In a good article on Schweitzer's messianic enthusiasm for coal-to-oil, the LA Times writes:
Schweitzer concedes that the coal-to-fuel plan makes sense economically only if the worldwide average price of crude oil remains above about $35 a barrel. Oil is trading at about $69 per barrel now, but until a few years ago it traded at less than $20 per barrel, and some experts project it will fluctuate back down to those levels.
Wouldn't it be relevant to note that those experts are obviously insane? This is one of those objectivity quirks I'm always complaining about: people who think the earth is 6,000 years old are not to be taken seriously; nor those who think the globe is filled with a creamy, nougat core of crude; nor those who think HIV and AIDS are not real diseases but merely diagnostic oddities. If the reporter wants to mention the existence of crackpots, fine, I'm a writer and I recognize the wonders of color, texture, and comic relief. To mention such creatures as serious participants in the debate, however, merely misleads the audience.
