to disappear.If you insist on bringing up global warming , you have to blame the sandbar 's emergence on global cooling during the 70s and notice that we are now back where we started .
A much wiser choice would be to simply notice that rivers flush crap down stream , and ignore this " island " the way we ignore all the other sandbars and ephemera.http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/bengal-island-succumbs-to-global-warming-nonsense-ap-gets-nutty-over-loss-of-a-sandbar/ [ wattsupwiththat.com ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South \ _Talpatti \ _Island [ wikipedia.org ] Move along , nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a sandbar in an estuary.
It first accumulated enough silt to poke above the surface back in 1974, and was never more than 2 meters high.
In addition, the nearest tide gauge is showing +0.54 (+/- 0.52, heh) mm per year rise in sea level, meaning that it would have taken nearly 4000 years for the local change in sea level to have caused it to disappear.If you insist on bringing up global warming, you have to blame the sandbar's emergence on global cooling during the 70s and notice that we are now back where we started.
A much wiser choice would be to simply notice that rivers flush crap down stream, and ignore this "island" the way we ignore all the other sandbars and ephemera.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/bengal-island-succumbs-to-global-warming-nonsense-ap-gets-nutty-over-loss-of-a-sandbar/ [wattsupwiththat.com]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Talpatti\_Island [wikipedia.org]Move along, nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626672</id>
	<title>Jingo?</title>
	<author>Tinyn</author>
	<datestamp>1269619920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this a Terry Pratchett novel? Jingo?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a Terry Pratchett novel ?
Jingo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a Terry Pratchett novel?
Jingo?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627060</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269621360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spending $1T to save $10T only makes sense if the saving has probability 0.9 or higher of actually being realized.  Otherwise it is an insane waste of money.</p><p>Spending $1T without having such a probability estimate at all is equally insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spending $ 1T to save $ 10T only makes sense if the saving has probability 0.9 or higher of actually being realized .
Otherwise it is an insane waste of money.Spending $ 1T without having such a probability estimate at all is equally insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spending $1T to save $10T only makes sense if the saving has probability 0.9 or higher of actually being realized.
Otherwise it is an insane waste of money.Spending $1T without having such a probability estimate at all is equally insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626442</id>
	<title>Re:"Never let scientific evidence..."</title>
	<author>dbet</author>
	<datestamp>1269618960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...stand in the way of a good ad hominem.  HAHA! Al Gore's fat!"</p></div><p>Hey! That's not an ad hominem attack! Observe:
<br> <br>
<b>insult</b> - Al Gore is fat.<br>
<b>ad hominem</b> - Al Gore is wrong because he's fat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...stand in the way of a good ad hominem .
HAHA ! Al Gore 's fat ! " Hey !
That 's not an ad hominem attack !
Observe : insult - Al Gore is fat .
ad hominem - Al Gore is wrong because he 's fat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...stand in the way of a good ad hominem.
HAHA! Al Gore's fat!"Hey!
That's not an ad hominem attack!
Observe:
 
insult - Al Gore is fat.
ad hominem - Al Gore is wrong because he's fat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626546</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So er we're talking a foot of water every 60 years? Sounds almost scary, except when you put it into context. Increases in sea level are not new phenomena. No doubt they were produced by all that fossil fuel consumption 20,000 years ago.</p></div><p>Great, sounds like more Denier talking points.  For the FACTS on the matter, start <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [realclimate.org] please.</p><p>Yes, those sea level changes 20,000 years ago <i>were</i> caused by humans.  It's not like coal burning was some recent thing started in England's industrial revolution.  No, they used coal as a fuel then because it had LONG been used as a fuel.  With good reason -- it's very energy dense, gives you some good heat.  (As long as you don't mind the smell or the environmental damage, of course.)</p><p>Before the modern days of coal mining, coal was REALLY cheap to get to -- almost lying for the taking anywhere there's anything of geological significance.  And the folks back then were just burning it for whatever.  And so yes, even back then, all that extra CO2 was gathering in the atmosphere, increasing the absorption spectrum where the sun is most intense, warming the planet.  It's just that right now, CO2 is being emitted at a MUCH higher rate, leading to literally <i>unprecedented</i> warming rates.  (Heard of the hockey stick?  Yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that's how much faster it's increasing.)</p><p>And THAT, my friends, is the reason to worry.  Could we adapt to the slow warming on NATURAL scales, or with caveman level emissions?  Absolutely.  Can we do it now in the gotta-have-an-SUV days?  Absolutely NOT.</p><p>Go back to your Denier cave plz.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So er we 're talking a foot of water every 60 years ?
Sounds almost scary , except when you put it into context .
Increases in sea level are not new phenomena .
No doubt they were produced by all that fossil fuel consumption 20,000 years ago.Great , sounds like more Denier talking points .
For the FACTS on the matter , start here [ realclimate.org ] please.Yes , those sea level changes 20,000 years ago were caused by humans .
It 's not like coal burning was some recent thing started in England 's industrial revolution .
No , they used coal as a fuel then because it had LONG been used as a fuel .
With good reason -- it 's very energy dense , gives you some good heat .
( As long as you do n't mind the smell or the environmental damage , of course .
) Before the modern days of coal mining , coal was REALLY cheap to get to -- almost lying for the taking anywhere there 's anything of geological significance .
And the folks back then were just burning it for whatever .
And so yes , even back then , all that extra CO2 was gathering in the atmosphere , increasing the absorption spectrum where the sun is most intense , warming the planet .
It 's just that right now , CO2 is being emitted at a MUCH higher rate , leading to literally unprecedented warming rates .
( Heard of the hockey stick ?
Yeah ... that 's how much faster it 's increasing .
) And THAT , my friends , is the reason to worry .
Could we adapt to the slow warming on NATURAL scales , or with caveman level emissions ?
Absolutely. Can we do it now in the got ta-have-an-SUV days ?
Absolutely NOT.Go back to your Denier cave plz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So er we're talking a foot of water every 60 years?
Sounds almost scary, except when you put it into context.
Increases in sea level are not new phenomena.
No doubt they were produced by all that fossil fuel consumption 20,000 years ago.Great, sounds like more Denier talking points.
For the FACTS on the matter, start here [realclimate.org] please.Yes, those sea level changes 20,000 years ago were caused by humans.
It's not like coal burning was some recent thing started in England's industrial revolution.
No, they used coal as a fuel then because it had LONG been used as a fuel.
With good reason -- it's very energy dense, gives you some good heat.
(As long as you don't mind the smell or the environmental damage, of course.
)Before the modern days of coal mining, coal was REALLY cheap to get to -- almost lying for the taking anywhere there's anything of geological significance.
And the folks back then were just burning it for whatever.
And so yes, even back then, all that extra CO2 was gathering in the atmosphere, increasing the absorption spectrum where the sun is most intense, warming the planet.
It's just that right now, CO2 is being emitted at a MUCH higher rate, leading to literally unprecedented warming rates.
(Heard of the hockey stick?
Yeah ... that's how much faster it's increasing.
)And THAT, my friends, is the reason to worry.
Could we adapt to the slow warming on NATURAL scales, or with caveman level emissions?
Absolutely.  Can we do it now in the gotta-have-an-SUV days?
Absolutely NOT.Go back to your Denier cave plz.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627024</id>
	<title>History repeating</title>
	<author>zarlino</author>
	<datestamp>1269621240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never heard about the Ferdinandea Island? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinandea" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinandea</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never heard about the Ferdinandea Island ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinandea [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never heard about the Ferdinandea Island?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinandea [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627704</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1269624060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There you go. The key distinction between 2010 and 20,000 years ago is that we have billions of humans around the world more exposed to changes in climate. But as you point out, the climate has changed many times in the past for a variety of reasons clearly not due to human activity. Might human activity be aggravating the matter somewhat? It's entirely possible, but given that it's going to happen no matter what we do I almost think it's irrelevant.</p><p>So what do we do? Take potentially disastrous measures and try to actually change the climate ourselves? And how to we even establish what an ideal baseline is? It's entirely possible the ideal temperature for humanity and nature to thrive is even higher than it is now.</p><p>But on a more practical level, I do think we should move to clean, efficient fuels as much as is realistically possible. Many measures to protect the environment make sense for a variety of reasons beyond climate change. That said, I do have a fundamental problem with the alarmists and the suggestion that we need to dramatically change our way of life or that we should support policies which benefit special interests pushed under the pretense of stopping climate change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There you go .
The key distinction between 2010 and 20,000 years ago is that we have billions of humans around the world more exposed to changes in climate .
But as you point out , the climate has changed many times in the past for a variety of reasons clearly not due to human activity .
Might human activity be aggravating the matter somewhat ?
It 's entirely possible , but given that it 's going to happen no matter what we do I almost think it 's irrelevant.So what do we do ?
Take potentially disastrous measures and try to actually change the climate ourselves ?
And how to we even establish what an ideal baseline is ?
It 's entirely possible the ideal temperature for humanity and nature to thrive is even higher than it is now.But on a more practical level , I do think we should move to clean , efficient fuels as much as is realistically possible .
Many measures to protect the environment make sense for a variety of reasons beyond climate change .
That said , I do have a fundamental problem with the alarmists and the suggestion that we need to dramatically change our way of life or that we should support policies which benefit special interests pushed under the pretense of stopping climate change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There you go.
The key distinction between 2010 and 20,000 years ago is that we have billions of humans around the world more exposed to changes in climate.
But as you point out, the climate has changed many times in the past for a variety of reasons clearly not due to human activity.
Might human activity be aggravating the matter somewhat?
It's entirely possible, but given that it's going to happen no matter what we do I almost think it's irrelevant.So what do we do?
Take potentially disastrous measures and try to actually change the climate ourselves?
And how to we even establish what an ideal baseline is?
It's entirely possible the ideal temperature for humanity and nature to thrive is even higher than it is now.But on a more practical level, I do think we should move to clean, efficient fuels as much as is realistically possible.
Many measures to protect the environment make sense for a variety of reasons beyond climate change.
That said, I do have a fundamental problem with the alarmists and the suggestion that we need to dramatically change our way of life or that we should support policies which benefit special interests pushed under the pretense of stopping climate change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626796</id>
	<title>It wasn't a real island</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269620280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It only appeared in a river delta known for silting after a exceptionally big cyclone in 1970.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only appeared in a river delta known for silting after a exceptionally big cyclone in 1970 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only appeared in a river delta known for silting after a exceptionally big cyclone in 1970.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625952</id>
	<title>Reminds me of kids.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't play nice with your toys and share, mom will take them off you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't play nice with your toys and share , mom will take them off you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't play nice with your toys and share, mom will take them off you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31638128</id>
	<title>Re:Local Sea Level Rise???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269688860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you are making stuff up. yes they most certainly can. ever heard of El Nino? guess how they measure it.</p><p>moron. (that's directed at the people who modded you up)</p><p>if I had mod point power I'd mod you +3 Troll. "well executed, job well done!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you are making stuff up .
yes they most certainly can .
ever heard of El Nino ?
guess how they measure it.moron .
( that 's directed at the people who modded you up ) if I had mod point power I 'd mod you + 3 Troll .
" well executed , job well done !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are making stuff up.
yes they most certainly can.
ever heard of El Nino?
guess how they measure it.moron.
(that's directed at the people who modded you up)if I had mod point power I'd mod you +3 Troll.
"well executed, job well done!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626418</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>hierophanta</author>
	<datestamp>1269618900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>umm.. erosion? when the levels rise up they a likely to erode the land, and what may have been a meter high 'hill' could easily have washed away</htmltext>
<tokenext>umm.. erosion ? when the levels rise up they a likely to erode the land , and what may have been a meter high 'hill ' could easily have washed away</tokentext>
<sentencetext>umm.. erosion? when the levels rise up they a likely to erode the land, and what may have been a meter high 'hill' could easily have washed away</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626498</id>
	<title>Re:If it is barely under water- call it Fiji.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yum</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yum</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yum</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627288</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of kids.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269622440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be my approach to Israel and Palestine problems with Jerusalem Just say no one owns the areas... No residences are allowed but you can visit it for the history and religious pilgrimages.  Perhaps the UN will make sure everyone plays fair in the area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be my approach to Israel and Palestine problems with Jerusalem Just say no one owns the areas... No residences are allowed but you can visit it for the history and religious pilgrimages .
Perhaps the UN will make sure everyone plays fair in the area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be my approach to Israel and Palestine problems with Jerusalem Just say no one owns the areas... No residences are allowed but you can visit it for the history and religious pilgrimages.
Perhaps the UN will make sure everyone plays fair in the area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626392</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>Scootin159</author>
	<datestamp>1269618780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if it was only 2.4 inches "high", one would think that most of the day the island would be underwater anyways.  I'm not an expert on tides, but I'm pretty sure they're more than 3 inches in most places.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if it was only 2.4 inches " high " , one would think that most of the day the island would be underwater anyways .
I 'm not an expert on tides , but I 'm pretty sure they 're more than 3 inches in most places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if it was only 2.4 inches "high", one would think that most of the day the island would be underwater anyways.
I'm not an expert on tides, but I'm pretty sure they're more than 3 inches in most places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626322</id>
	<title>Know What Else Is Blatantly Obvious?</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1269618600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ice cream causes skin cancer. I know this because in places where they eat more ice cream they have higher rates of skin cancer.<br> <br>

It's blatantly obvious, and I KNOW I can count on you to back me up on that. Power to the insightful, brother!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ice cream causes skin cancer .
I know this because in places where they eat more ice cream they have higher rates of skin cancer .
It 's blatantly obvious , and I KNOW I can count on you to back me up on that .
Power to the insightful , brother !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ice cream causes skin cancer.
I know this because in places where they eat more ice cream they have higher rates of skin cancer.
It's blatantly obvious, and I KNOW I can count on you to back me up on that.
Power to the insightful, brother!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629068</id>
	<title>I love how rising sea levels cause erosion</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1269628140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't even think of that, did you? The sea level may have risen "only" 3.5 inches (that's a lot) but that means more of the island would be underwater more of the time, leading to increased erosion rates. From the wiki article, I've gleaned that the highest point on the island was around 2 meters, that it appeared relatively recently, and was made mostly from silt deposits. It wouldn't take too much of a rise in sea level to change the rate of silt deposition relative to erosion.</p><p>However, I think it is clear from reading the wikipedia article, this was a silt deposit in a river delta that floods once a year. It was never a permanent feature. Global warming likely sped things up, but this 'island' was never here to stay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't even think of that , did you ?
The sea level may have risen " only " 3.5 inches ( that 's a lot ) but that means more of the island would be underwater more of the time , leading to increased erosion rates .
From the wiki article , I 've gleaned that the highest point on the island was around 2 meters , that it appeared relatively recently , and was made mostly from silt deposits .
It would n't take too much of a rise in sea level to change the rate of silt deposition relative to erosion.However , I think it is clear from reading the wikipedia article , this was a silt deposit in a river delta that floods once a year .
It was never a permanent feature .
Global warming likely sped things up , but this 'island ' was never here to stay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't even think of that, did you?
The sea level may have risen "only" 3.5 inches (that's a lot) but that means more of the island would be underwater more of the time, leading to increased erosion rates.
From the wiki article, I've gleaned that the highest point on the island was around 2 meters, that it appeared relatively recently, and was made mostly from silt deposits.
It wouldn't take too much of a rise in sea level to change the rate of silt deposition relative to erosion.However, I think it is clear from reading the wikipedia article, this was a silt deposit in a river delta that floods once a year.
It was never a permanent feature.
Global warming likely sped things up, but this 'island' was never here to stay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31671380</id>
	<title>Again defaulting to AGW...</title>
	<author>iterativeDesign</author>
	<datestamp>1269966180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.
<br> <br>
Why does everyone default to anthropogenic global warming as the culprit? Global warming or even other events might (and probably do) have a varying significant impact on this island becoming submerged; yet it is shortsighted and laziness on this person's judgment to claim it was global warming to unquestionably. Get some scientific and reliable evidence before you make public claims as facts.
<br> <br>
-
Why worry about the end, when people are already destroying the present?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking , has been resolved by global warming , " said Hazra .
Why does everyone default to anthropogenic global warming as the culprit ?
Global warming or even other events might ( and probably do ) have a varying significant impact on this island becoming submerged ; yet it is shortsighted and laziness on this person 's judgment to claim it was global warming to unquestionably .
Get some scientific and reliable evidence before you make public claims as facts .
- Why worry about the end , when people are already destroying the present ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.
Why does everyone default to anthropogenic global warming as the culprit?
Global warming or even other events might (and probably do) have a varying significant impact on this island becoming submerged; yet it is shortsighted and laziness on this person's judgment to claim it was global warming to unquestionably.
Get some scientific and reliable evidence before you make public claims as facts.
-
Why worry about the end, when people are already destroying the present?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626826</id>
	<title>Terry Pratchett is having a good laugh!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269620340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JINGO anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JINGO anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JINGO anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630610</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1269633660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice\_age#Causes\_of\_ice\_ages" title="wikipedia.org">20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons</a> [wikipedia.org]. No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels. Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however. 'Tis just a strawman.</p></div><p>Actually, that just points out the problem with AGW "science."  There are so many variables, nobody really <i>knows why</i> the climate is changing.  For now, it's a theory that "greenhouse gases" are causing a significant change in the climate.  Another theory is sunspots.  For all the tree-rings examined, the only thing we <i>know</i> is that the climate changes.  We can't even agree on whether or not that is a bad thing.  To me, a warmer planet sounds pretty good.  As for sea levels, we also happen to know that it has been rising steadily for thousands of years (obviously at a slower rate today than for several years after the last ice age).  Accounts will obviously vary from source to source, but it also doesn't look like there has been a significant increase in the rate of rising over the past centuries.<br> <br>

Most of us who get labeled "disbelievers" or "deniers" are simply opposed to massive, radical legislation surrounding something as murky as so-called "global warming" or climate change.  Surprisingly, we don't even hate the planet or love pollution or big oil.  But we also don't love the idea of setting up a fake market for the redistribution of wealth with questionable expected impact on the climate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , 20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons [ wikipedia.org ] .
No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels .
Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that , however .
'T is just a strawman.Actually , that just points out the problem with AGW " science .
" There are so many variables , nobody really knows why the climate is changing .
For now , it 's a theory that " greenhouse gases " are causing a significant change in the climate .
Another theory is sunspots .
For all the tree-rings examined , the only thing we know is that the climate changes .
We ca n't even agree on whether or not that is a bad thing .
To me , a warmer planet sounds pretty good .
As for sea levels , we also happen to know that it has been rising steadily for thousands of years ( obviously at a slower rate today than for several years after the last ice age ) .
Accounts will obviously vary from source to source , but it also does n't look like there has been a significant increase in the rate of rising over the past centuries .
Most of us who get labeled " disbelievers " or " deniers " are simply opposed to massive , radical legislation surrounding something as murky as so-called " global warming " or climate change .
Surprisingly , we do n't even hate the planet or love pollution or big oil .
But we also do n't love the idea of setting up a fake market for the redistribution of wealth with questionable expected impact on the climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, 20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons [wikipedia.org].
No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels.
Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however.
'Tis just a strawman.Actually, that just points out the problem with AGW "science.
"  There are so many variables, nobody really knows why the climate is changing.
For now, it's a theory that "greenhouse gases" are causing a significant change in the climate.
Another theory is sunspots.
For all the tree-rings examined, the only thing we know is that the climate changes.
We can't even agree on whether or not that is a bad thing.
To me, a warmer planet sounds pretty good.
As for sea levels, we also happen to know that it has been rising steadily for thousands of years (obviously at a slower rate today than for several years after the last ice age).
Accounts will obviously vary from source to source, but it also doesn't look like there has been a significant increase in the rate of rising over the past centuries.
Most of us who get labeled "disbelievers" or "deniers" are simply opposed to massive, radical legislation surrounding something as murky as so-called "global warming" or climate change.
Surprisingly, we don't even hate the planet or love pollution or big oil.
But we also don't love the idea of setting up a fake market for the redistribution of wealth with questionable expected impact on the climate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31631862</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269595620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And beyond that, one of the guys given the Nobel Prize for not being George W Bush... starts to act just like George W Bush. Neato.</p><p>You'd think the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize guys are roughly the same as the Global Warming guys, that people would kind of get it. *cough* scam *cough*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And beyond that , one of the guys given the Nobel Prize for not being George W Bush... starts to act just like George W Bush .
Neato.You 'd think the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize guys are roughly the same as the Global Warming guys , that people would kind of get it .
* cough * scam * cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And beyond that, one of the guys given the Nobel Prize for not being George W Bush... starts to act just like George W Bush.
Neato.You'd think the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize guys are roughly the same as the Global Warming guys, that people would kind of get it.
*cough* scam *cough*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628006</id>
	<title>NOT global warming</title>
	<author>thule</author>
	<datestamp>1269624900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I say this year we nominate Global Warming for the Nobel Peace Prize for providing a peaceful solution to this heated dispute between Bangladesh and India.</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not global warming:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=w2Aknop99M4C&amp;dat=19370529&amp;printsec=frontpage" title="google.com">Sarasota Herald - May 29, 1937</a> [google.com]... see page 4, top section. "Islands" have disappeared before.
<br>
<br>
The above link is from this page:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/bengal-island-succumbs-to-global-warming-nonsense-ap-gets-nutty-over-loss-of-a-sandbar/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">Bengal Island succumbs to global warming nonsense &ndash; AP gets nutty over the loss of a sandbar</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say this year we nominate Global Warming for the Nobel Peace Prize for providing a peaceful solution to this heated dispute between Bangladesh and India .
... not global warming : Sarasota Herald - May 29 , 1937 [ google.com ] ... see page 4 , top section .
" Islands " have disappeared before .
The above link is from this page : Bengal Island succumbs to global warming nonsense    AP gets nutty over the loss of a sandbar [ wattsupwiththat.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say this year we nominate Global Warming for the Nobel Peace Prize for providing a peaceful solution to this heated dispute between Bangladesh and India.
... not global warming:
 
Sarasota Herald - May 29, 1937 [google.com]... see page 4, top section.
"Islands" have disappeared before.
The above link is from this page:
 
Bengal Island succumbs to global warming nonsense – AP gets nutty over the loss of a sandbar [wattsupwiththat.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626768</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269620220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>have you heard of erosion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>have you heard of erosion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have you heard of erosion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626580</id>
	<title>Mom's gonna fix it all soon</title>
	<author>Hohlraum</author>
	<datestamp>1269619620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mom's comin' round, to put it back the way it ought to be.  Learn to swim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mom 's comin ' round , to put it back the way it ought to be .
Learn to swim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mom's comin' round, to put it back the way it ought to be.
Learn to swim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629628</id>
	<title>Benjamin Linus</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1269630000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Benjamin Linus strikes again.</p><p>The island is actually bouncing around through time... or maybe it sunk into the sea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Benjamin Linus strikes again.The island is actually bouncing around through time... or maybe it sunk into the sea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Benjamin Linus strikes again.The island is actually bouncing around through time... or maybe it sunk into the sea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629246</id>
	<title>Mine</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1269628740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's mine!" -- Bangladesh</p><p>"No, it's mine!" -- India</p><p>"No, it's <em>mine!</em> -- Dagon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's mine !
" -- Bangladesh " No , it 's mine !
" -- India " No , it 's mine !
-- Dagon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's mine!
" -- Bangladesh"No, it's mine!
" -- India"No, it's mine!
-- Dagon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626028</id>
	<title>Sound familiar to Pratchett fans?</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1269617640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure this was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingo\_(novel)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">the plot of a book</a> [wikipedia.org]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure this was the plot of a book [ wikipedia.org ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure this was the plot of a book [wikipedia.org]...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626606</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>Shompol</author>
	<datestamp>1269619680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you are saying that if we have a cataclysm similar to glaciers melting 20,000 years ago, it's okay because it happened before?<br>
<i>Extinction of humanity sounds scary, except when you put it in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">context</a> [wikipedia.org], species extinction is not a new phenomenon</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are saying that if we have a cataclysm similar to glaciers melting 20,000 years ago , it 's okay because it happened before ?
Extinction of humanity sounds scary , except when you put it in context [ wikipedia.org ] , species extinction is not a new phenomenon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are saying that if we have a cataclysm similar to glaciers melting 20,000 years ago, it's okay because it happened before?
Extinction of humanity sounds scary, except when you put it in context [wikipedia.org], species extinction is not a new phenomenon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627834</id>
	<title>Re:"Always attribute to global warming...</title>
	<author>mmmmbeer</author>
	<datestamp>1269624420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew that it was silly of people to claim that one or two islands could be affected by sea levels without affecting all islands, everywhere.  But I couldn't find any data to back up or explain what specifically was happening in this case.  I suspected it was either plate tectonics or erosion; turns out it's both.  Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew that it was silly of people to claim that one or two islands could be affected by sea levels without affecting all islands , everywhere .
But I could n't find any data to back up or explain what specifically was happening in this case .
I suspected it was either plate tectonics or erosion ; turns out it 's both .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew that it was silly of people to claim that one or two islands could be affected by sea levels without affecting all islands, everywhere.
But I couldn't find any data to back up or explain what specifically was happening in this case.
I suspected it was either plate tectonics or erosion; turns out it's both.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629680</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269630180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it is sort of like the Moon.  Its orbit is getting smaller all the time because of the drag of Earth's gravity.  Increased human population is increasing the mass of the Earth, as do metorites.  This increases the drag on the Moon further reducing its orbit.</p><p>If nothing is done about this, the Moon will crash into the Earth, just like if nothing is done about Earth's climate some land will be submerged in the ocean.  Believe me, the Moon impacting the Earth will likely destroy all life on the planet within a few seconds.  This is potentially as huge a catestrophe as climate change and will have even further reaching effects.  It is true that the Moon isn't likely to crash into the Earth next week, but neither will New York disappear into the Atlantic next week.</p><p>I believe we can "solve" any possible climate problem by immediately stopping all burning of fossil fuels.  This would make all current non-nuclear power plants, all production automobiles, all aircraft obsolete and unusable.  We need to reduce the population to under 500 million, probably really under 250 million, although without powered farm equipment no ability to transport crops we will likely see a big population reduction anyway making any real action on the population front unnecessary.  Overnight, the face of the planet would change and much of it would return to a verdant paradise that has only been written about in fantasies.</p><p>So why aren't we doing this if there is a critical climate problem that we can solve?  Perhaps because (a) it isn't that critical and (b) we can't solve it no matter what humans do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it is sort of like the Moon .
Its orbit is getting smaller all the time because of the drag of Earth 's gravity .
Increased human population is increasing the mass of the Earth , as do metorites .
This increases the drag on the Moon further reducing its orbit.If nothing is done about this , the Moon will crash into the Earth , just like if nothing is done about Earth 's climate some land will be submerged in the ocean .
Believe me , the Moon impacting the Earth will likely destroy all life on the planet within a few seconds .
This is potentially as huge a catestrophe as climate change and will have even further reaching effects .
It is true that the Moon is n't likely to crash into the Earth next week , but neither will New York disappear into the Atlantic next week.I believe we can " solve " any possible climate problem by immediately stopping all burning of fossil fuels .
This would make all current non-nuclear power plants , all production automobiles , all aircraft obsolete and unusable .
We need to reduce the population to under 500 million , probably really under 250 million , although without powered farm equipment no ability to transport crops we will likely see a big population reduction anyway making any real action on the population front unnecessary .
Overnight , the face of the planet would change and much of it would return to a verdant paradise that has only been written about in fantasies.So why are n't we doing this if there is a critical climate problem that we can solve ?
Perhaps because ( a ) it is n't that critical and ( b ) we ca n't solve it no matter what humans do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it is sort of like the Moon.
Its orbit is getting smaller all the time because of the drag of Earth's gravity.
Increased human population is increasing the mass of the Earth, as do metorites.
This increases the drag on the Moon further reducing its orbit.If nothing is done about this, the Moon will crash into the Earth, just like if nothing is done about Earth's climate some land will be submerged in the ocean.
Believe me, the Moon impacting the Earth will likely destroy all life on the planet within a few seconds.
This is potentially as huge a catestrophe as climate change and will have even further reaching effects.
It is true that the Moon isn't likely to crash into the Earth next week, but neither will New York disappear into the Atlantic next week.I believe we can "solve" any possible climate problem by immediately stopping all burning of fossil fuels.
This would make all current non-nuclear power plants, all production automobiles, all aircraft obsolete and unusable.
We need to reduce the population to under 500 million, probably really under 250 million, although without powered farm equipment no ability to transport crops we will likely see a big population reduction anyway making any real action on the population front unnecessary.
Overnight, the face of the planet would change and much of it would return to a verdant paradise that has only been written about in fantasies.So why aren't we doing this if there is a critical climate problem that we can solve?
Perhaps because (a) it isn't that critical and (b) we can't solve it no matter what humans do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626350</id>
	<title>Except it wasn't sea levels rising...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know OMFG global warming is hip and all, but this almost certainly wasn't a case of rising sea levels.  Sea levels are rising REALLY slowly.  That isn't to say that a big hunk of the antarctic couldn't melt and slide off into the ocean and give me some beach front property, just that it hasn't happened yet.  The island almost certainly simply sunk into the ground.  The earth sucks stuff down and pushes other stuff up all the time.  It happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know OMFG global warming is hip and all , but this almost certainly was n't a case of rising sea levels .
Sea levels are rising REALLY slowly .
That is n't to say that a big hunk of the antarctic could n't melt and slide off into the ocean and give me some beach front property , just that it has n't happened yet .
The island almost certainly simply sunk into the ground .
The earth sucks stuff down and pushes other stuff up all the time .
It happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know OMFG global warming is hip and all, but this almost certainly wasn't a case of rising sea levels.
Sea levels are rising REALLY slowly.
That isn't to say that a big hunk of the antarctic couldn't melt and slide off into the ocean and give me some beach front property, just that it hasn't happened yet.
The island almost certainly simply sunk into the ground.
The earth sucks stuff down and pushes other stuff up all the time.
It happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627560</id>
	<title>Sinking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269623460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The island is clearly sinking.  The oceans are not rising.  Go look at the data.  A plate shifting or some seismic event caused this island to sink.  Not global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The island is clearly sinking .
The oceans are not rising .
Go look at the data .
A plate shifting or some seismic event caused this island to sink .
Not global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The island is clearly sinking.
The oceans are not rising.
Go look at the data.
A plate shifting or some seismic event caused this island to sink.
Not global warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630086</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>stdarg</author>
	<datestamp>1269631620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels. Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however. 'Tis just a strawman.</p></div><p>This is your own strawman. AGW skeptics don't believe that AGW proponents believe that climate change can only be caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Indeed, that's why they like to bring up climate change that happened 20k years ago, because AGW proponents can't deny that climate change happens without human involvement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels .
Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that , however .
'T is just a strawman.This is your own strawman .
AGW skeptics do n't believe that AGW proponents believe that climate change can only be caused by humans burning fossil fuels .
Indeed , that 's why they like to bring up climate change that happened 20k years ago , because AGW proponents ca n't deny that climate change happens without human involvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels.
Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however.
'Tis just a strawman.This is your own strawman.
AGW skeptics don't believe that AGW proponents believe that climate change can only be caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
Indeed, that's why they like to bring up climate change that happened 20k years ago, because AGW proponents can't deny that climate change happens without human involvement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627762</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1269624180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you heard of erosion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you heard of erosion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you heard of erosion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628730</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of kids.</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1269627180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me too, but a little differently: Reminds me of king Solomon and the baby. (1 Kings 3:16-28). If any of the countries actually steps up and does something to limit global warming (i.e. tries to "save the baby") that country should be deemed the rightful owner of the island should it ever reappear. Or maybe get the fishing/mineral rights on the piece of seabed where it once was. Or something. Or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too , but a little differently : Reminds me of king Solomon and the baby .
( 1 Kings 3 : 16-28 ) .
If any of the countries actually steps up and does something to limit global warming ( i.e .
tries to " save the baby " ) that country should be deemed the rightful owner of the island should it ever reappear .
Or maybe get the fishing/mineral rights on the piece of seabed where it once was .
Or something .
Or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too, but a little differently: Reminds me of king Solomon and the baby.
(1 Kings 3:16-28).
If any of the countries actually steps up and does something to limit global warming (i.e.
tries to "save the baby") that country should be deemed the rightful owner of the island should it ever reappear.
Or maybe get the fishing/mineral rights on the piece of seabed where it once was.
Or something.
Or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31644856</id>
	<title>Waterworld</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269708420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let the truthful prophesies of the movie Waterworld begin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the truthful prophesies of the movie Waterworld begin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the truthful prophesies of the movie Waterworld begin!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628754</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1269627240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels. Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however. 'Tis just a strawman</i>
<br> <br>
Regardless, the AGW pushers <i>continually</i> uses phrases like "climate change <i>is</i> the result of human activity." Sometimes they qualify that with "mainly" or "predominantly," but that's precisely the meme they're peddling<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... along with it's implied counterpart: that absent human activity, it wouldn't happen. It's not a straw man argument to point out that bit of nonsense, since it's used loudly and regularly by people like Gore, and repeated ad nauseum by a generation of students who will soon be old enough to vote based on bad information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels .
Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that , however .
'T is just a strawman Regardless , the AGW pushers continually uses phrases like " climate change is the result of human activity .
" Sometimes they qualify that with " mainly " or " predominantly , " but that 's precisely the meme they 're peddling ... along with it 's implied counterpart : that absent human activity , it would n't happen .
It 's not a straw man argument to point out that bit of nonsense , since it 's used loudly and regularly by people like Gore , and repeated ad nauseum by a generation of students who will soon be old enough to vote based on bad information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels.
Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however.
'Tis just a strawman
 
Regardless, the AGW pushers continually uses phrases like "climate change is the result of human activity.
" Sometimes they qualify that with "mainly" or "predominantly," but that's precisely the meme they're peddling ... along with it's implied counterpart: that absent human activity, it wouldn't happen.
It's not a straw man argument to point out that bit of nonsense, since it's used loudly and regularly by people like Gore, and repeated ad nauseum by a generation of students who will soon be old enough to vote based on bad information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628342</id>
	<title>Re:Local Sea Level Rise???</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1269625800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>Sea levels can't just rise in one place.</em> </p><p>Yes they can. For one example, consider the difference in sea level between the two sides of the Panama Canal of about 8 inches, mostly due to salinity and air pressure differences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sea levels ca n't just rise in one place .
Yes they can .
For one example , consider the difference in sea level between the two sides of the Panama Canal of about 8 inches , mostly due to salinity and air pressure differences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sea levels can't just rise in one place.
Yes they can.
For one example, consider the difference in sea level between the two sides of the Panama Canal of about 8 inches, mostly due to salinity and air pressure differences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628434</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1269626160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF is a trillion anymore?   US Citizens pay about 1.5 trillion per year for healthcare.   In the last year and a half between Bush's bank bailout and Obama's big stimulus, they spent about 1.5 trillion.</p><p>At the rate we're going, I'll be wiping my ass with a billion dollar bill when I'm 50.</p><p>Its really time to start investing in highly productive scientific products such as massive rollout renewable energy generation and robotics.  It may take trillions to pay people to protect those lands, but given an army of Wall-E robots, it would simply cost us energy.  Obviously we'd have to have a social stake in the robots for it to work like that; a private business would try to profit so hard that it would probably equate to having paid humans to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF is a trillion anymore ?
US Citizens pay about 1.5 trillion per year for healthcare .
In the last year and a half between Bush 's bank bailout and Obama 's big stimulus , they spent about 1.5 trillion.At the rate we 're going , I 'll be wiping my ass with a billion dollar bill when I 'm 50.Its really time to start investing in highly productive scientific products such as massive rollout renewable energy generation and robotics .
It may take trillions to pay people to protect those lands , but given an army of Wall-E robots , it would simply cost us energy .
Obviously we 'd have to have a social stake in the robots for it to work like that ; a private business would try to profit so hard that it would probably equate to having paid humans to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF is a trillion anymore?
US Citizens pay about 1.5 trillion per year for healthcare.
In the last year and a half between Bush's bank bailout and Obama's big stimulus, they spent about 1.5 trillion.At the rate we're going, I'll be wiping my ass with a billion dollar bill when I'm 50.Its really time to start investing in highly productive scientific products such as massive rollout renewable energy generation and robotics.
It may take trillions to pay people to protect those lands, but given an army of Wall-E robots, it would simply cost us energy.
Obviously we'd have to have a social stake in the robots for it to work like that; a private business would try to profit so hard that it would probably equate to having paid humans to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627090</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1269621540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. I am saying that there is a long term trend of increasing sea level. However if you note from the graph - those increases are increasing by decreasing amounts (ie the average rate is diminishing). Why? Because the vast quantities of glaciers that existed 20,000 years ago have already melted. You can't "create" more water - it's ALREADY in the ocean - 140 meters worth.</p><p>You are the one mentioning "global cataclysms". First you must prove that one exists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I am saying that there is a long term trend of increasing sea level .
However if you note from the graph - those increases are increasing by decreasing amounts ( ie the average rate is diminishing ) .
Why ? Because the vast quantities of glaciers that existed 20,000 years ago have already melted .
You ca n't " create " more water - it 's ALREADY in the ocean - 140 meters worth.You are the one mentioning " global cataclysms " .
First you must prove that one exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I am saying that there is a long term trend of increasing sea level.
However if you note from the graph - those increases are increasing by decreasing amounts (ie the average rate is diminishing).
Why? Because the vast quantities of glaciers that existed 20,000 years ago have already melted.
You can't "create" more water - it's ALREADY in the ocean - 140 meters worth.You are the one mentioning "global cataclysms".
First you must prove that one exists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627952</id>
	<title>Re:Dispute over sandbar resolved</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1269624720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The sea giveth and the sea taketh away.</i> <br>
These sandbars (dis-)appear all the time... But to people who *want* to believe this was *obviously* the work of global warming (rolls eyes).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sea giveth and the sea taketh away .
These sandbars ( dis- ) appear all the time... But to people who * want * to believe this was * obviously * the work of global warming ( rolls eyes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sea giveth and the sea taketh away.
These sandbars (dis-)appear all the time... But to people who *want* to believe this was *obviously* the work of global warming (rolls eyes).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626042</id>
	<title>What a great reminder...</title>
	<author>tom\_75</author>
	<datestamp>1269617640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... of the futility of it all. Good job, Nature !</htmltext>
<tokenext>... of the futility of it all .
Good job , Nature !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... of the futility of it all.
Good job, Nature !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626586</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>arachnoprobe</author>
	<datestamp>1269619620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just give it to Al Gore<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just give it to Al Gore : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just give it to Al Gore :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627260</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1269622320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "tipping point" argument was always a bit bogus, being more an excuse to invoke the Precautionary Principle for insignificant environment changes. Now it's being applied to something where it has no business being applied. A slight rise in sea level just means a slight increase in soil transport. Whatever goes away due to erosion, would have gone away anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " tipping point " argument was always a bit bogus , being more an excuse to invoke the Precautionary Principle for insignificant environment changes .
Now it 's being applied to something where it has no business being applied .
A slight rise in sea level just means a slight increase in soil transport .
Whatever goes away due to erosion , would have gone away anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "tipping point" argument was always a bit bogus, being more an excuse to invoke the Precautionary Principle for insignificant environment changes.
Now it's being applied to something where it has no business being applied.
A slight rise in sea level just means a slight increase in soil transport.
Whatever goes away due to erosion, would have gone away anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626812</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>SengirV</author>
	<datestamp>1269620340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That hasn't stopped the IPCC.  Heck, here's a new one you'll NOT see posted at leftist slashdot - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That has n't stopped the IPCC .
Heck , here 's a new one you 'll NOT see posted at leftist slashdot - http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That hasn't stopped the IPCC.
Heck, here's a new one you'll NOT see posted at leftist slashdot - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626008</id>
	<title>Children's Lesson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I learned that from my parents - "If the two of you can't share, neither of you gets the toy."  As a side note, I doubt I was particularly happy at that, as I was an only child, and toys generally truly were mine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned that from my parents - " If the two of you ca n't share , neither of you gets the toy .
" As a side note , I doubt I was particularly happy at that , as I was an only child , and toys generally truly were mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned that from my parents - "If the two of you can't share, neither of you gets the toy.
"  As a side note, I doubt I was particularly happy at that, as I was an only child, and toys generally truly were mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629132</id>
	<title>Jingo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269628320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Immediate reaction: life copying art.  The plot of Pratchett's Jingo relies on an island appearing, becoming the cause of war and then disappearing back beneath the waves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Immediate reaction : life copying art .
The plot of Pratchett 's Jingo relies on an island appearing , becoming the cause of war and then disappearing back beneath the waves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Immediate reaction: life copying art.
The plot of Pratchett's Jingo relies on an island appearing, becoming the cause of war and then disappearing back beneath the waves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628298</id>
	<title>Re:"Always attribute to global warming...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269625680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing he's never seen a destructive earthquake, even though we just recently had two globally publicized events.</p><p>You know the kind I'm talking about, where one side of the street rises 10 feet and the other side drops 10 feet in a matter of minutes?</p><p>Yeah, plate tectonics move REAL slow.</p><p>Here's a hint for the GP: Plate tectonics move slow <i>on average</i>, but if two plates collide that are not in an abduction/subduction relationship then massive amounts of energy build up and hundreds of square miles can move many feet in just a few minutes.  It might take 200 years for that energy to build up, but when it reaches the breaking point - POP!</p><p>Note that a lot of mountains were formed this way, so that should give you some perspective.</p><p>For what it's worth, the Indian scientist blames global warming even though the Bay of Bengal has historically had abnormally high sea level changes, and the recent changes have been extremely abnormal.  The rest of the world's rate of change hasn't risen like this, only the Bay of Bengal.  So what halfway intelligent scientist would automatically attribute that to global warming, when there is <i>obviously</i> something else going on?</p><p>The island was created 40 years ago by a hurricane, you didn't see global warming dumbasses claiming it was a massive drop in sea level caused by global cooling (which is what was hip at the time), why would the abnormal rise in  sea level, localized to the bay of bengal, be caused by global warming?  It's that kind of thing that pisses me off and muddies the whole issue.  There is no way this was caused by global warming unless it's an indirect effect which they haven't spent nearly enough time studying to determine.  They just throw it out there like it's the cause of all the world's problems.  Assholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing he 's never seen a destructive earthquake , even though we just recently had two globally publicized events.You know the kind I 'm talking about , where one side of the street rises 10 feet and the other side drops 10 feet in a matter of minutes ? Yeah , plate tectonics move REAL slow.Here 's a hint for the GP : Plate tectonics move slow on average , but if two plates collide that are not in an abduction/subduction relationship then massive amounts of energy build up and hundreds of square miles can move many feet in just a few minutes .
It might take 200 years for that energy to build up , but when it reaches the breaking point - POP ! Note that a lot of mountains were formed this way , so that should give you some perspective.For what it 's worth , the Indian scientist blames global warming even though the Bay of Bengal has historically had abnormally high sea level changes , and the recent changes have been extremely abnormal .
The rest of the world 's rate of change has n't risen like this , only the Bay of Bengal .
So what halfway intelligent scientist would automatically attribute that to global warming , when there is obviously something else going on ? The island was created 40 years ago by a hurricane , you did n't see global warming dumbasses claiming it was a massive drop in sea level caused by global cooling ( which is what was hip at the time ) , why would the abnormal rise in sea level , localized to the bay of bengal , be caused by global warming ?
It 's that kind of thing that pisses me off and muddies the whole issue .
There is no way this was caused by global warming unless it 's an indirect effect which they have n't spent nearly enough time studying to determine .
They just throw it out there like it 's the cause of all the world 's problems .
Assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing he's never seen a destructive earthquake, even though we just recently had two globally publicized events.You know the kind I'm talking about, where one side of the street rises 10 feet and the other side drops 10 feet in a matter of minutes?Yeah, plate tectonics move REAL slow.Here's a hint for the GP: Plate tectonics move slow on average, but if two plates collide that are not in an abduction/subduction relationship then massive amounts of energy build up and hundreds of square miles can move many feet in just a few minutes.
It might take 200 years for that energy to build up, but when it reaches the breaking point - POP!Note that a lot of mountains were formed this way, so that should give you some perspective.For what it's worth, the Indian scientist blames global warming even though the Bay of Bengal has historically had abnormally high sea level changes, and the recent changes have been extremely abnormal.
The rest of the world's rate of change hasn't risen like this, only the Bay of Bengal.
So what halfway intelligent scientist would automatically attribute that to global warming, when there is obviously something else going on?The island was created 40 years ago by a hurricane, you didn't see global warming dumbasses claiming it was a massive drop in sea level caused by global cooling (which is what was hip at the time), why would the abnormal rise in  sea level, localized to the bay of bengal, be caused by global warming?
It's that kind of thing that pisses me off and muddies the whole issue.
There is no way this was caused by global warming unless it's an indirect effect which they haven't spent nearly enough time studying to determine.
They just throw it out there like it's the cause of all the world's problems.
Assholes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626400</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of kids.</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1269618840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YV9ifFkqVc" title="youtube.com">Duck Dodgers in the 24th 1/2 Century</a> [youtube.com] seems even more apropos. Only difference is that it's an island instead of Planet X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duck Dodgers in the 24th 1/2 Century [ youtube.com ] seems even more apropos .
Only difference is that it 's an island instead of Planet X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duck Dodgers in the 24th 1/2 Century [youtube.com] seems even more apropos.
Only difference is that it's an island instead of Planet X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630404</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269632820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes he does, and Cheney appreciates it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes he does , and Cheney appreciates it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes he does, and Cheney appreciates it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629064</id>
	<title>Another perfectly good agenda run amok.</title>
	<author>singingjim1</author>
	<datestamp>1269628140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Global warming? A dubious reason at best. Just another excuse to inflate claims about a naturally occurring event to push an agenda. When will folks learn that some of us see through the nonsense and tend to discount the overall legitimacy of the authors of such tripe?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Global warming ?
A dubious reason at best .
Just another excuse to inflate claims about a naturally occurring event to push an agenda .
When will folks learn that some of us see through the nonsense and tend to discount the overall legitimacy of the authors of such tripe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global warming?
A dubious reason at best.
Just another excuse to inflate claims about a naturally occurring event to push an agenda.
When will folks learn that some of us see through the nonsense and tend to discount the overall legitimacy of the authors of such tripe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626356</id>
	<title>Leshp</title>
	<author>sarhjinian</author>
	<datestamp>1269618660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If no one has done so yet, this story needs to be tagged "Leshp"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If no one has done so yet , this story needs to be tagged " Leshp "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If no one has done so yet, this story needs to be tagged "Leshp"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31665558</id>
	<title>Re:This is pus...</title>
	<author>kurtib</author>
	<datestamp>1269875460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a few questions that sit in my brain that makes my head hurt.


If the ocean is rising because of melting ice caused by global warming, why does it not go up for dirt and rocks washed down the river?


Back in the day everyone knew (all the great minds) that the sun went around the earth, but science changed that with one person questioning it. When did science change that it just goes with the group think?


At what point is the earth the right temp? Is it today, was it 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years maybe. If it is not the right temp right now and it really should be warmer, but we are trying to stop the warming are we not hurting the system?


 If water has a cycle that water in a lake evaporates and goes up in the sky; then it forms a cloud and then rains back down on the lake. Why can&rsquo;t carbon do the same thing? It is in the air, and plant take it in, then the plant is buried for 100,000 years were it turns into coal and oil, we bring it back up and burn it and it is back in the air. People forget that fossil fuel was all carbon in the air at one point.


Thank you for your time. I would love to hear answers this these questions as they keep me up at night.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a few questions that sit in my brain that makes my head hurt .
If the ocean is rising because of melting ice caused by global warming , why does it not go up for dirt and rocks washed down the river ?
Back in the day everyone knew ( all the great minds ) that the sun went around the earth , but science changed that with one person questioning it .
When did science change that it just goes with the group think ?
At what point is the earth the right temp ?
Is it today , was it 1,000 years ago , 10,000 years maybe .
If it is not the right temp right now and it really should be warmer , but we are trying to stop the warming are we not hurting the system ?
If water has a cycle that water in a lake evaporates and goes up in the sky ; then it forms a cloud and then rains back down on the lake .
Why can    t carbon do the same thing ?
It is in the air , and plant take it in , then the plant is buried for 100,000 years were it turns into coal and oil , we bring it back up and burn it and it is back in the air .
People forget that fossil fuel was all carbon in the air at one point .
Thank you for your time .
I would love to hear answers this these questions as they keep me up at night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a few questions that sit in my brain that makes my head hurt.
If the ocean is rising because of melting ice caused by global warming, why does it not go up for dirt and rocks washed down the river?
Back in the day everyone knew (all the great minds) that the sun went around the earth, but science changed that with one person questioning it.
When did science change that it just goes with the group think?
At what point is the earth the right temp?
Is it today, was it 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years maybe.
If it is not the right temp right now and it really should be warmer, but we are trying to stop the warming are we not hurting the system?
If water has a cycle that water in a lake evaporates and goes up in the sky; then it forms a cloud and then rains back down on the lake.
Why can’t carbon do the same thing?
It is in the air, and plant take it in, then the plant is buried for 100,000 years were it turns into coal and oil, we bring it back up and burn it and it is back in the air.
People forget that fossil fuel was all carbon in the air at one point.
Thank you for your time.
I would love to hear answers this these questions as they keep me up at night.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626160</id>
	<title>"Never let scientific evidence..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...stand in the way of a good ad hominem.  HAHA! Al Gore's fat!"
<br>
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go listen to Rush while I jerk off to a picture of Ann Coulter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...stand in the way of a good ad hominem .
HAHA ! Al Gore 's fat !
" Now if you 'll excuse me , I have to go listen to Rush while I jerk off to a picture of Ann Coulter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...stand in the way of a good ad hominem.
HAHA! Al Gore's fat!
"

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go listen to Rush while I jerk off to a picture of Ann Coulter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626664</id>
	<title>I love how Global Warming has to be everywhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is clearly *not* global warming or "rising seas" but old boring "erosion" (I know, not fun).<br>Consider this - less than 30 years ago India could sent paratroopers to this island's "rocky shores" (sic).<br>Seas were rising 2mm per year until 2000 and 5mm per year thereafter, so we are talking about a rise of 2*20 + 5 * 10 = 90 mm , less than 10cm, or for those US-residents - about 3.5 inches.</p><p>I am sorry, but something smells fishy here - a place can't be 3.5 inches above water surface and have "rocky shores" which paratroopers can walk on. Consider that a tidal range in those parts is at least a few feet, so those 3.5 inches would have to completely disappear under water once or twice a day. That would make this land a "shoal" by any maritime definition.</p><p>If this island no longer exists it is because it has been washed away, as these things often occur, especially in river deltas - perhaps after a cyclone or hurricane. Nothing to see here, move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is clearly * not * global warming or " rising seas " but old boring " erosion " ( I know , not fun ) .Consider this - less than 30 years ago India could sent paratroopers to this island 's " rocky shores " ( sic ) .Seas were rising 2mm per year until 2000 and 5mm per year thereafter , so we are talking about a rise of 2 * 20 + 5 * 10 = 90 mm , less than 10cm , or for those US-residents - about 3.5 inches.I am sorry , but something smells fishy here - a place ca n't be 3.5 inches above water surface and have " rocky shores " which paratroopers can walk on .
Consider that a tidal range in those parts is at least a few feet , so those 3.5 inches would have to completely disappear under water once or twice a day .
That would make this land a " shoal " by any maritime definition.If this island no longer exists it is because it has been washed away , as these things often occur , especially in river deltas - perhaps after a cyclone or hurricane .
Nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is clearly *not* global warming or "rising seas" but old boring "erosion" (I know, not fun).Consider this - less than 30 years ago India could sent paratroopers to this island's "rocky shores" (sic).Seas were rising 2mm per year until 2000 and 5mm per year thereafter, so we are talking about a rise of 2*20 + 5 * 10 = 90 mm , less than 10cm, or for those US-residents - about 3.5 inches.I am sorry, but something smells fishy here - a place can't be 3.5 inches above water surface and have "rocky shores" which paratroopers can walk on.
Consider that a tidal range in those parts is at least a few feet, so those 3.5 inches would have to completely disappear under water once or twice a day.
That would make this land a "shoal" by any maritime definition.If this island no longer exists it is because it has been washed away, as these things often occur, especially in river deltas - perhaps after a cyclone or hurricane.
Nothing to see here, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>viridari</author>
	<datestamp>1269617700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You seem to be under the mistaken impression that one actually has to <i>do something</i> to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be under the mistaken impression that one actually has to do something to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be under the mistaken impression that one actually has to do something to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626286</id>
	<title>mod parent troll?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say you're trolling sir. Unless you have really been living under a rock and don't realize that there are about a million other reasons to worry about climate change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say you 're trolling sir .
Unless you have really been living under a rock and do n't realize that there are about a million other reasons to worry about climate change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say you're trolling sir.
Unless you have really been living under a rock and don't realize that there are about a million other reasons to worry about climate change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626038</id>
	<title>Sounds familiar...</title>
	<author>dewie</author>
	<datestamp>1269617640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fairly sure this was the plot of a Terry Pratchett book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly sure this was the plot of a Terry Pratchett book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly sure this was the plot of a Terry Pratchett book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626602</id>
	<title>chyeah dood</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this was caused by global warming than the tooth fairy is my mother.  islands have been submerged before global warming "happened"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was caused by global warming than the tooth fairy is my mother .
islands have been submerged before global warming " happened "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was caused by global warming than the tooth fairy is my mother.
islands have been submerged before global warming "happened"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627752</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269624180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hold on a sec.  The whole global warming climate change is supposed to be making sea levels rise at a very slow rate.  We're talking less than inches per year.  I read that this island used to have at least a mile of earth sticking out of the water.  I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that this land was more than a few inches above sea level.  Now, all of the sudden it just disappears??  wtf?  Was it slowly disappearing at a rate of millimeters per year?  Reading the article doesn't seem to indicate this.  The article is worded as "They were fighting over an island and then 'poof' it disappears underwater"  Ok.. if the sea levels just rose 10 feet in a day then yes I think that's cause for alarm.  Somehow, I don't think this was the case</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok ... hold on a sec .
The whole global warming climate change is supposed to be making sea levels rise at a very slow rate .
We 're talking less than inches per year .
I read that this island used to have at least a mile of earth sticking out of the water .
I 'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that this land was more than a few inches above sea level .
Now , all of the sudden it just disappears ? ?
wtf ? Was it slowly disappearing at a rate of millimeters per year ?
Reading the article does n't seem to indicate this .
The article is worded as " They were fighting over an island and then 'poof ' it disappears underwater " Ok.. if the sea levels just rose 10 feet in a day then yes I think that 's cause for alarm .
Somehow , I do n't think this was the case</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok ... hold on a sec.
The whole global warming climate change is supposed to be making sea levels rise at a very slow rate.
We're talking less than inches per year.
I read that this island used to have at least a mile of earth sticking out of the water.
I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that this land was more than a few inches above sea level.
Now, all of the sudden it just disappears??
wtf?  Was it slowly disappearing at a rate of millimeters per year?
Reading the article doesn't seem to indicate this.
The article is worded as "They were fighting over an island and then 'poof' it disappears underwater"  Ok.. if the sea levels just rose 10 feet in a day then yes I think that's cause for alarm.
Somehow, I don't think this was the case</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080</id>
	<title>Local Sea Level Rise???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sea levels can't just rise in one place. They haven't risen enough to submerge islands. Period. Subsidence is to blame here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sea levels ca n't just rise in one place .
They have n't risen enough to submerge islands .
Period. Subsidence is to blame here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sea levels can't just rise in one place.
They haven't risen enough to submerge islands.
Period. Subsidence is to blame here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626048</id>
	<title>Haven't heard of Solomon's judgment?</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1269617640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*sigh* Dude, the correct answer is, "No, no!  Let him have it!  Please!  Just don't destroy it!  I love it too much!"  Shame on India and Bengaladesh!</p><p>Everyone <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment\_of\_Solomon#.22Splitting\_the\_baby.22" title="wikipedia.org">knows that</a> [wikipedia.org] by now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* sigh * Dude , the correct answer is , " No , no !
Let him have it !
Please ! Just do n't destroy it !
I love it too much !
" Shame on India and Bengaladesh ! Everyone knows that [ wikipedia.org ] by now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*sigh* Dude, the correct answer is, "No, no!
Let him have it!
Please!  Just don't destroy it!
I love it too much!
"  Shame on India and Bengaladesh!Everyone knows that [wikipedia.org] by now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630936</id>
	<title>Oh, wisdom unseen since Solomon!</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1269635100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That would be my approach to Israel and Palestine problems with Jerusalem Just say no one owns the areas... No residences are allowed but you can visit it for the history and religious pilgrimages. Perhaps the UN will make sure everyone plays fair in the area.</p></div><p>How big of an area do you clear out around a few holy sites, and what do you do with the nearly 750,000 people who already live in the city?  I'm sure that the Palestinian territories would have *plenty* of room to absorb the roughly a quarter of a million people who are Muslim, and Israel's wide open spaces that give people plenty of room to build *on their own territory, instead of someone else's* could just soak up half a million people with no trouble, right?</p><p>I mean dispersing a population density of roughly 15,000 people per square mile on behalf of a couple of temples -- which are the only reason anyone has to be attached to the city -- is child's play right?  Easy as chopping a baby in half to resolve a custody dispute.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be my approach to Israel and Palestine problems with Jerusalem Just say no one owns the areas... No residences are allowed but you can visit it for the history and religious pilgrimages .
Perhaps the UN will make sure everyone plays fair in the area.How big of an area do you clear out around a few holy sites , and what do you do with the nearly 750,000 people who already live in the city ?
I 'm sure that the Palestinian territories would have * plenty * of room to absorb the roughly a quarter of a million people who are Muslim , and Israel 's wide open spaces that give people plenty of room to build * on their own territory , instead of someone else 's * could just soak up half a million people with no trouble , right ? I mean dispersing a population density of roughly 15,000 people per square mile on behalf of a couple of temples -- which are the only reason anyone has to be attached to the city -- is child 's play right ?
Easy as chopping a baby in half to resolve a custody dispute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be my approach to Israel and Palestine problems with Jerusalem Just say no one owns the areas... No residences are allowed but you can visit it for the history and religious pilgrimages.
Perhaps the UN will make sure everyone plays fair in the area.How big of an area do you clear out around a few holy sites, and what do you do with the nearly 750,000 people who already live in the city?
I'm sure that the Palestinian territories would have *plenty* of room to absorb the roughly a quarter of a million people who are Muslim, and Israel's wide open spaces that give people plenty of room to build *on their own territory, instead of someone else's* could just soak up half a million people with no trouble, right?I mean dispersing a population density of roughly 15,000 people per square mile on behalf of a couple of temples -- which are the only reason anyone has to be attached to the city -- is child's play right?
Easy as chopping a baby in half to resolve a custody dispute.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629972</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1269631140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>which one's the second one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>which one 's the second one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which one's the second one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626798</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269620280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to the article, sea level has been rising by 0.2 inches per year.</p>  </div><p>This is an obvious fallacy because all elevations are measured from sea level.  Hence, by definition, sea level cannot change.  What's happening is that global warming is causing all of the land to sink.  Explain that one, Al Gore!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , sea level has been rising by 0.2 inches per year .
This is an obvious fallacy because all elevations are measured from sea level .
Hence , by definition , sea level can not change .
What 's happening is that global warming is causing all of the land to sink .
Explain that one , Al Gore !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, sea level has been rising by 0.2 inches per year.
This is an obvious fallacy because all elevations are measured from sea level.
Hence, by definition, sea level cannot change.
What's happening is that global warming is causing all of the land to sink.
Explain that one, Al Gore!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628118</id>
	<title>AAAH! Global Growing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269625200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FYI, according to the USGS, the Himalayas are rising approximately 1cm per year (likely to assume land can drop that fast due to tectonic activity as well). According to the first line of the wikipedia page, the rate of ocean rise has averaged 1.8mm per year.</p></div><p>OMG!  The earth is GROWING!!!  The sky isn't really falling we're just getting closer to the sky because the earth is growing!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , according to the USGS , the Himalayas are rising approximately 1cm per year ( likely to assume land can drop that fast due to tectonic activity as well ) .
According to the first line of the wikipedia page , the rate of ocean rise has averaged 1.8mm per year.OMG !
The earth is GROWING ! ! !
The sky is n't really falling we 're just getting closer to the sky because the earth is growing ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, according to the USGS, the Himalayas are rising approximately 1cm per year (likely to assume land can drop that fast due to tectonic activity as well).
According to the first line of the wikipedia page, the rate of ocean rise has averaged 1.8mm per year.OMG!
The earth is GROWING!!!
The sky isn't really falling we're just getting closer to the sky because the earth is growing!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626850</id>
	<title>Beautiful essay on eroding islands</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1269620460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Chesapeake Bay loses islands (famously in Michener's novel) and there is a nice essay about it here:  <a href="http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=1116" title="bayjournal.com">http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=1116</a> [bayjournal.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chesapeake Bay loses islands ( famously in Michener 's novel ) and there is a nice essay about it here : http : //www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm ? article = 1116 [ bayjournal.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chesapeake Bay loses islands (famously in Michener's novel) and there is a nice essay about it here:  http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=1116 [bayjournal.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627160</id>
	<title>Re:Super!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269621960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it can solve all kinds of problems: for instance, lots of politically leftist brown people live near the equator. Therefore, GW is good since it will "solve" that problem by either flooding their houses or starving them to death. Now the Republican belief system makes sense!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it can solve all kinds of problems : for instance , lots of politically leftist brown people live near the equator .
Therefore , GW is good since it will " solve " that problem by either flooding their houses or starving them to death .
Now the Republican belief system makes sense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it can solve all kinds of problems: for instance, lots of politically leftist brown people live near the equator.
Therefore, GW is good since it will "solve" that problem by either flooding their houses or starving them to death.
Now the Republican belief system makes sense!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629982</id>
	<title>Flood Israel</title>
	<author>wild\_oscar</author>
	<datestamp>1269631200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, if only Israel and Palestine could be submerged...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if only Israel and Palestine could be submerged.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if only Israel and Palestine could be submerged...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31632010</id>
	<title>location on Google Maps</title>
	<author>ChrisCampbell47</author>
	<datestamp>1269596100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I came in here to see if someone had figured out and posted the Google Maps URL for this location.</p><p>Instead, even at +5, I've got 27 comments with the same tired "debate" about global warming.</p><p>Slashdot, you suck.</p><p>Here's the location, supposedly:</p><p><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=New+Moore+Island,+Bangladesh&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;cd=1&amp;split=0&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=23.875,57.630033&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=New+Moore+Island&amp;ll=21.638282,89.145126&amp;spn=0.213497,0.276031&amp;t=h&amp;z=12" title="google.com">http://maps.google.com/maps?q=New+Moore+Island,+Bangladesh&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;cd=1&amp;split=0&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=23.875,57.630033&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=New+Moore+Island&amp;ll=21.638282,89.145126&amp;spn=0.213497,0.276031&amp;t=h&amp;z=12</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I came in here to see if someone had figured out and posted the Google Maps URL for this location.Instead , even at + 5 , I 've got 27 comments with the same tired " debate " about global warming.Slashdot , you suck.Here 's the location , supposedly : http : //maps.google.com/maps ? q = New + Moore + Island , + Bangladesh&amp;ie = UTF8&amp;hl = en&amp;cd = 1&amp;split = 0&amp;sll = 37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn = 23.875,57.630033&amp;hq = &amp;hnear = New + Moore + Island&amp;ll = 21.638282,89.145126&amp;spn = 0.213497,0.276031&amp;t = h&amp;z = 12 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I came in here to see if someone had figured out and posted the Google Maps URL for this location.Instead, even at +5, I've got 27 comments with the same tired "debate" about global warming.Slashdot, you suck.Here's the location, supposedly:http://maps.google.com/maps?q=New+Moore+Island,+Bangladesh&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;cd=1&amp;split=0&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=23.875,57.630033&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=New+Moore+Island&amp;ll=21.638282,89.145126&amp;spn=0.213497,0.276031&amp;t=h&amp;z=12 [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626712</id>
	<title>The island is gone?1?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to skip all the obligatory <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"Lost"</a> [wikipedia.org] jokes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to skip all the obligatory " Lost " [ wikipedia.org ] jokes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to skip all the obligatory "Lost" [wikipedia.org] jokes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628030</id>
	<title>I swear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269624960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terry Pratchett wrote a book about this...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A weathercock has risen from the sea of Discworld, and suddenly you can tell which way the wind is blowing. A new land has surfaced, and so have old feuds. And as two armies march, Commander Vimes of Ankh-Morpork City Watch has got just a few hours to deal with a crime so big that there's no law against it. It's called 'war'.</p><p>He's facing unpleasant foes that are out to get him that's just the people on his side. The enemy might even be worse. And his pocket Dis-organizer says he's got Die under 'Things To Do Today'.</p><p>But he'd better not, because the world's cleverest inventor and its most devious politician are on their way to the battlefield with a little package that's guaranteed to stop a battle.</p><p>Discworld goes to war, with armies of sardines, warriors, fishermen, squid and at least one very camp follower. Jingo is the twenty-first in Terry Pratchett's phenomenally successful Discworld series.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Terry Pratchett wrote a book about this...A weathercock has risen from the sea of Discworld , and suddenly you can tell which way the wind is blowing .
A new land has surfaced , and so have old feuds .
And as two armies march , Commander Vimes of Ankh-Morpork City Watch has got just a few hours to deal with a crime so big that there 's no law against it .
It 's called 'war'.He 's facing unpleasant foes that are out to get him that 's just the people on his side .
The enemy might even be worse .
And his pocket Dis-organizer says he 's got Die under 'Things To Do Today'.But he 'd better not , because the world 's cleverest inventor and its most devious politician are on their way to the battlefield with a little package that 's guaranteed to stop a battle.Discworld goes to war , with armies of sardines , warriors , fishermen , squid and at least one very camp follower .
Jingo is the twenty-first in Terry Pratchett 's phenomenally successful Discworld series .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terry Pratchett wrote a book about this...A weathercock has risen from the sea of Discworld, and suddenly you can tell which way the wind is blowing.
A new land has surfaced, and so have old feuds.
And as two armies march, Commander Vimes of Ankh-Morpork City Watch has got just a few hours to deal with a crime so big that there's no law against it.
It's called 'war'.He's facing unpleasant foes that are out to get him that's just the people on his side.
The enemy might even be worse.
And his pocket Dis-organizer says he's got Die under 'Things To Do Today'.But he'd better not, because the world's cleverest inventor and its most devious politician are on their way to the battlefield with a little package that's guaranteed to stop a battle.Discworld goes to war, with armies of sardines, warriors, fishermen, squid and at least one very camp follower.
Jingo is the twenty-first in Terry Pratchett's phenomenally successful Discworld series.
.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629678</id>
	<title>Nonsense</title>
	<author>m.dillon</author>
	<datestamp>1269630180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is absolutely nothing here that a Nuke couldn't also have fixed.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is absolutely nothing here that a Nuke could n't also have fixed.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is absolutely nothing here that a Nuke couldn't also have fixed.-Matt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626828</id>
	<title>Re:"Always attribute to global warming...</title>
	<author>danbert8</author>
	<datestamp>1269620340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, according to the USGS, the Himalayas are rising approximately 1cm per year (likely to assume land can drop that fast due to tectonic activity as well).  According to the first line of the wikipedia page, the rate of ocean rise has averaged 1.8mm per year.  So tectonics can be over 5 times as fast as ocean rising.  Geological processes can quickly raise, lower, or split land.  In an earthquake, landmasses can move several METERS in minutes.  Tectonics is vastly more powerful than even the worst predictions of global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , according to the USGS , the Himalayas are rising approximately 1cm per year ( likely to assume land can drop that fast due to tectonic activity as well ) .
According to the first line of the wikipedia page , the rate of ocean rise has averaged 1.8mm per year .
So tectonics can be over 5 times as fast as ocean rising .
Geological processes can quickly raise , lower , or split land .
In an earthquake , landmasses can move several METERS in minutes .
Tectonics is vastly more powerful than even the worst predictions of global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, according to the USGS, the Himalayas are rising approximately 1cm per year (likely to assume land can drop that fast due to tectonic activity as well).
According to the first line of the wikipedia page, the rate of ocean rise has averaged 1.8mm per year.
So tectonics can be over 5 times as fast as ocean rising.
Geological processes can quickly raise, lower, or split land.
In an earthquake, landmasses can move several METERS in minutes.
Tectonics is vastly more powerful than even the worst predictions of global warming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31638090</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>nadaou</author>
	<datestamp>1269688140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hint: it's not the current rate, it's the rate of change which is important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hint : it 's not the current rate , it 's the rate of change which is important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hint: it's not the current rate, it's the rate of change which is important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</id>
	<title>Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article, sea level has been rising by 0.2 inches per year.  This would imply a rise of about two inches since 2000.  Over the previous twenty years (back to the origin of the dispute over the island), the rise would have been about 2.4 inches, using the figures in the article.  So the island, <em>at its highest point</em> would have been less than five inches above sea level.</p><p>According to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Moore\_Island" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia entry</a> [wikipedia.org], the "highest elevation of the island had never exceeded two meters above sea level."  Which would indicate that it was at least one meter above sea level at some point, meaning that the cited increases in sea level could not have accounted for the disappearance of the island.  For the quoted rise in sea level over time, it would take about 330 years for the sea to rise one meter.</p><p>Yet "oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta" said "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming." One would think that a university professor would have a slightly better grasp of the numbers than that.  It helps nothing to make clearly false claims about the effects of climate change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , sea level has been rising by 0.2 inches per year .
This would imply a rise of about two inches since 2000 .
Over the previous twenty years ( back to the origin of the dispute over the island ) , the rise would have been about 2.4 inches , using the figures in the article .
So the island , at its highest point would have been less than five inches above sea level.According to the Wikipedia entry [ wikipedia.org ] , the " highest elevation of the island had never exceeded two meters above sea level .
" Which would indicate that it was at least one meter above sea level at some point , meaning that the cited increases in sea level could not have accounted for the disappearance of the island .
For the quoted rise in sea level over time , it would take about 330 years for the sea to rise one meter.Yet " oceanographer Sugata Hazra , a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta " said " What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking , has been resolved by global warming .
" One would think that a university professor would have a slightly better grasp of the numbers than that .
It helps nothing to make clearly false claims about the effects of climate change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, sea level has been rising by 0.2 inches per year.
This would imply a rise of about two inches since 2000.
Over the previous twenty years (back to the origin of the dispute over the island), the rise would have been about 2.4 inches, using the figures in the article.
So the island, at its highest point would have been less than five inches above sea level.According to the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org], the "highest elevation of the island had never exceeded two meters above sea level.
"  Which would indicate that it was at least one meter above sea level at some point, meaning that the cited increases in sea level could not have accounted for the disappearance of the island.
For the quoted rise in sea level over time, it would take about 330 years for the sea to rise one meter.Yet "oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta" said "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming.
" One would think that a university professor would have a slightly better grasp of the numbers than that.
It helps nothing to make clearly false claims about the effects of climate change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626880</id>
	<title>John Locke must have turned that wheel...</title>
	<author>doubleyou</author>
	<datestamp>1269620520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charles Widmore will not be happy to hear this news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charles Widmore will not be happy to hear this news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charles Widmore will not be happy to hear this news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31647174</id>
	<title>when dinosaurs...</title>
	<author>psyph3r</author>
	<datestamp>1269790740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CO2 PPM<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..2500ppm
Co2 today? less than 400ppm.
I'm quite sure the earth isn't going to stop it's natural cycles because of our pathetic existence. Especially not because of CO2, which is a common byproduct of most lifeforms on planet. In the grand scheme of things we are truly insignificant. any extra we put out just means the earth can support more plant life. I see this as an opportunistic piece to point at and convince people of the new terrorism. I'd be all for a cleaner environment and conserving resources if it weren't wrapped in sensationalist tyrannical agendas out to control the population.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 PPM ..2500ppm Co2 today ?
less than 400ppm .
I 'm quite sure the earth is n't going to stop it 's natural cycles because of our pathetic existence .
Especially not because of CO2 , which is a common byproduct of most lifeforms on planet .
In the grand scheme of things we are truly insignificant .
any extra we put out just means the earth can support more plant life .
I see this as an opportunistic piece to point at and convince people of the new terrorism .
I 'd be all for a cleaner environment and conserving resources if it were n't wrapped in sensationalist tyrannical agendas out to control the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 PPM ..2500ppm
Co2 today?
less than 400ppm.
I'm quite sure the earth isn't going to stop it's natural cycles because of our pathetic existence.
Especially not because of CO2, which is a common byproduct of most lifeforms on planet.
In the grand scheme of things we are truly insignificant.
any extra we put out just means the earth can support more plant life.
I see this as an opportunistic piece to point at and convince people of the new terrorism.
I'd be all for a cleaner environment and conserving resources if it weren't wrapped in sensationalist tyrannical agendas out to control the population.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</id>
	<title>Wait - what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: <i>Until 2000, the sea levels rose about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year, but over the last decade they have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annually</i></p><p>So er we're talking a foot of water every 60 years? Sounds almost scary, except when you put it into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial\_Sea\_Level.png" title="wikipedia.org">context</a> [wikipedia.org]. Increases in sea level are not new phenomena. No doubt they were produced by all that fossil fuel consumption 20,000 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Until 2000 , the sea levels rose about 3 millimeters ( 0.12 inches ) a year , but over the last decade they have been rising about 5 millimeters ( 0.2 inches ) annuallySo er we 're talking a foot of water every 60 years ?
Sounds almost scary , except when you put it into context [ wikipedia.org ] .
Increases in sea level are not new phenomena .
No doubt they were produced by all that fossil fuel consumption 20,000 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: Until 2000, the sea levels rose about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year, but over the last decade they have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annuallySo er we're talking a foot of water every 60 years?
Sounds almost scary, except when you put it into context [wikipedia.org].
Increases in sea level are not new phenomena.
No doubt they were produced by all that fossil fuel consumption 20,000 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628362</id>
	<title>Obligatory LOST reference</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1269625860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are they sure it's actually gone? Maybe Benjamin Linus or John Locke just moved it -- again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they sure it 's actually gone ?
Maybe Benjamin Linus or John Locke just moved it -- again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they sure it's actually gone?
Maybe Benjamin Linus or John Locke just moved it -- again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626076</id>
	<title>!atlantis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should be tagged !atlantis imho.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be tagged ! atlantis imho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be tagged !atlantis imho.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628626</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269626820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the basic problem with the theory of man-made global climate change -- people who believe in it whip it out to explain lots of things that have nothing to do with it.</p><p>The best scientific data that we have on earth temperature and CO2 levels shows that CO2 level rise *follows* temperature rise.  Earth has had CO2 levels more than 3X what current levels are -- and then ice ages happened, as CO2 levels continued to rise for some 400-800 years after the average temperature began to plummet.  Unless you want to make a case for CO2 being capable of affecting temperatures *in the past*, the data just doesn't support CO2 as being the problem.  The science also shows that the earth goes through regular cycles of temperature change -- periods of warming, with much longer periods of ice ages.  We're currently in a bit of a warm period.  But if the cycle repeats itself -- and it probably will -- we can expect cooling to happen again.</p><p>There are a lot of good arguments for reducing pollution.  Problem is, CO2 isn't a "pollutant" we need to be concerned with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the basic problem with the theory of man-made global climate change -- people who believe in it whip it out to explain lots of things that have nothing to do with it.The best scientific data that we have on earth temperature and CO2 levels shows that CO2 level rise * follows * temperature rise .
Earth has had CO2 levels more than 3X what current levels are -- and then ice ages happened , as CO2 levels continued to rise for some 400-800 years after the average temperature began to plummet .
Unless you want to make a case for CO2 being capable of affecting temperatures * in the past * , the data just does n't support CO2 as being the problem .
The science also shows that the earth goes through regular cycles of temperature change -- periods of warming , with much longer periods of ice ages .
We 're currently in a bit of a warm period .
But if the cycle repeats itself -- and it probably will -- we can expect cooling to happen again.There are a lot of good arguments for reducing pollution .
Problem is , CO2 is n't a " pollutant " we need to be concerned with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the basic problem with the theory of man-made global climate change -- people who believe in it whip it out to explain lots of things that have nothing to do with it.The best scientific data that we have on earth temperature and CO2 levels shows that CO2 level rise *follows* temperature rise.
Earth has had CO2 levels more than 3X what current levels are -- and then ice ages happened, as CO2 levels continued to rise for some 400-800 years after the average temperature began to plummet.
Unless you want to make a case for CO2 being capable of affecting temperatures *in the past*, the data just doesn't support CO2 as being the problem.
The science also shows that the earth goes through regular cycles of temperature change -- periods of warming, with much longer periods of ice ages.
We're currently in a bit of a warm period.
But if the cycle repeats itself -- and it probably will -- we can expect cooling to happen again.There are a lot of good arguments for reducing pollution.
Problem is, CO2 isn't a "pollutant" we need to be concerned with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004</id>
	<title>"Always attribute to global warming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... what can easily be dismissed as an otherwise natural process, like plate tectonics.  That's how you get PAID, my Ivy League brothas!" -- Al Gore</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... what can easily be dismissed as an otherwise natural process , like plate tectonics .
That 's how you get PAID , my Ivy League brothas !
" -- Al Gore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... what can easily be dismissed as an otherwise natural process, like plate tectonics.
That's how you get PAID, my Ivy League brothas!
" -- Al Gore</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31638832</id>
	<title>It's known as Continental Drift!!</title>
	<author>howzit</author>
	<datestamp>1269698880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that 'Ex-Spurts' are so narrow minded? The Christmas Tsunami was the result of volcanic activity in the Indian Ocean. The Himalayas are fold-mountains caused by India moving North and China having non of it.
The epicentre of the Chilean Quake rose  more than a meter (3 feet) in a matter of seconds. What goes up can come down. Even a sandbar island.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that 'Ex-Spurts ' are so narrow minded ?
The Christmas Tsunami was the result of volcanic activity in the Indian Ocean .
The Himalayas are fold-mountains caused by India moving North and China having non of it .
The epicentre of the Chilean Quake rose more than a meter ( 3 feet ) in a matter of seconds .
What goes up can come down .
Even a sandbar island .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that 'Ex-Spurts' are so narrow minded?
The Christmas Tsunami was the result of volcanic activity in the Indian Ocean.
The Himalayas are fold-mountains caused by India moving North and China having non of it.
The epicentre of the Chilean Quake rose  more than a meter (3 feet) in a matter of seconds.
What goes up can come down.
Even a sandbar island.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628098</id>
	<title>Re:Local Sea Level Rise???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269625140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/boyersmile/838704" title="cafepress.com" rel="nofollow">Stop Plate Tectonics!</a> [cafepress.com]</p><p>Think of the children!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop Plate Tectonics !
[ cafepress.com ] Think of the children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop Plate Tectonics!
[cafepress.com]Think of the children!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626832</id>
	<title>Fox logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269620400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Global warming? That's silly. It's snowing right now in parts of the United States so using simple Fox News logic global warming is false and couldn't have taken it. It has to be God being angry and taking away land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global warming ?
That 's silly .
It 's snowing right now in parts of the United States so using simple Fox News logic global warming is false and could n't have taken it .
It has to be God being angry and taking away land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global warming?
That's silly.
It's snowing right now in parts of the United States so using simple Fox News logic global warming is false and couldn't have taken it.
It has to be God being angry and taking away land.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627576</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>painandgreed</author>
	<datestamp>1269623520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>So er we're talking a foot of water every 60 years? Sounds almost scary, except when you put it into context [wikipedia.org].</i> </p><p>Actually, that is pretty scary once you put it into context. That's ten meters every two thousand years. Or rather as much rise in sea level in the next two thousand years as we've seen in the last eight thousand years. The sea level rise rate would essentially be back to the steep slope that it was when the ice age glaciers were melting as opposed to the shallow slope that it has been for the last eight thousand years according to that graph.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So er we 're talking a foot of water every 60 years ?
Sounds almost scary , except when you put it into context [ wikipedia.org ] .
Actually , that is pretty scary once you put it into context .
That 's ten meters every two thousand years .
Or rather as much rise in sea level in the next two thousand years as we 've seen in the last eight thousand years .
The sea level rise rate would essentially be back to the steep slope that it was when the ice age glaciers were melting as opposed to the shallow slope that it has been for the last eight thousand years according to that graph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So er we're talking a foot of water every 60 years?
Sounds almost scary, except when you put it into context [wikipedia.org].
Actually, that is pretty scary once you put it into context.
That's ten meters every two thousand years.
Or rather as much rise in sea level in the next two thousand years as we've seen in the last eight thousand years.
The sea level rise rate would essentially be back to the steep slope that it was when the ice age glaciers were melting as opposed to the shallow slope that it has been for the last eight thousand years according to that graph.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626352</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>mindcorrosive</author>
	<datestamp>1269618660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>More like Nuthin' Atol (hat tip to Guybrush Threepwood)</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like Nuthin ' Atol ( hat tip to Guybrush Threepwood )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like Nuthin' Atol (hat tip to Guybrush Threepwood)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626430</id>
	<title>is that photo real ? YAHOO punted</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1269618900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>a few days ago this was a top story on yahoo home page, with another picture, if you right clicked on the photo on th yahoo site, the info strongly suggested the photo was stock of someplace else, aka a lie</htmltext>
<tokenext>a few days ago this was a top story on yahoo home page , with another picture , if you right clicked on the photo on th yahoo site , the info strongly suggested the photo was stock of someplace else , aka a lie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a few days ago this was a top story on yahoo home page, with another picture, if you right clicked on the photo on th yahoo site, the info strongly suggested the photo was stock of someplace else, aka a lie</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626118</id>
	<title>Super!</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1269617880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, we just need to understand that global climate change isn't good or bad.  It's both.  It solves problems and creates them.  We just have to accept that it will happen, and continue to do whatever we're doing.  No need to change anything, just ride out the changes.  We can live without coral and fish.  It'll be fine.  Because now we have less land to fight over.  Which will result in less conflict because we'll be able to peacefully come to agreements about how to divide the less amount of remaining land that we now have.  See?  It all balances out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , we just need to understand that global climate change is n't good or bad .
It 's both .
It solves problems and creates them .
We just have to accept that it will happen , and continue to do whatever we 're doing .
No need to change anything , just ride out the changes .
We can live without coral and fish .
It 'll be fine .
Because now we have less land to fight over .
Which will result in less conflict because we 'll be able to peacefully come to agreements about how to divide the less amount of remaining land that we now have .
See ? It all balances out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, we just need to understand that global climate change isn't good or bad.
It's both.
It solves problems and creates them.
We just have to accept that it will happen, and continue to do whatever we're doing.
No need to change anything, just ride out the changes.
We can live without coral and fish.
It'll be fine.
Because now we have less land to fight over.
Which will result in less conflict because we'll be able to peacefully come to agreements about how to divide the less amount of remaining land that we now have.
See?  It all balances out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626114</id>
	<title>Re:"Always attribute to global warming...</title>
	<author>Errol backfiring</author>
	<datestamp>1269617880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So <b>THAT</b> is why I see all these geese who have never belonged here forming a real plague now. It's because the drop-dead obvious does not exist...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So THAT is why I see all these geese who have never belonged here forming a real plague now .
It 's because the drop-dead obvious does not exist.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So THAT is why I see all these geese who have never belonged here forming a real plague now.
It's because the drop-dead obvious does not exist...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627606</id>
	<title>Re:"Never let scientific evidence..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269623700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what kind of logical fallacy is:</p><p>Al Gore is fat because he's wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what kind of logical fallacy is : Al Gore is fat because he 's wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what kind of logical fallacy is:Al Gore is fat because he's wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629278</id>
	<title>Re:You pussy kids today</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1269628860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm right there with you brother.  Live in a first strike target zone (next to major east coast naval base) and remember that irrational fear well, running around the back of my mind...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm right there with you brother .
Live in a first strike target zone ( next to major east coast naval base ) and remember that irrational fear well , running around the back of my mind.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm right there with you brother.
Live in a first strike target zone (next to major east coast naval base) and remember that irrational fear well, running around the back of my mind...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31631662</id>
	<title>Google Paint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269594720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me, or has Google Maps been...painted...in that area?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me , or has Google Maps been...painted...in that area ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me, or has Google Maps been...painted...in that area?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627492</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1269623280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet "oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta" said "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming." One would think that a university professor would have a slightly better grasp of the numbers than that.  It helps nothing to make clearly false claims about the effects of climate change.</p></div><p>Agreed.  Loss of a small island mass is more likely to be due to water-based excavation below the surface and the resultant settling of the land mass.  We don't know, for example, that this island is on bedrock.  If it is a silt deposit, then there's no reason to assume it has permanence in anything but the shortest time spans.  That part of the world is one huge river delta, lending credence to the silt deposit idea.</p><p>A couple of web clicks, and WIkipedia's introductory, summary sentence says it all: "South Talpatti Island as it was known in Bangladesh, or New Moore Island or Purbasha as it was known in India, was a small uninhabited offshore island that emerged in the Bay of Bengal in the aftermath of the Bhola cyclone in 1970 and disappeared at some later point."  Therefore we can conclude that it was unlikely to be Global Warming / Climate Change, or whathaveyou in this case, but, rather, normal above and below-surface erosion and settling.  It would appear that Prof. Hazara has made a naive mistake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet " oceanographer Sugata Hazra , a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta " said " What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking , has been resolved by global warming .
" One would think that a university professor would have a slightly better grasp of the numbers than that .
It helps nothing to make clearly false claims about the effects of climate change.Agreed .
Loss of a small island mass is more likely to be due to water-based excavation below the surface and the resultant settling of the land mass .
We do n't know , for example , that this island is on bedrock .
If it is a silt deposit , then there 's no reason to assume it has permanence in anything but the shortest time spans .
That part of the world is one huge river delta , lending credence to the silt deposit idea.A couple of web clicks , and WIkipedia 's introductory , summary sentence says it all : " South Talpatti Island as it was known in Bangladesh , or New Moore Island or Purbasha as it was known in India , was a small uninhabited offshore island that emerged in the Bay of Bengal in the aftermath of the Bhola cyclone in 1970 and disappeared at some later point .
" Therefore we can conclude that it was unlikely to be Global Warming / Climate Change , or whathaveyou in this case , but , rather , normal above and below-surface erosion and settling .
It would appear that Prof. Hazara has made a naive mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet "oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta" said "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming.
" One would think that a university professor would have a slightly better grasp of the numbers than that.
It helps nothing to make clearly false claims about the effects of climate change.Agreed.
Loss of a small island mass is more likely to be due to water-based excavation below the surface and the resultant settling of the land mass.
We don't know, for example, that this island is on bedrock.
If it is a silt deposit, then there's no reason to assume it has permanence in anything but the shortest time spans.
That part of the world is one huge river delta, lending credence to the silt deposit idea.A couple of web clicks, and WIkipedia's introductory, summary sentence says it all: "South Talpatti Island as it was known in Bangladesh, or New Moore Island or Purbasha as it was known in India, was a small uninhabited offshore island that emerged in the Bay of Bengal in the aftermath of the Bhola cyclone in 1970 and disappeared at some later point.
"  Therefore we can conclude that it was unlikely to be Global Warming / Climate Change, or whathaveyou in this case, but, rather, normal above and below-surface erosion and settling.
It would appear that Prof. Hazara has made a naive mistake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627174</id>
	<title>Re:If it is barely under water- call it Fiji.</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1269622020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's in the Shetlands that sheep have gotten used to grazing alga by swimming in the ocean shore. Probably a baby step to becoming cousins with dolphins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's in the Shetlands that sheep have gotten used to grazing alga by swimming in the ocean shore .
Probably a baby step to becoming cousins with dolphins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's in the Shetlands that sheep have gotten used to grazing alga by swimming in the ocean shore.
Probably a baby step to becoming cousins with dolphins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31631324</id>
	<title>Nothing to do with AGW and sea levels!</title>
	<author>spencertk</author>
	<datestamp>1269636540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a lousy initial post regarding sea level causing this little disputed bump to disappear.  It is such an outrageous lie as is the associated image.

Sea levels have been rising slowly and steadily for well over a century.  Check out <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-Sea-Level-Rise.html" title="skepticalscience.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-Sea-Level-Rise.html</a> [skepticalscience.com] for an excellent very recent article with a chart from back to 1870 along with very recent highly accurate data.  Pretty minimal changes in past 140 years.  At least seven author/sources are noted.  Even the modest rate of change in continued rise since the 40's is well within natural variability in eon scale cycles.  In the past 20 years the sea level has <i>fallen</i> in some areas!
<br> <br>
During the dispute time frame, the sea level rose a bit less than 3 inches.  Had this occurred in the late 1800's the sea level would have risen a bit more than 2 inches.
<br>See: <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/sea-level-tidal-satellite.jpg" title="skepticalscience.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/sea-level-tidal-satellite.jpg</a> [skepticalscience.com] for the first chart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a lousy initial post regarding sea level causing this little disputed bump to disappear .
It is such an outrageous lie as is the associated image .
Sea levels have been rising slowly and steadily for well over a century .
Check out http : //www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-Sea-Level-Rise.html [ skepticalscience.com ] for an excellent very recent article with a chart from back to 1870 along with very recent highly accurate data .
Pretty minimal changes in past 140 years .
At least seven author/sources are noted .
Even the modest rate of change in continued rise since the 40 's is well within natural variability in eon scale cycles .
In the past 20 years the sea level has fallen in some areas !
During the dispute time frame , the sea level rose a bit less than 3 inches .
Had this occurred in the late 1800 's the sea level would have risen a bit more than 2 inches .
See : http : //www.skepticalscience.com/images/sea-level-tidal-satellite.jpg [ skepticalscience.com ] for the first chart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a lousy initial post regarding sea level causing this little disputed bump to disappear.
It is such an outrageous lie as is the associated image.
Sea levels have been rising slowly and steadily for well over a century.
Check out http://www.skepticalscience.com/Visual-depictions-of-Sea-Level-Rise.html [skepticalscience.com] for an excellent very recent article with a chart from back to 1870 along with very recent highly accurate data.
Pretty minimal changes in past 140 years.
At least seven author/sources are noted.
Even the modest rate of change in continued rise since the 40's is well within natural variability in eon scale cycles.
In the past 20 years the sea level has fallen in some areas!
During the dispute time frame, the sea level rose a bit less than 3 inches.
Had this occurred in the late 1800's the sea level would have risen a bit more than 2 inches.
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/sea-level-tidal-satellite.jpg [skepticalscience.com] for the first chart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626976</id>
	<title>Wrong move, pal.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269620940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are things called earthquakes, you know. Which can produce displacements of several meters in two minutes.</p><p>(well, in that case it is rather the river deposits dynamics which are the first-order contributor)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are things called earthquakes , you know .
Which can produce displacements of several meters in two minutes .
( well , in that case it is rather the river deposits dynamics which are the first-order contributor )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are things called earthquakes, you know.
Which can produce displacements of several meters in two minutes.
(well, in that case it is rather the river deposits dynamics which are the first-order contributor)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626380</id>
	<title>Fine then...</title>
	<author>Sandhog</author>
	<datestamp>1269618780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I can't have it, then nobody can have it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I ca n't have it , then nobody can have it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I can't have it, then nobody can have it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626334</id>
	<title>Re:"Always attribute to global warming...</title>
	<author>rrkbogie</author>
	<datestamp>1269618660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's lots of information available on the subsidence, via plate tectonics, of the Bay of Bengal, for exameple:</p><p><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6V6X-4B4PWYT-1&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_coverDate=02\%2F02\%2F2004&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=high&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;\_searchStrId=1269324457&amp;\_rerunOrigin=google&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=098986c85bd272474f1579b29771b39c" title="sciencedirect.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6V6X-4B4PWYT-1&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_coverDate=02\%2F02\%2F2004&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=high&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;\_searchStrId=1269324457&amp;\_rerunOrigin=google&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=098986c85bd272474f1579b29771b39c</a> [sciencedirect.com]</p><p>The islands are made of silt deposited by the river, and rise and fall depending or whether or not the river floods are depositing mud and building up islands faster than wave erosion and subsidence of the underlying plate are taking them down.    The process is weather dependent, but weather is not the only significant force at work.  The islands have come and gone before and will do so again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's lots of information available on the subsidence , via plate tectonics , of the Bay of Bengal , for exameple : http : //www.sciencedirect.com/science ? \ _ob = ArticleURL&amp; \ _udi = B6V6X-4B4PWYT-1&amp; \ _user = 10&amp; \ _coverDate = 02 \ % 2F02 \ % 2F2004&amp; \ _rdoc = 1&amp; \ _fmt = high&amp; \ _orig = search&amp; \ _sort = d&amp; \ _docanchor = &amp;view = c&amp; \ _searchStrId = 1269324457&amp; \ _rerunOrigin = google&amp; \ _acct = C000050221&amp; \ _version = 1&amp; \ _urlVersion = 0&amp; \ _userid = 10&amp;md5 = 098986c85bd272474f1579b29771b39c [ sciencedirect.com ] The islands are made of silt deposited by the river , and rise and fall depending or whether or not the river floods are depositing mud and building up islands faster than wave erosion and subsidence of the underlying plate are taking them down .
The process is weather dependent , but weather is not the only significant force at work .
The islands have come and gone before and will do so again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's lots of information available on the subsidence, via plate tectonics, of the Bay of Bengal, for exameple:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6V6X-4B4PWYT-1&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_coverDate=02\%2F02\%2F2004&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=high&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;\_searchStrId=1269324457&amp;\_rerunOrigin=google&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=098986c85bd272474f1579b29771b39c [sciencedirect.com]The islands are made of silt deposited by the river, and rise and fall depending or whether or not the river floods are depositing mud and building up islands faster than wave erosion and subsidence of the underlying plate are taking them down.
The process is weather dependent, but weather is not the only significant force at work.
The islands have come and gone before and will do so again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626416</id>
	<title>Re:"Always attribute to global warming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Attribute to plate tectonics? You mean the incredibly slow process whereby the continental plates move around? The process that's so slow that it couldn't make effects like this at the rate we're seeing?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... nah, you clearly mean some thing else that goes by the name plate tectonics. Sadly, I've never heard of another meaning. Please enlighten us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Attribute to plate tectonics ?
You mean the incredibly slow process whereby the continental plates move around ?
The process that 's so slow that it could n't make effects like this at the rate we 're seeing ?
... nah , you clearly mean some thing else that goes by the name plate tectonics .
Sadly , I 've never heard of another meaning .
Please enlighten us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attribute to plate tectonics?
You mean the incredibly slow process whereby the continental plates move around?
The process that's so slow that it couldn't make effects like this at the rate we're seeing?
... nah, you clearly mean some thing else that goes by the name plate tectonics.
Sadly, I've never heard of another meaning.
Please enlighten us?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625974</id>
	<title>Fascinating</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1269617460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New Moore Island, eh?</p><p>So the new name is now No More Island, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New Moore Island , eh ? So the new name is now No More Island , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Moore Island, eh?So the new name is now No More Island, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626482</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Increases in sea level are not new phenomena.</p></div><p>Neither are world wars or mass extinctions, but I think we should work to avoid those.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Increases in sea level are not new phenomena.Neither are world wars or mass extinctions , but I think we should work to avoid those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Increases in sea level are not new phenomena.Neither are world wars or mass extinctions, but I think we should work to avoid those.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626426</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>kwbauer</author>
	<datestamp>1269618900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What other type of claim is there about the effects of climate change?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What other type of claim is there about the effects of climate change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What other type of claim is there about the effects of climate change?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627040</id>
	<title>Dispute over sandbar resolved</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1269621300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>Why was there a heated dispute?  Because the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/bengal-island-succumbs-to-global-warming-nonsense-ap-gets-nutty-over-loss-of-a-sandbar/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">island was at the mouth of the river</a> [wattsupwiththat.com] which forms the border between the two countries.</li><li>When did this dispute start?  When the island <a href="http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/10/01/d31001020323.htm" title="thedailystar.net">appeared in 1970 after a hurricane</a> [thedailystar.net].</li><li>What kind of island was it?  Sand and silt.  It's a sandbar.  Or it was, until it was washed away.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why was there a heated dispute ?
Because the island was at the mouth of the river [ wattsupwiththat.com ] which forms the border between the two countries.When did this dispute start ?
When the island appeared in 1970 after a hurricane [ thedailystar.net ] .What kind of island was it ?
Sand and silt .
It 's a sandbar .
Or it was , until it was washed away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Why was there a heated dispute?
Because the island was at the mouth of the river [wattsupwiththat.com] which forms the border between the two countries.When did this dispute start?
When the island appeared in 1970 after a hurricane [thedailystar.net].What kind of island was it?
Sand and silt.
It's a sandbar.
Or it was, until it was washed away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626848</id>
	<title>Jacob...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269620460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess we know how Lost ends now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess we know how Lost ends now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess we know how Lost ends now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628862</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1269627480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The doomers are drama queens and slippery in their predictions. The goalposts and degree of pending catastrophe are easily-changed variables. Whatever it takes to get alarmist headlines and the latest "scientific studies" blaming AGW for 3-eyed frogs, lack of smell in roses and the Red Sox winning the World Series.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The doomers are drama queens and slippery in their predictions .
The goalposts and degree of pending catastrophe are easily-changed variables .
Whatever it takes to get alarmist headlines and the latest " scientific studies " blaming AGW for 3-eyed frogs , lack of smell in roses and the Red Sox winning the World Series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The doomers are drama queens and slippery in their predictions.
The goalposts and degree of pending catastrophe are easily-changed variables.
Whatever it takes to get alarmist headlines and the latest "scientific studies" blaming AGW for 3-eyed frogs, lack of smell in roses and the Red Sox winning the World Series.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626526</id>
	<title>Re:Local Sea Level Rise???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sea level rise is not consistent across the whole of the ocean. Mainly because it's caused by thermal expansion of water, where it is warming up, and the warming, of course, is not consistent over the whole of the planet.<br>Bangladesh is in an area where sea levels are rising faster than average</p><p>http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2-3.html</p><p>Note: I'm not saying outright that the island was a victim of sea level rise caused by global warming - I don't know enough about the local geology to say that. I'm just pointing out that sea level does rise more quickly in some areas</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sea level rise is not consistent across the whole of the ocean .
Mainly because it 's caused by thermal expansion of water , where it is warming up , and the warming , of course , is not consistent over the whole of the planet.Bangladesh is in an area where sea levels are rising faster than averagehttp : //www.ipcc.ch/publications \ _and \ _data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2-3.htmlNote : I 'm not saying outright that the island was a victim of sea level rise caused by global warming - I do n't know enough about the local geology to say that .
I 'm just pointing out that sea level does rise more quickly in some areas</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sea level rise is not consistent across the whole of the ocean.
Mainly because it's caused by thermal expansion of water, where it is warming up, and the warming, of course, is not consistent over the whole of the planet.Bangladesh is in an area where sea levels are rising faster than averagehttp://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2-3.htmlNote: I'm not saying outright that the island was a victim of sea level rise caused by global warming - I don't know enough about the local geology to say that.
I'm just pointing out that sea level does rise more quickly in some areas</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627678</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1269623940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worked for Henry Kissinger</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worked for Henry Kissinger</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worked for Henry Kissinger</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629930</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1269630960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And since global warming is <strong>not</strong> George W. Bush, it seems to be perfectly qualified.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And since global warming is not George W. Bush , it seems to be perfectly qualified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And since global warming is not George W. Bush, it seems to be perfectly qualified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629784</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of kids.</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1269630480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have always thought the same thing. If the UN decided that Israel can exist, it can also decide that those holy sites are important and belong to the whole world. No one owns them. All are free to visit, but no one can live there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always thought the same thing .
If the UN decided that Israel can exist , it can also decide that those holy sites are important and belong to the whole world .
No one owns them .
All are free to visit , but no one can live there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always thought the same thing.
If the UN decided that Israel can exist, it can also decide that those holy sites are important and belong to the whole world.
No one owns them.
All are free to visit, but no one can live there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627328</id>
	<title>An Island over a sink hole?</title>
	<author>Jerry</author>
	<datestamp>1269622560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One can easily check the last 10 years of photos of that region and determine that the coastal area less than 3 miles from the island hasn't changed at all.  IF the ocean was rising enough to cover the island it should also move the shore back enough to be visible in the photos.  It hasn't.  I suspect that local subsidence and/or erosion is responsible.   But, when you religiously believe in the AGW Hammer everything you see is a nail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can easily check the last 10 years of photos of that region and determine that the coastal area less than 3 miles from the island has n't changed at all .
IF the ocean was rising enough to cover the island it should also move the shore back enough to be visible in the photos .
It has n't .
I suspect that local subsidence and/or erosion is responsible .
But , when you religiously believe in the AGW Hammer everything you see is a nail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can easily check the last 10 years of photos of that region and determine that the coastal area less than 3 miles from the island hasn't changed at all.
IF the ocean was rising enough to cover the island it should also move the shore back enough to be visible in the photos.
It hasn't.
I suspect that local subsidence and/or erosion is responsible.
But, when you religiously believe in the AGW Hammer everything you see is a nail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626766</id>
	<title>You pussy kids today</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1269620220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You kids today think you have it so tough because all you can come up with in your "WE ALL GONNA DIE!" scenario is that you might have to abandon a few coastal cities and loose a few fucking islands?!?!? Let me tell you something, ladies--back in my day, we had REAL fears, like nuclear winter. We had roving packs of post-nuclear-holocaust marauders ready to cut our heads off just to steal a lousy tank of gasoline and some shotgun shells in OUR fucking doomsday scenarios! Has a little rising seawater ever caused your hair and teeth to fall out? Huh? Has a little coastal flooding ever caused packs of cannibals to roam the lands looking to rape your wife and have you for dinner? I don't think so! Ever had a supercomputer start an apocalyptic war with some slowly melting ice caps? Not likely!</p><p>Grow up and get some real irrational fears, you pansies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You kids today think you have it so tough because all you can come up with in your " WE ALL GON NA DIE !
" scenario is that you might have to abandon a few coastal cities and loose a few fucking islands ? ! ? ! ?
Let me tell you something , ladies--back in my day , we had REAL fears , like nuclear winter .
We had roving packs of post-nuclear-holocaust marauders ready to cut our heads off just to steal a lousy tank of gasoline and some shotgun shells in OUR fucking doomsday scenarios !
Has a little rising seawater ever caused your hair and teeth to fall out ?
Huh ? Has a little coastal flooding ever caused packs of cannibals to roam the lands looking to rape your wife and have you for dinner ?
I do n't think so !
Ever had a supercomputer start an apocalyptic war with some slowly melting ice caps ?
Not likely ! Grow up and get some real irrational fears , you pansies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You kids today think you have it so tough because all you can come up with in your "WE ALL GONNA DIE!
" scenario is that you might have to abandon a few coastal cities and loose a few fucking islands?!?!?
Let me tell you something, ladies--back in my day, we had REAL fears, like nuclear winter.
We had roving packs of post-nuclear-holocaust marauders ready to cut our heads off just to steal a lousy tank of gasoline and some shotgun shells in OUR fucking doomsday scenarios!
Has a little rising seawater ever caused your hair and teeth to fall out?
Huh? Has a little coastal flooding ever caused packs of cannibals to roam the lands looking to rape your wife and have you for dinner?
I don't think so!
Ever had a supercomputer start an apocalyptic war with some slowly melting ice caps?
Not likely!Grow up and get some real irrational fears, you pansies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627004</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1269621120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but you cannot win a Nobel Prize unless you can say "America sucks". That's all that was necessary for Carter, Algore, and Barock to win one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but you can not win a Nobel Prize unless you can say " America sucks " .
That 's all that was necessary for Carter , Algore , and Barock to win one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but you cannot win a Nobel Prize unless you can say "America sucks".
That's all that was necessary for Carter, Algore, and Barock to win one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628244</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1269625560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand what your point is. Are you saying that because it has happened before (and nobody is disputing that), that is somehow isn't a problem? If sea level rises and begins wiping out portions of Manhattan, are you going to tell New Yorkers that they shouldn't worry about it because it's normal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand what your point is .
Are you saying that because it has happened before ( and nobody is disputing that ) , that is somehow is n't a problem ?
If sea level rises and begins wiping out portions of Manhattan , are you going to tell New Yorkers that they should n't worry about it because it 's normal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand what your point is.
Are you saying that because it has happened before (and nobody is disputing that), that is somehow isn't a problem?
If sea level rises and begins wiping out portions of Manhattan, are you going to tell New Yorkers that they shouldn't worry about it because it's normal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629010</id>
	<title>Re:Super!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>scarily enough, I believe some people have modded you up because they literally agreed with what you said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>scarily enough , I believe some people have modded you up because they literally agreed with what you said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>scarily enough, I believe some people have modded you up because they literally agreed with what you said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31632026</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1269596160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happens when the savings vanish like a puff of smoke in the wind?  Climate scientists have mostly agreed that there is nothing we can do about global warming at this point.  If we take action now, we will do so by stopping production of CO2.  The problem with that is that our entire global economy runs off of converting things into CO2 (even your basic life processes).  Putting a limit on CO2 emissions does enormous harm, impoverishing nations and retarding technological progress.  <br> <br>

A better solution is to simply do nothing, and deal with it at a later date when our technology is more advanced.  So what if the seas are a foot higher in a hundred years?  We'll be living in cities that float on the Ocean, or in habitats circling the Earth, or on Mars.  Ron Smith invented a molecular replication device that solved world hunger overnight, and has made poverty obsolete.  Jane LeBaron's genetic research now allows humans to live and work under the sea.  Or any of an infinite number of others amazing things that could happen.  But a further tax on an already heavily strained economy will do nothing more than sow discord and breed violence.  We are almost bankrupt as it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when the savings vanish like a puff of smoke in the wind ?
Climate scientists have mostly agreed that there is nothing we can do about global warming at this point .
If we take action now , we will do so by stopping production of CO2 .
The problem with that is that our entire global economy runs off of converting things into CO2 ( even your basic life processes ) .
Putting a limit on CO2 emissions does enormous harm , impoverishing nations and retarding technological progress .
A better solution is to simply do nothing , and deal with it at a later date when our technology is more advanced .
So what if the seas are a foot higher in a hundred years ?
We 'll be living in cities that float on the Ocean , or in habitats circling the Earth , or on Mars .
Ron Smith invented a molecular replication device that solved world hunger overnight , and has made poverty obsolete .
Jane LeBaron 's genetic research now allows humans to live and work under the sea .
Or any of an infinite number of others amazing things that could happen .
But a further tax on an already heavily strained economy will do nothing more than sow discord and breed violence .
We are almost bankrupt as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when the savings vanish like a puff of smoke in the wind?
Climate scientists have mostly agreed that there is nothing we can do about global warming at this point.
If we take action now, we will do so by stopping production of CO2.
The problem with that is that our entire global economy runs off of converting things into CO2 (even your basic life processes).
Putting a limit on CO2 emissions does enormous harm, impoverishing nations and retarding technological progress.
A better solution is to simply do nothing, and deal with it at a later date when our technology is more advanced.
So what if the seas are a foot higher in a hundred years?
We'll be living in cities that float on the Ocean, or in habitats circling the Earth, or on Mars.
Ron Smith invented a molecular replication device that solved world hunger overnight, and has made poverty obsolete.
Jane LeBaron's genetic research now allows humans to live and work under the sea.
Or any of an infinite number of others amazing things that could happen.
But a further tax on an already heavily strained economy will do nothing more than sow discord and breed violence.
We are almost bankrupt as it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627582</id>
	<title>bah...</title>
	<author>bjk002</author>
	<datestamp>1269623580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're just a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er, What do you know anyway?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're just a /.er , What do you know anyway ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're just a /.er, What do you know anyway?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31642934</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269687000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there are those that put the count at FOUR:<br>"Obama's Nobel Is the 'Not George W. Bush' Award"<br><a href="http://www.newser.com/story/71348/obamas-nobel-is-the-not-george-w-bush-award.html" title="newser.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newser.com/story/71348/obamas-nobel-is-the-not-george-w-bush-award.html</a> [newser.com]</p><p>gewg\_</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there are those that put the count at FOUR : " Obama 's Nobel Is the 'Not George W. Bush ' Award " http : //www.newser.com/story/71348/obamas-nobel-is-the-not-george-w-bush-award.html [ newser.com ] gewg \ _</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there are those that put the count at FOUR:"Obama's Nobel Is the 'Not George W. Bush' Award"http://www.newser.com/story/71348/obamas-nobel-is-the-not-george-w-bush-award.html [newser.com]gewg\_</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629288</id>
	<title>The good side</title>
	<author>ComSon0</author>
	<datestamp>1269628860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.'"
<br> <br>
Perhaps this "Global Warming" dude should initiate a practice in mediation.  Seems like he has a way to get arguments resolved.<br>
Go "Global Warming" dude!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking , has been resolved by global warming , " said Hazra .
' " Perhaps this " Global Warming " dude should initiate a practice in mediation .
Seems like he has a way to get arguments resolved .
Go " Global Warming " dude !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.
'"
 
Perhaps this "Global Warming" dude should initiate a practice in mediation.
Seems like he has a way to get arguments resolved.
Go "Global Warming" dude!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966</id>
	<title>Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say this year we nominate Global Warming for the Nobel Peace Prize for providing a peaceful solution to this heated dispute between Bangladesh and India.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say this year we nominate Global Warming for the Nobel Peace Prize for providing a peaceful solution to this heated dispute between Bangladesh and India .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say this year we nominate Global Warming for the Nobel Peace Prize for providing a peaceful solution to this heated dispute between Bangladesh and India.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626738</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1269620100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they didn't mention was that the "point" in question was on top of a politician's head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they did n't mention was that the " point " in question was on top of a politician 's head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they didn't mention was that the "point" in question was on top of a politician's head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630614</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269633660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thus sayeth the wikipedia and PBS. How scientific.</p><p>The climate changes, we aren't doing it, get over it. Got it? Good. The same heating and cooling trends can be found on other planets in the solar system. If people are displaced because the natural changes the earth has gone through for it's entire existence, well then, I'm sure we'll manage without the "enlightened help" of political fat cats and crooked "scientists" that are friends with said political fat cats. No amount of giving money to Al Gore's climate derivatives trading scam, or living like absolute paupers (while said rich fat cats live like kings) is going to change anything. The climate will still change as it naturally does, you'll be poorer, and the Climate Mafia will be quite wealthy with the steady stream of eco-guilt indulgences you pay to them.</p><p>Same thing old time religions used to do: Predict astronomical events, make up BS mythological prophecies to the ignorant masses to coincide with them, it naturally occurs, look all magical and stuff, ignorant masses give first born to be sacrificed in amazement and get the coin purse out, religious leader gets rich and powerful off of his scam. It's the oldest con job in the book.</p><p>Further: this is even to assume that there is an imminent and significant natural change happening, which the data (sans empty alarmism, fudging the numbers, and evangelizing) does not show. We've gone through much warmer and much colder. All in all, the climate is pretty stable and palatable compared to other periods of time. In fact, plant and animal life tend to thrive better when the temperature is a little warmer, especially if they've got extra C02. Not enough C02 and too low of temperatures is less hospitable to life. You watch too many Roland Emmerich movies.</p><p>By the way, people have been living in coastal areas far earlier than the industrial age. Coastal areas have always been more densely populated than inland ones, especially before the invention of air travel. Why? TRADE! People go where the money is, and there is more money where the trade is. Inland areas don't have seaports, so trading with someone who isn't directly connected to you (and likely has the same resources you do, defeating the purpose) is much less profitable as you have to buy it from the rich coastal territories for marked up prices (and travel times were much longer than they are today).</p><p>If you have to use mafia tactics to ensure you've got "a concensus", what's that say about your theory? It is a religious cult. It has no scientific or historical standing. It's pure bunkum for the purpose of turning a dirty buck. I guess these climate theorist people just really get a kick out of the whole "human guilt movement". Sorry, I don't buy it. No amount of psychological word games (such as equating someone who doesn't buy your scam with a holocaust denier), blatant propaganda (Popular Science says it's real, so it must be!), political speeches (politicians never lie!), white coat witch doctors (I look all sciencey and stuff. Look at my beard and glasses! Wanna buy a tonic?), or armchair science (The scientific method? What's that?) is going to legitimize what is obviously a total crock of crap. The science IS settled: Al Gore is a con-man. Enjoy your sunny day, you guilt-monger. Next!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus sayeth the wikipedia and PBS .
How scientific.The climate changes , we are n't doing it , get over it .
Got it ?
Good. The same heating and cooling trends can be found on other planets in the solar system .
If people are displaced because the natural changes the earth has gone through for it 's entire existence , well then , I 'm sure we 'll manage without the " enlightened help " of political fat cats and crooked " scientists " that are friends with said political fat cats .
No amount of giving money to Al Gore 's climate derivatives trading scam , or living like absolute paupers ( while said rich fat cats live like kings ) is going to change anything .
The climate will still change as it naturally does , you 'll be poorer , and the Climate Mafia will be quite wealthy with the steady stream of eco-guilt indulgences you pay to them.Same thing old time religions used to do : Predict astronomical events , make up BS mythological prophecies to the ignorant masses to coincide with them , it naturally occurs , look all magical and stuff , ignorant masses give first born to be sacrificed in amazement and get the coin purse out , religious leader gets rich and powerful off of his scam .
It 's the oldest con job in the book.Further : this is even to assume that there is an imminent and significant natural change happening , which the data ( sans empty alarmism , fudging the numbers , and evangelizing ) does not show .
We 've gone through much warmer and much colder .
All in all , the climate is pretty stable and palatable compared to other periods of time .
In fact , plant and animal life tend to thrive better when the temperature is a little warmer , especially if they 've got extra C02 .
Not enough C02 and too low of temperatures is less hospitable to life .
You watch too many Roland Emmerich movies.By the way , people have been living in coastal areas far earlier than the industrial age .
Coastal areas have always been more densely populated than inland ones , especially before the invention of air travel .
Why ? TRADE !
People go where the money is , and there is more money where the trade is .
Inland areas do n't have seaports , so trading with someone who is n't directly connected to you ( and likely has the same resources you do , defeating the purpose ) is much less profitable as you have to buy it from the rich coastal territories for marked up prices ( and travel times were much longer than they are today ) .If you have to use mafia tactics to ensure you 've got " a concensus " , what 's that say about your theory ?
It is a religious cult .
It has no scientific or historical standing .
It 's pure bunkum for the purpose of turning a dirty buck .
I guess these climate theorist people just really get a kick out of the whole " human guilt movement " .
Sorry , I do n't buy it .
No amount of psychological word games ( such as equating someone who does n't buy your scam with a holocaust denier ) , blatant propaganda ( Popular Science says it 's real , so it must be !
) , political speeches ( politicians never lie !
) , white coat witch doctors ( I look all sciencey and stuff .
Look at my beard and glasses !
Wan na buy a tonic ?
) , or armchair science ( The scientific method ?
What 's that ?
) is going to legitimize what is obviously a total crock of crap .
The science IS settled : Al Gore is a con-man .
Enjoy your sunny day , you guilt-monger .
Next !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus sayeth the wikipedia and PBS.
How scientific.The climate changes, we aren't doing it, get over it.
Got it?
Good. The same heating and cooling trends can be found on other planets in the solar system.
If people are displaced because the natural changes the earth has gone through for it's entire existence, well then, I'm sure we'll manage without the "enlightened help" of political fat cats and crooked "scientists" that are friends with said political fat cats.
No amount of giving money to Al Gore's climate derivatives trading scam, or living like absolute paupers (while said rich fat cats live like kings) is going to change anything.
The climate will still change as it naturally does, you'll be poorer, and the Climate Mafia will be quite wealthy with the steady stream of eco-guilt indulgences you pay to them.Same thing old time religions used to do: Predict astronomical events, make up BS mythological prophecies to the ignorant masses to coincide with them, it naturally occurs, look all magical and stuff, ignorant masses give first born to be sacrificed in amazement and get the coin purse out, religious leader gets rich and powerful off of his scam.
It's the oldest con job in the book.Further: this is even to assume that there is an imminent and significant natural change happening, which the data (sans empty alarmism, fudging the numbers, and evangelizing) does not show.
We've gone through much warmer and much colder.
All in all, the climate is pretty stable and palatable compared to other periods of time.
In fact, plant and animal life tend to thrive better when the temperature is a little warmer, especially if they've got extra C02.
Not enough C02 and too low of temperatures is less hospitable to life.
You watch too many Roland Emmerich movies.By the way, people have been living in coastal areas far earlier than the industrial age.
Coastal areas have always been more densely populated than inland ones, especially before the invention of air travel.
Why? TRADE!
People go where the money is, and there is more money where the trade is.
Inland areas don't have seaports, so trading with someone who isn't directly connected to you (and likely has the same resources you do, defeating the purpose) is much less profitable as you have to buy it from the rich coastal territories for marked up prices (and travel times were much longer than they are today).If you have to use mafia tactics to ensure you've got "a concensus", what's that say about your theory?
It is a religious cult.
It has no scientific or historical standing.
It's pure bunkum for the purpose of turning a dirty buck.
I guess these climate theorist people just really get a kick out of the whole "human guilt movement".
Sorry, I don't buy it.
No amount of psychological word games (such as equating someone who doesn't buy your scam with a holocaust denier), blatant propaganda (Popular Science says it's real, so it must be!
), political speeches (politicians never lie!
), white coat witch doctors (I look all sciencey and stuff.
Look at my beard and glasses!
Wanna buy a tonic?
), or armchair science (The scientific method?
What's that?
) is going to legitimize what is obviously a total crock of crap.
The science IS settled: Al Gore is a con-man.
Enjoy your sunny day, you guilt-monger.
Next!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626508</id>
	<title>Re:Rising sea level?</title>
	<author>KWolfe81</author>
	<datestamp>1269619260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You aren't taking into effect erosion.  As the rising sea passed a threshold erosion likely exacerbated.  Think of water behind a dyke.  As soon as a little water trickles over the edge, a small channel will grow quickly.  In this case, if it weren't for climate change and the rising sea, the island might have been fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't taking into effect erosion .
As the rising sea passed a threshold erosion likely exacerbated .
Think of water behind a dyke .
As soon as a little water trickles over the edge , a small channel will grow quickly .
In this case , if it were n't for climate change and the rising sea , the island might have been fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't taking into effect erosion.
As the rising sea passed a threshold erosion likely exacerbated.
Think of water behind a dyke.
As soon as a little water trickles over the edge, a small channel will grow quickly.
In this case, if it weren't for climate change and the rising sea, the island might have been fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626962</id>
	<title>Re:Local Sea Level Rise???</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1269620880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Sea levels can't just rise in one place.</i>Yes they can. It's the tidal effect caused by 1 billion Indians putting on a lot of weight lately...<br> <br>
Venice is also submerging, due mainly to subsidence, but aggravated by rising sea level and more powerful storms. I suspect it is a combination of factors in the Bay of Bengal as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sea levels ca n't just rise in one place.Yes they can .
It 's the tidal effect caused by 1 billion Indians putting on a lot of weight lately.. . Venice is also submerging , due mainly to subsidence , but aggravated by rising sea level and more powerful storms .
I suspect it is a combination of factors in the Bay of Bengal as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sea levels can't just rise in one place.Yes they can.
It's the tidal effect caused by 1 billion Indians putting on a lot of weight lately... 
Venice is also submerging, due mainly to subsidence, but aggravated by rising sea level and more powerful storms.
I suspect it is a combination of factors in the Bay of Bengal as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627046</id>
	<title>Let's make up</title>
	<author>dwood520</author>
	<datestamp>1269621300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK Bangladesh - you can have it.<br>Luv,<br>India</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK Bangladesh - you can have it.Luv,India</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK Bangladesh - you can have it.Luv,India</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31636930</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1269625800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually at the current rate of global warming we are seeing temperature changes in a couple of hundred years that would have taken 5,000 years normally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually at the current rate of global warming we are seeing temperature changes in a couple of hundred years that would have taken 5,000 years normally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually at the current rate of global warming we are seeing temperature changes in a couple of hundred years that would have taken 5,000 years normally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626324</id>
	<title>If it is barely under water- call it Fiji.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the water is still less than say 3 feet deep, crossbreed some sheep with dolphins and start farming leaping mutton!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the water is still less than say 3 feet deep , crossbreed some sheep with dolphins and start farming leaping mutton !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the water is still less than say 3 feet deep, crossbreed some sheep with dolphins and start farming leaping mutton!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627712</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1269624060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you assume a 1\% grade (probably less in lowland areas like Florida), a foot of sea level rise means the coast recedes by 100 feet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you assume a 1 \ % grade ( probably less in lowland areas like Florida ) , a foot of sea level rise means the coast recedes by 100 feet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you assume a 1\% grade (probably less in lowland areas like Florida), a foot of sea level rise means the coast recedes by 100 feet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628364</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269625860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, 20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons</p> </div><p>And you don't think those exact same processes are happening now?  The current fluctuations in temperature are nothing new, why they'd suddenly be caused by us is a complete mystery to me.  Influenced slightly I could see, but <i>caused</i>? Come on!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, 20,000 years ago we didn't have over 100 million people living in cities near the ocean. Over the next century, these millions of people will be displaced, or the land they're on will be protected, at a cost of trillions of dollars [pbs.org]. If we can avoid it by spending much less money, say, only one trillion dollars, it makes economic sense to do so.</p></div><p>And yet the rate of global warming was 1,000 times greater than it is now.</p><p>Hmmm...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , 20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons And you do n't think those exact same processes are happening now ?
The current fluctuations in temperature are nothing new , why they 'd suddenly be caused by us is a complete mystery to me .
Influenced slightly I could see , but caused ?
Come on ! Second , 20,000 years ago we did n't have over 100 million people living in cities near the ocean .
Over the next century , these millions of people will be displaced , or the land they 're on will be protected , at a cost of trillions of dollars [ pbs.org ] .
If we can avoid it by spending much less money , say , only one trillion dollars , it makes economic sense to do so.And yet the rate of global warming was 1,000 times greater than it is now.Hmmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, 20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons And you don't think those exact same processes are happening now?
The current fluctuations in temperature are nothing new, why they'd suddenly be caused by us is a complete mystery to me.
Influenced slightly I could see, but caused?
Come on!Second, 20,000 years ago we didn't have over 100 million people living in cities near the ocean.
Over the next century, these millions of people will be displaced, or the land they're on will be protected, at a cost of trillions of dollars [pbs.org].
If we can avoid it by spending much less money, say, only one trillion dollars, it makes economic sense to do so.And yet the rate of global warming was 1,000 times greater than it is now.Hmmm...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627534</id>
	<title>Peace Prize</title>
	<author>200\_success</author>
	<datestamp>1269623400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether it's global warming or the Internet, Al Gore has this year's Peace Prize coming to him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether it 's global warming or the Internet , Al Gore has this year 's Peace Prize coming to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether it's global warming or the Internet, Al Gore has this year's Peace Prize coming to him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627180</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1269622020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you are saying that if we have a cataclysm similar to glaciers melting 20,000 years ago, it's okay because it happened before?</p></div><p>What cataclysm? Doesn't seem to have hurt humanity and it probably lead to innovations like agriculture and civilization.<br> <br>

Even if such an event were to happen now (well over the next few centuries or millennia), it wouldn't be a big deal. We're not plants that are fixed in one place and will be stuck under tens of meters of water. We can move and will have huge amounts of time in which to do so. We can also float on boats. Just because an area becomes ocean doesn't mean that it becomes useless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are saying that if we have a cataclysm similar to glaciers melting 20,000 years ago , it 's okay because it happened before ? What cataclysm ?
Does n't seem to have hurt humanity and it probably lead to innovations like agriculture and civilization .
Even if such an event were to happen now ( well over the next few centuries or millennia ) , it would n't be a big deal .
We 're not plants that are fixed in one place and will be stuck under tens of meters of water .
We can move and will have huge amounts of time in which to do so .
We can also float on boats .
Just because an area becomes ocean does n't mean that it becomes useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are saying that if we have a cataclysm similar to glaciers melting 20,000 years ago, it's okay because it happened before?What cataclysm?
Doesn't seem to have hurt humanity and it probably lead to innovations like agriculture and civilization.
Even if such an event were to happen now (well over the next few centuries or millennia), it wouldn't be a big deal.
We're not plants that are fixed in one place and will be stuck under tens of meters of water.
We can move and will have huge amounts of time in which to do so.
We can also float on boats.
Just because an area becomes ocean doesn't mean that it becomes useless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268</id>
	<title>Re:Wait - what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice\_age#Causes\_of\_ice\_ages" title="wikipedia.org">20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons</a> [wikipedia.org]. No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels. Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however. 'Tis just a strawman.</p><p>Second, 20,000 years ago we didn't have over 100 million people living in cities near the ocean. Over the next century, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/program.html" title="pbs.org">these millions of people will be displaced, or the land they're on will be protected, at a cost of trillions of dollars</a> [pbs.org]. If we can avoid it by spending much less money, say, only one trillion dollars, it makes economic sense to do so.</p><p>Spending a trillion dollars sounds almost scary, except when you put in into context of saving several trillion dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , 20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons [ wikipedia.org ] .
No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels .
Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that , however .
'T is just a strawman.Second , 20,000 years ago we did n't have over 100 million people living in cities near the ocean .
Over the next century , these millions of people will be displaced , or the land they 're on will be protected , at a cost of trillions of dollars [ pbs.org ] .
If we can avoid it by spending much less money , say , only one trillion dollars , it makes economic sense to do so.Spending a trillion dollars sounds almost scary , except when you put in into context of saving several trillion dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, 20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons [wikipedia.org].
No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels.
Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however.
'Tis just a strawman.Second, 20,000 years ago we didn't have over 100 million people living in cities near the ocean.
Over the next century, these millions of people will be displaced, or the land they're on will be protected, at a cost of trillions of dollars [pbs.org].
If we can avoid it by spending much less money, say, only one trillion dollars, it makes economic sense to do so.Spending a trillion dollars sounds almost scary, except when you put in into context of saving several trillion dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626810</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269620340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, you're right, the Nobel committee has handed out <i>two</i> Nobel Prizes for <i> <b>NOT being George Bush</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr></i>.<br> <br>
That guy must suck. A lot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you 're right , the Nobel committee has handed out two Nobel Prizes for NOT being George Bush .
That guy must suck .
A lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you're right, the Nobel committee has handed out two Nobel Prizes for  NOT being George Bush .
That guy must suck.
A lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31638996</id>
	<title>Local Sea Level Rise???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269700260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the local sea level can rise relative to a land mass. For instance Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, sinks 2 millimetres each year and as a seaside city the sea level is rising albeit very slowly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the local sea level can rise relative to a land mass .
For instance Saint John , New Brunswick , Canada , sinks 2 millimetres each year and as a seaside city the sea level is rising albeit very slowly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the local sea level can rise relative to a land mass.
For instance Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, sinks 2 millimetres each year and as a seaside city the sea level is rising albeit very slowly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628954</id>
	<title>Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks!</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1269627720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[troll]Or to even <b>exist</b>...[/troll]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ troll ] Or to even exist... [ /troll ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[troll]Or to even exist...[/troll]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626936</id>
	<title>This is pus...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1269620760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the Wikipedia (I know) says New Moore Island was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Talpatti\_Island#Geography" title="wikipedia.org">never higher</a> [wikipedia.org] than two meters above the water.  Oh, and that was at low tide.  Was this any more than a shoal?</p><p>Are you (or the FA writer) claiming the ocean there has risen as much as more than a meter???</p><p>I call BS.  In fact, I suspect it was erosion that has claimed this island.  Maybe, MAYBE accelrated by a few centimeters rise in ocean level, if at all.  Wind and water do just fine on their own.  In fact, the island was close to, if not within, the main channel of the outlet of the Hariabhanga River.  Erosion and currents probably did it in.</p><p>What a pantload.  Global warming?  More likely predictable current-based erosion.</p><p>New Moore Island wasn't much of an island.  The river took it back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the Wikipedia ( I know ) says New Moore Island was never higher [ wikipedia.org ] than two meters above the water .
Oh , and that was at low tide .
Was this any more than a shoal ? Are you ( or the FA writer ) claiming the ocean there has risen as much as more than a meter ? ?
? I call BS .
In fact , I suspect it was erosion that has claimed this island .
Maybe , MAYBE accelrated by a few centimeters rise in ocean level , if at all .
Wind and water do just fine on their own .
In fact , the island was close to , if not within , the main channel of the outlet of the Hariabhanga River .
Erosion and currents probably did it in.What a pantload .
Global warming ?
More likely predictable current-based erosion.New Moore Island was n't much of an island .
The river took it back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the Wikipedia (I know) says New Moore Island was never higher [wikipedia.org] than two meters above the water.
Oh, and that was at low tide.
Was this any more than a shoal?Are you (or the FA writer) claiming the ocean there has risen as much as more than a meter??
?I call BS.
In fact, I suspect it was erosion that has claimed this island.
Maybe, MAYBE accelrated by a few centimeters rise in ocean level, if at all.
Wind and water do just fine on their own.
In fact, the island was close to, if not within, the main channel of the outlet of the Hariabhanga River.
Erosion and currents probably did it in.What a pantload.
Global warming?
More likely predictable current-based erosion.New Moore Island wasn't much of an island.
The river took it back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628212</id>
	<title>Re:Local Sea Level Rise???</title>
	<author>JTsyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269625440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the island is located at the mouth of a river, the river might have an increased flow now, raising local sea levels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the island is located at the mouth of a river , the river might have an increased flow now , raising local sea levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the island is located at the mouth of a river, the river might have an increased flow now, raising local sea levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629694</id>
	<title>Re:"Never let scientific evidence..."</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1269630180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go listen to Rush while I jerk off to a picture of Ann Coulter.</p></div></blockquote><p>While I prefer 2112 and Hemispheres, neither is very sexy.  Try Signals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if you 'll excuse me , I have to go listen to Rush while I jerk off to a picture of Ann Coulter.While I prefer 2112 and Hemispheres , neither is very sexy .
Try Signals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go listen to Rush while I jerk off to a picture of Ann Coulter.While I prefer 2112 and Hemispheres, neither is very sexy.
Try Signals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626432</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New Moore Island, eh?</p><p>So the new name is now No More Island, right?</p></div><p>Why do you hate island people?<br>That was great!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New Moore Island , eh ? So the new name is now No More Island , right ? Why do you hate island people ? That was great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Moore Island, eh?So the new name is now No More Island, right?Why do you hate island people?That was great!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625974</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31636930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31638128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31665558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31632026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31638090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31642934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31631862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31638996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1342258_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31638996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31638128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31665558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31632026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628364
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31636930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31638090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626442
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627582
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626828
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628118
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1342258.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31625966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626810
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31630404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31631862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629972
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31642934
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31629930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31628006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31626586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1342258.31627952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
