The Bad Guys Win

There is more than one way to discuss such controversial issues as climate change. With this set of issues, as with any controversial topic, there is a manner of discussion that is more amiable, more diplomatic, and more likely to lead to an actual discourse on the subject in question. This approach was demonstrated by the website of the Friends of Science. The alternative, a more confrontational, argumentative approach, was exhibited by the Grist website, "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic." While both websites offered a wealth of content, there were noteworthy differences in both purpose and approach that would, in my view, make the former much more effective than the latter. 

The Friends of Science website clearly stated their objective and opinion. Their purpose, stated in the "About Us" section of their website, clearly summarized their objective (to put pressure on the government and focus public discourse on the issue of climate change by educating the public), and furthermore provided their opinion: the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change. The Grist website, in contrast, was featured in a more reactionary arrangement, identifying the main talking points of climate skeptics and providing responses to these points. Departing in nature from the FOS website, the Grist website seems mainly to function as ammunition for diehard climate change activists, providing them with quick rebuttals to be deployed against the skeptics in any scenario imaginable. 

In terms of evaluating the content, FOS offered informative articles that were arranged by topic and rated according to the level of technical detail. FOS also contained an extensive section on peer reviewed articles and official responses of FOS to pieces of legislation, other environmental entities, and publications related to the field of climate change. Conversely, the Grist website contains many blog entries among its lengthly list of responses, with a main contributer being a self-described "former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer." On the plus side for Grist, many articles do contain numerous references to related articles to bolster their arguments, though in many cases these links bring up other Grist articles (in some cases by the same author). It should be noted that although I consider myself very much a supporter of the perspective advocated in the Grist page, I, from as objective a viewpoint as possible, unhappily concede that FOS has trumped Grist in terms of content.

There is no question as to which website is more effective. FOS succeeds as the more viable contender of the two, simply by virtue of the fact that it presents well supported information that strengthens its point and acknowledges its own perspective relative to the debate without attempting to disguise its biases. The Grist website, by contrast, is aggressive and unlikely to serve any purpose other than to solidify the opinions of individuals who already subscribe to its view regarding climate change. The hard line adopted by the Grist page is more likely to alienate skeptics, as some of the links make use of strong rhetoric that includes an allusion to advocacy for arresting climate change skeptics. The axiom that "soft words win hard hearts" may be most valuable to consider for the Grist page, as such powerful language, while effective perhaps for motivating a supportive base, is usually ineffective in creating a mutually respectful dialogue between two parties of differing ideologies.