Funny thing, Neil, you don’t say that about oil or nuclear power, both of which depend on all manner of government assistance. You don’t say that about the Internet either.

So in addition to being a moron, a liar, and a bigot, you’ve also proven yourself a hypocrite. And there’s no good reason to waste time arguing complicated grownup policy stuff with someone of your demonstrably low character. Go back to Scotland and work on pretending to be a politician.

Neil, I think people are opposed to YOUR principles of science, which seem quite different to those of actual scientists. Starting with the principle that, when asked for evidence to support a claim, one provides that evidence, or points to a source.

The Neil Craig version involves continued claims to the contrary, personal attacks and various attempts to change the subject, mixed with cries of “CENSORSHIP!!”

People on the Internet have seen this behaviour before, and it’s diagnostic of a particular type of right-wing crank. This kind of person can be very difficult to communicate with because they are convinced that their opinions carry the weight of fact, when the reality is that they’re simply wrong, but lack the intellectual maturity to change their views.

Make up your mind.

In fact, while accepting both claims as representing the pinnacle of honesty to which alarmists aspire both statements are clearly totally dishonest and could never be said by anybody who was not a wholly corrupt lying ecofascist parasitic asshole (I see Greg’s comments policy no longer has any restriction on such language(.

If windmills qwere “practical” they would not need subsidy. They do so they aren’t. Or are you now claiming they don’t with equal honesty to your claim that CAGW isn’t a fraud?

…I merely oppose impractical methods.

Guess what, asshole — the methods you oppose are NOT impractical, and they’re getting more practical every year. For an arrogant technocrat claiming to be progressive, you sure are behind the curve on the latest technology.

Oh, and you’d better not complain about other people mistaking your party identity, when you approvingly paste so much of that party’s platform (anti-immigrant fearmongering and all) on your own web page. Lie down with dogs, wake up smelling like one an ocean away.

These claims merely represent the highest standardof honesty to which the “environmental” movement ever aspires (at least they do if their author does not apologise or the rest of the movement do not call him a liar).

Nor do I oppose any other form of power production – the exact opposire is true, I merely oppose impractical methods.

As for being “in favor of technological innovation as a driver for growth” – if you know of a better one I look forward to hearing it. Otherwise it must be simply that you oppose technology because you oppose growth. That hthjis nonsense is common on “scienceblogs” shows how totally opposed to the principles of science most here are. Of course nobody, remotely honest, could, by definition calim to be a supporter of science, or use the name, when they are bo9itter irreconcilable opponents of it, but this merely represents the very highest standard of honesty to which such aspite.