"I concur. The blank canvas exists before the picture, the silence before the song and stillness before the dance."

The blank canvas exist BEHEATH the picture, the silence WITHIN the song and stillness INSIDE and AFTERwards the dance.

That is what, to my modest suggestion, Al Gore professionally deployed to impress majority with.

Keith Windschuttle has a good take on what I had stated before about Sociology of science, Michael K’s Arts made me remember this, it sums up adequately and explained in full context, as well as answer why the confusion between actual real science and the principled philosophy of sociology Dialog of science- again, not rocket science and easy to establish real knowledge from pretend proletariat steaming pile of twisted wisdom , and as plain as a persons face, you will be able to distinguish between Science and conceptualized fiction or the said steaming pile of twisted wisdom.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/139/

I know I've come to this discussion late, but was I reading the same article as most of the rest of the commentators? The author did not appear to be a climate change sceptic, just sceptical of the motives of many who have joined an increasingly popular 'soft green' agenda. While I disagree with his Kantian ethics, he makes the important point that shallow conversion to environmentalism is just that: shallow. Unless it deepens with greater insight into the world and self, it is too easily dismissed as the latest consumeristic fad.

bgs,

There *is* no greater insight attached to environmentalism. We're on a planet, it has living things on it, and most of us are concerned with how to survive, and how to live with some quality of life.

Why do we want to get so mystical about it? This is the same as any other global issue in economics and politics.

There is no moral dimension to looking after a lump of rock. If it's selfish to exclude rocks from moral consideration, then I guess I'm selfish.

Dewl,
Three points:
(a) how we look after this piece of rock has a great deal to do with how we treat our neighbour. Part of the greater insight offered by environmentalism is that due to the interconnections between ecosystems, we're all neighbours, to differing degrees. How I approach looking after my little bit of the rock will affect many others.
(b) this is not simply a piece of rock. It is the good gift of God, a wonderful world full of delight and diversity. It has far more than merely intrinsic value, according to what we can get from it. It has beauty and inherent worth.
(c) As a gift from God, how we treat this piece of rock also shows what we think of the giver.

Thus, far from being a-moral, our actions (and inactions) on environmental issues are all deeply moral choices.

Speaking of “personal motives” underlying “green ethics” should perhaps distinct personal convictions by their own from a reality universe runs.

I have already mentioned that a title of this topic is too sharp because Al Gore might ultimately be convinced in his personal conclusions-a real way nature is evolving is a different story, and any nowadays theory might surely be appraised by oncoming generations only, as ADAPTING to a natural change rather than ATTEMPTING to factually alter natural developments is seen by me to be more realistic and unifying the world approach.