My first source is an article by Monte Hiebe from http://www.geocraft.com/ titled "Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers". You can use this link to access the article: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
I believe that this page is credible because it's information is consistent with other resources on the topic and provides a list of references which can be used to verify its authenticity. Furthermore, the sight is free of advertising, which is a good sign. Although it does not express more than one viewpoint, this sight mostly gives data, not opinions, which makes the fact that it does only expresses one side of the issue somewhat irrelevant. I would have liked the author to have told the reader more about himself, but he did give a link to contact him by email, which is better than nothing. Another down side was that the page did indicate when it was created, but I doubt that would be a problem for most of the data in the article. I was really excited when I found this page because it shows the data on the actual affect of CO2 that I have been looking for, including how much CO2 contributes to the green house affect and how much CO2 can actually be attributed to human activities. This data would be really helpful in debate with friends who still buy into global warming.
My second source is an article by Tom V. Segalstad from www.folk.uio.no (I have no idea what language the home page is in, but it seems to be a university site) titled Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
How's that for a title? The article can be accessed at http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm. I thought that this article was credible because the author gave his credentials and a long list of sources that he used in the article. It was also encouraging to see that the article had been in print. I can't really find any reasons to doubt the credibility of this source. Although the web page does not give the last date that it was edited, it does say when the article was printed. Over-all, I consider this a very strong source.
This article uses a "they say/I say" approach to demonstrate apparent discrepancies in the arguments of the scientists who claim that CO2 is a pollutant that is endangering life on earth. This information gives weight to arguments that carbon-phobia is really a hoax and has little scientific basis.
You are on target with how you are structuring your posts and the observations you are making.
ReplyDeleteI'll mention a few things for you to think about on future posts:
1) I'm glad you noted that the first source did not do a good job making the author's credentials known. While a lack of advertising can be a plus, it can also just mean that you've landed at a private website. Take a look at your own blog; it doesn't have advertising. What save this source from plunging into not being credible is that the author does give his sources, which you note. We just wish as his readers we knew a little more about his credentials to interpret somewhat complex data.
2) The second point I'll make is not so much to put down one of your sources, but it's a suggestion you might want to research further. In the first source, the author seems pretty hyped up on saying that water vapor is key to the global warming issue. What he does not do is provide a comparison of how potent the various gasses are. Perhaps the environment can tolerate huge fluctuation in water vapor but small amounts of CO2 or methane can throw everything off. For example, when I make a cake, I can toss in cups and cups of flour; it's necessary but not potent. However, when it comes to baking soda, I only need a teaspoon of it. Fairly small adjustments to this more potent ingredient would yield rather dramatic results.
3) Just try to make sure that you are gathering some recent sources. To some extent old data can be useful, but since this is a topic continually being studies, you will establish yourself as a more credible researcher if you use recent publications.
And, for the language of the homepage debate, I'm going to submit a vote for Norwegian since the University of Oslo is in Norway. Don't ask me what the page says though; my only connection with Norwegian is that I have heard it spoken since I knew a guy who grew up there as a missionary kid :-)
ReplyDeleteApparently it is Norwegian. According to Bing Translator it says:
ReplyDeletefolk.uio.no is the University of Oslo's web hosting for personal websites. All students and staff at the University of Oslo can create their own websites.
The University of Oslo have the parent editor in charge of the personal home pages. This means that individual users should assure that the content is not contrary to Norwegian law, satisfying UiOs IT rules, applicable laws and regulations and common custom.
When you create your own website, you agree that it is listed on the list of personal homepages. However, if you do not want your site listed in the overview, you can create a file called ". no_web_index" (without quotes) in your www_docs directory. Your website will then be excluded from indexing process running every night.
I guess that doesn't realy help the credibility factor.
Wow! You did quite a bit of digging to figure that out. You're right too that the fact that the university allows so many to post with so few restrictions does not help the credibility of the source.
ReplyDelete