Well, bill, you certainly did not pick up on the issues I was refering to. My posts on the environment related to two issues:
a) Gideon challenged me to find even one data source that cast doubt on the whole global warming thing. I found several. (yes, I wholeheartedly admit that y'all found one that had a stake in the whole issue; but so do most of yours, Gideon's, etc.).
b) Everyone here, with the possible exceptions of Deathy and Gideon, makes a fundamental goof when referring to the environment. You and Qx (also, SDF and Lark if given a chance) continuously are confusing fact with value statements (Deathy often does this elsewhere but not on this particular issue). I fully admit my statements were declaritive; what else could they have been as I was giving my personal value judgements. The terms you all were using such as "clean environment" and "sustainability" are the particular value judgements of your particular minds. The difference between the two of us is that while I fully admit my value judgements you and Qx (Gideon verges on it) were making value judgements and attempting to pass them off as statements of fact.
Both the terms listed above have no standard in nature and require particular human value judgements to give them meaning. When Qx says "clean environment" he means clean environment by his standards. When you say "sustainability" you are referring to "sustainability" under the particular standards of your particular mind. Period. Yes, I did stand and declare my valuation of the environment ("I only care about the environment as it applies to human beings and their well-being".), and while you did the same you simply tried to avoid this by referring to loaded statements of "take it or leave it nature".
Ought can never logically follow from Is. When a person says "humanity should commit to action A because of condition X" they are simply giving their value judgements and then cloaking it in statements their particular minds present to others as objective facts. Your whole post was of declarative nature; so were Qx's and mine. The difference was that while I fully admitted such, you and Qx tried to obfuscate facts and your personal values to proclaim the "objective rightness" of the particular value judgements of your particular minds.
If you were to say, as I stated, "no pollution" then you would be advocating the complete end of the human race. And, any standard beyond that can only be reached by someone implementing some standard. My standard is that the environment is of concern only if our actions upon it have massive adverse implications upon the lives of human beings. I do not worship nature as do many environmentalists; it is their God, make no mistake, and by their advocation of environmentally-worshiping legal measures they are seeking to make their God as sovereign over my life and particular value systems. But, if Marx's view of religions, taken from Schopenauer and Fuerbauch, is correct, then they really are doing nothing more then proclaiming themselves as my God.
c) And, in response to Deathy's accusations, I was not engaging in the logical fallacies you presented. This room is not the place to debate detailed scientific data; data which is in question by Ph.Ds and scientists themselves. You said that I shouldn't comment on a subject I admitted little knowledge of. So, when Gideon and you try to foist your particular value judgements upon me, what am I supposed to do? Grab my ankles and take it? Again, this board is no place to debate detailed scientific data.
No, boys, please give your value statements the respect they deserve by referring to them as such. But, remember, they are no more than the value judgements of you particular minds. Any attempt to make them objective leads to value-imperialism. You do respect diverse views, don't you?