Aesthically pleasing or scientifically compelling?

I found Grist’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” to be more compelling and convincing then the “Friends of Science” website. The purpose of the “Friends of Science” website was to combat the myths about climate change. After reading “Providing Insight into Climate Change” I thought I was reading one of those websites that didn’t believe in climate change. I read their statement about the website and apparently the website is trying to get citizens to focus upon other environmental issues like water and air pollution. They state that climate change has become the central environmental issue and there are a lot more environmental issues that need to be focused upon. Climate change cannot be the only one. I understand the websites point, but at the same time I think that its counter effective to try and take the focus off climate change. The environment is an issue that many Americans ignore or forget about. I think that environmentalist should encourage as much attention to any environmental problem as possible.

I think Grist’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is more convincing than “Friends of Science” because “Friends of Science” list all these myths about climate change and then give facts to disprove these myths, but they don’t cite any sources. “Friends of Science” doesn’t cite any sources, provide charts, and focus around the argument that the earth goes through warming and cooling periods all the time. I think it is evident that there is a change in weather patterns and temperatures. Grist sight provides a list of comments that skeptics use to refute climate change. Grist goes through each comment and provides evidence on the contrary to what the skeptics have said. Grist provides outside sources and uses a lot of governmental organizations like NASA and IPCC.

While I think the scientific arguments for Grist’s cite were more convincing, “Friends of Science” has a better aesthetic value for it. The website is nicely laid out, with a big globe over the web page and green and blue colors. The website looks very professional and lays out its arguments well. The color-coding alone in the website, makes it appear very environmental-because the website uses greens, blues and whites. The Grist website is not laid out very nicely. The arguments look like a blog, which can make some people believe less in the validity of the argument. I also wonder if people click on the skeptic’s arguments to find out why they are incorrect. Webpage viewers can be lazy or maybe they don’t realize that you can click on to the arguments. The website has no color and the structure is a bit confusing. Aesthetically, the Grist website looks less professional even though it has better arguments.

-Tracey Swan