That choice seems more obviously between two evils than the climate change issue. :)
I do acknowledge, as the other commenter suggested, that my view may be warped by being from the USA, where the battle is still about whether it exists at all.
It's not about climate change - it's an analogy. It's not a choice between two evils either (you could round them up AND kill them). And of course you could propose a multitude of different solutions beside or in addition to these.
My point was that science cannot be used to justify all the choices you make in cases like these.
