Misinformation Gone Wild

Climate Change, the never ending ping pong battle of he said, she said, over whether anthropological climate change exists or not. The simple rationalization of the argument mentioned above is only further enhanced by the “Friends of Science” and “Grist” websites we looked at for this week’s assignments.

Just by simply looking at the content for both of these sites, it is quite obvious to see that the intent of both sites is to talk to their base. In the case of both “Friends of Science” and “Grist”, all of the content on the website is slanted heavily towards the left or right. While the “Friends of Science” organization paints itself as not being funded by any organization, they do not disclose the funding provided by specific individuals who may have ties to organizations focused on climate change denial.

While both sites are in their right of free speech to publish whatever content they want, I find that both sites provide a disservice to the public by publishing their radical views. A well educated individual should know to always look for various forms of media and information on any topic to try and get a well rounded view on any issue in order to form a valid and well researched opinion. However in the case of climate change-with these sites in particular, no matter how much digging that is done, individuals will always end up back at square one knowledge wise since all the information posted on one site is counteracted by information posted on an opposition view.

Ironically, while the following argument might seem adverse to the goals of each organization, it would actually be better for the organizations to post well balanced information on their site. If they believe the strength of their argument is correct and should win out regardless, what is so wrong with publishing fair and balanced opinions of taking out studies on their own and publishing unbiased results? This past week, a big story that hit the newswire was that Richard Mueller- a noted climate change denier changed his view on the issue after conducting a fair and balanced study using the arguments of his opposition. Best of all, the study was funded by the notorious conservative group The Koch Brothers.

Over the summer I was lucky enough to work with an organization called Climate Central that is focused on providing clear and non biased results about the science behind climate change. While working there, I saw firsthand that people working there were focused on getting out the truth of the issue and making people who otherwise would not care about the issue interested in climate change in their own lives. When articles were being discussed for what to write on, individuals took great pains to both comment on various out there liberal papers and conservative reports. It is my opinion that taking these pains to be apolitical and scientifically accurate is the best way of getting people’s mind made on either side of the aisle.