A View on Views and A Comparison of Websites

Personally, I would think that there is so much fierce competition in the science of global climate change because the end results of the two main theories on climate change are so radically different. While I am not going to claim that I have science to back up my opinion, I just think that the competition is caused by psychological factors. Either people in this scenario are completely right or completely wrong. There is no middle ground, and no one wants to be wrong. This could lead people to staunchly defend their opinions more so than under normal circumstances. Furthermore, the scope of the problem is simply enormous, and with the two outcomes so different, people may have a hard time accepting one reality over another. People may not want to accept that the world they know will be completely different, while others may not want to accept that their theory on warming is incorrect. Personally, I believe that there is warming, but I’m just laying out both sides to offer a potential explanation.
How we evaluate the claims these websites make is simply by seeing how they approach the problem, how they present the issues, and how they cite their information. To illustrate this approach to evaluation, I’ll walk through the example of how I came to believe the website “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is more convincing. Yes, I will come out again and say that I am biased towards believing in Global Warming, but there were other things that factored into my opinion.
The “How To” website approached Global Climate Change for the problem that it is, enormously complex. Upon opening the website, the viewer is greeted with a seemingly endless array of objections and counterpoints. It appears to me they have taken the time to thoroughly go over the numerous particularities of the debate. The FOS website has a mere 6 claims. With the infinitely complex and dynamic nature of the environment, 6 claims does not seem like a lot. Furthermore, the response in the “How To” website are significantly longer, addressing caveats and nuances. Once again, it reflects the nature (no pun!) of the problem it is approaching. The FOS website has very brief, curt arguments.
Additionally, on some of the responses on the “How To” site, a lengthy list of sources is provided (no consensus). The FOS site only provides graphs with very little interpretative aids, and few citations. If the claims were legitimate, perhaps there would be more illustration of the facts.
Finally, although this is based on zero factual information, the FOS site appears too sure of itself, presenting the other side as almost demonic (especially with the quotes on the top of the page). The “How To” website says flat out that it will not take itself too seriously, and that appeals to me.