Websites on Climate Change

Let me start off by saying that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have no qualms with anyone stating what they believe, as long as they have evidence to show why their case is possible. On the whole, then, I respect the points of views from "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" (HTCS). The difference, though, is that the "Friends of Science" (FOS) website, which believes that Climate Change is a myth, does not cite their sources or give any indication as to where their information comes from!

While I am personally of the belief that Climate Change is real - and could thus make the reader believe I am biased- I am solely focusing on how "Friends of Science" have gone about stating their claims. First of all, on their home page, where they state their goal, opinion and position, they say, "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." Ok, fine. What literature did you read, then? What scientists? Give me an example! While they have written articles, I wish that they would say upfront who their sources are, because then I would feel more obliged to continue seraching their site as opposed to disregarding it as babble. By the way, let me mention that if HTCS had done this, I would not be willing to believe them, either.

At least HTCS shows me graphs, gives me data and labels where they got it from. That is all I need to believe that you have put effort into your argument and that it is credible. But if I were to say, "All monkeys have 18 fingers," and did not cite where I got my information, then the reader is most likely to not believe me. That is what is happening to me right noww - I just can't believe FOS. Sure, I do side with HTCS, but that is because they have the evidence to back up their claims. Maybe FOS didn't do it because they had no credible sources to cite?

It all comes down to credibility, and HTCS makes their case better because they have academia on their side. Reagrdless, people will side with whomever is closest to their personal beliefs, but FOS may in fact be hurting their cause by making their claim and have the reader realize that the arguments they believe in are based on nothing. 10 times out of 10, I'll take the side that has eveidence - this just happens to be the side I belong to anyway. While both sides are passionate about their opinions, a self-respecting person must take the side that tells them where their information is coming from. Otherwise, that person would be apt to believing anything - even that monkeys have 18 fingers. Maybe that's possible - but I want to see the source.