The competition around climate change reminds me of myself when I'm pressed for time and I need to write an essay. Sometimes I forget about a paper, have to work, or have another paper (or class) that is more important so I need to write a decent paper in as little time as possible. When this happens I pick a side to an argument, write all that I know about it, and then find literature to support it. I don't make sure that what I am writing is correct or even if I really believe what I am writing. Sometimes there is evidence that is better for the other side of the argument, but I just ignore it and find more ideas that support my side. I often think that this is how the arguments on climate change work. You can find facts that support anything. You can analyze facts however you want. It's all about interpretation and this becomes most important when there is a political or economic agenda at hand. Many people and businesses have an incentive to not believe in climate change and to convince others that it does not exist either. Other businesses and people have the economic incentive to do the opposite. I believe that if money were not involved, then there would not be such a heated debate about the subject. People would just want to know the truth. One group has to be right.
I find the “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” website more convincing, but I am also biased. I automatically find the other website to be less convincing because of all of the other literature that I have read. To be honest, if I have never studied the environment before I do not know which one I would believe more.
No comments:
Post a Comment