Looking at these two very different websites, I get the sense that they both only have one true purpose; to discredit the other side of the global warming debate as much as possible. While the two sites are on completely different sides of climate change (its happening versus it’s a lie), they both make their respective arguments with scientific data and helpful bullet points to better influence visitors.
How should we make sense and evaluate the scientific claims?
As a non-scientist, I really have no idea how to make sense of their scientific claims – and that’s why I think the sites work so well. I think most competent people have at least a basic idea in their heads of the scientific reasoning used by both the global warming skeptics and the scientists acknowledging global warming. Both sites’ scientific data makes sense, since they probably would be quickly discredited if they were making up the data, and both sites seem to be run by reasonably intelligent and qualified people. In this sense, the two websites remind me of my freshman year statistics class, because all I remember from the class is that no matter what data you have, you can manipulate it to get any point you want across. Likewise, I got the feeling that the two websites are using very similar data that only differs in the way its presented and interpreted.
When it comes to the evaluation side of things, I think one has to pay attention to the details to see which website is really “telling the truth”. For example, Friends of Science claims that the Earth is cooling, yet at the same time attributes the current rise in global temperatures to solar activity and natural long-term fluctuations in the Earth’s climate. Taken alone, each of these arguments is very reasonable, but any competent person has to wonder why Friends of Science is claiming the Earth is cooling while the Earth is warming due to solar activity. It’s looking for these inconsistencies that allows the average person to effectively evaluate each website for its scientific content.
Is one site more convincing than the other?
Absolutely. The simple fact is that the Friends of Science website discredits itself within the first few minutes of browsing thanks to the inconsistency found above. And as a non-scientist, I found that Friends of Science posts graphs and charts that only a scientist would understand – it seems as though the site tries to prove its point to the average person by showing incomprehensible data; “if I can’t understand it than it must be legitimate science!”. How to Talk to Talk to a Climate Skeptic meanwhile presents its data in a very dumbed down, easy to read way – the way a non-scientist like me likes it. Furthermore, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic also has much more information on its site – which in makes in more credible in my opinion. And finally, the use of out-of-context quotes at the top of the Friends of Science site tells me that the site is desperate for more effective ways to influence visitors. After all, it’s always the losing candidate in an presidential election who brings up the most out-of-context quotes of the other in a futile attempt at victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment