Yes, clearly this is written from a neutral perspective, because all government is intent on demonization. Also, note how the author moves from what the scientists reference as undecidable to an implicit denial. Sometimes, Casey, you make this too easy.
:)Moving from "undecidable to an implicit denial" is as simple as understanding that action based on speculation is no more effective than inaction. That is, skepticism breeds complacency with the status quo (unless there are no costs associated with "action," which, in the case of the politics of global warming is far from a reality).Plus: you said there was no such thing as "neutral." That's why I called it "terrific," and not neutral! :)Thanks for appreciating me in my role as unmoving target, though. I'm like a driving range for you, aren't I? -- or like a batting cage machine that only pitches fastballs down the middle.
Post a Comment