Since the Enlightenment, the gap between climate experience, perception, and knowledge has fluctuated. Early climate models, shaped by imperial and settler colonial agendas, often overlooked local, lived experiences, focusing instead on Eurocentric scientific approaches that prioritized expansion, resource extraction/allocation, and probably most important military dominance over their own lands (enlightened scarcity) . Although these priorities shaped early climate models, they often marginalized indigenous and non-Western knowledge. One example of such as the discrepancy between priorities of what was recorded between different regions of the Earth or what different cultures deemed worthy of recording and how they were recorded. But over time, the rise of the "human sciences," which sought to quantify life, labor, language, and reinforced a narrow view of human interaction with the environment. This quickly narrowing view became known as the concept of Man, or more broadly, how Man interacts with the environment( Romantic Scarcity). These blocky terms often emphasized economic and biological factors while neglecting social and cultural dimensions. Arguably social and cultural dimensions play an equal part to the history of climate as Man does. Since Man is calculated and predictable, like where the human heart is located or how many fingers we have. In contrast culture is much harder to categorize. So combing these two ideas, Man and culture, creates people, and people ultimately contribute to the change of the environment and climate. But since this historical legacy continues to influence how climate data is gathered and interpreted, it reinforces the disparities in between people and how the climate crisis is understood globally (which could and is leading towards Malthusian scarcity).