Perlman's article uses simpler language in order for a better understanding by the general public while still getting the point across. He summarizes the main points and even some of the data presented in Caldeira and Wickett article. All of the points brought up are crucial for the public to know and understand in order for any potential change to help save our oceans. At the rate we are going the effects will be detrimental to not only marine life but the entire ecosystem and even global economics. With the ocean taking up over 70% of the world's surface and with an estimated 50-80% of all life being in the ocean the lowering pH levels will effect our planet drastically. Perlman's article is short and concise opening the public's eye to this issue while providing sufficient sources for anyone to further explore if desired. Group2: Josephine and Joe
First off the title, "Carbon Dioxide Poisoning the Oceans," is fairly broad and could be considered "click-bait" for the author to get more views. The author manages to combine all of the empirical evidence which makes the reading easier on the general public. It seems to be a fairly truthful article without too much bias. Along with this it is in layman's terms which helps people understand the tough numbers and figures of the study. The article clearly states the result in its own sentence. This provides the reader with an easy answer as soon as the article is read. Even though the article is not from a scientific publisher it still provides a summary of the study. So, overall, the San Francisco Chronicle article is a good understanding of scientific reporting.
We think that the article represents the values put forward for scientific papers moderately well. It propagates a large amount of scientific data, and uses a variety of mediums to present it, as well as good data sources to make it’s point. However, it lacks in actual specifics of the data. It uses it to come to a conclusion about the issue that it that isn’t entirely flushed out, or explained. We think that the wording that is used in the article is a good example of the appropriate wording for the increasing of public knowledge on the subject, as it avoids using terms language that is overly technical. Also, the article seems to be simply reporting on the article, and is not the author simply reporting on their opinion of the article, so we are being given data and not simply a construed opinion. One other issue with this article, at least today, is that the article was published in 2003, which could cause this data to no longer be relevant, or to have been disproven with another study more recently. Also, the first half of the title is extremely suggestive, it seems to be that its purpose is to simply grab the attention of the reader and doesn’t represent what the actual article says very accurately.
The San Francisco Chronicle does a good job of understanding the fundamentals of the scientific study, but there are some points of inaccuracy and exaggeration. The article does a good job of explaining the harm of an increasing acidity level in the oceans. For example, acid in seawater is very harmful to marine organisms that contain calcium carbonate in their shells. Also particular coral reefs would be at risk of extinction. The article does not do a good job of explaining the rate of change in the pH levels in the oceans. They claim the ocean’s pH is “rapidly” becoming more acidic, when in reality the change will take hundreds of years. The San Francisco Chronicle exaggerates the title of the article to lure readers in. Group 4
Group 3 The San Francisco Chronicle grasps an average understanding of scientific reporting, because it includes numerical data reports from various sources, but does seem to come off as biased and opinion lead. This report provides a fair amount of scientific research to support her point, she includes scientific findings and information from computer models in order to support her theory that we are poisoning the oceans. The reason that this is bad scientific research is because she is stating and idea, or theory. To which she does not raise a point to any counter arguments, let alone represent them. She solely uses information that will hep to prove her point, which makes this an example of bad scientific research.
The article showcases a strong understanding of scientific reporting because it calls out the issues in science journalism. David Brown argues that if science reporting is objective, meaning it spends more time describing the evidence than arguing for its newsworthiness, then it allows you to create your own opinion about its newsworthiness. If science reporting is objective rather than subjective then the writer is doing his or her job. The most dangerous flaw in science journalism, according to David Brown, is when journalists attempt to spin scientists words to make it seem more important to get a bigger headline. -----Squad Uno-----
The San Francisco Chronicle article does a solid job of scientific reporting because it really speaks out about the issues of the acidity in the ocean. On the other hand, it is not totally perfect and does not really capture everything you want to hear. Some of the information appears biased. This is still decent reporting and is somewhere in between true investigative journalism and pure ratings-based journalism. There is scientific information but it falls a little short, but very close, to being a great example of scientific journalism.
Perlman's article uses simpler language in order for a better understanding by the general public while still getting the point across. He summarizes the main points and even some of the data presented in Caldeira and Wickett article. All of the points brought up are crucial for the public to know and understand in order for any potential change to help save our oceans. At the rate we are going the effects will be detrimental to not only marine life but the entire ecosystem and even global economics. With the ocean taking up over 70% of the world's surface and with an estimated 50-80% of all life being in the ocean the lowering pH levels will effect our planet drastically. Perlman's article is short and concise opening the public's eye to this issue while providing sufficient sources for anyone to further explore if desired.
ReplyDeleteGroup2: Josephine and Joe
Grade: 96
DeleteGroup 5:
ReplyDeleteFirst off the title, "Carbon Dioxide Poisoning the Oceans," is fairly broad and could be considered "click-bait" for the author to get more views. The author manages to combine all of the empirical evidence which makes the reading easier on the general public. It seems to be a fairly truthful article without too much bias. Along with this it is in layman's terms which helps people understand the tough numbers and figures of the study. The article clearly states the result in its own sentence. This provides the reader with an easy answer as soon as the article is read. Even though the article is not from a scientific publisher it still provides a summary of the study. So, overall, the San Francisco Chronicle article is a good understanding of scientific reporting.
We think that the article represents the values put forward for scientific papers moderately well. It propagates a large amount of scientific data, and uses a variety of mediums to present it, as well as good data sources to make it’s point. However, it lacks in actual specifics of the data. It uses it to come to a conclusion about the issue that it that isn’t entirely flushed out, or explained. We think that the wording that is used in the article is a good example of the appropriate wording for the increasing of public knowledge on the subject, as it avoids using terms language that is overly technical. Also, the article seems to be simply reporting on the article, and is not the author simply reporting on their opinion of the article, so we are being given data and not simply a construed opinion. One other issue with this article, at least today, is that the article was published in 2003, which could cause this data to no longer be relevant, or to have been disproven with another study more recently. Also, the first half of the title is extremely suggestive, it seems to be that its purpose is to simply grab the attention of the reader and doesn’t represent what the actual article says very accurately.
ReplyDeleteGroup 6
DeleteThe San Francisco Chronicle does a good job of understanding the fundamentals of the scientific study, but there are some points of inaccuracy and exaggeration. The article does a good job of explaining the harm of an increasing acidity level in the oceans. For example, acid in seawater is very harmful to marine organisms that contain calcium carbonate in their shells. Also particular coral reefs would be at risk of extinction. The article does not do a good job of explaining the rate of change in the pH levels in the oceans. They claim the ocean’s pH is “rapidly” becoming more acidic, when in reality the change will take hundreds of years. The San Francisco Chronicle exaggerates the title of the article to lure readers in.
ReplyDeleteGroup 4
Grade: 96
DeleteGroup 3
ReplyDeleteThe San Francisco Chronicle grasps an average understanding of scientific reporting, because it includes numerical data reports from various sources, but does seem to come off as biased and opinion lead. This report provides a fair amount of scientific research to support her point, she includes scientific findings and information from computer models in order to support her theory that we are poisoning the oceans. The reason that this is bad scientific research is because she is stating and idea, or theory. To which she does not raise a point to any counter arguments, let alone represent them. She solely uses information that will hep to prove her point, which makes this an example of bad scientific research.
Grade: 96
DeleteThe article showcases a strong understanding of scientific reporting because it calls out the issues in science journalism. David Brown argues that if science reporting is objective, meaning it spends more time describing the evidence than arguing for its newsworthiness, then it allows you to create your own opinion about its newsworthiness. If science reporting is objective rather than subjective then the writer is doing his or her job. The most dangerous flaw in science journalism, according to David Brown, is when journalists attempt to spin scientists words to make it seem more important to get a bigger headline.
ReplyDelete-----Squad Uno-----
Grade: 96
DeleteThe San Francisco Chronicle article does a solid job of scientific reporting because it really speaks out about the issues of the acidity in the ocean. On the other hand, it is not totally perfect and does not really capture everything you want to hear. Some of the information appears biased. This is still decent reporting and is somewhere in between true investigative journalism and pure ratings-based journalism. There is scientific information but it falls a little short, but very close, to being a great example of scientific journalism.
ReplyDeleteGrade: 96
Delete