These two websites make conflicting an incomparable statements about global warming. They both claim to have scientific arguments on their side. They both consider the other site to be completely wrong. What is the reason for this contradiction? I would say that there are three main reasons. One, the truth is hard to deal with. Think of how depressing climate change literature is... Two, there are many people/corporations with vested interests that the world continue to use its current fuel sources. Think of all the oil companies, power companies, car/plane companies and how much they would be hurt by government action against climate change. Three, true action to reduce the effect of climate change requires significant cooperation and sacrifice by everyone. Many people reject the idea of global warming because it would mean that they have to change too much.
I don't really think that either of these sites is particularly good to get your information from. Scientific information should be devoid of any information that is not scientific or opinionated. Yes this is rather hard to find but it is the necessary evidence that we all should believe - if it is legitimate. Friends of Science makes a relatively persuasive argument through a decent bit of scientific measurement. However this measurement has a clear agenda. It is very easy to design a scientific study to say anything you want it to say. But of course when you say that it is supported by science many people will believe you.
It is because of this scientific evidence that I find Friends of Science to be more convincing. How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic has more of a blog or facebook format. There are some articles, but most of the content is posted by a variety of ordinary site to watch their kids. This discredits the website a bit and makes the faulty science of Friends of Science look even better. I think it would be much better to read something like the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment...
No comments:
Post a Comment