Ideology in My Controversy

Below I will be answering questions about my understanding and take on the debate at hand in the past few posts.

Who is involved in the debate?

As with any debate, there are those that support the topic in question and those that are against it. In the debate I've chosen, the two groups are those that support geoengineering as a tool for mitigating climate change, and those that believe geoengineering will be more detrimental to the environment.

Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?

Paul Crutzen is one of the leading speakers in regards to learning more about what geoengineering entails. Crutzen was one of the first scientists to tear open at the concept of releasing aerosols into the air to counteract climate change. Since geoengineering is still relatively new, there aren't many leading speakers or writers at this time.

What kind of power does each group hold?

Each group holds about the same level of power, with both sides being comprised of many well versed scientists. The true power comes from how the different groups relay their information to the public, and whether or not it is easily understood.

What resources are available to different positions?

Both sides have the same availability of resources, and can alter their facts to skew the views of those around them. Since the topic chosen is a science debate, large amounts of data are collected by both sides and are compiled to create a compelling argument.

What does each group value?

Those that are opposed to using geoengineering value preservation of funds and current weather conditions. They believe that the use of chemicals to reflect sunlight back into space in order to cool the earth will likely damage current weather patterns and have no large scale effect on cooling the globe.

On the other side, many scientists feel that geoengineering is an important first step to solving the human caused climate change. They believe that the combination of chemicals will have a large scale effect on cooling the globe. Their plan isn't to just toss a bunch of chemicals into the air and hope for the best, but to regulate the chemicals released while also implementing greener technologies.

PublicDomainPictures. "Man Coat People Laboratory Lab Glass Liquid Blue" One year ago via pixabay.

Public Domain License

What counts as evidence for the different positions?

Research conducted by the different groups serves as their evidence. As studies are published, depending on the content within, certain groups are able to gain the upper hand. The usage of data in arguments helps to solidify and validate the point of view being presented. For those that oppose geoengineering, data related to the harm of releasing aerosols into the atmosphere would aide them. Those that support geoengineering could use data revealing the cost effectiveness versus the potential gain of using such methods in the field.

Being scientists, there is always a debate over who holds the power over certain issues. As new research is published, opinions are shifted, and friendships are severed. However, there is a general respect amongst peers in the science field, and while they may not always agree on the methods for solving a problem, both sides agree that climate change is a huge problem for the globe. It is a matter of finding a feasible first step to combat climate change, and will likely take many more years of research.