Implicit in the Global Warming Advocates' (give yourselves a name people!) stance is humans are somehow, inappropriately, above nature. For example, their dogma, their "truths"
, includes "Over consumption is a serious problem." If all was right, humans would live as one with nature. At the same time, they insist that Science is their basis, and thus deny they have a normative stance. They speak the truth, be damned if your not in on the consensus.
The high priests of environmental science... err, objective, unbiased scientists have had the truth revealed to them... err, have run experiments that confirm anthropogenic climate change.
Consumption is bad; Science tells us so.
What do the Advocates mean by consumption anyway? Is over consumption of organic soy milk bad? How about hemp Green Peace t-shirts
? No, of course not. They mean "bad" consumption like driving SUVs and eating at McDonald's, stuff that's not "one with nature". Never mind biodiesel, another favorite of the Advocates, destroys rain forests
. Never mind the production of organic milk results in worse treatment of dairy cows (I know this from first hand experience).
We're suppose to swallow the Advocates' world view because they hide their normative views on their position of man in nature behind the seemingly norm-free arena of Science.
Man is evil; science tells us so.
The Advocates should be honest with us. They should admit they're trying to hoist a normative world view on the rest of us. To the Advocate, the road from global warming science to "over consumption is a serious problem" is a short one. And it is a short road for someone traveled so far along Pantheistic Avenue.
To the rest of us, it is a very long road indeed.