Greenpeace strikes back...

Cindy Baxter has her response to the climate coalition (still no website!! WTF! credibility rapidly approaching zero) here.
I don't think she hit the right note.
Most of the column sounds like a conspiricy theory. While it's informative to know who pays the bills, it's insulting to think that someone can't have a good point purely because of who they work for. In addition, one could say the same about cindy. G'peace is not known for it's consistency wrt science. Compare and contrast GE with global warming. she is perfectly happy to quote scientists that confirm her cliamte change dogma but refuses to acknowledge the same system that is trying to make better food (Golden Rice is better) for people that may actually want/need it.
I'm sticking to my original plan - show me some freakin' facts. Science informs, it doesn't state policy, that's for the politicians.
NB I wonder if it would be informative to review the history of the Montreal Accord and the phase out of CFC's and their impact on the Ozone Hole. I would expect strong parallels between Monsanto (?) claiming all sorts of uncertainty over the science and denying a causative link. Anyone know a good reference site?