Ordinary Gweilo

His blog hasn’t been updated for months, but Simon Patkin has found time to write to the SCMP (subscription required):

Greenie gibberish

Richard Fielding’s letters-page diatribe in favour of environmentalism and against free enterprise can only be described as gibberish ("Profiteering from the end of the world as we know it", February 3). For example, he writes: "Industry think-tanks still preach that crazy environmentalist conspirators want hair shirts for all …" It’s surprising that you print this rubbish. What is not surprising is that his letter is typical of the way environmentalists present their views, and their anti-development mentality in general. Al Gore is already calling anyone who disagrees with him a denier, while others want to penalise TV weathermen who disagree with the environmentalist viewpoint.

Those scientists who do speak out against environmentalism are subject to a barrage of spiteful accusations, and a few militants now want Nuremburg-style trials to charge critics of environmentalism with crimes against humanity – a chilling threat to free speech and individual rights.

Despite the millions they receive in government and corporate funding, it’s obvious that environmentalists are not quite as certain of their global warming nonsense as they pretend to be. The environmental lobby group is now a global industry, but its ideas can only lead to disaster.

SIMON PATKIN, Causeway Bay

Gibberish?  Pots and kettles, Simon, pots and kettles.  And where does this stuff about "Nuremberg-style trials" come from?

How can anyone describe global warming as ‘nonsense’?  You can argue about exactly what is happening, and what we should do about it, but surely everyone now accepts that it really is happening and that man has caused it. 

The SCMP published an article (taken from Men’s Journal) in their Sunday magazine about how Exxon Mobile say that they are very concerned about environmental issues, whilst simultaneously funding groups who put forward the same type of arguments that we hear from Simon Patkin. Today there’s another letter, asking where Simon’s so-called "think tank" gets its money.  Sadly for Simon, I fear that if Exxon Mobile wanted to mobilise public opinion in Hong Kong then he would not be very high on their list of people to call.   

Others have been even less kind, such as this letter on Tuesday

Simons say

I’m not sure which of the letters from the two Simons in Saturday’s paper is more offensive: the simple elitism of Mr Osborne, who mocks the frugality of people queuing to save a small amount of money in "A long wait for HK$2" (February 10), or Mr Patkin’s familiar attacks on environmentalists in favour of his "capitalism is God" attitude ("Greenie gibberish").

I suppose the former could be accepted as making a wry observation, although Mr Osborne obviously has no appreciation of the underclass in this town, who labour long and hard for a pittance.

Mr Patkin, however, has often stated his belief that nothing should stand in the way of the pursuit of personal financial wealth. Unfortunately, as usual, he attacks without any evidence to support his views. This may be because he previously embarrassed himself trying to back up his arguments against global warming by quoting a US senator who has accepted massive funding from the oil and gas industry ("Shrill alarmism", October 2).

I’ve taken a little time to look into Mr Patkin’s Capitalist Solutions think-tank. In both the term "think-tank" and his claim to support "rational" self-interest, I believe he is falling short of his goals.

JOHN BRUCE, Pok Fu Lam