How to Talk to a "Friend of Science"?

While the "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" websites are both arguably lacking, their discrepancies are quite useful. Actually, I found that the two websites were largely representative of the real climate change debate that we come across in our everyday lives. Generally, there are a great deal of global warming believers; people who may or may not know all the details, but have heard enough to know that the backing science exists. Conversely, there are the people--though I am repeatedly shocked to find that these people truly exist-- that cling to opposing claims, however few and far between, to "secure" the notion that climate change is largely exaggerated. In an increasingly environmentally aware and conscious society, however, this claim grows more difficult and more ludicrous. Thus, to operate within the context of society, the non-climate-change believers often have to mask their view under a variety of pretenses. While the context of society works in both directions-- fostering strong environmental convictions on either side of the spectrum in people that don't necessarily know their facts-- it is apparent in both real life and in the world wide web. Certainly, the respective websites followed suit with the overarching debate at hand.

The purpose of each website, then, is mostly clear but muddled to a certain degree. The purpose of the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" website is to offer rebuttals to common claims of skeptics. The general idea, then, is to provide the facts of climate change in a way that could fuel a debate supporting its existence. Another purpose is to seemingly add to the wealth of knowledge of already existent climate change believers. It multitasks, offering ideas from both sides in a sense, as it must address the concerns in order to provide rebuttals. The purpose of the "Friends of Science" website, conveniently less discernible, is an apt example of the masking of opinions that most who oppose the existence of climate change resort to. The website purports to be on the "side of science," rather than the harsher claim of not being on the side of global warming. Though this is exactly the purpose of the website, it offers its overtly biased "facts" under the pretense of adhering to science; furthering scientific research on the issue. In reality, it sites rather old data and finds basis only on counterarguments, failing to address any arguments in favor.

This is where the "Climate Skeptic" website far exceeds the capabilities and legitimacy of the "Friends of Science" website. Indeed, the Climate Skeptic explores and breaks down opposing opinions-- many of which are the very claims made by Friends of Science. Contrarily, "Friends of Science" offers its facts, claims to support further scientific research (as if the plethora of already existing research is not adequate) and stops at that. This, of course, lends credence to the Climate Skeptic website and forces us to seriously question the Friends of Science website.

It is important to note that "Friends of Science" is a non-profit organization, and are actively seeking donations on their site. This, of course, could be a huge factor in the lacking validity of Friends of Science sources. Further, the fact that their overall concern is seeking donations could ultimately limit them to certain convictions. For example, while they might have a more moderate stance in reality, they may feel forced to take on a particularly strong stance in order to maximize their supporters. Further, it is difficult to fairly read these websites without a bias. After reading my peers' responses, I realized I had given the "Climate Skeptic" website a lot more credit than it deserved. While, as they pointed out, it was seriously lacking in many regards, I overlooked much of this. Because the site affirmed many of my opinions and disproved many of the Friends of Science claims I had just read in quite a bit of disgust, its legitimacy was almost immediate in my eyes. These reactions, I am sure, are largely present in the public. This fact is very important to note when considering that impacting abilities of websites.