The Place Where the "Save the Planet" People Won't Go: Take the Emotionalism Out of the Global Warming Debate, and Then Look at What's Left

One of the most infuriating things about the global warming debate is all the emotionalism that the "Save the Planet" side uses to get people to buy in to the global warming debate. It's getting in the way of an examination of the pure, unblemished facts that have been suppressed.

There's a place that the global warning panic-mongers refuse to acknowledge or go to, because it turns their arguments into pure folly that is similar to the "global cooling" debate of the 1970s.

This place is located at the very heart of the global warming debate. Here's how you find it:

Strip away all the emotionalism and the hype involved in the debate. Once it's gone, ask yourself: what is left? That answer is where the "Save the Planet" people utterly refuse to look or acknowledge, because it's inconvenient to their side.

Here's what's left:

• A science that is deeply conflicted about global warming. There is no mainstream science community on global warming; mainstream science remains conflicted, despite the claims of the alarmists in the scientific community that they are the mainstream.
  

• Four billion years worth of cycles between global warming and global cooling, not just 500,000 or 500 million years that some are focusing all their attention on. And the long view shows global warming in the distant past, when the surface of Earth is much warmer than it is today; and it shows global cooling as well. And we're not talking about once or twice either; there's evidence of this happening over and over.
  

• Scientific evidence that shows a continuing trend of rising sea levels over the last 120,000 years and projections that show more of the same far into the future, whether we were here or not. And sea levels may have been over a hundred meters higher in the distant past than they are today, according to the same story linked above.

• The misconception that melting sea ice will raise sea levels. You want proof of this nonsense? Here's a quote from the link above: "Place some ice in a cup of water, and make a mark at the waterline. Wait for the ice to melt. Check the new water level. It won't change!" Ice melting over land and then running into the water WILL affect the sea level as it's new water being added to the mix.

• The true contribution of the sun to the global warming process as well as global cooling, and that these processes also take place on other planets as well as on Earth.

• The true contribution of forest fires and volcanoes to global warming. It's definitely understated, due to the difficulty in figuring how much carbon that burned plants and trees had in them before they were burned by fire, or how many plants actually went up. And they don't exactly put a meter on top of an erupting volcano to get an exact figure on how much greenhouse gas is being released. So if a data report doesn't openly say that the figures are estimates, that they're exact, they're not being truthful. It's rare to find statements like this, but they have been known to try to slip in the back door.

• The real estimate of man's contribution to what is primarily a naturally occurring phenomenon. There's no doubt that we've made the situation worse, but global warming is NOT man-made---a fact that seems to be denied by the "Save the Planet" folks. The simple fact is that we don't really know how much damage has been done. But global warming has been around a lot longer than we have.
  

• Mother Nature also doesn't punch a clock. For people to say that we only have ten years left to save the planet is utter nonsense. It's political rhetoric and emotionalism.
  

• What needs to be saved? The planet? NOT!! Our civilization is what needs to be saved. The planet will continue long after we've killed ourselves off, or left the cradle permanently.
  

• Global warming has happened; it will happen again, no matter what steps we take. As sure as the sun will rise and set this day, global warming will happen. We should try to take steps to reduce our impact on this naturally occurring phenomenon.

• Remember, this group of people was wrong about global cooling in the 1970s.
  

• Reducing pollution is a good goal, but the use of carbon "credits", a man-made folly, won't do it. That system is another way of putting money into someone else's pocket, in the name of reducing one's "carbon footprint," another money-grabbing invention. And whose pockets are the proceeds going into, might I ask? Those that are into this really need to follow the money trail and see which major polluters they're supporting with their green efforts.
  

I do think we need to reverse some patterns that we've gotten into.

The way we use fossil fuels should be altered, and then discontinued as it definitely affects the quality of the air that we breathe. And on a practical note, there's not enough supply to match the worldwide demand. This fact alone should demand that we develop technology and alternative fuels.

I also think we need to look at the global warming issue in a sane manner, not in this reckless fashion that politicians and some scientists are pushing us into. What if they're wrong again? How many trillions of dollars will have been wasted in combating a problem that either doesn't happen, or does happen--regardless of the steps that we take to "save the planet?"

This debate is much more complex than saving polar bears; the environment does need help. No one wants to live in a world where the air we breathe is poisoned, our water supplies are contaminated, and our food supply is threatened to the point where millions of people starve to death.

We ARE stewards of our world, and it's our responsibility to leave it cleaner than we found it. Each generation must make it better for the generation that follows it.

But let's do it without the fear-mongering that is present in today's debate.