Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Projections (Score 1) 987

by khelms (#46625679) Attached to: UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming

Second, they're wrong but we believe them and start doing what we can do to lower global warming. Then we lose money and comfort.

I would disagree with the conclusion of losing money and comfort. I'd restate it as "we move to renewable, non-greenhouse gas emitting sources of energy sooner than we would by waiting for carbon based fuels to be exhausted."

Comment: Re:They seemed to have forgoten the result of nucl (Score 1) 878

by khelms (#46510893) Attached to: Russian State TV Anchor: Russia Could Turn US To "Radioactive Ash"
I think I saw that episode: "You will be responsible for an escalation that will destroy everything. Millions of people horribly killed. Complete destruction of our culture here and yes, the culture on Vendikar. Disaster, disease, starvation, horrible, lingering death, pain and anguish!"

Comment: Re:"climate change deniers" (Score 1) 136

by khelms (#46219424) Attached to: How Blogs Are Changing the Scientific Discourse
Sure, people have the right to express their "opinions". My observation is that most of the "experts" speaking out against AGW are funded by the oil and gas industry. What their actual opinions are is unknown - they are being paid to muddy the water and create the appearance of controversy. The industry that stands to lose if we reduce carbon emissions is actively trying to block us from doing anything through these tactics. That being the case, they are putting all of civilization at risk of long-term drastic climate effects in order to preserve their profits. People like that do deserve worse than name-calling.

CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude...