The beauty of science is that it evolves over time as new insights are made into its various fields. Think about climate change, for example: In less than 50 years, we have heard theories ranging from “inevitable ice age” to “man-made global warming” to “the climate just changes.” For theories to change in science is natural and expected, yet global warming stands out to people because they are subjected to fear-based advertising campaigns that urge them to either change their lifestyle immediately or let their children live in an apocalyptic world of extreme heat and despair. To delve into the reason why people are skeptical about global warming, here is a bit of background.
On April 28th, 1975, Newsweek magazine printed an article named “The Cooling World.” This spelled out for the world that the Earth was in a cooling cycle and an impending ice age was coming. Scientists were “almost unanimous” that food productivity would be reduced for the rest of the century and that to help fight this condition the governments needed to take drastic measures to stop it or else! Does that sound familiar? There were radical ideas diverting arctic rivers and placing black soot on the polar ice caps so the sun would help melt them. Scientists were upset that the government was not taking an active role to try and prevent this and at least wanted them to stockpile food for the upcoming doom. Hindsight is 20/20 and we can look back now and laugh, but could you imagine what it would be like today if the governments actually did act? Could you imagine what the earth would be like if they intentionally warmed the climate?
In the 1990s, global warming scare tactics became main stream, yet as far back as the 1880s this theory has existed. Just like the global cooling scare of the 1970s, the global warming scare was trumpeted by scientists to either change the current course or impending doom would result. This time, instead of asking the government to warm the climate, the scientists wanted the government to act to reduce emissions that could cause a warming effect on climate. This time, however, some governmental organizations actually bought into this scam. World governments have gotten together over the years to try and come up with a “solution” to global warming. In 1992, there was the Rio Summit, where it was suggested that emissions be controlled. In 1997, various governments got together in Japan for the Kyoto summit, where some governments actually signed an agreement to control the emissions in a binding agreement. Since then, there have been several other summits attempting to limit carbon dioxide emissions.
It was purported to the population that the “debate was over” and that global warming was real and would harm them in their lifetime if something was not done to stop it. Former Vice President of the United States of America Al Gore even jumped on the bandwagon and released a propaganda movie trying to influence the youth into this new philosophical pseudo-religion. Yet, when people started to dig in, they found out that it was a big money scam. Scientists needed grants to keep their paychecks flowing and there was an emerging industry that would fund it. Governments help to fund this research because they know they can get money off of fines and expand their reach into businesses. There are groups who benefit from selling solutions to help keep down emissions and providing alternative energy sources. There were going to be new agencies to trade “carbon credits,” which would allow companies to still pollute as long as they paid extra money to do so. It all came to a head in something that became known as “Climategate.” In 2009, the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia had a server hacked and information released. The information included research and e-mail showing that scientists were suppressing information and lying about their research; it showed that global warming was not man-made, and was nothing more than a natural cycle influenced by items such as solar activity. This information came mere weeks before the Copenhagen Summit, in which it was generally thought that even more restrictions would have been approved to fight this hoax and to have cost people a ton of money.
The debate over climate change is not over, nor should it be. To have a truly scientific approach toward this subject, all angles of research should be funded and scrutinized by the community. Only this way will scientists gain a better understanding about what is actually happening as it relates to global climate research.