The article I chose was from the New
York Times, entitled, "Global Rise Reported in 2013 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions". It was penned by a journalist named Justin Gillis, who has
written or co-written more than one hundred articles for the Times, most of the environment related.
There are a number of sources sited here. The first source is for
data regarding emissions numbers: The Global Carbon Project. According to its
.org website, the GCP "was formed to assist the international
science community to establish a common, mutually agreed knowledge base
supporting policy debate and action to slow the rate of increase of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere."
The site also states that it is supported by a
number of other scientific bodies, including the International
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, the International Human Dimensions Programme on
Global Environmental Change, the World Climate Research Programme and
Diversitas. On the GCP site, links are provided to each of these organizations.
This appears to be a credible source as the data released by the GCP was
published in a reputable scientific journal, Nature Geoscience.
A second source
is a direct quote from a scientist at the Center for International Climate and
Environmental Reserach, Glen P. Peters. A click on the link for
the CICEP and a name search reveals Peters is listed as a research fellow at
the Institute. I would regard this also as a reliable secondary source. The
CICEP is, according to its own site as well as other
The article also
cites an additional study released by the World Meteorological
Organization. A link is provided to this source as well. The WMO is, according
to the United Nations website, a specialized agency of the UN. It is also the
same organization that names hurricanes and typhoons. This source would also
appear to be a highly credible source.
There is clearly a bias to this article, which present scientific claims that greenhouse gases have risen again after years of decline. Though his sources are all well-established organizations and professionals in the field of environmental science, there is a pronounced lack of dissenting viewpoints here to counter the conclusions that the quoted scientist has extrapolated from the report. There are no other voice present here to offer another interpretation of the data.
Bias is just one of the hazards of unrestricted web publishing, as well as poorly vetted resources and low standards for research and accuracy, and while this article does not suffer from any of the latter issues, it is quite clearly skewed toward a pro-environment stance.
Gillis, Justin. (Sept 21, 2014) "Global Rise Reported in 2013 Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/science/earth/scientists-report-global-rise-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
Justin
Gillis. (n.d.) Retrieved from
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/justin_gillis/index.html
WMO
World Meteorological Organization. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.un.org/events/wssd/exhibit/WMO.pdf
"The
State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on global Observations
Through 2013
WMO Greenhouse Bulletin. (Sept 9, 2014) Retrieved from https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/1002_GHG_Bulletin.pdf
"
About CICERO"
(n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.cicero.uio.no/about/index_e.aspx#hvem
Bias is just one of the hazards of unrestricted web publishing, as well as poorly vetted resources and low standards for research and accuracy, and while this article does not suffer from any of the latter issues, it is quite clearly skewed toward a pro-environment stance.
Hi Lynne,
ReplyDeleteInteresting and detailed post! While you mention the sources and explain their credibility, I appreciate that you still recognized a bias, saying "There is a pronounced lack of dissenting viewpoints here to counter the conclusions that the quoted scientist has extrapolated from the report." It sounds like you've really figured out how to assess what you're reading! :)