The Mail on Sunday, a British tabloid, has an editorial condemning a climate change scientist for keeping a messy desk, which seems a weak argument, no matter where one comes down on the matter of climate change. The editorial, which is skeptical of man-made climate change, nonetheless cedes quite a bit of ground: "There is no doubt that careless and greedy exploitation has done much damage to the planet." This "greedy exploitation" language is right out of Karl Marx. Is it greedy exploitation to cut down trees and then use chemicals to turn the trees into paper on which to print the Mail on Sunday? Is it greedy exploitation to drill for oil with which to make gasoline to fuel the trucks to deliver the Mail on Sunday? Is it greedy exploitation for the newspaper's readers to cut down trees and destroy wilderness habitat to build houses for themselves and their families to live in? There are a lot of unstated ideological assumptions in the phrase "greedy exploitation" that the paper doesn't really explain. I don't deny that greed exists or that greedy, short-sighted individuals can pollute the environment or use it in a way that isn't sustainable over the long or even medium term. But a lot of what gets chalked up as greedy exploitation may just be self-interested decisions by humans who value their newspapers, or their houses, more than they value pristine animal and plant habitat. That even the global warming skeptics are using this "greedy exploitation" language is a testament to just how deep are the ideological inroads that have been made by the the environmental movement and the critics of capitalism. They've got even their opponents buying into their basic framework.