I LOVE IT. You guys are great. Thanks for speaking out for all of us...oh, and be safe up there!

Kim

These people that did this should be put in jail until they are gray and old. How childish the group has become

@dont matter:

"childish," you say. and yet you took the time to come here and call us names for it. way to prove your point.

for the record, i see nothing childish about taking action to hold our elected representatives responsible. Obama promised to restore science to its "rightful place," and has ignored the science in favor of political dealing. that's unacceptable, and we're doing what we have to do to convey that message to the president, the American public, and the world.

I agree with finding creative ways to make politicians take notice. This stunt though borders on something that could innadvertantly polarize some folks.

I know that I would be pretty ticked off if I was there, on a hard-earned vacation that I get once a year, and could not take the picture that I wanted. There are other ways of communicating the message without using national treasures for your own means.

Again, I agree on banding together to make the politicians accountable. It doens't mean I am going to convey the message by obscuring the few things we have left in this country to pass on.

The virtue and good of your philosphy does not make all of your actions right.

I am all for protesting and speaking out for what you believe in. I do however, have a problem with people who are so blinded by the "justness" of their cause that they don't care who or what might be hurt in the process. Mt. Rushmore is an awesome testament to American ingenuity and creativity. It should not be treated like a billboard on Route 66. What if the monument had been damaged? What good does that do your cause. That you would sacrifice anything. Even the foundation of this nation to get your point across. We get it! Okay? We get it!

There has been atmospheric cooling the last 7 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. Anthropogenic (man caused) global warming is not proved.
They base their arguments on computer models composed of equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then all these equations have to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional constant for each law, theory, and hypothesis.
The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Based on known laws, accepted theories, and data, come up with a hypothesis. (2) Develop a plan to obtain new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.
With the general circulation models (also known as general climate models or GCMs) the output of the computer models is considered to be data, but it is not. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the model are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W. Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.

I hope the ones who defaced an American National Treasure like Mount Rushmore serve a very long prison term.

Global Warming fanatics like these Greenpeace members do a disservice to the legitimate concern about Global Climate Change. Your schoolyard stunt, just set back the environmental movement 10 years.

Imagine how Americans felt, after travelling hundreds of miles to see the awesome spectacle of Mount Rushmore, being forced to look at a high-school stunt like that? One day, the kids who pulled this nonsense, will look back at the fools they were, and realize national treasures shouldn't be used as NY Times full page adds.

Put down the bong and think people!

Noah Mace, 21, Chapel Hill, NC
Mary Sweeters, 27, Chicago
Basil Tsimoyianis, 22, Westport, CT
Madeline Gardner, 27, Minneapolis
Matthew Leonard, 30, San Francisco
Brian Jenkins, 25, Helena, MT
Simran McKenna, 25, San Francisco
Jessica Miller, 31, Flushing, NY
Cy Wagoner, 32, San Francisco
Joseph Smyth, 27, Albuquerque, NM
Hope Kaye, 23, San Francisco

I'm not quite sure what to think about this. I'm a big supporter of Greenpeace and their mission. But is this really necessary? I'm inclined to think that such activities may do more harm than good. The cap and trade is far from perfect, but it's a good start (albeit a few years late). Obama needs to be a politician if he wants to get us moving in the right direction and has done a good job of it. He has gained support on health reform from both sides - something the Clintons failed to do in '94. He is also doing the same with energy reform. If Greenpeace keeps pulling stunts like this, I'm afraid we might lose some key votes from the right (and the left).

Was anyone from Greenpeace ever planning on taking this banner down? That was the ugliest and biggest pieces of trash left on a rock face, let alone on one of our national monuments, that I have ever seen. In case you haven't been around the past couple years, global warming already gets PLENTY of media coverage. This was disgusting, potentially damaging, a disrespect of art and viewers, and useless abuse.

It is too bad we could not throw in prison all of the Congress that is bought off by the lobbyists, money, wealth, and corporate power. Who is worse GreenPeace or Congress?

Sometimes I think people may take out their guns since social chaos may be coming due to environmental dirty capitalism. We need in Congress green smart clean business capitalist to create a new exciting ecology commerce that is possible with courage.