Okay...so we all know that alot of people are intimidated by 'science' or just write it off as something that they are 'not good at.' This being said (which is really untrue because honestly, if people would chill out and take time to understand science then we wouldn't be in half the problems we're in today - it's not that hard) Friends of Science is clearly trying to attract people who are intimidated by science and want information in a myth/fact form in order to make an 'educated' opinion about something. Websites of climate skeptics generally use this tactic - if you blind people with science, they'll take it at face value and start spewing off 'facts' from your website and agree with you. These 'facts' can be easily debunked. For example, for ANYONE who understands climate change, even to a tiny degree, they would know that climate change is REGIONAL and is not going to raise temperatures everywhere. I'm sure that you've all experienced people saying 'Ha, so much for global warming' when it's suddenly 40 degrees in September...but that's the point. In the northern hemisphere, temperatures have been projected to decrease. The word 'warming' is misleading and generally makes people confused and belligerent towards accepting 'global warming' as real as soon as their first snow day hits. Climate skeptics harp on this misleading word and lead people to agree with their skepticism.
I agree with Meghan's statement that it is irresponsible to ignore the problem and try to use technology to mitigate the worst effects of it. However, through my work with senior-level scientists at PNNL, it is clear that scientists are so fed up with the 'debate' on climate change, that they are trying to find ways to save our planet without having to deal with the freaks who CONTINUE to argue against it. The only way to do this is through technology, and it is a respectable decision (I mean, who honestly wants to work with belligerent people who continually sound dumb as they try to argue against science...) Therefore, I hold more stock with the Grist articles because they work towards exposing true science and the articles do not use outdated facts and figures in order to prove their point.
The problem with these sites are that both are very convincing. Give any website an official looking name and layout, and people will be curious and read it - it's human nature. I think that many problems now revolve around the inability of individuals to think for themselves. Take any news channel now, and it is undoubtedly biased to a certain extent, something that is recognizable if you are able to take a step back and evaluate what you just heard/read/saw. I don't think one site is more convincing over another, though websites like Grist go against many conservative viewpoints, and automatically put people on the defensive. The opening page of Friends of Science just attempts to break down facts and make them myths, but you don't really grasp the side of the website until you're partway through the first or second bullet point. Their message is more subtle at the beginning, which might make Friends of Science more convincing to an unbiased reader (as much as I hate to say it).
Okay...so we all know that alot of people are intimidated by 'science' or just write it off as something that they are 'not good at.' This being said (which is really untrue because honestly, if people would chill out and take time to understand science then we wouldn't be in half the problems we're in today - it's not that hard) Friends of Science is clearly trying to attract people who are intimidated by science and want information in a myth/fact form in order to make an 'educated' opinion about something. Websites of climate skeptics generally use this tactic - if you blind people with science, they'll take it at face value and start spewing off 'facts' from your website and agree with you. These 'facts' can be easily debunked. For example, for ANYONE who understands climate change, even to a tiny degree, they would know that climate change is REGIONAL and is not going to raise temperatures everywhere. I'm sure that you've all experienced people saying 'Ha, so much for global warming' when it's suddenly 40 degrees in September...but that's the point. In the northern hemisphere, temperatures have been projected to decrease. The word 'warming' is misleading and generally makes people confused and belligerent towards accepting 'global warming' as real as soon as their first snow day hits. Climate skeptics harp on this misleading word and lead people to agree with their skepticism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meghan's statement that it is irresponsible to ignore the problem and try to use technology to mitigate the worst effects of it. However, through my work with senior-level scientists at PNNL, it is clear that scientists are so fed up with the 'debate' on climate change, that they are trying to find ways to save our planet without having to deal with the freaks who CONTINUE to argue against it. The only way to do this is through technology, and it is a respectable decision (I mean, who honestly wants to work with belligerent people who continually sound dumb as they try to argue against science...) Therefore, I hold more stock with the Grist articles because they work towards exposing true science and the articles do not use outdated facts and figures in order to prove their point.
The problem with these sites are that both are very convincing. Give any website an official looking name and layout, and people will be curious and read it - it's human nature. I think that many problems now revolve around the inability of individuals to think for themselves. Take any news channel now, and it is undoubtedly biased to a certain extent, something that is recognizable if you are able to take a step back and evaluate what you just heard/read/saw. I don't think one site is more convincing over another, though websites like Grist go against many conservative viewpoints, and automatically put people on the defensive. The opening page of Friends of Science just attempts to break down facts and make them myths, but you don't really grasp the side of the website until you're partway through the first or second bullet point. Their message is more subtle at the beginning, which might make Friends of Science more convincing to an unbiased reader (as much as I hate to say it).