"

 GREEN POLITICS AND BIAS CLOUDS THIS ARTICLE. 

Too much of this article is about petty environmental politics and in-fighting, with a bias against Moore.

The article should be about the man and his views, not about why some environmentalists disagree with him. Much of the latter part of the article has the tone of putting up Moore for criticism and then criticising him. The section ""Criticism by other environmentalist"" does not belong at all, certainly not as a seperate section. The article should not be a ""for"" and ""against"" debate.

It is petty politics when some environmentalists object against describing him as an ""environmentalist"" simply because he has alternate views on method and tactics (albeit critical views).

Example of bias:
Under the heading ""Views"", we do not get an insight into Moore's views, (vision, ideology, tactics, philosophy etc), what we get is only Moore's views in opposition to the environmental movement.

An example of subtle bias:

""Moore is supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a national organization of pro-nuclear industries which hopes to enlist Moore's help in bringing about a nuclear renaissance.[22]""

(Note that the link [22] is broken).
The fact that an organisation supports Moore, and ""hope"" to enlist him, does not establish any alliance between Moore and them.
This is clearly an attempt to establish guilt by association, by those who are against nuclear as a green option. 
The factual information is as follows (from Wikipedia):
""NEI founded the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy) to help build local support around the country for new nuclear build. The co-chairs of the coalition are Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore..""

The statement in this article should be replaced by stating Moore's proper association and the relevant context i.e. why he supports them or what they stand for, e.g. Clean and Safe Energy."