Skeptics and True Believers

Browsing these two websites reminded me of the research I did on the two sides of the ANWR drilling debate during my Freshman year. I remember how glaringly obvious the differences were - for example, websites of organizations supporting the drilling all included 'scientific evidence' indicating that there was 30 years (or some other extraordinary number) worth of fuel underneath the surface of the Arctic tundra (waiting to free us from our dependence on the Middle East, of course) while the websites against drilling advocated that science really couldn't be sure as reports were uncertain and conflicting but that many scientists thought there may only be as little for a year or two. The pro-drillers, trying to make a case, were taking whatever information they could find and twisting it to support their claims and then  presented it alone on their websites, even though other websites were clear that science was still unclear on the matter. This definitely seems to be what's happening on the 'Friends of Science' page - in their 'about us' section, it says that: "While FOS does not do any original scientific research, it does extensive literature research and draws on the worldwide body of work by scientists in all fields relating to global climate change." In other words, like those pro-drilling websites I had the displeasure of reading, they are picking and choosing the 'evidence' that supports their point of view to present.

 I understand this, it's only natural for each side to aim to win support for their side, and that's exactly what the purpose/goal of such websites. However, I thought the Grist one seemed more legit (and actually easier to navigate) simply because I thought it addressed both sides of the argument more fairly and more in depth. 'Friends of Science' reminded me of my cousins watching Fox News - you go to websites like it in order to read exactly what you want to hear and what you expect to hear - in other words, if you're searching for a biased news source.