New York Times Columnist Joe Nocera early last week dared to call those trying to kill the Keystone pipeline project “ludicrous” (which I actually thought was too diplomatic), so now he must face the wrath of Eco-McCarthyists, which prompted a second column in which he seems (or it it my imagination?) to be on the defensive? (Just scroll through the venom-filled comments section of each column if you think that’s an overstatement.)
Nocera’s first mistake was broaching this very sensitive subject with the paper’s Left-leaning (and evidently less than open-minded) readership. He should have known better. Times readers don’t turn to the paper to have their comfortable assumptions challenged; it’s where they go to have them affirmed. If they want industry’s perspective, they’ll look at the Wall Street Journal.
Nocera is evidently still laboring under the impression that he’s engaged in a rational debate with reasonable people; he doesn’t yet recognize that he’s dealing with a religion (albeit a government-sanctioned religion) with strictures, shibboleths and doctrines that are enforced with a Taliban-like rigidity and ruthlessness. Any deviation from the dogma brings-down charges of heresy, from which it won’t be easy for Nocera to escape.
Nocera just learned what everyone who confronts the Environmental Alarmism Industry does sooner or later: that bucking the green machine inevitably invites attacks so vicious, vitriolic and ad hominum that they can only be described as a form of Eco-McCarthyism. Confront Gang Green and you automatically become a climate “denier” or the paid mouthpiece of energy interests or other ”industries.” Here’s an example of the technique being used against author and energy journalist Robert Bryce, who landed on the hit list of the Eco-Inquisition for daring to write books and articles that actually tell the truth about the green energy scam.
So virtuous, so above-reproach is the position of the planet-savers that any who dare question their motives or agenda must, ipso facto, be villians, who aren’t just to be refuted but whose reputations must be destroyed. After all, if you’re opposing the forces of good, you must be evil, right?
Maybe the most enlightening aspects of Nocera’s columns aren’t just what they have to tell us about Keystone (which is that the fight is about much, much more than just a pipeline), but about the motives, attitudes and tactics of 21st Century monkeywrenchers.