Who's Biased?

First of all, I'd like to make a disclaimer that I was definitely biased when exploring the websites. Since I have always thought it's foolish to discount the claims of human impact on climate change, I went into the Friends of Science website with a somewhat closed mind and a predisposition to roll my eyes at everything it said. Then again, the organizations behind both websites are just as, if not more biased than me. Even still, despite my irritation at the arguments made in the Friends of Science website, I had to admit that they did make a few good points. For example, by showing several charts and graphs about the cyclical nature of the climate over time, they prove that the current global warming is not completely unknown territory for the planet. However, I felt that their claims that it's not caused by human activity whatsoever were pretty ridiculous. I was even more disgusted at the section that said "The Earth is Cooling." I didn't think the graph it showed even remotely proved that the Earth is cooling and I was under the impression that most people now agree that the climate is warming, they just dispute the causes. So the website had a few halfway decent arguments but for the most part, I thought it was just an excuse to blame climate change on something else so that we don't have to change our lifestyles.

As for the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" site, I thought it was far more convincing but not very user friendly. It was more convincing in that, if you took the time to go through all the links, it had much more hard evidence and unrefutable fact. It also provided adequate responses for many of the claims made by the Friends of Science site. However, it was tedious to look through all the articles and the layout of the site wasn't pleasing to the eye and didn't make me want to read more. That's more of a design flaw than anything else, but even still, design can make a difference in a technology communication world. I think I was also more biased towards that site because since I agreed with everything that was said, it wa sless interesting to read so I didn't feel like continuing. It's much easier to read things I disagree with because there is something to keep me interested. Overall, both sites made good points but I naturally felt that the latter was more convincing. Whether this is because of my own bias or because it is actually more truthful is disputable.

In general, I think a lot of the debate over the causes of climate change exists because the information we have is fairly new. The study of environmental science is recent and the focus on global climate change has only gained significant international salience in the last 10-15 years. In addition, differing political and economic motivations have caused corporations and governments to look for evidence that supports the claims that fit their interests. Since the science behind climate change is so ambiguous at this point anyway, it is not difficult to find evidence that supports opposing claims. Furthermore, some of the claims are not even opposing. The sun may be a cause of climate change and human activity may be as well. These causes are not mutually exclusive. The fact is, the climate is changing, so does it really matter what is changing it if the effects will be negative?

Lastly, I thought it was kind of a cop out that the Friends of Science site kept claiming that, since CO2 may not be a main source of climate change, we should continue polluting the atmosphere and destroying natural sinks. Even if human activity has nothing to do with climate change, we are still pouring pollutants into the air every minute of every day and we are still using up non-renewable resources. Whether or not human activity is the cause of climate change, it is definitely a cause of resource depletion. Therefore, shouldn't we change our energy source just so that we can provide energy for future generations? It seems ridiculous to say that we can continue on our path to destruction just because the sun may be affecting the climate patterns. As an innovative species, shouldn't we want to be more efficient and clean just because we can?