Hot Enough For Ya?

I never really figured it out. Not completely. Usually, I can at least understand both sides of an argument, even if I strongly side toward one; generally I can understand why the other person would feel that way. With this one, I'm at a loss.
It's the global warming debate, and why some people deny the science and take up the other side.

You would think that the anti-warming people have political motives, but I have a problem finding a truly political angle. If we are going to argue against what they would refer to as progress (i.e. deforestation, dirty air, more trash, massive home sites and bigger vehicles) I suppose there is an ox to gore (pun intended) but I still believe it is the shallow human who cannot find profit in conservation - if profit is your motivation.
The environmental movement has spawned some anti-movements. Some with names that would make us think that their motives are other than what they are.

There is one called globalwarming.com, run by a coalition that claims to be a non-lobbying group that sells books with names like The Skeptical Environmentalist and whatnot. They're the Lex Luthor to the Sierra Club, that still maintains that clean air and water are important.
So, I posted this essay about the 34 deadlines that the government has missed regarding the energy efficiency standards, and referenced the Al Gore controversy over his energy usage. I heard from one commenter regarding Al's supposed hypocrisy, considering his alleged energy usage - never minding to mention from whence the energy came.

The motive, in this case, is to discredit the movement by discrediting the mover. Poke at Al and make the populace believe that the movement lacks credibility because we supposedly find fault with its leader. If that were the case in all events, the war in Iraq (sometimes referred to as the War on Terra) would have died an insignificant death long ago. But I digress.

My lack of understanding of the anti-warming folks exists on several levels. First, I cannot fully comprehend why they would deny their role as stewards of our planet. I would like to get a glimpse into their personal lives and check out their personal habits and cleanliness. Do they treat their bodies and homes as they treat the planet? If so, then they must be the center of discarded goods and waste products that they believe the earth should be.

Secondly, why would they deny that the right action is the appropriate one? In other words, protection and caution are always the least of our preferred actions. In theory, we cannot abuse the planet if we aim to protect it. Our actions may, in the end be disavowed by science, but in the meantime, we are erring on the side of caution. Where our children and their children are concerned, why would we act otherwise?

Which brings up the subject of responsibility. While it is true that the old-heads that run government and big business are clearly out for their own old heads, we should not allow their irresponsibility to be the guidepost with which we conduct our planetary business. We should aim to leave this place the way we found it, but I fear that the damage has been done, and in the spirit of industrialization, we have done enough damage already. Leaving it as it is now should be the minimum requirement.

You may continue to believe that the science is bunk, and tell me that my goals are unreachable. Cast stones. Lie. Claim that the science is flawed ... whatever. The truth is, I don't care what you say, because I will do my best to be the caretaker. I am unsure of your role here. Your motives are unknown to me, and perhaps will always be. Know, however, that soon you will be gone, and the planet you leave for future generations may either be theirs to fix or be rendered un-fixable. In either case, your time here will have long passed, and the generations to come may either curse your existence or wish there was enough time to do so.