This is a most peculiar article. Frankly it reads like a self publicising, self congratulatory article by an author who is as casual with the facts as the people he criticises.
The author sets up a definition of an environmentalist as a person who is anti everything and anti science and is a member of Green Peace or Friends of the Earth. Yet having written this polemic against environmentalists he then announces that he is an environmentalist, but if course, unlike all those other environmentalist he is a 'good' environmentalist who loves science.
What makes him think that all other environmentalists, except him, subscribe to the views and attitudes of Green Peace and Friends of the Earth? He produces no evidence that that is so. I would say with equal lack of evidence that these two organisation represent only a minute section of the environmental movement and that the vast majority of people who call themselves environmentalist are just as likely to share his views as oppose them.
Having said that I would also add that many of the examples he quotes of 'bad' environmentalist arguments haven't been used for years, others had nothing like the support he suggests and his hop, skip and a jump sentence on fracking shows he couldnt be bothered to find out anything about the technology before endorsing it, and I find that worrying (and I have no problem with the technique which has been widely used in the extraction of hydrocarbons for decades.). He dismisses out of hand those who do not believe that climate change is man made and his comments on the future power situation in Germany following their non-nuclear policy was out of date when he wrote it.
[hopelessly inefficient emoticon]
I can't remember what carbon' s post said now, but it did n' t seem to be anything worth deleting!
