Coby who?

In the debate about climate change, there are many passionate view points. The blogosphere is a key space to promote ideas and to engage in discussions relating to this very controversial topic. Many sides of the debate have taken to the Internet to promote what they think. The Friends of Science website and How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic series are two instances of these tools. Both provide very detailed analysis while taking different views.

Friends of Science is a more traditional web based organization. Their 'About Us' section clearly details how they see the climate change debate and provides information on key issues. It is more of a traditional website in that it has clearly demarcated sections and headings. I think it is the more user-friendly of the two. It has a pleasant background and easy to use interface. Additionally, there seems to be more transparency when the website clearly states where they get their money from and who is on their staff- a team of scientists with respectable backgrounds. A nifty layout map tells the visitor which articles are easy, hard or most difficult on technical reading. Clearly, the Friends of Science website has the support of a much more established organization.

On the other hand we have How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic. This actually an article series rather than the traditional website that Friends of Science employs. There are detailed articles relating a number of subjects that are central to the climate change debate. However, I found it to be the less convincing of the two based on pure aesthetics alone. I am confident both have very reliable data (while at the same time attempting to poke holes in the other side's argument). However, it is much less clear what the purpose is and even who it is. Coby Beck appears to be the only writer and his About Me is less than convincing on his Climate Change credentials. While I am all for empowering voices not often heard through the internet, I believe it is imperative that those voices should also be the most educated. I'm sure he is passionate about his work and we probably sure the same views. But his posts do little to convince me of his argument.

People will believe whatever SOUNDS smart

These two websites supply interesting contrasts regarding the climate debate. While “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is very clearly concerned with spreading information on the reality of climate change, “Friends of the Science” supplies an alternative view, giving evidence that contradicts that from climate scientists. These two websites together form very good overviews of the key arguments from both sides of the climate debate.

Challenging one side on the quality of its scientific evidence, while blindly supporting the evidence provided by the other is the typical response of those involved in the climate debate. While I am obviously partial to one side of the climate debate, I attempted to evaluate the material on both of these websites as neutrally as possible.

What interested me was not the bizarre or questionable scientific evidence of “Friends of Science”, but the way that they framed many of their arguments compared to the Grist website. Grist, in an effort to effectively convert climate skeptics and make them reconsider their stance, has tried to be as plain spoken and clear concerning these issues as possible. He has stated everything in “layman’s terms,” while supplying graphs and citations that elaborate on issues more scientifically. One setback may even be that he is too vernacular with his analysis, especially when he is referring people to Wikipedia for a good article on a particular subject.

The authors of “Friends of Science” have taken a wholly different approach. Quite a lot of their reasoning are overly scientific-sounding with the probable intention of confusing the readers into believing what they say is true. I think specifically of two of their “Insights.” The first insight that the earth is cooling is based on a graph that does not support their claim. While they show that CO2 has increased rapidly and temperature has been variable, there is a noticeable trend of steadily increasing temperature. They distract readers from this by writing in a very convoluted way that sounds scientific, but actually does make much sense. One example: “Surface temperature data is contaminated by the effects of urban development… The high magnetic flux reduces cloud cover and causes warming.”

Their second instance of confusing the readers is in their second insight that the sun causes global warming. While they accuse Al Gore of reverse causality, they are willing culprits themselves. They show evidence proving a connection between solar irradiance and rising temperatures, something that most climate scientists would not dispute, but use it as a reason to deny global warming. The attempts of the “Friends of Science” to confuse separate them from the plainspoken information supplied by Grist’s website.

Mixed Data Causes Confusion

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.