Some subscribers to MathEdCC might be interested in a recent post "The President and the Pipeline" [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
ABSTRACT: Ryan Lizza, in his "New Yorker" article "The President and the Pipeline" at <http://nyr.kr/18g0eaB> reports on the cons of the pipeline as seen by environmentalist such as James Hansen, Bill McKibben, and Tom Steyer; and the pros as seen by the Canadian government, the oil industry, and various business interests.
In "Tar Sands and Dirty Tricks," James Hansen at <http://bit.ly/1aZnA8v> lauds Lizza's article as "excellent" but points out (a) several important errors, and (b) a recent relevant article "Climate sensitivity, sea level, and atmospheric carbon dioxide" [Hansen, Sato, Russell, & Kharecha (2013) at <http://bit.ly/1aat4bO> (1.9 MB).
"Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change." ? Hansen, Sato, Russell, & Kharecha (2013)
REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 21 Sept. 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. "The President and the Pipeline," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/1aaDpVm>. Post of 20 Sep 2013 14:44:58-0400 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists and also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/15dS9PU> with a provision for comments.