Objectivity

-          What is the author's point of view? Summarize the argument being presented. What is the purpose of the site?

 

The author contends that greenhouse gas levels are rising due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation which are causing significant climate changes including global warming, loss of sea ice, glacier retreat, more intense heat waves, stronger hurricanes, and more droughts. The argument being presented is a disagreement with the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists who feel that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate. The purpose of the site is to show that climate change requires immediate international action to prevent dire consequences.

 

-          What is the author's / speakers social-political position? With what social, political, or professional groups is the speaker identified?

 

Although the author/speaker doesn’t proclaim any affiliation with any social-political group, it’s clear that they are taking and somewhat liberal environmental stance on the climate change issue.

 

-          Does the speaker have anything to gain personally from delivering the message?

 

The speaker stands to gain publicity for the web site, but to me it seems like a genuine concern and outcry to solve a fundamental problem. I don’t believe the speaker has any vain predetermined incentives in delivering this message.

 

-          Who is paying for the message? Where does the message appear? What is the bias of the medium? Who stands to gain?

 

The Website itself stands to gain as it is posted on their website with a liberal bias medium.

 

-          What sources does the speaker use, and how credible are they? Does the speaker cite statistics? If so, how were the data gathered, who gathered the data, and are the data being presented fully?

 

The Speaker cites many credible sources and provides active links to these sources many of which are government websites. Statistics are stated many times in text to support the speaker point of view. The speaker recites the data collected by research of different programs many of which are government ran. The data seems to be presented fully.

 

-          How does the speaker present arguments? Is the message one-sided, or does it include alternative points of view? Does the speaker fairly present alternative arguments? Does the speaker ignore obviously conflicting arguments?

 

The speaker presents the argument from only one real side, so it does appear one-sided. It doesn’t include other points of view necessarily. It more or less plainly states the left side of the argument in neither a negative or positive way. The speaker doesn’t ignore conflicting arguments that just don’t elaborate on them.

 

-          If the message includes alternative points of view, how are those views characterized? Does the speaker use positive words and images to describe his/her point of view and negative words and images to describe other points of view? Does the speaker ascribe positive motivations to his/her point of view and negative motivations to alternative points of view?

 

The speaker reframes from using any positive language when pointing out either point of view; they rather plainly state each side and elaborate on their point of view in more detail than the conflicting side. There is however positive inferences to the speakers point of view in the realm of results discussed.