In The Boulder Monitor on Feb. 2, Jane Lee Hamman stated that “rather than caving to emotion-driven hype, we should … return to a reasoned examination of the science” concerning climate change. On its face, this sounds reasonable enough. The only problem is that is not what she does.
She states that “climate change is real … But the effects of that are greatly exaggerated by those who have become invested in the doom-and-gloom global scenario. They are fueling a dangerous, mostly emotion-based policy agenda.” She also states that “in the last year the Biden administration has made a series of reckless decisions, based on pressure from progressives: the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, temporary restrictions on oil and gas leases and permits, the issuance of expansive new fuel economy standards, and rejoining the 2015 Paris climate agreement,” and that “this sort of policy making sets a frightening precedent.”
Hold it a minute, Jane, I thought we were going to avoid emotionality here. Why is someone’s advocacy of environmental policies that limit the continued pollution by carbon emissions so “dangerous,” “reckless” or “frightening”? If you continue to read her article, the reason becomes clear.
