Gregory's Blog for inconvenient Truth Fact Check

Fact I am checking (in question form): Did Al Gore ever say that Earth may face another Ice Age in the future?

Three sources that prove this is a fact or not a fact:

1st source: http://www.iceagenow.com/Could_A_New_Ice_Age_Be_Just_Around_the_Climatological_Corner.htm.

. The author of this source is Climatologist Cliff Harris. The credentials in this source is John Coleman who is the founder of the Weather Channel and  Robert Felix author of Not by Fire but by Ice. This source is credible because for one thing, the author of this source is a climatologist, he bases his article on Dr. John Coleman who is the founder of the Weather Channel and Dr. Coleman said Global Warming is the Greatest Scam in history but the part of the article that supports that my fact is true is information from Robert Felix. I think this source is credible. This source says that my fact that I am checking is true. I believe this source because  (and this is based on the article), Robert Felix believes that the significant cool down could possibly be the start of at least another little Ice Age, possibly a new Great Ice Age, which Robert Felix believes is overdue following 11,500 years of generally warmer than normal global temperatures. 

 2nd source: http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/. The source of this article (this is not considered an author) is Pravda.Ru. The credentials that this source has isn't people but studies like the field of Climate Science, ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geological record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations.  This source is credible because the credentials this source has really makes you believe the article is telling the truth. The source says that the Earth is now on the Brink  of entering another ice age. It is not saying my fact word for word but it is saying the same thing. This source is saying my fact that I am checking is true just like my first source for this blog post. I believe the source because this article is three pages because it has so much information and credentials to support the article's statement, the earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age. 

3rd source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html.

 The author of this source is Paul Joseph Watson. The credential that this source has is Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera of the Institute of Geophysics at the University of Mexico. This source is Credible because it has a credential that is a professor of the institute of Geophysics and I have never heard of something called Geophysics until just reading it with this source. This source says that scientists predict an Ice Age within 10 years.   I believe this source because I have never heard of Geophysics. 

After reading the 3 sources I have determined that my fact is true and is a fact. I believe this because the sources all have credentials to back their statements up. 

Gregory's Blog for inconvenient Truth Fact Check

Fact ( in question form): Is the atmosphere vulnerable

1st source: http://www.ul.ie/~childsp/CinA/Issue59/TOC4_Atmosphere.htm. The author of this source is Bill Byers. The credentials of this source is the School of Applied Biological and Chemical Sciences, the University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Newtownabbey, and Co. Antrim BT.There is one quote and it is "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears that this is true." - James Branch Cabell. This source is credible because of one thing and that is the title of the article in the source. The title is Our Vulnerable Atmosphere. To me, the title explains what I am looking for. The Source says that our atmosphere is vulnerable because the tile explains it.  I believe the source because it is written by someone from a university. Also he teaches science at the university. 

2nd source: http://www.ucar.edu/communications/ucar40/atmosphere.html. The author of this source is Jacque Marshall. There are no credentials for this source. This source is credible because it has the the necessary things a source needs to have to be called trustworthy. One reason I know this is because the author left is email address right next to his name at the bottom of the article. This source says that the atmosphere is vulnerable. I believe the source because it is credible in ways like one I mentioned above. 

3rd source: http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/tickell-lecture-vulnerable-earth.html. The author of this source is Crispin Tickell. This source has no credentials. This source is credible because this is the article that was typed up from Crispus Tickell's lecture in Washington D.C.. The source says that the atmosphere is vulnerable. I believe the source because this article is on the website Climate Institute, so I know that I can trust this source because it focuses on the Earths climate and obviously the institute is looking in and has been looking in to Climate Change or Global Warming. 

    After reading my three sources, I have determined that my fact " Is the atmosphere vulnerable?" is true. I believe it. 

  

Gregory's Blog for inconvenient Truth Fact Check

Fact from movie I am checking: (fact is in question form) Do leaves increase Carbon Dioxide levels? 

1st source: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=144113.  There are two authors of this article and they are Michael Robinson and Richard Sicher. This source has one credential and that is the International Journal of Plant Science. This is a credible source because it has scientific words and instead of using the word carbon dioxide the authors use the element symbol CO2 to say Carbon Dioxide. This source says that the fact I am checking that is " Do leaves increase Carbon Dioxide levels?" is not a fact and that it is not true. In the article it says that Carbon Dioxide levels are harmful to leaves and other types of plants because Carbon Dioxide levels messes up the leaves and plants chloroplast which is used in a plant to make food which has to do with photosynthesis. I don't know if I believe this source because this website really has to do with the United States department of Agriculture and the source on this website really doesn't focus on carbon dioxide, it focuses on plants. I think I will have to see what the other two sources I find say. I guess I will determine if I believe this fact and the other facts based on the highest number of sources that thinks it is a fact or the highest number of sources that think it is not a fact. 

2nd source: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001938.html. The author of this source is Randall Parker. There are no credentials for this source. The source is credible because it uses scientific words, things that won't happen until years after this year, and the article has main points to each paragraph in the article. The source says that ( just like the first source), that carbon dioxide is harming leaves and other plants. I think I believe the source because the first source said that carbon dioxide was harming leaves and this second source says that carbon dioxide is harming leaves. I think I will wait to say whether I believe this source until I find a third source and see what it says. 

3rd source: http://www.physorg.com/news153422058.html. The author of this source is The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  The Credentials that this source has is researchers form the University of Illinois and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This Source is very credible because in the article many scientific words are used, instead of using the word Carbon Dioxide, the writers of this article use Carbon Dioxide's scientific abbreviation CO2, and it talks about the scientific information about plants to help explain the main point of the writers article. The source says that plants draw Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere and make sugars from the carbon dioxide. It is saying the same thing that my first two sources were saying, and that was  that leafs are not increasing Carbon Dioxide levels at all but they didn't say that in their articles just like that word for word. I don't believe the source because if the first two sources are saying the same thing this source is saying, it makes me not believe. 

After reading the sources that I did and what the sources indicated I don't believe the fact "Do Leafs increase Carbon Dioxide levels. I think it is not true and the movie was not accurate about this fact. 

Gregory's Blog for inconvenient Truth Fact Check

  Fact from movie I am checking: (Fact is in question form) Is the atmosphere thin enough for humans to change it?

three sources that verify the fact:  1st source: http://cei.org/pdf/ait/chI.pdf. Author of source: Lewis Marlo. Credentials in the source: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Roger Pielke Sr. , Davison E. Soper, Institute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon, Rasmus Benestad, and Ray Pierrehumbert.  It is a credible source because it has scientific words, scientific sources where they got their information, and a MLA format. The source says that my fact is true because throughout time and even now people are changing the atmosphere. I do believe the source because it has data that I know and data that was talked about in the movie.

2nd Source:  http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=172075.  place that Author wrote this at: Open University. There is only one credential. It is the professor who typed all this and posted it and probably has a degree for teaching this kind of stuff in college. I think it is a trustworthy source because it has pictures of the Earth, credentials(not specific ones), the information comes form a university, the parts of the information is in sections like  1 section, 1.2 section, 1.3 section, etc, just like I have at North in my school textbooks. The source says that the atmosphere is thin enough for humans to change that, and we humans do that because what we do with emissions gives higher altitude which effects the atmosphere. I believe the source because I think universities have very knowledgeable information on things like this and the information says in its own way that humans cause changes to the atmosphere which is the fact I am checking. 

3rd Source: http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/causes/. The article that is the source was written by Erik Conway, Randal Jackson, and Rosemary Sullivant. The credentials that this source has is Michael Gunson ( Scientist, and Science advisor) and the Science Consultants( Michael Gunson's assistants) William Patzert, Michelle Santee, Margaret Srinavasan, Joshua Willis, and Karen Yuen. The source is credible because the article was done by scientists and if there is one type of profession in the world that could answer stuff like questions about Global Warming, it would be scientists. The source says that humans do cause a change in the atmosphere because the atmosphere is thin and very delicate. The article doesn't say it in that order but that is there message. I believe the source because I trust scientists and it has credits of people who worked on the website like manager of the website, the writers of the article, the scientists and the scientist's assistants, and even the people who took photos that they used in the article. 

At this point in this post I have checked the fact"Is the Atmosphere thin enough for humans to change it?", and I have come to find that the fact is true. I believe this because the three sources I chose for this fact had scientific words that were used to explain the points of the articles, credentials, the sources were credible, and each source said in their own way that the atmosphere is thin and delicate and that humans are responsible for changing the atmosphere, and even humans who aren't alive anymore.