150 words per post. Learners must make at least two posts by 11:59 PM on Sundays that directly respond to other posts. Tip: find a post with which you disagree and then respectfully state your differences. Make sure to bring in new facts and concrete evidence to support opinions and advance the discussion.
Posts will be scored based on content as well as clarity of expression.
This post should be addressed to James Ivie
This article places a negative light on the new EPA chief Scott Pruitt. the article starts out by saying that Scott Pruitt does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming. The article continues by saying that the new EPA chief does not believe what most scientist believe about the causes and affects of global warming. The reporter in this situation begins the story negatively by sighting that Mr. Pruitt does not believe in what most of the mainstream scientist believe to be true. The story continues using quotes and from Mr. Pruitt that contradict NASA and NOAA, as well as, emphasizing the affect of global warming. If Mr. Pruitt does not believe in global warming he may have an alternative set of beliefs that the story does not mention. It does not give the people a full view of who the man is because it only gives one side of the story. This story shows sign of a potential media bias against the new EPA director. The story gives off a notion that if you do not believe what the author believes then you are wrong. It would be better perhaps if the writer provides multiple perspectives with evidence and that would allow the reader to form their own opinion.
This should be addressed to Cindy Hurt;
According to CBS news (2017), Scott Pruitt is not convinced that carbon dioxide is a primary source of global warming. His opinion is not popular with the Environmental Protection Agency or scientists. I feel like the news article painted him in a negative light, but it could have been much worse. It included opinions of people that opposed his views, but there was no opinions supporting it. I think to be objective it should include both. It sounds like he is not sold on global warming. There are still plenty of people who feel the same way. I do not really buy into it. Now, I will be the first to admit that it is something that I have little knowledge of. I would have to do a lot of research on both sides to be more informed. The article presented did not give me much to go on.
I would have liked for the article to go further. It would need to include a section that says there are still those who still do not buy into global warming. According to Bryce & Day (2014), there are still several skeptics, and even scientist do not agree on all aspects of global warming. There are even science teachers in the schools that are skeptics, and they do not want to teach the children wrong. Just because a person is a scientist does not mean they are democrat, for global warming, or believe in evolution. They are like others who do research and give opinions.
I think the article is obviously biased. The author wanted it known that many people felt Pruitt was an unfit choice for the position. I do not think there has been enough time to know that. He stated that he did not think it was a primary contributor. They act like he is completely denouncing global warming. He should have just said it could be due to all the sinners on Earth because any statement that comes from his mouth at this point will be considered ludicrous. They are all stirred up and against him.
Bryce, T & Day, S (2014). Scepticism and Doubt in Science and Science Education: The Complexity of Global Warming as a Socio-Scientific Issue. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 9(3). 599-632.
Retrieved from:www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-chief-says-carbon-dioxide-not-a-primary-cause-of-global-warming. (class article)