Greenpeace, though not debating people, might debate the science, no? What about simply answering questions?

Greenpeace might, for argument’s sake, be asked: “What is the evidence of anthropogenic climate change?” Would it make an answer, or would it instead make an assumption about the questioner’s beliefs, claim a debate has begun and ignore the question?

The questioner might instead state: “I accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change. What evidence of it have you observed?”

Would Greenpeace then venture an answer and, if so, what would it be?

You have taken a quite astounding stance. In a free society, Greenpeace is not required to justify its views — but nobody listens to those who remain silent.

How say you?

Cheers,
Richard Treadgold,
Convenor,
Climate Conversation Group.