Global Warming Article: Step Two

Step Two:
Chose a claim to verify. Using Google, find two websites - one supporting, one disputing. Use the Website Evaluation Checklist.
CLAIM:
Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide.

SUPPORTING
Name of page: How we know human activity is causing warming
Address/URL: http://www.edf.org/climate/human-activity-causes-warming
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page? Google

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?
This page is provided by the Environmental Defense Fund. Since they are organized to save the environment, they would be biased toward global warming.

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified?
No
Is the author of the page an individual? (ex. John Jones as the author of his own website)
The author of the page is not identified.
If no individual author is identified, is the corporation, institution, organization or group responsible for the web site clearly identified?
The page is clearly identified as the Environmental Defense Fund. 
If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group:
Does the organization have a reputation for credibility?
The organization has a reputation for being knowledgable about environmental concerns. The website lists the panel of experts that contribute to the site.
Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles?
The organization includes its mission statement and history on their website.
Does the organization provide the names of its officers, editors, staff or other major participants?
The organization has a plethora of information, including history, contact information, offices, annual reports and financial information.
 Does the organization provide contact information (phone, address, or at least an e-mail address)?
Yes.
Does the organization appear to filter the information appearing under its name?   
It appears to.      
Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias?
The organization is dedicated to the defense of the environment. Therefore, they will be biased toward global warming and the effects of humans on the environment.
In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page?
With the list of experts and history, I believe that this webisite is qualified to present the information found on its web page.

INTENT
Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?
The pages purpose is clearly stated.
"As far as scientists are concerned, it's case closed: human activity is causing the Earth to get warmer, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, with a smaller contribution from deforestation. All other scientific explanations for why the Earth is getting warmer have been eliminated."

What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?
This pages explains why they believe human activity is the cause of global warming and attempts to persuade readers of the same.
Does the page contain advertisements?  Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page?  Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page?
There is only one ad on the page and it is for donations to the site. 

INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
The site appears to be intended for people looking for information about global warming.

Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs?
While the site contains some "big words", it does a good job explaining using layman terms.

CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated?
The site appears current, but I couldn't locate a creation date.
Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given?
Not on this page, but other articles include dates.
Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?
The page is update and contains no broken links.

RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?
They have a panel of experts on various environmental issues. They include sources from other sources, but no peer-review.
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources?
Yes.
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?
While biased toward global warming, this appears to be a reliable resource.

CONCLUSIONS
Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need?
Yes
Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research?
Yes
What reservations, if any, do you have about the source?
My only reservation is the site's obvious bias.

OPPOSING
Name of page: Is global warming caused by human activity?
Address/URL: http://home.comcast.net/~pdrallos131681/CO2/co2.pdf
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page? Google

DOMAIN
What is the domain of the page?
.net
Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
I think the domain type lessens the page's credibility.

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified?
Yes. Paul Drallos, Ph. D (Physics)
Is the author of the page an individual? (ex. John Jones as the author of his own website)
Yes

If the author is an individual:
Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group?
I do not see any corporation or institute the author is affiliated with.
If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author?
Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified?
The author has a PhD in Physics.
Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject?
Professional, but not in the field of environmental science.
Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting?
The author presents evidence and graphs.
Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)?
The author is obviously biased stating "only irrational logic could support such a choice" when referring to global warming.
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?
The author offers references for his supporting data.
Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)?
No.
In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page?
No.

INTENT
Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?
The pages purpose is stated. However, I'm not sure if he is pointing out that global warming is a falsehood or the science behind it is faulty.
What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?
The purpose of the page is to present an opposing view of global warming.
Does the page contain advertisements?  Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page?  Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page?
No ads.

INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
The site appears to be intended for people who oppose global warming.
Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs?
The site contains simple words.

CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated?
July 9, 2008/Updated October 24, 2009
Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given?
Yes.
Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?
The PDF version of the page is ok; however, the site is full of broken links and missing images.

RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?
No.
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources?
No
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?
I wouldn't consider this a reliable source.

CONCLUSIONS
Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need?
No
Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research?
No
What reservations, if any, do you have about the source?
It is obviously biased and doesn't contain enough expertise or evidence.