Society is run by interest groups. Money creates its own interest groups (e.g., Monsanto), but not every interest group is some type of money. For example, the people who got the UN to ban land-mines -- was just a bunch of average Joes. (Personally I think this is a mistake, because landmine technology has come a long way.) The scientists against Oz are just a bunch of average Joe scientists.

Wow, this is puerile and ill-thought out even for slashdot. It's like you never heard of crankery, and think all opinions are equally valid. Ya know what? There's a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars, and I also have fairies living in my backyard.

Judges interpret the law, and they sure as hell aren't computers. For example, terms like "reasonable" appear in laws all the time.

AC doesn't know what a natural monopoly is. AC probably thinks they are an expert on economics. AC only reads a certain kind of website.

This is true; however, it seems the net neutrality is going to become a partisan issue, because Comcast et al can use GOP economic rhetoric (baseless or not), and the GOP leadership think the money is worth the political risk.

Once anything becomes a partisan issue, then tribalism replaces sanity. Expect some GOP faithful computer geeks to slowly edge towards the party line.

If you have questions, then you should find credible sources with information. You can follow the references to actual peer reviewed original research on the subject. If you really want to understand, then you'll need to do a graduate degree on it.

You can do something called "accounting", where you sum up the amounts of CO2 coming from different sources.

Behold the contrarian school of science, where assertions require no studies, and are just known to be correct because they have a pleasant ring to the political faithful.

Projection is not a river in Egypt.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. If you add acid to something, are you making it more acidic? That's another way of looking at it. Meanwhile, you're successfully shelved the real issue by splitting hairs over a pointless distinction, which is precisely how deep contrarian arguments go.

I love how you moved straight past the content of the comment to reveal your political stripes on the issue. Suppose you think you know a lot about it.

That's why you have to follow the science, and not the cranks. Otherwise you might be a crank yourself. (Cranks never know that they are cranks.)

Sharks are part of a food chain.

Sounds like you were busy proving the grand-parents point, and without any trace of irony.

Those lazy people with their army of lawyers and capital hill lobbyists, writing laws to enrich themselves...