When Dr Ian McLean wrote in apparent shock he and his Green colleague were un-elected councillors, I suggested Green credibility had slumped, mainly due to over-statement and mis-information from the group.
As evidence, I cited comments from the UK Guardian's George Monbiot - a self-confessed Green activist. Monbiot's recantation of his anti-nuclear beliefs - and I believe the anti-nuclear platform is still fundamental for Greens here - came after Monbiot interviewed Green icon Dr Helen Caldicott.
This interview led Monbiot to state: 'The Green movement has misled the world about the dangers of radiation…the claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice…”. Monbiot states he began to see the problem after a debate with Helen Caldicott. Receiving 21 honorary degrees, scores of awards, and nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, like other Greens, Monbiot says he was in awe of her. 'In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of radiation. So I did what anyone faced with questionable scientific claims should do: I asked for the sources. Caldicott's response has profoundly shaken me,” says Monbiot.
My problem with Green credibility is well-educated Green spokespersons haven't acknowledged this fundamental crisis within the movement.
Before, I've believed many Green supporters are well-intentioned, but mistaken. Now I believe most Greens are ideologically-directed.
Confronted with fact, they, like all politicians, resort to supersonic spin. NZ's Greens are more concerned with being ideologically sound than truthful.
What are Dr McLean's feelings about Monbiot's disservice claims? He should understand many are weary of Green zealotry – particularly when shown to be wrong.
Kudos to The Weekend Sun for providing this forum for debate. I look forward to further exchanges.

M Houlding, Ohauiti.