Climate Change

I think the purpose of these websites is to let the public know about the climate change. Although these two website contradict each other, they still give some sort of information of climate change. One is arguing that climate change is caused by the sun, and they believe that climate change is real. On the other hand, the other is arguing that climate change is not the real thing. "Friends of Science" is more fact-based. On the other hand, "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" is more idea-based. It was interesting to know many ideas that deny the existence of climate change, but I was more conviced with "Friends of Science" website because it has more facts to rely on. When it comes to academic, I think factual information is more important than the ideas.

Don't Take All You Read as Reliable

After navigating through both websites, “Friends of Science” and Grist’s “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic”, I was clearly able to see the differences between them. Friends of Science is a more science focused website, all their statements are supposedly “proven” through science and they even state that they have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of climate scientists from all over the world to offer the most current science on global climate and climate change. Yet their science is obviously geared towards one main objective; that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change. And they plan to educate the public that this is the reality of the climate change issue and thus encourage governments to uphold this hypothesis. They are also a non-profit that is directly influenced by the donors and their interests, for all these reasons the claims this website does, are not convincing to me.

As for the website, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, is focused to serve the public as a green media platform in where issues concerning climate change and articles that highlights people, ideas, and organizations working toward sustainability are discussed. In their section titled, How to talk to a Climate Skeptic, there were various sections with possible questions that climate skeptic might approach one with, and it offers a brief answer to these questions. Yet, these are not backed up by strong, hard scientific data, some graphs are offered, yet the sources do not seemed reliable by looking at their publishing names and date such publication. for example, one was written by “Coby Beck“ on October 26, 2006. The date is very outdated and with an issue such as climate change that demands the latest information, this article is not very convincing either.

With all the previous conclusions, I believe that the best manner to evaluate the scientific claims made by both websites is to take a set back and consider the following questions. One should look if the source is not depended on donations, since when they are, they tend reflect the interests of the donors. Also, avoid agreeing with over-arching statements such as the one presented by Friends of Science that climate change is mainly caused by the galactic cosmic rays. It is difficult for me to agree that this is the main driver of climate change, when I know that there are many other arguments backed by strong data. For these reasons, I believe that there are many more reliable websites that one should check out when looking for information concerning this issue, I always try to evaluate the assertions I encountered keeping in mind the previous questions.

How to make your opinion credible

The purpose of both "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" seem to me to be to arm the choir with information so that they can preach the supported message. Both websites feature a "fact/myth" section in one format or another that provides the reader with the appropriate response to a comment with which they disagree. Although I definitely fall into the readership of "How to Talk to Climate Skeptic," I think that the "Friends of Science" website was more successful in communicating and advertising its message.

One of the first criticisms many have about climate skeptics is that science is not on their side. Even without any content about science on the page, the title of the website immediately seems to give them credibility because they have science in their name, the assumption is that the content is also scientific. Apart from their title, the "Friends of Science" were successful in entertaining audiences by making their website colorful, including graphs and images on the home page. Additionally, everything is easy to find. The site map/side bar has clear labels, and not too many that they are overwhelming.

The fact that "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" is disengaging is not entirely the fault of the author, but of "Grist." Because the website is part of a larger news website, there are links to other articles, ads, etc. However, what is the fault of the author is the condescending attitude he takes when considering those who don't believe in climate change. Yes, there are people who will never believe in climate change even given all the information, and yes, we might have a few choice words to call them on our own time, but in an article that purports itself as a way to communicate, it is inappropriate to refer to those with whom you are arguing as "silly" "naive" or at best "specious." If that is how climate change believers think of and address non-believers, then it's no wonder they haven't joined the bandwagon. Perhaps their failure to believe is really our failure to communicate.

How do you view climate change?

The purpose of both websites is to get their views out there about climate change. “The Friends of Science” is a climate change skeptic website. It provides information on all the reasons why climate change is not caused by green house emissions. After clicking the link for the website the first thing to catch my attention was the myths about climate change. Such as the Earth is actually cooling and the sun is the real reason why the Earth is getting warmer. The website provides graphs to back up their claims. The graphs were a useful addition to the website, but even with the graphs I did not buy the websites claims. I was more curious about finding out who, was running the website. I was shock to find out that “The Friends of Science” website is run out of Canada, and is complied of retired scientists who are all skeptics of climate change. After reading about where the websites sources were coming from, I started to wonder if the retired scientist retired because they did not see eye to eye with others in the science community on climate change. The other website “How to Talk to Climate Skeptics” provides the alternate view to climate change. The website strategically lays out bullet points of the major remarks made by those who do not believe climate change is a real thing. It is easy to follow and go down the list of all the counter arguments that can be made. When clicking on one of the bullets it appears that someone blogged in to state why this was not a plausible reason for climate change to have not happened. There were no credentials of the person listed as to why they were an expert. This website also did not provide graphs like the other one, which even though I did not spend too much time looking at graphs on the other website, it was a useful tool, no matter how skewed the information could have been. When going to these two sites, like any website on climate change, I kept in mind that they both were trying to spread their message on climate change. To switch and alter as many people’s views to how they see the world. With that in mind they were both going to highlight scientific claims that supported their views and disregard those that did not. In terms of lay out I thought the anti-climate change website had a better set up. The website presented sources for their information and I was able to find an About Us, to fully understand the reason behind the website. With that said, I still do not believe the information presented on the website.

Climate Change Website Comparison

The main purpose of both of these websites is to inform the public about the basic issues of climate change in an accessible manner. They both attempt to address the issue of climate change and present the scientific facts to the skeptics and the uninformed. To evaluate the scientific claims that these sites make, the viewer needs a little discretion and common sense. Personally, in the comparison of the two sites, I was immediately drawn to the “Friends of Science” website and turned off by the “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” page. While the “Friends of Science” clearly tried to present a balanced professional presentation with facts and references that were prominently displayed, the Grist article seemed very condescending and less focused on presenting the scientific support for climate change. Because of this blatant difference between the two websites, I have to suspect that they are directed towards two very difference audiences (or at least this is what I felt). While the “Friends of Science” site is more focused on presenting to the general public, the Grist site is focused on climate change believers that need tips on how to convince a non-believer. The Grist site just seemed much more opinion-based (taking full articles from a series by Coby Beck) and it doesn’t strike me as quite as professional. My personal preference was for the “Friends of Science” site – I think it would be the more effective tool for the general public.