Planet Gore

Marlo Meets Greenpeace

My CEI and Planet Gore colleague Marlo Lewis–who, as I am fond of saying, is living proof that you can overcome a Ph.D. from Harvard–was invited on CNN International with Greenpeace’s “director of research”–which on its face would mean he’s the guy who was responsible for taking my trash and, thus, for discovering my dogs’ prolific output during those steamy weeks when I decided to have some fun with Gang Green.

Which is pretty much what Marlo said, after Greenpeace a) opened by getting personal, b) continued with ad hominem–remember, that’s their move, as often happens when one side of a debate finds itself without a case–which was only interrupted by c) citation of severe weather of some form having occurred somewhere in the world–the new definition of climate change apparently, and something that has never happened before. So it’s odd that fewer people are now dying of it, as Marlo pointed out.


The educational portion of their representative’s presentation affirmed that President Obama, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Rep. Henry Waxman, and Al Gore, among others (coughHollywoodgaspEnvironmentalists) are not fit to arrive at informed judgment, or comment on the issue, by virtue of not being scientists. It’s not clear from what lofty perch he  makes this determination, as the gentleman in question is pretty shy about touting his qualifications other than that being director of research actually means . . . running Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets campaign. Oh. That’s some . . . mighty fine . . . research . . . you’re doing there. My dogs are honored. [And, um, Exxon? Talk about MoveOn (or, chuckle, “denier”). Dude. It’s over.]


Still, this specialized form of “research” makes sense, given that Greenpeace’s repertoire in the rare debate they agree to has always been heavily dependent on ad hom. I understand he probably just doesn’t like to boast, but imagine the material that this fellow’s absence of apparent qualifications would provide, say, Greenpeace, when they needed to change the subject from inconvenient facts.

No word on what disqualifies the tens of thousands of scientists who dispute Greenpeace’s hysteria, but you can bet it’s personal. Still, we’ve showed them our scientists and continue to wait for them to show us theirs. C’mon. It’s an “overwhelming majority,” isn’t it? Surely the evidence can’t be that hard to track down. Maybe the problem is that it isn’t lurking in anyone’s garbage?


The Latest