There are two types of green movements. The first one, embodied by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, sees nature and humans as a whole and therefore believes there can be constructive solutions to problems like pollution. The second believes that humans are a cancer destroying the planet and a radical shift in consumer behavior is needed or else we’re doomed.
This latter breed of green has been back in the news again, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s fifth report released last week. Using this climate “Bible,” green fanatics will undoubtedly look at the splinter in “deniers’” eyes while forgetting the planks in their own.
Green fanatics often dismiss “deniers” like Christopher Monkton, a prominent British politician, since he is not a qualified climatologist. But if a science degree is a prerequisite for commenting on global warming, why are Al Gore and David Suzuki considered respected voices on the matter? In fact, at least one-third of IPCC members have no hard science schooling whatsoever. Why are they considered more qualified to comment on climate policy than Monkton, an actual politician?
Furthermore, if the person speaking is indeed an expert like climatologist Robert Bailing, who “denies” global warming, he will be belittled because he received funding from Big Oil. While some scientists have indeed been paid by “deniers,” climate change fanatics conveniently forget that the WWF, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club have also all received money from companies like Shell Oil and BP. Green energy companies also lobby much harder than Big Oil. As a result, solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources receive immensely more taxpayer subsidies per megawatt than fossil fuels.
For all the vitriol climate fanatics spew at so-called “deniers,” they themselves have a serious denial problem. Greenies like Al Gore often downplay the Climategate scandal in which very compromising emails from climate scientists were leaked suggesting data manipulation. Gore himself has called the scandal “sound and fury signifying nothing.”
But, would Climategate really get the pass that it did in the media if it were an analogous scandal in another industry? Imagine for a moment that Climategate was actually Pharmagate, where a hacker or whistleblower extracted tons of information from Big Pharma. Let’s say he discovered that scientists exchanged emails that asked for information inconsistent with their theories be deleted, acknowledged that their theories are false so a “trick” must be used to “hide the decline.”
Now, imagine that investigations are initiated to shine the light on this scandal. One is conducted by a university that has an employee sunk deep in the scandal. He is completely cleared, and the university claims to have looked at all sides of the debate while completely forgetting about another scientist who found severe flaws in his colleague’s theories.
Another one is financed by an institution also sunk deep in the scandal, and the investigating panel is headed by people favoring the accused scientists. A last investigation, headed by a country’s national legislature, states that the information was stolen (without evidence), includes no dissenting scientists, and favored the accused by ignoring their questionable actions.
Had such a scenario happened, the media would have cried foul, because the investigation were riddled with conflicts of interest and completely lacked objectivity. This is exactly what happened in Climategate.
As you can see, modern greens get their color from their blatant hypocrisy. They are free to take Big Oil money, they are free to lobby for taxpayer dollars and they are free to lie about their data. Fortunately, interest in their cause is constantly waning in public opinion despite recent resurgence of interest in the media, pointing to a coming triumph of reason in environmental policy.