Knowing Both Sides of the Issue

Posted by Jacob Santos on July 26, 2009

As an Independent, I do not take or at least make a honest attempt to not take a biased view and don’t immediately accept what I’m told. So for every Watts Up with That, there has to be a counter site and indeed there is. So I do have to kind of take issue with it. There are two that I checked out and a third I will not concern myself with.

The difference is that Watts Up With That site deals primarily with facts and debunking reports about the effects of Climate Change and Global Warming. Quite simply, cooler heads which try to explain some of the attacks on the other side.

Desmog Blog

I was really hoping for more information proving AGW and how the CO2 from our cars, factories, etc were causing the Earth to warm. It is perhaps would have been better to look at Wikipedia as for the number of facts, there were few. The articles consist of primarily of fallacies, attacking the character, linking the person somehow to oil companies, and not about debunking what the person has said.

I do realize facts and evidence isn’t sexy, which is why I don’t use them on my site. I mean, it wouldn’t be fun for me, so I have to give props to the sites that do, because I wouldn’t have been able to do anything to turn the tide. The arguments might have been fun though.

Another problem is that statistics and experiments are done that aren’t exactly done correctly or at least not the conclusions. I watched the candle to the CO2 block out the heat from the candle and then say that CO2 traps heat. This is entirely possible, however, I think a better conclusion would be that the CO2 is hindering the sensor. Not enough time was given to the experiment, which as interested as I was, I would have liked to learn more. I’m saying that if it was done correctly, with variations, that I would very much enjoy the outcome. I would even think about doing the experiment myself.

The one gem I was able to find, was “The American Denial of Global Warming” and you do need to click on the blue screen with what would appear to be words to get to the video. The video used facts, information, and very little attacks (actually you could say background isn’t attacks, but still referenced the alliance of the characters). If anything on the site were to persuade me, I would have to say it would be that video.

The other authors could learn a few things about the video. I don’t think that is their goal, so I’ll have to look elsewhere for more information on AGW.

ClimateSourch

Much like Desmog Blog, attacking the character and not the facts if there were any. I actually didn’t look to deep into the site, but at least they point to articles which has actual information that could be used to understand AGW more.

Conclusion

As much as Wikipedia gets a bad rep, if the articles have enough references then it is fine. I will do more research on Wikipedia until which time a site comes up like Watts.

Possibly Related Posts:


General

Comments are closed.