Does the Wikipedia article appear to be bias in anyway or does it maintain neutrality?
I feel that the article is biased towards Global Warming. It focuses on the continuation of Global Warming and basically gives no feedback on any other point of view.
What facts has the author omitted?
The author has omitted any information on the other points of view. For example, some people may think that it is a hoax.
What additional information is necessary?
I think that the author should have information specifically geared towards people who may think that Global Warming is a hoax. Instead of being bias on humans being the cause, and all of the problems - answer the questions that these people disbelieve in.
What words create positive or negative impressions?
Negative Impressions :
-projected continuation
-destruction
-threat
-human-derived causes
What impression would I have if different words were used?
Basically it is inevitable. I personally cannot do anything about Global Warming. I wouldn't see a "threat". I wouldn't see humans as the MAIN reasons
Biased Ideas:
"Climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate."
- I feel that the word 'good' in this statement can be biased. They may not be 'good' match - I want to know more about it.
- Where is this proven?
No comments:
Post a Comment