We're entering a portion of our class where we will be discussing climate change over the next few weeks. In preparation for this, we will be looking at two websites, each with a message concerning global climate change:
1. Friends of Science
2. Grist's How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
We will be comparing the purposes of these websites and trying to make sense of them by evaluating the scientific claims they make. We will try to determine if one of the sites is more convincing than the other, and if so, why. Take a look at the websites, and like usual, click "comments" to join in the discussion!
Quote of the Week:
"If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos."
- Edward O. Wilson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Climate change is so controversial, with support for both sides of the argument and is even more evident when looking at these two websites. The friends of science one discusses the "myths" that global warming is real and then counters with"facts" that it isn't so evident as mass media is trying to make it appear. They use arguments that are general like the earth is variable or it has occurred throughout geologic time. I feel ass if in trying to make lay it out in a simple matter on one page, the arguments were simplified and I personally, would take them with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteThe Grist website and series written by Cody Beck, is presenting the other side that the "myths" about global warming not being true are false. He goes in depth the explain his analysis on each point that is imaginable or stated by the other side. I felt as if it was more thorough in countering the argument. The only down side was there were so many options that I was difficult to navigate at first, but once I figured it out I was well informed.
Yet I am also willing to concede that I might have some bias because I agree more with the Becks piece, but who can say for sure?
I found "Friends of Science" website to be a brow raising experience. While reading there seemingly superficial responses to what they deem "Myths" I kept trying to figure out who these guys where. What could their motives be and what's up with their platonic bond with science? I read the about us section and it became a little clearer, by the sounds of it political interest groups hire these guy out. From the information that they relate it seems like their purpose is to pacify people and to counteract action.Unsurprisingly I didn't find their arguments or "facts" to be particularly persuasive, they seemed vague and general and left me asking "how exactly do they know that?".
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, ‘How to talk to a climate skeptic’ had an air of tongue and cheek about it and as Lauren said, it was a bit difficult to navigate. Also like Lauren, I'm a bit biased so I wasn't surprised that I found the rebuttals on this website to be more substantiated. Their purpose is to counteract the Naysayers like Friends of Science so that action isn't halted any further than it has been.
Climate change is clearly a global issue that affects each of the six and a half billion people on the planet. Yet of this multitude of people, relatively few consider it to be a pressing issue. Surely the “climate refugees” fleeing the Maldives as their islands slowly sink beneath the rising ocean are slightly worried, and huge personalities like Al Gore can certainly make a cute slide show. These two sites straddle both sides of this argument, with one arguing for climate change and the other against. The Friends of Science page is a clear argument against climate change, while the Grist page provides a lengthy list of well-reasoned arguments to use to convince people otherwise. The pages don’t just differ in their overall message but in their tone as well. Is either effective? Sadly, I don’t believe so.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that struck me about the Friends of Science page is that it looks a LOT like those websites that try to convince you there is a prehistoric beast in Loch Ness or bigfoot roams whichever forest is closest to you. I’m not a big fan of these lines of reasoning in the first place, and treating climate change like a mythical creature (except that it DOESN’T exist) somewhat destroys their legitimacy. Furthermore, many of their arguments center on concepts such as climate being a long-term model. Also they focus on one issue that truly marks an uninformed skeptic – only focusing on the warming. They state, “There has been no catastrophic warming period” as if that is the sum of their entire argument. Statements like these lead me to believe they are some sort of poorly presented lobbying group rather than actual scientists.
Frankly, reading some of their arguments convinces me that global climate change IS real. Last, I find it hard to believe they’re really “friends of science.” I’m not sure where their science actually comes from. They don’t cite a single source, except a horribly esoteric article from the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, which would turn 99% of readers away.
Grist, however, is not much better. While some may interpret their tone as “tongue in cheek”, it strikes me as a little condescending (and I agree with what they’re arguing). Their list of argument is long and runs the gamut from simple to relatively empirical in nature. Unfortunately some sort of Internet snafu is preventing me from viewing the individual arguments (which appear to be lengthier articles in themselves), but they do look comprehensive. Alternatively, it’s a little overwhelming to sort through them all. This somewhat confounds the message they are trying to send, which should be quick, simple, and to the point. Of course the full information should be provided, but maybe with links for those who want additional reading.
Overall, neither site is horribly effective at convincing people of climate change one way or the other. Some of their science is a little questionable (or as far as Friends of Science is concerned, all of it), and as far as Grist is concerned the political slant is also tangible (and I truly feel this should be an apolitical issue). I wouldn’t necessarily direct anyone to these pages, but if someone ran across them it wouldn’t be a tragedy. What these pages truly point out is that coverage of climate change facts needs to be better presented and more easily digestible for the vast majority of the world’s population to rally behind it and enact real change.
Global warming is ridiculously controversial. That is totalyl why we aren't getting anywhere with these global warming debates and what steps to take next. With the ozone problem, people realy stopped being skeptical about the motvies behind those promoting the need to take action against ozone depletion. Liek our simon sad, by the time the ozone regime reached the protocol stage, it was pretty much accepted as fact that the ozone was thinning and that immediate, cooperative action was necessary.
ReplyDelete"Friends of Science" is doing nothing to help the climate change regime from tranforming from an issue of debate to one of action.