Post 4: Carbon Dioxide Paper Evaluation

1. https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AfQ1sF3FAtuyZGRwNjlmOGpfMGdqc2hmYmRm&hl=en_US

2. i thought the criteria we chose as a class were a pretty good basis for this project. i think that the authors previous papers and his reputation should have been considered as well as the sources cited for the paper. the class was against this because of the one in a million people who have never been heard of and have a brilliant idea. these few people should not offset the millions of terrible ideas there are. the authors history was shady and his previous papers where not credible.

3. both the yes and no groups had valid points, although i think the no group put a lot more work into their side of the argument and had better presentations. this goes to prove the point dr. schultz made about how the presenters charisma and over look of the presentation can affect conclusions drawn by the audience. this was also evident in the number of votes for the no group, there were more than half of the votes for the no group.

4. whitney did a great job of directing the group and setting timelines. the deadlines were not as strictly followed as i would have hoped but in the end we pulled it together and got a good presentation.

5. i think that my group all believed that the paper was not credible. we found so many things wrong with this paper that there was no reason to believe in it. we had the easier of the two assignments. arguing against my beliefs would have been hard but i dont think that i would have and ethical issue with it.

6. i think the class made the correct decision if the only evidence we had of global warming was that paper. because that paper is by no means credible.

7. this statement means that the us is not the major source of global warming. while we may be able to influence the larger countries like india and china at this point in time, in a few years we may not be able to sway them since they may be more powerful countries than the us. evidence of this is that china and india both have more people than the us and more people means more resources.

8. if every individual were to cut back on greenhouse gas productions than the whole world would be working as one to change the current situation. one country may not be able to change the world but seeing that the larger countries are the problem if each individual made changes in these countries then greenhouse gas has to decrease.

7.