I try to keep anger out of my writing as much as possible - my USP is slightly detached, slightly amused, try to be civil. (That said, it's hard not to slip into angry mode occasionally, and there are still some moments of fury in the draft of the new book that may or may not make the final cut.)
James Delingpole isn't like me. His USP is angry; furious; appalled, disgusted, but he does it in such a funny way that you really have to be very green not to be amused by his way with words.
In his new book, Watermelons, he asks us to:
Imagine that organic food, sustainability, biofuels and the WWF were far more harmful to the world and its inhabitants than GM food, industry, oil and Exxon Mobil...
This is a provocative argument, to the extent that it contradicts much received wisdom, but there is surely a strong case to be made that Delingpole is not mistaken. (More on this later today).
The watermelons hypothesis is not without its detractors, even on the sceptic side of the global warming debate - Ben Pile in particular has pointed to Margaret Thatcher's involvement in the early days of the global warming scare as falsifying the idea, and also observes that the debate does not divide on left-right lines. I see his point, but I must say that my observations of environmentalists suggests that left-wing ideology is an important factor in many greens' thinking.
Watermelons will give a you a feel for some of this and will also take you on a rip-roaring ride through Climategate in Delingpole's inimitable style. Oh yes, and you'll have fun on the way.