Inconvenient Truth: Fact Check 1

1.What will the CO2 level be in the next 50 years compared to 2009.

2. a) http://www.uusalem.org/sermons-text/global-warming.htm
b) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2719627.ece
c) http://westinstenv.org/palbot/2008/12/17/pre-industrial-co2-levels-were-about-the-same-as-today/

3. a) The source is Phil Carver. The credentials that the source has is that the author is a director at Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Salem. In my opinion this source is not creditable because yes, it does tell you who the author is, but it doesn't give you background information on the author. The source says that several thousand of the earth’s scientists admit that CO2 concentrations today are 38 percent higher than they were for thousands of years before 1850 and that the climate has responded to greenhouse gases, both historically and for the last two ice ages, in precisely the ways predicted by computer models. I'm not exactly sure if I believe it or not because it doesn't give background information and it doesn't say where they got these sources from.

b) The source is Lewis Smith, an environment reporter from The Times. The credentials that this source is the author is an environment correspondent, environmental reporter, environment editor, science reporter at The Sunday Times. I think the source is creditable because it's The Times and I doubt that they would print something that is false or something that they haven't researched. The Source says that Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing much faster and will be harder to control than scientists have predicted. An international team of researchers found that, since 2000, the rate at which CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere is 35 percent greater than most climate change models have allowed for. There are serious implications that the world’s temperature will rise and that means global warming will be harder and more expensive to control. This also means that international efforts to bring CO2 emissions under control will need to be more far-reaching. Professor Nicholas Owens, of the British Antarctic Survey said that the findings were so worrying that they made previous widely accepted forecasts of climate change seem unduly optimistic. I do believe this source because it's recognized source.

c) The source is Dr. Tim Ball, from the Canada Free Press. The credentials that this source has is that the author is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. I think that this source is creditable because it gives you information about the author and it sites its sources in the article. The source says that proponents of human induced warming and climate change, and that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. Also that the late 20th century was the warmest on record, and global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. The arctic ice would continue to decrease through 2008, and that October of 2008 was the second warmest month on record. The current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. The source said that all of these things are incorrect. The source also said that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US, but it was 1934. The source says that the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2 and have throughout the Industrial era is wrong, and that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. I am not really sure if I believe the source or not because my own personal belief I think that global warming is real, but if the source really does have all these credentials then he should know what he's talking about.

4. No, I don't believe this fact because the three sources I checked my facts against in my opinion were not creditable enough for me. Why I say this is because my first source I count find any credentials that told me that he actually knew what he was talking about. My second source has good credentials, but I can not say that he knew what he was talking about because even though he is a environment reporter how am I suppose to know if he has been educated about the environment. My third source has good credentials, in my opinion the best credentials out of all three. So even though I don't necessarily believe what he is saying because of my own personal belief I'm going to agree with him because of his credentials.