Two Perspectives on Climate Change Issues

When I compare the argument between the Friend of Science (FOS) website and Grist's one, there are two extreme perspectives about climate change issues. The first perspective is to advocate a sense of danger for climate changes which is supported by FOS. Their approach for climate change is based on literature research in order to proof on the issue of climate change. In the first page of FOS website, they say there are any original scientific researches, but its research based on an extensive literature research. And they organize some information about particular climate change discussion, and provide straight forward questions and responses. Also, they visualize issues well. In their homepage, they use multi-media information like video and radio very well.

On the other hand, Grist's article, ‘How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' starts climate change discussion from a doubtful attitude. Also, this article provides optimistic perspective for the climate change. Climate change is natural argument and climate change is not bad arguments are examples of their topics and attitudes toward climate change. The article based on the technical scientific discussion, and their proofs provides based on past data of climate or statistics, but they say it’s too short span to measure change of climate, and the climate change would be a natural thing.
There are two extreme perspectives on climate change arguments. Both of them have very strong supports back in their arguments. The main difference between them is a method of proof for an argument. FOS is based on literature research, and Grist is based on scientific method in order prove.

I would say both of claims make sense, and have appropriate proofs which support it's argument well, however, I would like to say FOS's argument is more convincing than the other because their argument creates a sense of danger for my mind when I read though the myth/fact page. Moreover, when I read through Grist’s argument, part of the Grist's article includes consolation tendency in terms of climate change issue. It might be too optimistic, when they say "climate change can't be stopped". I want to see at least a positive attitude toward issues in order to combat with it. Therefore, I prefer to support FOS’s argument.