This thread discusses the Content article: IN OUR VIEW: Shrinking problems

Here it is! The dangerous partisans at this joke of a paper can't let two days go by without an ignorant, unintelligent diatribe pushing their BLATANT anti-environmental agenda! They cite michael crighton-whose background is in medicine NOT CLIMATOLOGY! They mock REAL SCIENCE with the motivation of those blinded by irrational ideology. Dangerous. Thoughtless. Stupid.

CITIZENS OF UTAH COUNTY MUST NOT BE DUPED BY THE DISINGENUOUS EDITORIALS DEFECATED DAILY BY THE PARROTS AT THE HERALD!!!!!

YOU ARE SMART ENOUGH FOR THOUGHTFUL DEBATE. START HERE-FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE....

http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/is-global-warming-a-crisis

This editorial is not an example of mature, informed, and polite debate. It categorizes and stereotypes. It shuts down reasonable dialogue. It has the tone of a poorly regulated student paper. Whether or not I agree with the content (anyone who is willing to take science seriously must be crazed) I'm ashamed of the tone. Please, the paper is becoming laughable.

This is a poorly written article with no substance. The writer clearly does not defend their viewpoint and resort to blame on anything "liberal".

I don't give a damn about carbon footprints, yours, mine, Salt Lakes, the Popes. Those that preach to lower ours don't give a damn about what they create or use, Al Gore being the chief high priest and offender. Global Warming is a non-issue. It is BS - Barbara Streisand.

What a cute article. The person who wrote it and the person who approved it should be given a cute position on the high school newspaper.

Why can't a newspaper write rhetorically? You have to be unbiased and unopinionated to write? Is it not good journalism if it's not in agreeance to your view point?

I'm in favor of protecting our environment, I don't believe any of us have the right to destroy our planet - we should leave it a better place. However, you must keep in perspective what is 'destroying' the planet. The liberalist perspective seems to hint that we are all destroying the planet just by being alive. This evil doctrine is anti-life, and anti-planet. It's like saying driving your car is destroying it - but what is the purpose of your car if it's left sitting in the driveway all of the time, out of fear of loss that once the car was broken it could never be replenished?

When does it become your right as an individual citizen to limit the actions of another man?