Two articles, “Friends of Science” and “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” are interesting enough to consider and I had a good time reading them with analytical thoughts. My answer for first two questions, “why is there such fierce competition around the science of the climate change?” and “How should we make sense of and evaluate the scientific clams these two competing websites make?” is that people want to have debates with counter arguments. When I was comparing these two websites, I recognized that these arguments are somehow similar to arguments between Neo-Malthusians and Cornucopians. The one side argues that we should relax and sit back because the climate change and global warming are not caused by human activities; they are happening simply because of natural climate disasters. This is similar to Cornucopians. The other side claims that the climate change is happening seriously according to data and evidence; therefore, we should act to prevent further damages on the Earth immediately. This idea is based on Neo-Malthusians. Both sides are arguing exactly opposite statements by making sense to only themselves. There is a fierce competition going on because they do not seriously listen to the other side of argument. In other words, both are just arguing whatever they just want to say. With this reason, I do not think that there is a way we should make sense of arguments from both websites.

Personally, “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is more convincing than “Friends of Science” to me because I am a big believer in the fact that human activities are causing the climate change and global warming. Also, I agree many points that Cody Beck makes. He claims convincing counter arguments. In particular, I am most convinced by arguments made in Stages of Denial. I am surprised to read all the denial arguments that people make and two arguments, which are Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing and Why should the U.S. join Kyoto while India and China haven't? I am for Kyoto Protocol because it makes good points of establishing “international political and economic mechanisms for dealing with global warming, by taking the first tentative steps toward a difficult goal,” and perhaps I am Japanese! Obviously, the United States should join the Kyoto Protocol because it “puts out more CO2 than any other nation on earth.” I believe that the United States is causing the most damages on the climate change and global warming because all the materials that we discussed in class, such as footprint and consumption, point out that the United States is the biggest country that has an influence on the Earth. I strongly disagree with the argument, Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing, because it is making huge efforts. As Cody mentioned, the Kyoto Protocol is a step-by-step process; therefore, no one really can say it is a waste of effort YET. I believe that the Kyoto Protocol will come up with a successful result in near future if it continues to make practical resolutions dealing with global warming and if the United States, India, and China join it. These two arguments strike me the most but there are several other interesting arguments to discuss. Which argument strikes the most?

In conclusion, “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is interesting to read and analyze the climate change and global warming with several counter arguments. We should discuss this in class. It will be an interesting debate!