© 2016 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Is it a hoax? How could anyone be skeptical of Manmade Catastrophic Global Climate Change? That’s what I get when I write that it seems to be a hoax. The controversy started about seventeen thousand days ago.
April 22, 1970 was a pleasant Southern New Mexico day on the campus of New Mexico State University. I was a sophomore Journalism major covering the first Earth Day.
It was a shock to me when an organizer proclaimed most people on Planet Earth would be dead within ten years (1980) from Manmade Global Cooling. This would drive the temperature of Earth down.
I asked a question that afternoon that was not answered then nor has it been addressed in the forty-six years since even though I keep asking it. I’ll get to that question after I explain why I became a skeptic.
That afternoon I thought it would be nice to drop the temperature in New Mexico though it would be a problem for farmers in Canada. Occasionally, over the next few years there would be stories predicting Global Cooling but nothing happened.
Ten years later in 1980, the theory changed dramatically to identify a completely different danger: Manmade Global Warming. All people on planet Earth would be dead within ten years (1990) because the planet would become too hot. Shuckins, I thought, first cooling was going to kill us and now warming. I became skeptical and wrote that it seems a hoax to give government more power and money.
Some readers roasted me for my skepticism in advance of the theoretical roasting from Manmade Global Warming. Then ten years went by without any change.
In 1990, it was twenty years after the introduction of Manmade Global Cooling and then the change to Manmade Global Warming. The proponents of the theory now said we would all be dead within ten years (2000) unless everyone on the planet stopped using fossil fuel. Also, the word “Catastrophic” was added.
Fast forward to the year 2000 when Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming was certainly going to kill everyone on the planet within ten years (2010) per the mainstream media. But our climate didn’t change as had been predicted for thirty years.
With the Internet becoming so prevalent there came many false stories claiming vast climate changes unsupported by scientific data. Rather, political agendas drove the research where millions of dollars were awarded to universities for finding the desired political outcome: there is Global Warming.
Example: recently we learned the United Kingdom gave $11 million to the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Warming but the organization just published findings of Climate Change without doing any research. This fraud and others have been discovered but the mainstream media doesn’t care.
This is now in the category of a religion where you must believe in the political advocacy regardless of the real data. This year we’re told Catastrophic Manmade Global Climate Change is more dangerous than nuclear global war. What utter crap.
Since this is political there’s a huge push to silence skeptics. Valerie Richardson in The Washington Times April 14, 2016 wrote, “Bill Nye, ‘the science guy’ says in a video interview released Thursday that he is open to the idea of jailing those who deviate from the climate change consensus.”
Regardless, the question I have asked over and over during the last forty years has not been answered. If humans can change the climate of Earth, what’s the best temperature? Before we change Earth’s temperature we must consider what is the best for all humans?
How do we decide this issue? We have the push to lower the temperature via carbon trapping but do we want the temperature of Planet Earth to go down and have less carbon available for plant growth?
In 1970, at the first Earth Day, I was introduced to the theory of Global Cooling. Forty-six years later I still call this a hoax designed to give power to governments. I am still upset that no one will address the best temperature on Earth question.
If telling the truth about this political hoax is a jailing offense in our country, I will serve my time in a country without a Constitutional First Amendment.