ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Environment & Green Issues

Forget Global Warming And Find Inner Harmony

Updated on September 19, 2011


Improve the world because you are inspired, NOT because you are afraid.

Getting Signals Uncrossed

From a scientific point of view, the smartest question we can ask about global warming is:

“Given the extremely long time spans and astronomically large magnitudes of natural climate-changing forces, how do we separate the human effect, in order to detect it, so that we might prove that it even exists?”

A scientist might ask the question like this:

“How do we separate the human signal from the natural signal?”

The correct answer, I am convinced, is: “We really can’t.”

When all evidence is weighed strictly, according to the highest standards of rational (NOT emotional) proof, then we cannot separate a human-caused climate signal from a naturally-caused climate signal. There is NO single source of compelling proof and NO body of converging evidence so unequivocally strong that scientists are justified in claiming a destructive human-caused effect on Earth’s climate. What primarily guides widespread, popular opinions on global warming are highly successful ad campaigns fueled by fears about what MIGHT happen, in the midst of considerable uncertainty about what actually WILL happen.

We humans like to think that our species is powerful enough to trigger a climate catastrophe, but the single most outstanding realization here is that human beings still cannot hold a match to the enormous forces of Nature. These immensely greater forces are still what dominate and ultimately control atmospheric conditions on our cozy, blue planet.

Facing The Really Important Questions

  • Are humans slobs?
  • Are humans careless?
  • Are humans insensitive in critical situations?
  • Are humans undisciplined and disrespectful?

I suggest that the answer to all these questions is a resounding, “YES”.

We are more justified in getting emotional about questions such as these, because such questions relate to issues of good, truth, excellence, and beauty. Such questions rely on human measures that exceed numerical representation. If we focus on such questions within their proper domains, therefore, BEFORE misdirecting our energies of answering them onto the scientific domain, then we will more honestly address the real problems of preserving our well-being on this planet.

We are in a critical phase of civilization where we need to raise such questions to positions of the highest importance. These are questions that speak to individual character and integrity. These are questions that further speak to societal standards and commitments as stewards of the world.

Excellence, integrity, high standards, and good stewardship arise from a deep sense of elegance in how things move and harmonize. In other words, our aesthetic sense guides us in the most important matters of life. If more of us attune to this aesthetic sense, giving it the highest priority, then many problems cease, because we have eradicated them at their root sources.

We, thus, create cleaner technologies, because cleaner technologies look prettier, and cleaner technologies smell better. We plant more flowers, preserve more land, reproduce fewer humans, and build less intrusive structures, because the resulting landscapes inspire us and give us places to commune with the cosmos.

If more of us would nurture positive sensations, appreciate elegance in design, practice unwavering respect for others, and behave with an overriding commitment to excellence, then the issue of human-caused global warming would simply go away. All the things that popular arguments blame for global warming would cease because of deeper, aesthetic reasons. More of us, then, could get on with living, out of inspiration, NOT out of fear.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Robert Kernodle profile image

      Robert Kernodle 6 years ago

      There is no collective "We" that acts with a hive mind towards the prevention of even our worst experience, which is death. People generally do what is proximate and satisfying in the moment. It is a lack of discipline in momentary proximate behaviors that is the problem, and the problem is NOT global warming. The problem is systematic sloppiness in modern, civilized cultures.

    • road2hell profile image

      road2hell 6 years ago from Linden, AB

      A nice thought but... we been delaying action too long. We think about, we read about it, we speak about it, we mediate about it and we pray about it. But unless we ACT on it, nothing will ever get done and we are not addressing a very serious humanity problem.

    • Larry Fields profile image

      Larry Fields 6 years ago from Northern California

      I stand corrected.

    • Robert Kernodle profile image

      Robert Kernodle 6 years ago

      Larry Fields said:

      "If I've understood correctly, one of your major points is to advocate that people put more emphasis on some positive spiritual elements."


      "Spiritual" refers to spirits, and I do NOT believe in spirits. What I am talking about is the most physical reality possible. Physical reality is what we tune into with our senses. Physical reality is what we make judgements about with our emotions. Emotions are how humans measure things most authentically. This sort of emotional measuring is in the realm of aesthetics.

      So, I am talking about AESTHTIC judgement.

      Dirty air, cluttered landscapes, and trashy waterscapes are simply ugly, and they smell bad. It's as simple as that, all arguments about global warming aside.

      If we aim for elegant design, then many environmental issues never exist, to begin with, and if they DO exist, and if we instill a high-priority aesthetic judgement in our future decisions, then environmental problems will go away,... again because we have addressed them at their root origin, which is in our standards of integrity and in our sense of harmony used to design civilizations.


    • Robert Kernodle profile image

      Robert Kernodle 6 years ago

      Thanks for your points of view.

      I believe that the SCIENCE of climate change could benefit immensely from aesthetic values established by shifting priorities in political and educational thought.

      This is only dreaming, of course. But it's fun to dream sometimes.


    • American Romance profile image

      American Romance 6 years ago from America

      Live for God and there is no fear!........then you don't need this lie about global warming nor hugging mother earth garbage!

    • Larry Fields profile image

      Larry Fields 6 years ago from Northern California

      Hi, Robert. Voted up and more.

      If I've understood correctly, one of your major points is to advocate that people put more emphasis on some positive spiritual elements. Then that will automatically mitigate certain environmental problems to some extent. Although I'm sympathetic to that point of view, I'd like to add a couple of caveats.

      First, there are some not-so-positive spiritual elements out there. One of these is the Dada-Knows-Best meme. Warmist propagandists are playing the argument-from-authority card to the hilt. Unfortunately, they're lying--not only about the available data, but about the putative consensus as well. This illustrates the fact that spirituality can also have a dark side.

      Second, there are some quantitative environmental issues, which do not lend themselves to spiritual approaches. We'd all like to live in a pollution-free world. However zero pollution comes at an infinite cost.

      Yes, we should continue to draw inspiration from Nature, and to have an active sense of stewardship, as you point out. However we should also do our homework. (You have done an admirable job of that in your hub about astronomy and climate change.)

      Then we need take off our scientists' hats, and put on our policy-makers' hats, while continuing to be brutally honest. In the case of legitimate pollution issues, we need to balance the benefits against the risks. And defining an acceptable level for some pollutant is a political decision, for which there's no single unambiguous 'right answer'. However there are some unambiguously wrong answers, of which we need to be cognizant.

      If we want to be good environmental stewards, we need rationality, as well as positive spirituality.