Jump to content

Seriously?

It always worries me when stuff like this is published, mainly because I'm concerned this kind of language will scare moderates away from a sensible environmentalist policies and work against people taking these claims seriously. Of course, it must be published - freedom of the press and all, and the guys have a point - but it would be nice if the language was less... theatrical? Dramatic? Not sure what the word I'm looking for is, but you get the picture. That's up to the people who said these things, though, and not the Wikireporters.

139.18.198.29 (talk)18:02, 21 October 2010

Reading the article I'm not exactly sure what's news worthy about the stance of the scientist in question (it doesn't deviate at all from half-century old standard statements by environmental groups). His statements just read like the typical press-friendly but ultimately empty blathering that media-savvy personalities engage in. It probably wasn't worth writing an article about, but meh.

Gopher65talk19:29, 22 October 2010
 

Sensible people- at least throughout most of the world - don't have the issues of denial and crying foul at the facts that the United States has when it comes to the scientific consensus of climate change and peak oil. This is one of the peculiar quirks of our political discourse

67.142.172.22 (talk)22:36, 22 October 2010
 

Spilling hundreds of millions of gallons of petroleum and hundreds of millions of gallons of dispersants into one of the worlds richest saltwater ecosystems is pretty theatrical stuff as it turns out.

67.142.172.22 (talk)22:40, 22 October 2010