The complaint I had was with the false equivalence.

From your link:

    About half of Democrats (48%) say global warming is a 
    very serious problem

Should we conclude from that they're putting "the almighty dollar ahead of the environment", or can we agree that whatever they may or may not believe,

1) climate change isn't the sum totality of the environment, and

2) whether one chooses to believe or disbelieve in either its presence or its seriousness, that does not necessarily bely an ulterior profit motive?

Many Democrats are against the private ownership of 'semi-automatic firearms', but that doesn't mean that they're trying to disarm the populace so that they can crush us like Hitler.

Many Republicans are against expanding social welfare programs, but that doesn't mean that they're trying to crush the poor and kill off minorities through starvation.

Many Libertarians are against the idea of income taxation, but that doesn't mean that they want people whose jobs are paid for with tax dollars to be evicted from their homes and be subjected to the elements.

Whether or not Republicans agree on climate change, that does not mean they hate the environment, and even if it does mean that, it does not mean they're hating the environment because it's unprofitable to do otherwise.

In short, you've took an almost fact, overvalued its importance, devalued the importance of all other possible environmental concerns, and then drawn incorrect conclusions from that, for the purpose of unnecessarily vilifying roughly half the voting population of America.