By taking two different sides of an argument, these websites show important dialogue about the causes and implications of climate change. The first, Friends of Science was very interesting. While this website did not deny that climate change is occurring, they posited that it was not caused by humans, but by the Sun. By displaying graphs and charts (that honestly were difficult to interpret on my own) they appear to have evidence that supports this hypothesis. Even more, they give the bios of the scientists on their advisory board, giving them more credibility. While I have no idea if their claims are at all true or how sound their science is, any average web-browser would probably believe what this website has to say. With a clear agenda of proving that climate change is not caused by human activity, Friends of Science provides data and information in logical and respectful manner.
The “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” website is also very interesting. It is certainly a little less professional looking than the Friends of Science page because many of the topics and categories are clearly poking fun at climate change skeptics. However, once you get past this, they refute practically any question you could think of to deny climate change as a fact. Not only does this website aim to prove that climate change exists; it also suggests that human activity is a major cause. I think that because I firmly believe that climate change is a human-caused phenomenon, that this website is more convincing. It is difficult for me to be objective about something that I have accepted as true. However, both websites use convincing scientific proof and graphs and charts, which are always helpful when pushing a scientific agenda.
Making sense of these scientific claims is very difficult for me. While I have always believed that climate change is occurring at the hands of humans, the Friends of Science website had proof that this is not the case. Because I do not have a scientific background, I do not have the skills to properly analyze the data that both websites provided. This is one of the major problems, because anyone can throw up a graph and make the average person believe their point of view. However, properly interpreting data is crucial, and there is always the chance that certain data was interpreted to skew results. Essentially, people have to trust the integrity of scientists and hope that their data is interpreted truthfully and in a way that shows the entire picture.
I agree with what Courtney is saying about the difficulty of comparing these two websites with our firm views about climate change. It's hard for me to properly evaluate and give fair judgment to Friends of Science when I don't agree with any of their six claims right off the bat when I open the website. But in reading further, like on the other links, I find that I could actually come to terms with some of their claims. They seem like an organization truly concerned about how world focus on environmental issues has been shifted away from air pollution and toward global warming. I can see their area for concern, but I do believe they are missing some links that perhaps they just don't agree with--for instance, the belief that air pollution of CFCs and CO2 directly leads to global warming.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second site, "How to Talk to Climate Skeptic"--I love it. The site is interactive, with a number of links that will explain pretty much any argument against climate change one could think of. The site understands that it is dealing with a diverse audience of individuals with different thoughts about global warming. The graphs and visuals also really add to it and make it more effective.
The main theme here is how organizations with a globally-debated belief present their views in a way that can be easy to understand for the audience. In this regard, I think the Grist side does a better job.