Have you recently been listening to the heated debates regarding climate change? Why does society suddenly seem to care so much about our planet's climate? And why have no changes been enacted? That answer lies in something much greater than a lack of knowledge or resources to solve this issue. In fact research on climate change and its alarming effects have been studied for the past “150 years” with confirmation in 1995 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that humans are the cause of this ( ). Despite the plethora of scientific evidence backing up this claim, we somehow are only hearing about its threatening ramifications now. That begs the questions “why so late?” The cause of delayed policy action and media awareness has to do with a term called climate change doubt. It is shown that only “56 percent of Americans” actually believe in climate change and this doubt is not due to chance but instead the careful manipulation of this topic by political giants.( ).
To understand this concept we must first know what climate change is. Climate change is defined basically as a change in climate patterns due to the burning of fossil fuels. Its release of CO2 tends to store heat which over time leads to a global temperature increase, melting polar ice caps and causing unusual weather patterns all around the world. Though this is universal among scientists, many Americans do not believe in this fact. Fossil fuels run both the economy and affect politics allowing for different ideologies regarding them. These people have interests only in benefiting themselves and are determined to make sure fossil fuel consumption does not go away. In the novel Merchants of Doubt How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes coin a term known as the “merchants of doubt” who essentially were the big players involved in instilling climate change doubt into American Society. The merchants of doubt were able to use the delayed effects of climate change and psychological loopholes among Americans to split the issue along political lines and to stop any action and only create confusion.
Even though the science is evident and present people can still easily be swayed due to our climates unique features. It is unlike many other scientific discoveries such as the negative effects of radiation or pollutions harm on human health which are linear and easily measurable. Instead it is something that is nearly invisible for decades until it suddenly begins to exponentially grow. The climate “is always changing; it is immense, elusive and in its most accessible form to all of us – the weather – subjective and variable” (c ). It isn't something you can pinpoint immediately because of its versatility and that with the right push from different views can lead to an excess of confusion(B ).
Apart from climate changes elusiveness and delayed effects, there may be a psychological reason people may not understand or take action towards this issue according to an article “Why is climate change such a hard sell in the US” (C ). It seems that many people are selfish and are first not willing to make the drastic changes that is required to reverse our current path or that they are uneducated and are not proactive people but reactive ones – once it is too late to act on climate change then people will be concerned (C ). This is a dangerous path to take and certain scientists took advantage of this mindset to instill doubt in society and to help them move away from that proactive mindset.
Big name that led this movement included Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz and Fred Singer that used their expertise to manipulate American society to creat what is known now as climate change doubt ( ) . They knew these psychological beliefs people had and how climate change really worked as well as were willing to sacrifice the lives of many to benefit themselves. There is no denying that these natural changes are tricky to understand sometimes with so many conflicting views, but if one is willing to do the research to find out the truth they can by looking at over “150 years” of findings ( ). One can liken this to a doctor or surgeon telling you to eat medicine you don't need or get a surgery that is unnecessary just so that they can make a bit more cash. Maybe due to this twenty to thirty years down the road you realize that you are now addicted to that drug or need another surgery to fix the previous one. This vicious cycle is exactly what these merchants of doubt prey on. They are looking to trick the public into not only making money in the short term but then so that these people also rely on them in the future when it comes to different industries.
One of these scientists, Bill Nierenberg was great at playing devil's advocate. He took the side of many scientific discoveries and changed it ever so slightly to benefit himself. His statement was that CO2 was indeed a problem allowing for him to attract to the masses as well as add to his already attained credibility from his research during the cold war but then also said that nothing is dangerous or alarming about climate change hence no action shall be taken( ). He concluded that all he needed was some government funding for his research ( ). His plan was perfect. He essentially was able to stop the average person from making any changes to his or her lifestyle while also helping the government spend less money to enact any changes regarding the issue. By just agreeing with what the masses want to do and not even attacking the situation he didn't really pick a side of whether climate change existed or didn't. It is similar to when a politician only positions themselves slightly to the left or right of the political spectrum to gain the most support for election. But what makes this even worse is that Nierenberg is no average scientists. His work is sent to millions of people just like these other big players and can convince so many of them and instil doubt in the minds of those who may have been sure of one side.
Not only does he do this but other acclaimed scientists Fred Seitz and Fred Singer have the same agenda. So now not only one highly regarded scientist is claiming a similar thing but several of them. They took advantage of watered down reports due to political pressure and convinced the public that they were entirely false making any false claims they could and using any altered data( ). Again this put political parties at a deadlock between whether or not climate change was real and again let the government and the average man off the hook from making any major changes. There reports were taken so far it even led to the end of the kyoto protocol which was a treaty promoting the reduction of greenhouse gases.These scientist not only created doubt among the masses due to so much conflicting information by so many respectable scientists and politicians essentially dividing the public along political lines between conservatism and liberalism.
But what can happen as a result of all of this doubt? Eventually all of us will find out how detrimental climate change is as time goes on but now is the time for action to prevent this disaster. A topic so similar and closely related to this issue is the tobacco industry. Currently nearly the entire American population has come to the conclusion that tobacco products are harmful and dangerous but decades ago it was just the opposite. No one knew the side effects and it wasn't because the science wasn't there, but instead the same strategies were used to trick the public. And to no surprise Fred Seitz was also involved in this industry for himself ( ). Just like in the climate change the tobacco industry also had a clear loophole that was very targetable by politicians. At the time it was very hard to truly determine whether it was the tobacco causing lung cancer and cardiovascular disease or if it due to something else. Not only was that a point of doubt, but also tobacco use never instantly causes all of these health concerns ( ). It takes years of constant use essentially making it even harder to identify. With that and some credibility politicians and scientists could alter conclusions and challenge scientific claims causing a large amount of doubt among the american society. It took nearly a tobacco epidemic with mass media informing people of its dangers for people to realize how harmful these substances were.. Granted the tobacco industry is still a gigantic industry, however it is not growing at the same rate it used to with more people informed of its dangers. However this is not as bad as climate change.
With climate change becoming more and more prevalent we can see how this doubt can be a major problem. The tobacco problem was something that was able to be reversed through generational changes meaning that though people of one generation may have smoked the future generations were better equipped with the knowledge of its harm. However climate change may not be so forgiving. And even though nearly half the American population doesn't believe in the science behind this problem, and maybe you don't either, but I think it would be a wise decision to take action now just in case it actually does prove to be a problem. There's a great quote that encapsulates this and states, “when history repeats itself, the price goes up.” This is history in the making and if we don't do something about climate change and people's unwillingness to take action to prevent something so grand we may as well be repeating history without its forgiving nature.