While we're on the topic of opinions that people hold about climate change: I have to admit I've never seen a survey of proponents of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change, but I seriously doubt that there is much support among so-called "warmists" for genocide.
I can only say for sure that I'm a supporter of the action plan put forward by the brilliant Dr. Sagan:
"For our own world the peril is more subtle. Since this series [Cosmos] was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil fuels like coal, and gas, and petroleum putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the earth. The hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched crop lands, the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees; wide spread disasters in the next century, unless we change our ways. What do we have to do? Four things:
(1) Much more efficient use of fossil fuels. Why not cars that get 70 miles-per-gallon instead of 25?
(2) Research and development on safe alternative energy sources, especially solar power.
(3) Reforestation on a grand scale.
and (4) Helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self-sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.
Every one of these steps makes sense apart from greenhouse warming! Now, no one has proposed that the trouble with Venus is that there once was Venusians who drove fuel inefficient cars, but our nearest neighbour nevertheless is a stark warning on the possible fate of an Earth-like world."
Carl Sagan, Cosmos (episode 4: Heaven and Hell (update - 10 years later))

The quality of the argument can be improved by reducing the number of baseless accusations it contains.
My comment serves to draw the attention of the moderators to rally2xs's flamebait comment and to moderate it accordingly.

Let us pretend then that it is impossible to achieve a carbon neutral society without either increasing reliance on nuclear power *or* resorting to genocide (a proposition that I deem to be highly dubious):
Show me where St.Creed has ever stated an opposition to building more nuclear power stations. Link to it. I'll want to read the comment for myself.
I have looked over St.Creed's comments in this thread and s/he has made no mention of opposition to (or support for) nuclear power.
Scanning through St.Creed's comment history I see a couple of mentions of the use of nuclear power in space.

... To summarize: From what I have seen rally2xs's allegation of support for genocide are baseless and inflammatory.

St.Creed did not specify how carbon emissions were to be reduced; The user merely stated a preference for solutions that involve reductions in carbon emissions (over solutions that involve geo-engineering).
(1) Why do you assume that the person you are replying to favours genocide as the method of reducing carbon emissions? You must have some reason or else you wouldn't have listed it as your first assumption.
(2) Genocide is a very serious accusation and I see no support for it in the comment that you are replying to.

It has been a long time since I've cared about the color of light bulbs. I haven't used an incandescent for about 5 years and so far not one of the CFLs has burnt out on me (I was lucky if I could get one year out of an incandescent bulb in the same socket).
As for the mercury: I put the CFLs in the light sockets that are very stable and well protected; I put LED bulbs in the lamps that can get knocked over by accident (I had a cat).

Agreed. The kvetching over the transition from 24 fps to 48 fps reminds me of the transition from incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent or the transition from records to CDs. It strikes me as nostalgia for a (mostly) inferior product.

Ah, I see the problem. You've mixed up the "local absence of evidence" with the "global absence of evidence". Allow me to explain:
A "global absence of evidence" is where a person makes a statement for which no evidence supporting their claim exists.
A "local absence of evidence" is where a person makes a statement for which evidence supporting that claim exists, however they did not provide the evidence (or a reference to where that evidence can be obtained from).

To demonstrate the difference I can make the following statement in a Slashdot comment:
"The Earth revolves around the Sun."
The above statement is obviously true, but I have provided no evidence nor any references to evidence. In the example above there is a "local absence of evidence", but if we go to the scientific journals we will find that there is an abundance of supporting evidence is available. The same is true of Black Parrot's comment; the evidence supporting Black Parrot's statements exists, it just wasn't provided in this thread.
To that end I suggest you start looking for evidence at RealClimate. The articles are well written and frequently cite papers published in scientific journals.

Fortunately the validity of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change doesn't rest on whether, or not, Black Parrot provides a citation for every comment he/she makes on Slashdot.

On the topic of scientific organizations being hacked:
If Astronomers get hacked is the scandal a "Star-gate"?

I agree.
The media doesn't have to be so impartial that we end up, as Drew Curtis would say, "giving equal time to nut jobs".

Over the weekend I picked up: The Illustrated Atlas Of The Universe.
http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Atlas-Universe-Tirion-Garlick/dp/1740893778

I'm amazed at how good books are these days. $30 gets a nice hard cover book with ~300 pages of full colour, high quality, informative, pictures and star charts.
I wish books of this quality had been so easily available and affordable when I was a lad.

A couple of years ago I went and watched Episodes 1 - 3, then the cuts scenes from Star Wars: The Force Unleashed*, followed by Episodes 4 - 6.
Before Episodes 1 - 3 I perceived Darth Vader as a purely evil guy who had a death bed repentance (why should I care?).
What Episodes 1 - 3 did (in my opinion) is turn Darth Vader from a faceless villain into a (somewhat) sympathetic character Anakin Skywalker (despite the whole Jedi temple slaughtering incident).
After that the moment when Luke is on Endor attempting to convince Darth Vader to rejoin the light-side of the force felt more realistic to me.
OK, so it goes without saying that Jar Jar Binks is a turd ... and I'm not a fan of Ewoks either.
I think the whole franchise is love-able in an absurd kind of way. I mean the Galactic Empire spans thousands of planets and species and yet its entire discernable power structure is made up of humans. White humans. White human men. White human men with British accents. ... and the token alien Admiral Thrawn.

* If you haven't seen the cutscenes for this game: Youtube it.

Isn't that the same way you spot a patchwork mouse?

It's amazing to me that of all the things Paul Ryan could dislike about Ayn Rand's works the thing that seems to bother him the most is that Rand and her views were "atheistic". That her views were "atheistic" is what I liked the most about her writings.

It's interesting that you choose to compare the arguments from proponents of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change to "religious preachings".
I would have thought a more fitting analogy -- and something right up Mr. Dawkins alley -- would be to compare the theory of Global Climate Change to the theory of Evolution:
The "skeptics" of both topics insist that there is a lively debate on the topic. It seems to me that the "lively debate" on the topics of Evolution and Global Climate Change only exist in the media and public opinion polls (the media loves to foment controversy where none actually exists). The debate is not happening in scientific circles because the scientific experts in the fields of Biology and Climatology have both, based on the strength of evidence available, formed a consensus around the theories of Evolution and Global Climate Change respectively.
The "skeptics" of both topics don't seem to be interested in debating the scientific merits of the theories. Instead they seem preoccupied with discussing the greatly exaggerated religious, political, and economic consequences that they imagine will come to pass if the majority of people start treating the theories of Evolution and Global Climate Change as fact.