The Climate Debate

Firstly, it is clear that this debate is so fraught with tension in this country because anthropogenic climate change is a serious condemnation of the American way of life. Our suburbs, SUVs, processed foods, cheap oil, et cetera are the reason that the United States is such a huge emitter of greenhouse gases. Accordingly, many individuals and corporations have a vested interest in maintaining the system as much as they possibly can. Artfully, these opponents of efforts to mitigate climate change have preyed on American sensitivity to criticism from abroad and on the anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism that have always had strong presences in our politics. In addition, the myopia that has continually marked American politics again makes it easy for climate skeptics to exploit the short-term costs that mitigation efforts would likely entail to garner opposition to climate change.

As an aside, I think not enough attention has been given to the idea that efforts to "green" the American economy should be undertaken regardless of whether carbon dioxide emissions are driving climate change. In the end, the United States is going to have to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable, domestic sources of energy. Green technology represents a way for the United States to revitalize its long-suffering manufacturing industries. And cutting consumption, in a country with millions living beyond their means through credit cards, is not really such a bad move for the economy overall.

Coming with a science background that is only tangentially related to the debate these two websites take part in, I tried to evaluate these sites by taking a look at the sources cited. While these articles often soon exceeded my understanding of climatology, in general the Grist site seemed to present a greater range of scientific evidence, from peer-reviewed articles, to support its claims about climate change. Through Friends of Science, the sites I reached generally did not provide further citations to support their criticisms of "mainstream" climate science. Additionally, Grist actually discussed competing claims about climate change and even went so far to concede that in earlier periods of warming, carbon dioxide was not the initial cause but instead an amplifying feedback mechanism. Such a treatment of the science was not demonstrated by Friends of Science. I must admit that I am likely biased towards the Grist message, but overall I do believe it was the more robust source for climate change science.