I agree spindoc, you are sounding a lot more shrill lately.

I agree with Jim Green's comment posted first, that organizations should be exposed as to their funding, I don't know that they'd take Jim's advice and also state what he thinks they should be called, a front for a front .. indeed.

Let's go further then, and if Greenpeace, Youth Climate Club or any other organization, or writer wants to post, to go through their careers with a fine tooth comb.

Find any little scandals, any funding from government or obscure other organizations - we might find a lot of eco organizations are fronts for fronts, since they all seem to prop each other up. There are even eco groups that manage the other eco groups into "coalitions", are these fronts for fronts for fronts?

I'm making light of Jim here and others like him who when they don't like the content or message of an article try to undermine the author by scurrilous rumor mongery, such is the eco response.

Since the eco types always hold themselves to be so morally superior, you have to wonder why they find it necessary to resort to such tactics.

Inferiority? Emasculation? Or do they react this way like any other political organization or cult when its power-base is threatened?

Well said RPG, as today's Australian shows, the leading 4 Green "NGOs" got through $71 million last year, much of it taken up by their staff. Exxon's contribution to Heartland is around $100,000 p.a. and a great big zero to IPA and AEF. However we know Jim Green (sic) will never admit to his deception.

Tom Tiddler, according to Sourcewatch, 'Greenpeace relies wholly upon the voluntary donations of individual supporters and on grant support from foundations'(although the 'foundations' are hard to identify, which is not good, they contribute only a small proportion of the total), so I guess its up to Greenpeace how it spend its funds in pursuit of its goals. You may be on to something important re spending money on staff, though - this problem is distressingly widespread throughout the world. Organisations and governments should stop wasting money on employing people and just get on with the job - oh hang on a minute....

If nothing else , this article is flushing out the Latte drinking ,City dwelling Greenies who are all for change... as long as they can still drive the 4 wheel drive gas Guzzlers ,use disposable Nappies , Leaf Blowers and Fly overseas on their Holidays...etc.

Enviromentally friendly ones of course....Hipocrites All

Don't cha love arguments by extremes, some thing for everyone but the truth.

First not all greenies (what ever that is) are either cynical hypocrites nor are the tree hugging unwashed alternative life-stylers. Most are merely average folk some rich some not so.

Most share a limited interest in the environment but...does that excuse the curmudgeons who not only do nothing but actively want to increase the obvious problems.

Bogus environmental organization like the one headed by the author is a *smokescreen* for an industry who wants to, by default increase the pollution and hold back alternatives. I only wish this character actually knew or accounted for the advancement in the alternative energy and associated fields scientifically.

Likewise I dispute his deliberate obfuscatious tactics of selective targeting. Its fine for him and his supporter corporations to allow themselves obscene wage packages on the grounds of 'they need to make a living' and 'they have great responsibilities' yet if the same logic is applied to a green group it is some how suddenly evil. Bollocks.

Read me correctly I am *not* saying that alternative energy sources will or totally replace current technology, only that they shouldn't be ignored, dismissed, neglected etc.

The real problem is that the average person is so inundated with causes, advertising, spin, political bull etc that causes, any cause needs to be heard over the background rabble. To do that the cause needs do be evermore attention grabbing (shrill if you like).
As if the likes of this joker and his corporate puppet masters are helping by being rational and calm and measured.

The dogma argument is as transparently disingenuous as it is puerile, which major political party doesn't give preference to business including the polluters, the author champions for?

All of them are to blame for the truth being drowned out. Max can hardly claim the high moral ground.
Max, No sale and I don't want any bridges either.