Kluger and Lindzen discuss the effects of global warming on our society. The first thing that strikes my mind when talking about these two articles is how Lindzen refers to the study of global warming as a "Junk science." The fact that he refers to global warming as that shows enough to me that he doesn't believe in this subject. He claims the climate change to be due to "Alarmism."

This makes me believe that Kluger is the more persuasive one in the duo of global warming essays. He puts alot of the blame on carbon dioxide, saying that CO2 concentration was risen to a point where 19 of the hottest years on record were in the 1980s or later. Take that plus the addition of a non-biased view point, and there is a lot of credibility to give to him. I believe the blame he places on natural disasters is very minimal, saying that it is just natural, that they always will attack, but the severity of them will be caused due to the problem of global warming.

Lindzen seems to place some blame on carbon dioxide, saying that the contraction of upper-level cirrus clouds "increased with temperature" which decreased the response to the increasing levels of carbon dioxide. However, Kluger seems to be the persuasive one because Lindzen has a sense of bias in his viewpoint. He does not seem to attracted to the idea of global warming, but still thinks that something is causing it. Kluger, on the other hand, gives solid view points to why this is happening and does not have a bias giving him more credibility.