Unrestricted Web Publishing

The article I chose to evaluate was published on the New York Times online by Justin Gillis. The article, titled Scientists Report Global Rise in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, discusses new statistics and report numbers detailing the rise in greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world.

When analyzing this article for credibility, I find it credible due to the credentials of the author, the organizations the author is affiliated with, and the report from which the author reiterated his findings.  The author, Justin Gillis, is a well-renowned, highly acclaimed environmental science writer for the New York Times. He has won awards for his work, including the 2011 Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism. Additionally, he completed a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at Harvard and MIT during the 2004-2005 academic year. There, he took courses in biology and environmental science.

The data he communicates in his article is drawn from a report published by a tracking initiative, the Global Carbon Project, and has also be published in the journal, National Geoscience. Throughout his article, he provides quotes from the World Meteorological Organization and Glen P. Peters, a scientist at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research.

One of the items that concerned me, however, was that throughout his article he mentions “scientists” have stated these findings however he only cites the report and quotations from Glen P. Peters. He does not list any additional experts who either participated in gathering the research or have the expertise to corroborate what’s being said.

This article is a case where while it seems that much of the findings came from the report and no direct quoted sources. For a scientific article like this, there should be more direct quotes, citations, and support from experts to substantiate the claims of the report. From a web publishing standpoint, one would assume that these sources are enough to prove that what is being conveyed is in fact true. You would see that the information comes from a scientific report, that that report and this data has been published and that the writer has expertise, and even a scientist agrees. But the scientist who agrees helped write the report, the writer, himself, doesn't have a degree or any other credentials in this area, and the findings of the report have not been peer reviewed or published in an academic journal (at least to the audience’s knowledge). Unrestricted web publishing would allow this article to be passed off as new fact, as a testament to what’s “true” and a factual account of global warming when in fact, it’s just telling the results of a report. Anyone with the credentials to analyze this data and not be biased to it has not been presented.  This type of publication could lead people to develop strong assumptions about global warming whether correct or incorrect, and on a political scale, could sway public opinion to one party over the other.