Step Four:
Scroll down to the frequently asked
questions section. Choose one of the questions and read the answer. Verify the
answer using another online source. Link me to the source and conduct a Website
Evaluation of the online source.
Q2: How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a
long list of "skeptical" scientists?
A2: Over the years, a number of lists of
so-called "skeptical scientists" have been produced. Notable among
these are the Oregon Petition (circa 1999-2001, and re-circulated
in 2007) and James
Inhofe's list (originally released in 2007, re-released in 2008 with
additional names added). These petitions have proven to be riddled with flaws[2]
To wit:
- Many of the people listed aren't really
scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in
the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a
bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's
degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition,
approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign.
- Some of the people listed aren't even people.
Included on these lists are hoaxes ("Dr. Geri
Halliwell") and companies.
- Of those who have a scientific background most
work in fields unrelated to climate, such as the chemistry
of coal ashes[3]
or the interactions between quarks and gluons.
· Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and
includes people who say they aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list
was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano
with no effort to contact the people listed. One of those on the list, George
Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the
consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list
was ignored.[4]
Similarly, Steve
Rayner of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls
his inclusion "quite outrageous".[5]
The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists
who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global
warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names
be removed" from the Institute's list.
Supporting Resource: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/01/11/205326/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/
Was the answer in
Wikipedia accurate? Yes.
A lot of titled skeptics’ information and articles have been debunked by other
researchers.
How does this influence
your perception of Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school?
It has my vote. I think
that this is a very good resource to use (with own student research on the
validity of its contents) for students. I still don’t think it should be a
citable resource; however, it is a good learning tool and resource.
Website Evaluation
Checklist:
Date
Accessed: May 31, 2013
How did you
find the page?
Google
Search
DOMAIN
What is the
domain of the page?
.org
Do you feel
that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
I believe that if the domain type is a .org, .edu, or .gov it
helps add to the page’s credibility. This is because those are
educational/informational websites. However, there is no such thing as an error
free website. At least, that’s what I’m finding out through this module. My
domain type that is listed above does not make me feel secure in the accuracy
of its information; however, the website is a list of published books, so
therefore I believe that my book is accurate in its claims.
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the
author of the page identified?
Yes.
Is the
author of the page an individual?
Joe Romm is
author of a blog on this website.
If the
author is an individual:
Is the
author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or
group?
No,
except for the website that he blogged on, which is Climate Progress on
thinkprogress.org.
If so, does
this affiliation lend credibility to the author?
I
think it lends some credibility, because not everyone can post on this website.
However, this still leaves room for assessing the credibility of the
information presented.
Are the
author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified?
Yes.
He is a published author of a book: Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare,
Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.
Is the
author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject?
He
is a professional in the field and works for thinkprogress.org as an editor.
Does the
author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately
present the information that he/she is presenting?
Columnist Tom Friedman calls us "the indispensable blog"
and Time magazine named us one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010."
Does the
author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)?
No
Is the
author the original creator of the information presented?
Yes
If not,
does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is
presenting?
Yes
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.
Does the
author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)?
No,
but people can comment on the blog and send in tips on the latest news.
In
conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information
found on his/her web page?
I feel that he is very knowledgeable
in the area of climate and global warming; however, I’m not sure I would label
him as an expert in the field. This article was written to disprove the claims
of a “skeptical scientist” against global warming. He listed many resources and
related links in his article.
INTENT
Is the
purpose of the page clearly stated?
Yes
What is or
appears to be the purpose of the page?
Inform
readers of the current issues and the disproven and error-ridden claims of an
MIT scientist.
Does the page contain
advertisements?
Yes
Do the ads distract from the page’s
content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the
page?
No
Might they be necessary to support
the organization responsible for the page?
Yes, but some of the advertisements are related links on the
Web, which is helpful when researching the topic.
INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears
to be the intended audience for this information/page?
Researchers and enthusiasts
Does the level or complexity of
information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the
information/page match your needs?
Overall, it does; however, there are some word choices that
seem less than scholarly, such as “crap”.
CURRENTNESS
Are the dates of articles, news
stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given?
Is the page properly maintained or
does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?
RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed,
authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?
Does the page display any awards
given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable
sources?
This
source seems reliable in its intent to share that some of the skeptical
scientists who don’t believe global warming is increased by humans have proven errors
in their research and thinking. I would say that this text would be a good
resource to prove that everything needs to be checked for validity; however, I don’t
believe this source is a good resource for supporting evidence of how global
warming is effected by humans.
Do you feel that this source is
appropriate for your current assignment or information need?
Yes
Yes
What
reservations, if any, do you have about the source?
This page proves that some scientists are not reliable in
their information, even published authors; however, I have reservations using
this in support of the concept of man-made global warming conditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment