Patrick Moore is one of the founders of Greenpeace. His new organization, Green Spirit, is devoted to advocating for consensus rather than confrontation in issues affecting the environment, taking economic and other human factors into consideration when advocating various environmental policies, and using sound science rather than pseudoscience, new-age spiritualism, and political extremism.

His changing views brought predictable wrath from the environmentalist establishment. He's been painted as a Judas, a sellout, a liar, a money-grubbing opportunist, and more. It's what certain people always do when their beliefs are questioned: if you can't go after the facts, can't really beat the arguments, go right for the personal attack. He may be the second-most hated figure in the environmentalist movement.

The most-hated, of course, is Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg, who has had the audacity to use hard data to dispute many of the most common beliefs of today's pseudo-religious environmental movement. Lomborg, despite being a moderate socialist and a clear member of the political left, seems to be the Pym Fortuyn of the environmentalist movement: a man who dares question the orthodoxy, and must be slandered and vilified as a right-winger and an extremist as a punishment for his apostacy. It's a wonder he hasn't been shot.

Patrick Moore has taken up the cudgels in defense of Lomborg. He is urging those of us who have our own web sites to support Lomborg by reprinting an article that Scientific American has attempted to suppress with legal bullying. Having read through Lomborg's piece, and having worked as a professional writer and editor, I believe Scientific American's case is without merit; Lomborg's article clearly falls within everyday fair use guidelines.

In defense of freedom of expression and, every bit as important, free inquiry, I, too, publish Lomborg's article in PDF format; to see it simply click here. I encourage other webmasters to show their support. You don't have to agree with everything Lomborg has to say (hell, you don't have to agree with anything he has to say) to see Scientific American's actions as what they are: shameful bullying by a respected scientific publication that should know better.