I agree that Nikiforuk uses emotive language to demonstrate his points. His description of the environmental destruction the tar sands are having really does leave the reader feeling that this is Tarmageddom. His whole essay demonstrates that he is opposed to the politics surrounding the tar sands; this becomes especially clear when he makes reference to Stephen Harper being the son of a imperial oil executive and not believing in climate change. I'm curious to if this impacted the way you interpreted the article? Did you find his obvious political stance distracting from the information he was providing?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-05-12 04:51 pm (UTC)His whole essay demonstrates that he is opposed to the politics surrounding the tar sands; this becomes especially clear when he makes reference to Stephen Harper being the son of a imperial oil executive and not believing in climate change.
I'm curious to if this impacted the way you interpreted the article? Did you find his obvious political stance distracting from the information he was providing?