This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

I think both FoS and Grist's website exemplify what's troubling with the climate change debate, and the discourse of anything political (at least in the US) right now: we, as voters, are not presented an agreed-upon set of facts with which we can debate and arrive at informed decisions. Instead, elites in politics, business, and media have for various reasons obscured our debates, even what we believe factually, to steer our opinions towards one of two rather specific and incomplete views. FoS's intention is perhaps the only clear argument presented on that website, that climate change is not due to humanity. Grist's website, on the other hand, systemically delineates one thing: that climate change is entirely man's doing. While I commend FoS's statement that they are merely trying to foster discourse, their vehement disposition and one-sidedness would best be fit for one that wants to disprove climate change as a product of humanity and merely needs ammunition. Similarly, Grist's website is a virtual arsenal for the stereotypical Democratic partisan preparing for a night on the town with Bill O'Reilly. I characterize them in these extremes because the culture of debate and organization of power that they represent is unfortunately not far from my minimal hyperboles. To the critical, both websites should provoke skepticism. To partisan, even the ideologue, one website stands as the paragon of truth and freedom, and the other the archetype of tyranny.

The purpose of these two websites is to present very differing perspectives on global climate change. On one side is the “Friends of Science” web site dedicated to disproving the global myth on climate change. Its purpose is to promote the idea that the earth is truly not undergoing any sort of climate change, especially none that is man made. It goes into detail by attempting to disprove any sort publicized information regarding global climate change. It presents facts and figures that represent its views that the earth has been hotter, that any climate change is naturally occurring, that the UN truly does not believe climate change to be man made and finally that computer models representing changing trends in the earths temperature simply are not accurate.

On the other end of the spectrum lies the website “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.” It takes into account all of the facts spouted by those who do not believe in climate change and attempts to disprove them and argue against them. It too displays facts and charts that appear to disprove the claims of the Friends of Science and others like it. How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic lists practically every argument made by the other side and picks it apart piece by piece.

Quite frankly both websites make me skeptical. They are both incredibly polarized and find no room in the middle ground. Friends of the Science writes about climate change believers as if they are all over zealous protestors who do not understand the world at while, while How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic portrays any skeptic of global warming as, essentially, a moron. In my opinion if you really want to change people’s minds and promote either side softer language is necessary. I also find all the data portrayed on both sites rather shady. If one site has a temperature graph that shows cooling, and the other one that shows rapid heating up clearly one or maybe even both are faulty. Also data can be put into graphs to show any perspective desired so graphs should always be looked at skeptically anyways.

Though interesting, I think both sites are made only for those who already share their beliefs and not to sway the beliefs of others. They are both so overly forceful and non understanding towards the other perspective that neither can really be taken seriously. Also I wasn't a fan of either websites layout and I think they could make some definite improvements in the design of their respective pages.

destroy false information!

These websites, both previously unknown to me, both serve to facilitate a dialogue about climate change, which is very important in this age due to rampant skepticism among United States’ conservatives. Who is right, and in which regard, is yet to be known, and each website exhibits its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

Friends of Science initially struck me as an aesthetically pleasing website that served as a platform for a conspiracy theory. I was confused at first because, upon reading more of their scientific beliefs, I was presented with a new argument to an old problem of which I was familiar, the premise being that the sun is the driver of climate change and not CO2. As I read more of their myth-debunking, I thought to myself that the site was probably a puppet organization accepting massive amounts of money from powerful lobbies in order to divert focus from the true root of the problem. However, my harsh criticism was slightly alleviated when I read their “About Us” section explaining their nonprofit nature. After that, I became confused about who truly becomes the authority when it comes to acknowledging the problems and how to solve them. I found the FoS website to be encouraging because it openly promoted a roundtable conversation on the global issue while providing cohesive explanations of their platform. The site also does a good job of sharing the sources from which its claims are made.

Grist’s website, “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is in principle an excellent idea that gets carried away with extensive science-speak that turns the website into more of a burden than a resource. The formatting is uneasy to navigate, which an overabundance of links, although each argument that an ignoramus might make is clearly broken down. There was no counterargument to the FoS site’s claims, which leads me to believe that, due to its lack of mainstream or academic mention or credibility, FoS is probably promoting the wrong agenda. This is unfortunate because the site is designed much better and easier to engage as a resource. I look forward to hearing Professor Nicholson’s insight on the FoS site.

Friends of Science?

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000003606 StartFragment:0000002293 EndFragment:0000003570

It seems amazing that this debate is still raging, but indeed it is. Sometimes it seems that climate change skeptics are even gaining support. It is in this context that these two websites play a role. The purpose of “Friends of Science” is to dissuade the public from believing in anthropocentric climate change in the name of focusing on “more pressing” environmental issues such as pollution. The purpose of “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is essentially to respond to people and organizations like “Friends of Science”. Additionally, “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” seeks to meet their purpose in a comedic and easily readable manner.

With regards to how we should evaluate and make sense of their scientific claims, we should do it in the context of what we have learned in our academic careers. I think because of this, I find the Grist site to be more convincing. I have been aware and convinced of anthropocentric climate change since at least high school, so I do not think I’ll be able to be convinced otherwise. Probably, because of this bias I find the “Friends of Science” site to be least convincing.