Forty years ago Greenpeace started off as a few guys in Vancouver, B.C. who thought they had found the Holy Grail. These guys are still arguing among themselves 40 years later about which of them did or did not start the organization. A lot of arrogance. I vaguely remember them coming to Bellingham to tell those of us running the Northwest Passage, our alternative newspaper, that we needed to give them total support. I don't remember if it was spring or summer. I do remember their arrogant attitude leaving a chilly impression. And I remember, over the years, that they were more into stunts and self-constructed hero personalities than they were into actually helping any communities with pollution problems. One time, we got wind they were going to sneak into G.P. and hang huge banners. A few of us got word back to them that we would bad mouth them for their meaningless stunts.

Well that brings us to today's front page of the Greenpeace website. And the spaghetti reasoning they use in connecting global warming to energy efficiency. You can read the entire article for full context.  They feel if a person does not believe in global warming then that person is against energy efficiency.  To quote the relevant part:

"Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: 'The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists.  Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.'

"The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

"If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

"If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

"We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

"And we be many, but you be few."

My response is: Hey guys, I'm one, and here I am. And over a beer I will compare my personal environmental and life-style history with any one of you hubris-reeking, spotlight-hunting, pseudo environmentalists. Give me a call. I'll buy the first beer.

We humans have only general ideas of all the causes of climate variations, and no idea which are the most important. We have no idea whether the climate is getting warmer or colder. And no idea if it is mostly man-made or occurring naturally. We are climate change skeptics - not deniers. The climate is and has been changing for a long time - forever. We are only now able to measure it. And not that well yet. So that is the overview on climate.

Now, on the subject these guys are cranked up about: energy efficiency and conservation. Well, we all should know that energy efficiency - conservation - is good and makes common sense. We should know that clean energy is a no-brainer. We, as intelligent humans, can decide to become more efficient and preserve our natural world - the seas, whales, forests, the clean air we breathe and all that makes for a wonderful world - we don't need the false specter of global warming to motivate us.

These guys are similar to my religious true-believer friends who are absolutely slack jawed at the idea a non-believer can have morals and ethics. Without the eternal fires of hell to compel morality, they cannot believe we have no problem with ethical living. Same with the Greenpeace true-believers. They cannot comprehend us going for clean energy unless we are scared into believing the world will end in 10 or 20 years if we don't convert to clean energy.

Gentle reader, the whole climate issue is a serious concern. But the best scientists are very up front in saying we are not sure about causes. Just as Al Gore, Greenpeace and the climate doomsayers all say we cannot count one colder year - 2009 - as an indication of global cooling, so also they cannot claim from five years of warming that the earth is headed toward hell. The 11 year sunspot cycle has just gone through four years of the longest minimum in 100 years - and we don't know if that creates cooling, warming or either. We just don't know.

We do know we should transform our energy needs into efficient methods. And I could write several more paragraphs just touching on all we can and should do. But we should not need looming catastrophe as a stimulus for change. Hell and damnation are not needed as a prod for ethical living. War should not be needed before countries and people learn to live with each other. And the environment should not need to be wrecked before we adjust and conserve it. Meanwhile, beware the doomsayers - be they religious or environmental. The sky is not falling. The end is not near.