Or at least thoroughly agree with. By which I mean Gareth Morgans stance on the necessity of evironmental arguments being backed by actual evidence. I'm going to have to go find the original sources for these talks to verify everything, but Morgans stance is a necessary one as far as I'm concerned. Nicola Toki of Forest and Bird makes the point that environmentalists are often using what works to get their message across, i.e using an emotional appeal to the public. Which is fine, I don't have a problem with using an emotional appeal to the public as long as what is being argued is backed up with actual evidence. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive.
The idea being bandied about that those damaging the environment have large cheque books and thus the only tool that the environmentalists have is the emotional appeal. This is at worst a strawman. At best, misguided. Having a large bank account and being in possession of evidence backing up your claims are not synonymous.
Personally, I think having claims backed up by evidence would be enable more people to come forward and not be picked on (if indeed people claiming to be greenies are being picked on as Toki suggests). Being able to back up your claims would tend to indicate that you're not being a bit of a loonie.