Climate change is a difficult subject to consider given the plethora of views on its nature. These many views have flourished into competition on who is right, which is scary considering it shouldn’t be about who is right but rather how can we work together to combat such change. Friends of Science provide one viewpoint, which I found incredibly frustrating not because of the content of their view but because of the way in which they present it. Within their position statement it is argued that the sun is the main driver of climate change rather than CO₂. They state that “variations in solar activity and cosmic rays correlate to temperature much better than CO₂…fewer cosmic rays result in reduced low cloud cover, which allows more sunlight to warm the earth’s surface”. Furthermore, they assert that CO₂’s effects on the climate are “grossly exaggerated” by current computer models. This is a strong statement to make as one’s position. They furthermore state that the current “obsession” with the notion of global warming is dangerous because it does not take into consideration climate fluctuations. On their main page, they delve into six things everyone should know about climate change, which are “The earth is cooling”, “The sun causes climate change”, “Al Gore was wrong about CO₂”, “Violent weather isn’t getting worse”, “It’s been hotter”, and “Climate computer models are proven wrong”. Regardless of the validity of these facts, the way they are presented on the website is, in my opinion, wrong. They are presented as fact, as though there is no debate whether or not they are incorrect (even though their statements suggest a lot of other people are). After listing these six “facts” that “everyone should know”, they state “this debate matters!”. Because of competing claims and conflicting evidence, climate change is very much a debate. Yet the fierce competition that has cultivated as a result of such debate is leading groups to present one mere side of the debate as fact and the correct opinion. Thus, it is difficult for people attempting to understand the science of climate change when opinions are presented as fact like this.

Coby Beck’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is a better approach to the subject in my opinion because of the detailed arguments presented which directly tackle statements made by the other side, yet it still represents one part of the pointless competition surrounding climate change. With such opinions vehemently supported like this, it is difficult to sift through each claim to establish a well-rounded perspective of the science around climate change. Competition around this subject is frustrating to me because it has become about who is right or wrong rather than considering that the truth may be somewhere in the middle. Climate change, regardless of how much it is affecting us or the way in which it is, needs to be addressed with unanimous support. The field of climate change has been wrought with contention and bickering, when it really needs people to work together to create workable and sustainable solutions.

However, I am not sure if this will occur given our propensity as humans to compete and strive to win. As individuals it is therefore important to seek out as many opinions as possible (and we all know there are plenty out there) in order to evaluate the science of climate change in its entirety. Furthermore, it is important to not fall victim to the persuasive arguments of one side and take it as fact like websites such as Friends of Science would like. I agree with Laura that many people manipulate certain facts and such to their advantage. Because of this, I am cautious when it comes to anything presented as “hard fact”, whether or not it comes from a small Canadian organization like Friends of Science, an environmental journalism site like Grist, or even a report issued by the US government.