The Great Climate Debate

After reviewing the "Friends of Science" site I was less than impressed with its arguments and scientific models. Even when I first opened the page and hadn't read anything, it already seemed like a hoax. The bright yellow, "click here to donate!" button and the linked prompt to listen to a radio ad seemed less credible than the "how to talk to a climate skeptic" site. Even the title, "friends of science" was strangely off-putting... probably because it reminded me of what a Scientology recruitment website might look like (no offense meant to those of you that are scientologists) it just seemed a little ridiculous and ultimately, wasn't very convincing.

I found the "talking to a climate skeptic" website most interesting as it broke down the levels of denial among climate skeptics and reasoning behind it. For those who don't believe global warming is occurring, I'm sure this site is offensive since it classifies their arguments as silly, naive and misinformed or blatantly uninformed. Though I agree that climate skeptics are "in the wrong" as it were, I found it interesting how borderline hostile and passive aggressive the site was toward the other side of the debate. I suppose since this topic is politically charged and draws a lot of excitement in the scientific community there is good reason for a fierce debate over climate change but the competition in pushing theories of whether or not global warming etc. is occurring seems a bit extreme to me. These efforts in defending and promoting opposing opinions would certainly better serve our society if they were instead trying to prevent the problem or solving any number of environmental situations that are compromising the planet and our future on it. In the words of Rodney King (and many others), can't we all just get along?

The Presentation of Science

Having taken a class on statistics with a climate skeptic, I was pretty familiar with many of the arguments presented by the Friends of Science page and refuted by the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic page. This disagreement over the reality of climate change is present throughout society. We do not consider climate change a scientific fact but instead a polarizing political issue. Each point has a counterpoint presented by the opposition and both sides seem to have science on their side as represented by their numerous graphs and figures. And both websites seem pretty convincing. The layouts are clear and each possible argument is addressed, bolstered by other articles. We like to think of science as definite and factual, but so much can be done in how those facts are presented. Scientific data does not definitely prove a point either way, much can be done with the analysis and presentation. The websites have made choices in what facts they want to include and how they want to present them. This makes their causes seem obvious and factually based. It is no surprise that skeptics and believers alike have dedicated followers to their causes. For me, the Grist website was more convincing, but I went onto the sites with specific opinions and therefore looked for the information that reinforced my beliefs.

Climate Change

I have seen clips before where scientists argued that climate change is not happening. When I first watched them, I could not believe my eyes and was speechless. I took some time to look over the two websites and felt the same way again. People, in general, need solid facts to support any arguments. For this particular issue, scientists argue that climate change is used for political means with no scientific proven facts to support the climate change. The fierce competition around the science of climate change occurs in order to prove that climate change does not have scientific facts to support the cause and the cause of the climate change is simply a myth. Climate change is however, used in the political field and has become a bigger issue politically than scientifically—is these scientists argument.

Neither of the websites sticks out to be more convincing than the other.As Thomas mentioned though, there is bias, due to the fact that I do believe in climate change and feel that these websites are rejection of the obvious and cannot be ignored or treated the way it is.

It Varies

Climate change is an issue that seems very broad in regards to the effects and the actual causes. The science behind climate change varies, depending on who you ask the answer will either be CO2 emissions or the Sun, which is what the Friends of Science organization believes. Because there isn’t a strong consensus as to the scientific cause or effects of climate change the debate over the topic is intense, with arguments varying in perspectives. 

And when you examine the websites of the Friends of Science organization and Grist an online environmental magazine you see just this. It’s difficult to actually differentiate and determine whom to believe, which is why the best approach is to take the information from both websites and inform oneself about the varying arguments. Just being aware of the issue and knowing the various point of views is better than not being aware about the aspects of an issue. For instance the Friends of Science organization has a specific standpoint on the issue which is the Sun being the main driving force of climate change and Grist is completely different as it mainly informs people about environmental issues through commentary and news articles. If you basically just browse through the Friends of Science website it appears to be more convincing in terms of its standpoint, with the site listing scientific references, initiatives, as well as consensus and skepticism on the issue. Compared to the Grist website this site is more convincing as it takes one central point and appears to back it up with scientific data.