The article tries to paint the environmentalists as dishonest simply looking for a new means to accomplish old goals. It's hogwash. They don't want big government for big government's sake and the proposed regulations are not old proposals with new justifications. They believe government can solve problems and history proves it can. Their motives in this case are totally legit while some of the proposed solutions may be misguided.

I'm trying to figure out what level of evidence would be required to prove my point.

Have you looked at the solutions so far presented? Kyoto? The Warner-Lieberman bill? Have you looked at the people driving this bus? What they were doing and pushing before CO2 was an issue?

Again:

Only solutions requiring control over our lives are being pushed. Solutions that might work without this are being suppressed. The treatment of nuclear power in the political discussion is the most obvious example.

History has shown that government often creates more problems than it solves. I'm constantly amazed at the dazzling faith in that process that so many people have. Where does it come from?