You get the point? Environmental extremists are no better than those on the right who would define the terms of how I live my life.

An example? Those new trendy fluorescent bulbs, the ones being mandated into homes? They contain mercury. Why should I take seriously someone who would force me to put a toxin in my daughter’s room?

If there is a better way, if there is a more efficient way of living, then market it, sing it’s praises, convince other people.

But don’t use the regulatory power of the state to force free people to live as you see fit.

Ogles, sorry if that was a bit long.

Are you saying that Greenpeace has the kind of money to compete with multinational oil corporations? Because that is just ludicrous. Big oil has a history of being one of the main lobbies in Congress and is incredibly influential in determining government policy. And if a politician was supporting Greenpeace’s views, that politician would immediately be deemed as a radical. Especially since Greenpeace and similar environmental groups qualify as terrorist organizations under Homeland Security guidelines.

Why are you so opposed to combating global warming? What incentives are there for you? Honestly? There wouldn’t be that big of an impact on individuals, it would have the most impact on the mega corporations who are making money off of excessive consumerism.

The global warming debate reminds me of the nuclear winter debates of the 70s-80s. So many people argued on both sides, but in the end people were reasonable and fell back on a trusted concept - the precautionary principle. If there is even the slightest possibility of nuclear winter, why risk it? Because of this we have been able to establish a number of arms control policies that were very effective in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world and reducing Cold War tensions.

If you can give me some reasons why you are actually opposed to global warming activists, I’ll be happy to respond to all of them. As it stands right now, it appears to me that you only support this because you are a Republican and feel that you need to adhere to partisan politics, even though the elites in charge of your party ,not you,stand to benefit from this.

It’s quite common for newspapers to publish unsigned editorials on the op/ed page. Indeed, the New York Times does it. Their columnists have a byline, but the editorials representing the views of the editorial board are almost always unsigned.

Is there any financial incentive to say what Greenpeace wants to hear? In politics, you can always accuse the other side of taking money from people you don’t like, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re part of some grand misinformation scheme.

Yep, that’s the one. Funny thing is, neither this year’s report, nor last year’s report, contained the terrifying 20+ foot rise in sea levels that Mr. ManBearPig professes in his movie. Definitely NOT scare tactics, definitely not at all.

I think you’ve got it. It’s the exact same way the DNC writes editorials for the Gazette.