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 am all for individuals being allowed to debate over heated topics such as climate change. Debate is one of the ways in which we test ideas for their soundness and find the best solutions to our problems. But I think that the time to debate the existence of climate change is over and has been over for a long time. While I could have respected the Friends of Science's desire to argue over climate change thirty years ago, now we are in climate change and we are seeing the effects of. The reality of climate change has been accepted by most world governments and the majority of scientists agree that the world is going to human induced environmental changes. So the time for debate is over, it is time to take action and implement policies to protect the Earth.

As for how the two websites present themselves, Friends of Science leaves something to be desired. I agree with Brittany that the name does not seem very professional and I would certainly not be comfortable citing a website with that name on a paper for class. And after reading some of their material it seems as if they are taking research and simply putting their own spin on it so it says what they want. I will admit that I am biased because I do believe in climate change. I do not think that the Friends of Science website presents its information in an accurate manner. As for the Grist website, I think they were very through in their desire to give arguments to people like Friends of Science. But once again I do not believe that this debate needs to continue any longer, which would essentially make this website obsolete.

Looks and Politics Matter... despite what Sarah Palin might say

I am a firm believer that most perspectives, beliefs, and disagreements revolve around one thing: politics. I would definitely argue that this is the case with climate change. No matter what belief you hold- that climate change exists or that it doesn't- it is clear that these ideas affect public policy and the lives of constituents. And the implications of these beliefs are more visibly political than scientific- at least at first. Anyone can pay a company or a scientist to come up with a study that says climate change exists or that it doesn't. Those studies can then be used to convince the public and affect political change.

No matter what kind of information a person is getting and no matter where it's coming from, it is important to think critically. Understand who is sponsoring the information- is the website run by a political party, think tank, or someone who could reap substantial benefits from climate change being a credible scientific occurrence? Then they might have an agenda pushing them and the information they are putting out. Of course, this is also true of those who promote the idea of climate change being nonexistent.

In my opinion, just from superficial looks grist.org is much more convincing. The Friends of Science website:

1. Has a completely ridiculous name and

2. Looks like it is the website for The Fellowship of the Sun (from True Blood), not a credible sight promoting scientific data

I'm also very impressed at how thorough grist.org is. They have come up with counter-arguments to everything from politics to economics to science.

With Nature

Perhaps the most amazing moment I’ve experienced in nature occurred when I was a 6th grader. I went with most of my class to Catalina Island of the coast of California. We stayed at a camp wedged between a cove and the hills. Over the course of five days, we explored the area around us, kayaking in the ocean, and hiking in the underbrush nearby. Perhaps one of the most magical nights we spent in this area was the time all of us decided to go on a “trust walk” in which everyone linked hands and went off through the woods in the darkness, warning those behind us of upcoming obstacles.

While there we spent time studying the wildlife around us, such as the local fish as well as the birds. I had never seen quail so plentiful before. A sizable flock often occupied the small meadow on the Western side of the camp. They were Catalina quail, slightly different from those on the mainland, we were told. Smaller and a littler fatter, they generally stayed near the ground in order to scrounge for food.

Section two makes the case that we are losing speciation at a horrifying rate, and I believe that we must do what we can to counter this loss. We must maintain biodiversity by expanding the amount of protected land that we have already dedicated to natural preserves. The wild is an important natural resource on its own, and should be treated as such.

The Non-Human World and Why We Need It.

I'm a little upset with how difficult it's been for me to answer this question, but I think i've settled on a memory. In 2005 I spent the summer in northern rural Japan. The area I lived in was vastly dramatic, spanning a large fertile valley, forest-rich mountains, an a plain that led to the Pacific Ocean. That summer I became engaged in the environment more than any other time in my life, biking from biome to biome, experiencing the affect of mankind on each, from abandoned mills on damned up waterfalls, to granite controlled oceanscapes. This experience was heralded with the discovery of a small river, not man-made, but obviously influenced by giant slabs of concrete every once in a while that held up the rocky soil and treeline above. The experience of discovering an abandoned speck of nature in the crazy-hectic country that is modern-day Japan brought me back to simpler times of self-dependency and engaging the world around us.

My time in the deep woods and high mountains was marked with discovering wild monkeys, climbing natural waterfalls, and accidentally crossing the almost indivisible line of rice-farm and high-wetland. Being removed from the confusion of not speaking Japanese, and sticking out like a sore thumb really changed how I view the non-human world as well as its ability to act therapeutically.

Addressing the second part to the question on the nonhuman world:

In pure humanly selfish terms, biodiversity and the idea of saving nature is undeniably necessary. In this regard, the overwhelming about of unharvested, un-researched, and simply unknown that exists in the world is worth protecting for the potential for mankind's manipulation. Medications, scientific breakthroughs, and linking ourselves even further to the world we occupy are all examples of why we need to protect our own interest in the great unexplored wilderness.

In addition to all this humankind selfishness, as mentioned in my personal engagement of the natural world, we can all benefit from the maintenance of natural space and biodiversity on a therapeutic level. In my opinion knowing, experiencing and loving all that our own environments have to offer is a critical part of leading a full and enriched life.

Photographic Memory

For me the times when I have felt the most connected with nature would have to be almost any time I have been out taking photographs. One specific memory is after my town had a huge ice storm I was driving away from the school and all the trees had the sun passing through them so you could see the ice really well. Or another time I was out taking some photos in the woods by a local park and I saw a coyote walking around the woods. I think that I remember these times the best because I have the photos to remind me of them. I have always enjoyed walking around in the woods and just being out in nature and the photos just keep the memory fresh.

I do think that saving nature in a goal we should be pursuing, I think that in human terms I would not want to deprive future generations of being able to see nature. I myself am sad when I read about some awesome animal that has died out and I can never see for real. But also simply for the sake of the planet it does not seem right to remove these animals which are the results of millions of years of development simply due to our desires.

The Power of Sunrise in Kenya (accompanied by memories of The Lion King)

In March of 2010, I was fortunate enough to spend a short time in Kenya. While most of my time there was spent in one of the world's largest slums, Kibera, I did spend the last day there in the countryside on safari. We left the bustling streets of Nairobi at 4 that morning- it is best to see the animals very early in the morning. My friends and I hopped into a van and hit the trails. About an hour later the sun began to rise. So did the lions, elephants, zebras, gazelles, and more. In that moment I could very nearly hear the Lion King music playing. :) In that moment, everything was peaceful. I was exhausted, but content to watch these creatures in their natural environment; not behind panes of glass in a zoo. I spent that morning watch lions lounge, zebras roam, and elephants play. It was incredibly beautiful and moving.

In terms of "saving nature," I definitely think we should work to save it- or at least a good portion of it. I'm not a vegetarian, my carbon emissions are high; the only thing I really do to save nature is not use plastic bags. I certainly don't want them to end up stuck in the lungs of a whale. Similarly, I tend to think that people are most important. But that doesn't mean that I'm all for human activity completely ruining nature and killing all the animals. I don't think dolphins should be slaughtered like was seen in The Cove. I don't believe is cutting down every single tree in the Rainforest. The more I live the more I begin to think that the human world is big enough. We're already using more than our fair share of resources. So in short, yes- we should work to "save nature."

Unless some apocalyptic event occurs and we need it...