3 ms·

At this point drilling is objectively evil. Climate scientists have been saying for a while that we can't afford to burn our existing reserves, let alone burn

At this point drilling is objectively evil. Climate scientists have been saying for a while that we can't afford to burn our existing reserves, let alone burn what comes out of new wells, if we're to have any chance of averting catastrophic climate change. Smoking bans are probably debatable. But to be fair, it wouldn't be political neutral even if it weren't for those particular statements. There are plenty of people in the world (and the US in particular) who think it's a debatable political statement to say that anthropogenic climate change is real, or that evolution and the big bang are science fact. In fact there are people in the US who would think that whole article is a perfect example of everything wrong with the "evil liberal agenda". There's no such thing, really, as a politically neutral statement.

barney54 10y ago
Your characterization of climate science is incorrect. If you read the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they understand that there are trade offs to carbon controls. These controls are expensive and those costs harm humanity. Drilling for oil and gas greatly increased human well-being by improving transportation options. You can argue about carbon restrictions and where to draw the line, but saying that drilling is objectively evil is not a statement based on science. For example, some scientists argue some moderate warming is net beneficial. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-economic-impacts-of-climate-change-richard-tol/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-economic-imp...