The things that strikes me first and foremost about comparing the two pages is their general approach to Climate Change as something that relies on individual-to-individual talking and convincing to get "the truth" out there.
Firstly Grist lays out, in a highly psychologically way, how to convince someone of anything they are skeptical about and applies climate change later. This creates a dichotomy of us vs. them and lays out a step-by-step approach on how to win. From this approach, the site provides material to deal with insecurity about climate change based on FAQ's raised on the contrary. Friends of Science stands out to me in a much different way due to its campy website design and shameless plugs of deer, skyscapes and geese. It bombards the viewer with facts and charts about how Al Gore is all wrong and that CO2 isn't actually a bad thing yet its primary way to get involved and actually act against the problem that is 'Solar Irradiance' is to donate money to their campaign. This extreme difference in style between the websites demonstrates one of the core reasons that there is fierce competition in this field of Climate Change; as this global problem is recognized and mainstreamed worldwide, there is more and more money at stake.
I'd like to relate this idea to Friedman's article on China's realization of the rise of an eco-industry. This economically driven mindset towards the differing opinions of climate change is founded by both parties affirmity in the "the truth," Friends of Science that CC is not Co2 related and that the sun is ultimately to blame contrasted by Grist's (re:Coby Beck's) correction that it has only to do with human influence on the greenhouse gasses.
Overall I think that the demonstration of numerous counter-arguments to a very broad spectrum of climate skepticism makes Grist's site a lot more convincing but I have trouble with the forum-like submission method and overall lack of definitive scientific citation. Compared to the bombardment of arbitrary graphs and pictures of Friend's of Science though, Grist is obviously more easily taken serious.
I'd like to relate this idea to Friedman's article on China's realization of the rise of an eco-industry. This economically driven mindset towards the differing opinions of climate change is founded by both parties affirmity in the "the truth," Friends of Science that CC is not Co2 related and that the sun is ultimately to blame contrasted by Grist's (re:Coby Beck's) correction that it has only to do with human influence on the greenhouse gasses.
Overall I think that the demonstration of numerous counter-arguments to a very broad spectrum of climate skepticism makes Grist's site a lot more convincing but I have trouble with the forum-like submission method and overall lack of definitive scientific citation. Compared to the bombardment of arbitrary graphs and pictures of Friend's of Science though, Grist is obviously more easily taken serious.
No comments:
Post a Comment