Of course they have an anti-fossil fuel industry bias because they write an article against the fossil fuel industry. One should listen to an unbiased source, i.e., a source that never writes anything against the fuel industry.
It would be great if we could hire an unbiased source to study the issue and determine what the cleanup costs of California oil production will be. But there is a danger that that unbiased source will determine that the cleanup costs will indeed be high and then they will immediately become a biased source, not to be believed ever again. And we will have wasted our money.
'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' he observed.
'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed.
Oh, even better. Find a source with a strong pro-fossil fuel bias. And see what happens if their results show the same thing. Case in point, global warming and those oil industry internal reports showing global warming to be true, and man made, since the 70s.
It would be great if we could hire an unbiased source to study the issue and determine what the cleanup costs of California oil production will be. But there is a danger that that unbiased source will determine that the cleanup costs will indeed be high and then they will immediately become a biased source, not to be believed ever again. And we will have wasted our money.
'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' he observed. 'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed.