Less than 1% of the electricity generated in the US is from oil. Solar and Wind only generate electricity.
So well under 1% of all oil is used to generate electrical power. It was less the 2% of all oil in 2004 and has gone down to under 1% of the oil used in the US.

What you say may be true. As non-American I'm not terribly interested in the details of the American energy mix. Indeed, before that post, I couldn't even know which county you are from, so even with perfect knowledge of the American energy mix I could not have decided on the truth of that statement.

But your definition of "stupid" is wrong. "Stupid" is not the same as "uninformed", "misinformed" or "wrong".

And you just flunked your skeptic and critical thinking test.

There was no critical thinking test. I didn't make any statement about the energy situation of the US or any other country. I only made a statement about your use of "stupid".

1. You assumed you knew the truth.

I didn't assume to know the truth of the statement. I did (and still do) assume I know the truth about the meaning of "stupid". And your use of that word doesn't fit that meaning.

2. You failed to question the truth.

OK, I indeed didn't consult a dictionary (but I'm convinced you didn't either). Well, let's do now (I omit the pronounciation and ethymology parts):

stupid I a: slow of mind: obtuse b: given to unwise decisions or actions 2: dulled in feeling or sensation 3: marked by or resulting from dullness: senseless (a stupid mistake) 4: dreary, boring (a stupid plot) [Source: Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary]

None of those fits your use of stupid.

3. spouted off without doing any research.

Yes, I did not do any research on the meaning of "stupid". Nor did you, apparently.

4. You trusted without question those that told you that Solar and Wind would reduce our dependence on foreign oil when it is less than 1% of our oil use.

Does not apply. I didn't make a statement about wind and solar energy, I made a statement about your use of "stupid".

5. I am willing to bet that you are proud of your critical thinking skills and consider yourself an enlightened skeptic yet you showed none of those skills.

While I do think I have some critical thinking skills, I certainly didn't need to use them on your comment. Basic language knowledge was sufficient. In that sense I agree that I didn't show any critical thinking skills in my reply, because there was no critical thinking skill needed or sufficient.

You better think about what your answer says about your critical thinking skills.

Stupid == We need solar and wind to reduce our dependance on foreign oil.

No, equalling that statement with "stupid" is stupid.

The smiley at the end already said so. But of course this is Slashdot, so stating it twice may be appropriate. ;-)

My average age is exactly half of my actual age. I'm speaking about the time average, of course.

Probably green jelly beans.

HVAC? What HVAC?

Except for the telephone sanitizers whose job is generally undervalued. You know, a single unsanitized telephone could wipe out a complete civilization.

I think you remembered your reference once too often. ;-)

So you think that a higher status makes you a better cook? Or that a higher status makes the local supermarket to sell you the unprocessed food cheaper?

the cheaper food actually tasted even better

A definite no. But then, I was not raised on industrially processed food; you tend to like the sort of food you were raised on.

Chernobyl was a fission plant, but nature does have fusion reactors reacting all over the universe all the time,

And quite a lot of them actually exploded. ;-)

The people hiding Jews in Nazi Germany also broke the law. I guess that would also exclude them from being heroes in Bill Gates' opinion?

Not a fan of the NSA part, but anything that reduces the worldwide birth rate is good in my opinion.

So you are in favour of a global thermonuclear war? Because that certainly would reduce the birth rate worldwide.

No, because in Germany, while you're forbidden to publish the picture without consent of the person, you're not forbidden to take it, nor to show it to the police.

for example just about any photograph depicting the demolishing of the Berlin Wall would have been illegal.

Given that the German law contains an explicit exemption for pictures of contemporary history, that statement is not true.