5th Final Research Online!

 5th Final Research Online!

“Specific Page Title or Article Title”	"In the Land of Denial"
Primary Contributor to the Website (if given)	N/A
Title of the Entire Website (not www. )	The New York Times
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given)	The New York Times
Date Page was Last Revised	6 September 2011
Date You Read It	13 February 2012
<URL address> (ALL of it)	http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/opinion/in-the-land-of-denial-on-climate-change.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=global%20warming%20hoax&st=cse

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded):

Rick Perry was not believe in the global warming, and he was say " climate change is an unproven theory created by a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects"

So after rumor spread about global warming is hoax then most of Republican presidental field "also reject the scientific consenus"

But Two other part of people was believe in global warming was Jon Huntsman Jr. was "believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me Crazy." He was fully support to the scientists's work.

Ron Paul of Texas, was not believe in the global warming and he believe that scientist was fake on global warming because he say "the greatest hoax i think that has been around for many, many years."

Other people say Global warming is hoax because it is just natural, and it not make from human active, One women name Michele Bachmann of Minnesota say that "carbon dioxide was nothing to fear because it is a natural byproduct of nature and has complained of manufactured science."

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION):


Rick Perry was not believe in the global warming, he believe that the global warming was fake all time, and he was said that global warming hoax. He Figure there has some company was not existed or making. He believe that scientific was warning everyone for what? to gain their money.
Credibility of Source:
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site?

The New York times was website, they was just get information from free lancer, which they was gather information. Their purpose to gather information, and they spread article to everyone who want know what going on with potilic's mind.


Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business?


Author's article was just information, and gather information from Rick Perry.


Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing?

References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility?


neutal. they was just neutral.


Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project?


Yes I will use this for my opposite view from my topic, because there has some group or person was politc was not believe about global warming or air pollution.

4th Final Research Online!

4th Final Research Online!

“Specific Page Title or Article Title”	"Crisis Underscores Fears About Safety of Nuclear Energy"
Primary Contributor to the Website (author)	Norimitsu Onishi, Henry Fountain and Tom Zeller Jr.
Title of the Entire Website	The New York Times
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given)	The New York Times
Date Page was Last Revised	12 March 2011
Date You Read It	9 February 2012
<URL address> (ALL of it)	http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/world/asia/13nuclear-industry.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=crisis%20underscores%20fears%20about%20safety%20of%20nuclear%20energy&st=cse

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded):

In Japan, Something happen which everyone not expect that happen "two reactors at an earthquake-damaged nuclear plant could be suffering meltdowns underscores the Japanese nuclear industry's trouble history.

Japan officals was concern about reactor but they decide to focus on safety of people but "accidents suggested that too little attention was paid to the threat of tsunami" that which was cause worse.

Japan offical was realize that they was make mistaken about earthquake with tsunami attack on the city which was "reactors withstood the powerful earthquake, but the ocean waves damaged generators and backup systemss, harming the ability to cool the reactors"

Japanese scienific was concern about reactor would be damaged more, then they check it out, notice nothing but "not until sunday that the increasingly dangerous nature of the problems at Daiichi became clear.

The reactor name "Reactor No. 1 there having suffered a radiation leak and an explosion," which would make the ground to shake.

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION):

In Japan, Daini, the Reactor of nuclear plant was explosion in Japan from equakearth, then tsunami wave charge against the factory then damage the machine which cooler the Fukushima Daiichi plant down. Then later everything get worse, because everything was focused on damage on city, and not realize that reactor was leak of nuclear.


Credibility of Source:
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site?

Three author is Norimitsu Onishi, Henry Fountain, and Tom Zeller Jr.


Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business?


Author just gather information about nuclear plant was spill over the Daiichi factory in Fukushima which that would get everyone else outside of Japan. Also that could harm all people's life from chemical smell.Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing?

Author's writing was in neutral, and they was just warn everyone about nuclear plant.

References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility?

 
Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project?


Yes I will use this for history of event, this article was which cause to air or environment to become horrific because it could kill many people, but it have very chemical.

3th Other Research Online!

3th Other Research Online!

“Specific Page Title or Article Title”	"In Defense of Clean Energy"
Primary Contributor to the Website
Title of the Entire Website (not www. )	The New York Times
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given)	The New York Times
Date Page was Last Revised	27 January 2012
Date You Read It	3 February 2012
<URL address> (ALL of it)	http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/opinion/in-defense-of-clean-energy.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=in%20defense%20of%20clean%20energy&st=cse

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded):

President Obama " has a history of making great speeches with frustratingly limited follow-through" because he was hard working and he was support to help environment to become health environment.

President told the people that they would get a job because it is " powerful case to be makes that clean energy investments that will create real jobs and keep America competitive in a $5 trillion global market for advanced energy technologies.

Republican try make convince to Congress to not support to President because it is "the failure of a single solar energy company, Solyndra, has a already raised doubts about the value and integrity of a multi billion- dollar federal programs designed to support renewable energy development."

President still stood on his ground, pride and faith in his "vowed not to back down from rules aimed at preventing oil spills, rules protecting children from mercury poisoning, rules guaranteeing safe food and clean water.

Republican get more frustrated with President Obama because he want "that a comprehensive strategy must include fossil fuels, and he pledged to promote natural gas and open up the outer continental shelf for oil exploration- both in an environment safe manner" which would be help environment to better.

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION):


President Obama, was angry with Republican because they want the natural gas from sand in Canada but Obama say no! He wont sign for accept that paper with going plan what Republicans. Also he want to help people to get good health and get job in health way. Republican try convince to Congress resist to president's favor to help give him power, but it not work because President Obama still stand his ground against Republican.


Credibility of Source:
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site?


The New York Times was fund this report, they was heard President Obama's speech to people against Republicans idea about pipeline, so site was get information.



Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business?


article was just information, to people which President Obama want people to heard what his vowed about better environment, also he was strong vowed.


Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing?




References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility?


Yes President Obama was strong faith in his vowed about clean energy which will make lot money for factory was making things under clean bill, he was try make congress to support President's idea.


Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project?


Yes i will use this because President Obama was working hard to make congress to support his ideas and allow his doing his way. and i want support President's ideas. this article support my idea about environment. some people try doing better environment.

2nd Other Research Online!

2nd Other Research Online!

“Specific Page Title or Article Title”	"Wind Turbines and Health Hazards"
Primary Contributor to the Website (if given) (author, editor, producer, etc)	Leslie Kaufman
Title of the Entire Website (not www. )	"The New York Times Green"
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given)	The New York Times
Date Page was Last Revised	18 January 2012
Date You Read It	3 February 2012
<URL address> (ALL of it)	http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/wind-turbines-and-health-hazards/?scp=5&sq=clean%20energy%20and%20health&st=cse

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded):

People try make federal believe that they has " problems like disturbances in the vestibular system that affect the inner ear and balance" because they want wind turbines to stop.

scientific start investigation to make sure that wind turbines did not "beyond the range of human hearing range cannot affect the human balance system."

People continue complain about sound, it affect them lost their balance, "weight of the evidence suggest no association between noise from wind turbines and psychological distress or other mental health problem."

Kenneth L. Kimmell, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environment Protection, say that people complain because they are "on issue of whether the noise causes annoyance or sleep disruption."

The scientific find out other things about wind turbines because it was "that wind turbine sound is more noticeable, annoying and disturbing than other community or industrial sounds at the same level of loudness," which happen at every night.

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION):



Kenneth L. Kimmell, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environment Protection, was discussing about people become complain because the wind turbines was more annoying while every night, also it help company to get clean bill from wind turbines. So federal wont foreclose the wind turbines over complain in Massachusetts.


Credibility of Source:
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site?







Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business?


No, just gather information with her question from scientific opinion. gather information from federal.


Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing?


No author is neutral about side, she just get information also ask question. 



References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility?


No it is just normal report for everyone to know what is going on.  



Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project?


Yes, I will use this source because Kenneth was gain clean bill and get good benefits for it. Also that are congratulation to them because they still run of business with wind turbines which keep the city to run energy. And they use the natural wind to work.

1st Research online!

1st Research online!

“Specific Page Title or Article Title”	"A Coal-Fired Plant That is Eager for U.S. Rules"
Primary Contributor to the Website (author)	Matthew L. Wald
Title of the Entire Website (not www. )	The New York Times
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given)	The New York Times
Date Page was Last Revised	5 January 2012
Date You Read It	31 January 2012
<URL address> (ALL of it)	http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/business/energy-environment/constellation-energy-coal-company-urges-stricter-pollution-rules.html?_r=1&ref=airpollution

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded):

constellation energy start doing activity for environment to better environment, also reduce smog, they "completed an $885 million installation that has vastly reduce emission from two giant coal- burning units of its Brandon Shores Plant"

other scientific and people's who hope for environment to get become better, also their " goal was to complet with Maryland Law"

people hope federal environment Protection Agency " would adopt similar limit," thtat was work well it is successed.

Constellation was agrue about business which use lot coat-fired plant, they are "laggard plants should also have to comply with the emission limits or shut down. they was angry that other company not doing anything to make environment to better.

More people notice ad get information about death from environment pollution. The nurse was research and find out "a Study that found that in 2006, emission from the plant caused 700 deaths per years nationwide, including 100 in Maryland."

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION):


The company, Constellation Energy, try make new machine which would scrabbs the acid out from air, they was occur in Maryland. Their inventor was making new machine name belches steam, but they take long time like three years to complet it in factory to reduce smog. It take lot money out of company about $ 885 million to installation. Because Constellation Energy was hope that court would set new rule to limit smog, so they start do that also they get lot money for that.


Credibility of Source:
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site?


Author was Matthew L. Wald, he was reporter for New York Times, writing reporter about energy for 30 years, also he write about first Gulf war. he was tour for more than two dozon of power reactor. He was writing about oil spill or other thing was relation national.



Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business?


It is simple information about smog.



Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing?


Author's article was just information about energy.


References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility?



The Author doesn't cite references in the writing. It is neutral.


Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project?



I will use this to support that people notice environment which most people not doing anything to make environment to become better. The company still continue their way like make more produce whatever they need, also ignore facts about smog. Some people try make environment to better, and convince other company to doing different way.