Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Grandfathered in (Score 0, Flamebait) 875

Remarkably one-sided point of view. You think the only lobbyists in Washington are in the Oil/Coal Industry? The lobbying effort on the other side is massive as well, and guess what? You actually get something for cheap energy! Here's another. Guess what the Green Energy lobby will give you? A massive utility/petroleum price increase!! Good for you Mr. Naive!!

Comment Re:Experts (Score 0, Flamebait) 875

Ahh yes, defer to your betters and put on the blinders. Why are you unwilling to use that thing on the top of your head on this subject. There are plenty of Climate Scientists who don't think the recent increase in temperatures are anything to worry about.
What you and the clique of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists want is to limit my freedom for no good reason. They are at liberty to do what they want about the CO2 problem without taking my money, but would prefer to have their hands in everyone's pocket. It's no better than stealing. I leave you with a quote from Thomas Sowell that I think you would do well to read *and* understand.
Freedom is not simply the right of intellectuals to circulate their merchandise. It is, above all, the right of ordinary people to find elbow room for themselves and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their 'betters.
Thomas Sowell

Comment Re:always the loudest wins. (Score 1) 1046

Why do I have to live on a planet with communists like yourself?
* Even the IPCC is only 90% confident that the recent warming is caused by man (and they overstate *everything*). Is the IPCC in 10% denial?
* Many Climate Scientists disagree with the IPCC. See Dr. Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr., and Richard Lindzen to name a few. Go out and read from the wealth of information that has been put out there by them and others. Since they disagree with the dogma of catastrophic AGW, are they in denial? Could it be that they just happen to have an informed opinion counter to the Warmista's Dogma?
* Currently, you and all your Warmista friends are perfectly free to build a carbon free paradise where-ever you see fit. You can build out Solar/Wind/Geo-Thermal till the cows come home. Nothings stopping you. *You can save the planet for us*, but the reason you won't is because you want power over others. Completely UnAmerican, and also completely in the tradition of top down planned economies like the SU and Nazi Germany.
* Your opinions on Electric vs. internal combustion engines are so naive it's frightening. Diesel Electrics burn (you guessed it) DIESEL!! Calling that halfway there is a joke. Comrade Stalin, how would you like the kulaks to plow their fields with their electric tractors? Pull them with a team of oxen?
* Which climate past are you referring to? The one of the completely discredited hockey stick whose margins of error swamped todays temperature records? Are there other Hockey Sticks you'd prefer to show us?
* Finally, why don't you let the economy help itself subjecting it to your central planning comrade Stalin? Go out and find a better method of creating Solar Panels, or Wind Mills or GeoThermal, etc. That would help the economy immensely. Your centrally planned tax increase will only fall on those that are least able to pay.

Comment Re:Integrity (Score 1) 1046

Oh. You were talking about *those* people. Good thing there aren't any of them on our side which is lily white ethically speaking. I'm glad that the ideologues at the IPCC can do my thinking for me and I don't have to worry about them doing anything unethical. They're scientists for gosh sakes!! That means we can trust them.

Comment Re:No mention (Score 1) 1046

Um, No. I think this is a point that more objective people have been trying to make repeatedly. It *is* possible to read the ClimateGate letters in total and want an investigation of particular people/instituions completely independent of your thoughts on Anthropogenic Global Warming. To argue as above only makes you look like a nut.

Comment Re:No mention (Score 1) 1046

You should actually read IPCC AR4. The "facts" you state above are not facts at all but are conjectures which the group of scientists have "90%" confidence in. There are already plenty of climate scientists who question those above statements, so I feel no need to do the same. Do have any *real* facts to bring to the argument? Or can we expect more confused rhetoric?

Slashdot Top Deals

We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.