Trying to navigate the bias

I though both of these websites were really slick. Both appealed to the scientific authority and appeared to present evidence to support their claims with very different conclusions. “Friends of Science” pokes holes in the arguments of climate change believers and “How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic” refutes the arguments of non-believers in a slightly more obvious way. Both are scientific and both are political, and looking at each issue side by side makes the issue more confusing for me.

I think the only viable way to evaluate the claims is to examine them very specifically and, assuming that neither completely misrepresents the evidence, look to the specific language that each uses to refute the other. To illustrate the point, I was surprised to read on friends of science that, “To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.” So, there are a couple of key words: “proof”, “man-made”, “cause”, and “significant”. We have to realize the statements limitation. It does not state that CO2 does not cause global warming, but it may be tempting to misconstrue that idea. There are refuting essays on How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic which address those key words. First, the issue of proof is difficult because scientific evidence can only show a correlation. Man-made is addressed in that although we contribute only slightly to CO2 atmospheric levels, that little bit puts more into the atmosphere than the earth can absorb. How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic places the burden on the skeptics to determine what would cause climate change if not CO2 and related gasses and significant is judged on the basis of our geologic timescale which would predict a significant period of cooling at the present time. However, it is also interesting to note that while the skeptics have the burden of explaining what would contribute to naturally warming at this time, the believers do know that natural cooling and warming has occurred outside of human industrialization. I have to conclude that that particular claim by friends of science is not false, but it is misleading in light of other considerations. Unfortunately, I think this type of analysis (constantly looking for different sides, slants, and conflicting claims) is necessary for each connected issue to truly understand the climate change debate and make sense of the raw data.