109k views
4 votes
Read the article by Michael Fumento, writer for the New York Post editorial blog, who does not support global warming. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms—but no frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence. Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before greenhouse gases could have been a factor. The [global warming supporters] have been proved wrong time and time again. Which best describes the reliability of the source? Nationally certified organizations are considered an unreliable source because the public can access their information. Charities are considered a reliable source because the public makes financial contributions to them. Editorial blogs are considered an unreliable source because the author may not have a science background. Editorial blogs are considered a reliable source because authors contribute to them regularly.

User Rambod
by
5.0k points

2 Answers

3 votes

Answer:

the 3rd choice is the answer

Step-by-step explanation:

User Vadian
by
4.7k points
3 votes
The third choice best describes reliability: Editorial blogs are considered an unreliable source because the author may not have a science background.

The first statement is illogical, just because the public can access information does not make it unreliable. The second also is incorrect, if charities receive money from the public, they may have incentive to publish popular theories to get more support, so they are unreliable. The fourth is incorrect, because we don't have any background on who the authors are.
User WenChao
by
5.0k points