Not much was available about the professional lives of each author, but I was able to determine that each author published on the Nature Climate Change website is a PhD- level scientist. Additionally, all work is reviewed by an 'External Advisory Panel in the areas of social sciences, policy and economics to provide advice on submissions in these areas in the initial few months." Therefore, I find this publication to be written by credible sources.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/authors/gta/index.html

Furthermore, The Website, Nature Climate Change, mission statement states they are, "dedicated to publishing the most significant and cutting-edge research on the science of climate change, its impacts and wider implications for the economy, society and policy." The journal reports on a wide range of scientific topics and only published original interdisciplinary work.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/about/index.html

Jones, Holly P., David G. Hole, and Erika S. Zavaleta. "Harnessing Nature to Help People Adapt to Climate Change." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 26 June 2012. Web. 09 Mar. 2016.

The claim in this article by the authors is that people need to learn about the tools and/or steps they can take to help them tackle the threats that climate change causes to people, their lives, and livelihood.

If the scientist's claims are correct, when would they predict the next switch in climate conditions to take place? Also, can they predict the severity of the next cycle?

This adds credibility. It validates the claim, while also showing how the experiment is important and how it came to its conclusions.

This is a specific pieces of information that confirms the reporters claim.

Good point. It important to show that the counter argument is being acknowledged.

This is the counter argument. As stated in the article, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) hypothesized that from 1998-2012, the temperature should rise at a rate of 0.21 degrees Celsius per decade. Instead, the temperature only rose .04 degrees Celsius during that time period. Therefore, differing perspectives are claiming that instead of having a consistent global warming increase, the world goes through periods of climatic fluctuations. Furthermore, because of this evidence, scientists conclude that global warming effects are being overestimated and overstated.

The refutation against Tollefson's claim is stated pretty early on in the article.

Here is what "they" are saying. Because evidence has shown a decline in global-warming for years, scientists are wondering if perhaps its a myth. However, others are saying that global-warming is not in decline, but is rather being stored in places such as the world's oceans. Because of this, the events like El Nino and El Nina exist and are becoming more aggressive each time they occur.

Jeff Tollefson has quite the impressive resume as a reporter on issues like energy, climate, and the environment. His work in this article is definitely valid and is credible. As seen on the Nature about the editor website, "Jeff has won a number of accolades, including New Mexico press awards for pieces on pollution and nuclear-weapons work at Los Alamos National Laboratory". He has many years in his field reporting on numerous environmental issues and/or concerns.

http://www.nature.com/nature/about/editors/

The Nature International Weekly Journal of Science is a well know journal that focuses on innovating science and technology. Their mission statement as found on their website states their responsible "First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life". The journal itself is high cited and has won awards for their scientists.

http://www.nature.com/nature/about/

Tollefson, Jeff. "Climate Change: The Case Of The Missing Heat." Nature 505.7483 (2014): 276-278. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

The claim in this article as stated by the reporter Jeff Tollefson, is that there has been a lack of confidence in the field of climate change over the years due to the fact that temperatures today are in conflict with previous models. Because the new temperatures are straying from the previous records, some are claiming that global warming is beginning to stop; however, others believe it still to be alive, but it is being stored in another way. Therefore, this idea of "The Missing Heat" is being hypothesized to be stored in the world's oceans.

"Gender Issues." - Springer. Springer US, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.

This article is issue 1 of volume 29 of "Gender Issues." "Gender Issues" targets four main points in the articles within. Contributors try to understand gender socialization, personality and behavior in context. They explore relationships such as friendships, romantic relationships and professional relationships. They analyze how gender identity, expression and relations are impacted by economic, legal and social changes. Lastly, authors interpret these impacts on the roles of people throughout the world.

The problem with Kesha's situation is there is not hard, solid evidence that her allegations actually happened. Gottwald has spoken out and claimed that her accusations were false and he didn't know why she would even say that. Is it possible that the court was protecting him from these false accusations?

This particular sentence can be related to the case of Kesha Sebert v. Lukasz Gottwald. Kesha was recently denied a preliminary injunction that would ultimatley free her from her contract with Gottwald. She claimed to have been physically and emotionally abused by the music producer. The highlighted sentence is basically saying that women don't have control over bad things that may happen to them, the court of law does. While Kesha is not prohibited from owning property or other economic assets, she is still being restricted by having to continue to work under her alleged assailant. That being said, an important inquiry question comes to mind. Is a piece of paper really more important than a human being's physical and emotional health?

McGuire, M., Steve Donner, and Elizabeth Callahan. "Misogyny: It's Still The Law-An Empirical Assessment Of The Missouri Juvenile Court System's Processing Of Rape And Robbery Offenders." Gender Issues 29.1-4 (2012): 1-24. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

McGuire, Donner, and Callahan argue that the bias against women can be recognized in a court of law specifically in cases of rape and robbery in the first degree. They focus on and examine forcible rape and robbery cases specifically in Missouri's juvenile court system.

Dylan Ruan is an Environmental Communication and Media Strategy major from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Most of his work focuses consists of taking notable faculty researchers and publicizing their work through written publication. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dylanruan

"The Santa Barbara Independent is a true community newspaper with a market penetration higher than almost every other "alternative" weekly in the country" (Reliable Popular Source). http://www.independent.com/history/

The newspaper has continually grown over the years and penetrates a wide variety of audiences. They report using a unique voice that resonates with independent and involved individuals in the community. It is an innovative newspaper, that knows how to properly report current events.

This source might help me going forward with research because it is showing me how one thing can effect everything. It is a chain of both societal and environmental impacts. I should research the effects on each chain if climate change continues to be a big problem.

This is a global solution. It helps to see how solutions to the problems with effect a global audience rather than just a local one. This helps to show the big picture for Meng' s work.

I would be interested in researching other solutions that could be used to reach a more global audience as well.

This is also an audience appeal as he is showing how Meng's innovations are universally helpful. He is working to better the world, not just a specific nation.

Ruan, Dylan. "The Carbon Market and Global Climate Issues." Santa Barbara Independent 1 Mar. 2016: n. pag. Web.

Ruan claims that UCSB's Kyle Meng is focusing on creating a future where "climate change is battled with market-based solutions". Moreover, that climate change can be addressed using environmental economics.

By showing a possible solution to the problem, Ruan establishes early on the credibility in Meng's work. His solution is backed by his vast understanding of economics as he explains to the audience how it would benefit society to put a price of pollution. In doing this, reduction of activity would occur, in turn causing carbon emissions to become reduced.

This is what "they" are saying. Ruan is articulating Meng's philosophy to the audience. Meng, who is well versed in economics and the environment, specifically climate change and market-based solutions, is showing how we can use the market to help fix the environment. Meng addresses primarily two ways economics can be used to bring communities together to reduce emissions. He also addresses environmental effects like El Nino that can have dramatic repercussions if not properly analyzed and helped.

Another example to help establish credibility falls within Meng's research of a past climate change event, El Nino. Most of the time to better gain understanding of a particular problem and its solutions, a person should look at the past to address what worked and what didn't. This will save both time and money and help in deciding future actions of climate change.

I would be interested in further researching potential conflicts between tropical nations. How prevalent has this issue been and has it ended up causing big conflicts in the past?

The author/authors represent PBS which has always been on the conservation side of things. They do have a good track record of looking at more then one angle whether they are objective or not. This line represents that clearly. Science will provide the answers. And in this case science somewhat supports both sides of the arguments.

It is impossible to get a credible stakeholder side of this argument from the pro Rhino horn market. I had to choose this article because it was the only one with some facts supporting Asian medicine and its use of Rhino horn.

The Author is definitely against the use of Rhino horn, but is just objective enough or has read "I Say They Say" to incorporate a bit of scientific fact about the horns use in medicine. The claim is not well stated but when you think about the article as a whole, the claim is : Yes there is a small merit to Eastern medicine's use of the Rhino horn for certain ailments, but the dosage amount to yield actual results is not practical and not practiced.

On a personal belief: The human brain is an amazing thing, it has power that we cannot harness as of now. What we do have is the placebo effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo. Our thoughts can be so powerful that we think we are better and sometimes that's all we need to become better. A lot of old medicine revolves around this. You take something so rare and unique and say it has these powers, you have to believe, at least a little, because you don't know. It then makes it's own belief and spreads and maybe if you can get some it will work, even if you know it doesn't, you worked so hard to get it or have given so much to get it, you can't just admit that it doesn't work so you say, "yes, it really works." and this just keeps perpetuating itself until the resource is wiped out.

This is a very good conclusion for this article. It give science backed facts that support the idea of Rhino horn use in medicine, but explains it is not relevant or practical, even if its true.

The last sentence ends it with the perfect amount of tone and truth. Chewing on you fingernails would be the same dose and affect of being prescribed Rhino horn.

"Rhino Horn Use: Fact vs. Fiction" PBS. August 20 2010. Web. March 5 2016. <www.pbs.org>

"What" is also being stated is the economists believing there to be a correlation between opinion and discourse on the subject to be related. There are differing conceptions of how this hypothesis should be portrayed. For example some believe that the more talked about the subject, the more the people engaged will have the same belief. However, on the other hand, there is differing belief that engaging in public discourse is separate in relationship to one's political stance/party. Therefore Shreck and Vedlitz, are hoping to determine a correlation in the relation in public discourse and personal opinion/ belief. This however, is to be looked at when controls on societal, economic, and environments roles are still in action.

In my opinion, I find this to be a good audience appeal. Although, some might say this information discredits the ethos of the study, I believe it helps in showing that more information is needed to find out clearer results. The authors establish ethos by showing that this subject needs more study to further understand its results. The fact that they want to further their research and keep looking into the subject is great and shows their true interest in the subject.

Interesting perspective. Although people might engage in conversation about climate change the real debate needs to be on policy implementation to help change the problem, not on the problem itself.

Shreck, Brian, and Arnold Vedlitz. "The Public And Its Climate: Exploring The Relationship Between Public Discourse And Opinion On Global Warming." Society & Natural Resources 29.5 (2016): 509-524. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.

Within Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal, Shreck and Vedlitz claim that there appears to be a positive association between people engaging in conversation about climate change and the strong belief that climate change actually exists. They go on to further state that this conversation about climate change is occurring on both sides of the debate spectrum, which later will force both sides to address the issue.

Brian Shreck is a joint appointment in the Department of Political Science and the National Wind Institute. He focuses his area of study specifically on wind energy and public policy. I see him as being highly qualified as he is at Texas Tech University as a Postdoctoral Research Scholar. He obviously has credibility on the subject of climate change and how it is being addressed throughout society. http://perg-tamu.com/people/brian-shreck

Furthermore, Shreck's co author Arnold Vedlitz is obviously just as qualified as him, as he is "holder of the Bob Bullock Chair in Government and Public Policy and director of the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy (ISTPP) in the Bush School of Government and Public Service". He has done a lot throughout his career pertaining to the environment which only adds to his credibility. http://bush.tamu.edu/faculty/avedlitz/

This point is a good way to increase credibility as the authors are addressing that people should listen to and welcome refutations of the arguments. Therefore, every aspect of the argument is addressed.

I would be interested in seeing the survey. I want to know if the same size was large enough to constitute the results of the survey. Who received the survey? Are the questions potentially biased?

This is an interesting point. Because very little people are engaging in conversation about climate change currently, would increasing talk about climate change only cause more polarization on the subject or bring a new light to the subject?

Here is what "they" are saying. Shreck and Vedlitz are saying that in order for this issue to be truly understood it needs to be looked at two ways. First, is that people need to have an open-mind. One must consider the other sides perspectives and stay impressionable to the argument being made. Second, people need to realize that in order to engage in deliberative democratic theory they must have an active, engaged, and knowledgeable political entity that will consider all ideas equally and will reconsider its existing ideas in the face of new evidence or arguments.Because of this, they will be exposed to new information and ideas which will either help deepen their initial position or help sway them in the opposite direction.

I'd like to hear discussion around the term "open" here. How exactly are you using it @remiholden? To mean public as opposed to private?

For me, open has specific infrastructural connotations: it's about a variety of annotation clients like hypothes.is conforming to certain wider standards so that web annotation--like the web itself--is an interoperable system.

But I'm curious the degree to which that matters to teachers and learners. And why? We're using hypothes.is, which promises to conform to standards being developed by the w3c, but could DIIGO do the trick even though they're system (for now) is closed?

Possible prediction to different wolf behavior and population due to predation patterns changing.

They do not only target one species of prey to feed. They have a distribution between their choice. Ethos and logos.

Relation to the post after this one.

Shows that wolves do not kill everything. They kill to eat and they kill the weaker for a reason. Gives hint to pathos and ethos to gain less hostility to wolves.

This can be used with the other articles as a logos and ethos perspective and give credibility to the evidence presented by other articles.

Gives background and insight to what this article is about.

Further proves claim with the hint of logos.

Stahler, DR, DW Smith, and DS Guernsey. "Result Filters." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, July 2006. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.

This is the claim for this article. Showing a scientific approach to wolf behavior. This is a scholarly reliable source.

Gives the sad ending to gain sympathy: pathos. I even felt heartbreak.

Morell gives that her joy melted into despair once finding the real outcome. Pathos and ethos to support her claim.

Pathos and experience to the human race

Love this paragraph. I believe in this entirely.

Ethos; to show how human intervention cause major problems, to the animals and to our own race

Reliable source

Mentionable quote. Further proves my previous post.

I hate to even think about this, but it is true. It hasn't been that long where animals were seen as just that, animals. Now we know they are very similar to us humans. We both have emotions, personalities, and feelings.

Goes back to the other argument. The pathos side.

Morell continues on (from the last post) to show a logical side and gives sources (the wolf biologists) to gain reliability.

Harsh swiping of the fact the wolf was killed

Is not reliable source of statement but his occupation gives him credibility. The fact that he knows these wolves since 1995 also gives him credit.

Shows that not only does a powerful Alpha female was killed but another of the pack's mates. Ethos and pathos

Ethos and pathos! Morell is giving a background to the female wolf whom died. She shows that wolves can be different, just like people, and that something this "minor" can be very major.

This quote is likeable to me because of how Morell is beginning to tell her audience that animal welfare is almost highly important.

Gives one side of the argument, credibility increased

Falls back on claim

Pathos! Morell is giving a background to the lone wolf and explaining that he wasn't always like this. From the death of his mate, which was the cause of a hunter, did he change drastically.

Shows something has gone awry

Ethos and pathos; sympathy for the wolf and evidence to support her claim.

Using pathos and her own experience to get empathy. Her credibility with her experience increases, showing the reader(s) that she isn't just writing about it, she sees for herself what's going on.

This statement is biased but true. Morell is using pathos with ethos; she is trying to get sympathy and concern from her audience.

This shows some antagonism against FWS.

This is Morell's claim. She is asking how a single wolf could affect an entire pack or other wolves. Her question gives input of thought to readers that may or may not have occurred to them about animal welfare and their mental state.

I did not realize that Virginia Morell was the author of both my third and my fourth article. On the other article, she was very unbiased and not as much of a reliable source. Here, she seems to be more reliable considering how the website gives recognition to her books and other articles. In a psychological viewpoint, Morell is a reliable source.

Morell, Virginia. "When A Wolf Dies." Psychology Today. Psychology Today. 7 June 2013. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

So the opposition (the wolf lovers) may not understand that livestock are very fickle and complicated creatures. You can't just buy some cows and start a heard, its hard work and work that needs constant re-evaluation. A cow might survive a wolf encounter but the stress associated with that could make her barren for a time. Stress also makes bovine lose weight which is bad when you get paid by the pound.

I think people go to the store or to MacDonalds and there's your beef. They don'y think about where and how that meat gets there. I mean come on there are people that honestly believe the meat is somehow magically made at the store.

The reason the statistics are so low is explained here. But even if you take the 1% number, their are almost 5 million cattle in Idaho and Montana, that is still 50,000 head of cattle killed (http://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-vs-human-population-state-0-114255). And that is just cattle, not all other livestock and pets.

This also shows what the opposition base everything off of, just numbers and hearsay. The author is obviously from a ranch back ground with the niche words she uses but she does report both sides. That is good to get rid of the stubborn farmer stereotype.

The audience is definitely not the sierra club and its members but I believe it's anyone who has grown up in the rural West where you do still have predators. People who have grown up and raised any kind of feed animal or even pets, like dogs. In the city your pet goes missing... its either adopted by someone else, at the pound or hit by a vehicle. In the country when they go missing it's either a predator or a highway. So anyone who grew up in the rural West should be interested in this. We are the ones that have to deal with this disaster while the courts and organizations in the East, so far removed, keep these oppressions on the hard working ranches and farmers that feed them. I am certainly the audience here but I have much more of an elevated tone then the article.

Claim: Human involvement placed wolves in a small area but wolves are wolves and go where the want when they want and have the know how and stamina to do so. We humans like to think we can tweek nature to our foreseen outcome, but we are idiots. Nature solves itself one way or another. This wolf debacle is a fantastic example of how human involvement just creates more chaos. First off they forgot that there are multiple species of wolves and placed the big bad Canadian version in our back yard, the ones that are built to cover hundreds of miles a day and are bigger and hungrier then the small local population (which has now been killed of driven out by these new wolves). Whoops, now they are everywhere and livestock are being killed on a scale 5% more then usual and those beloved Elk and Deer that everyone loves to watch from their cars on the side of the highway, they are disappearing too.<br> This claim of the author may come of as sarcastic but it carries meaning if you understand that people in a totally different area and culture decide what to do with the land others have pioneered and fought out a living on.

This web source is all about farm and ranch. Everything from markets to laws to alerts. Wolves are an important thing to this website and it's users. Its easy to say they could be bias towards anything ranch and against wolves, but this article was very factual and pretty objective considering the forum.

More excellent research most likely carried out from behind a desk somewhere or at least skewed to cover what wolves really are, very curious and quick learning animals. Just because you don't see that wolf anymore doesn't mean its gone.

Heather Smith Thomas. "Western Ranchers Fight The Curse Of Introduced Wolves". September 10, 2010. Web. March 6 2016. <beefmagazine.com>

Using pathos to grab sympathy and support from reader(s) that are pro-wolves.

Using logos and ethos to bring about a solution.

This is a massacre, no matter how anyone puts it. Almost genocide

Appropriate concerns, especially considering Wyoming's methods for dealing with wolves.

Singer is not a scholarly source but a popular reliable source. This is not a scientific article.

Fancy way in saying Wyoming civilians and hunters were treating wolves inappropriately and inhumanely.

Singer is showing what side he is on. He clearly does not agree to the treatment the Gray Wolf has endured in Wyoming. He is using ethos and pathos equally to gain sympathy by the harsh level of treatment.

Introduction shows Singer's argument for how Wyoming wolf plans are not appropriate.

Singer, Reid. "Wyoming Wolves Back on Endangered Species List." Outside Online. Outside Magazine, 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

I do believe, to a certain extent, that wolves do not need as much protection as they once had. Wolf conservation programs and organizations have done so much over the past decades to ensure their survival. However, that does not mean I am trustful of states to be able to properly and legally regulate appropriate wolf hunting.

Morell gives the reader(s) many facts and quotes from reliable sources to let them think of their own opinions themselves. Without giving any bias, Morell's credibility skyrockets, in my book, because she doesn't give any "hints" or suggestions to the reader(s) to either side.

A quote directly states how the removal of wolves could be detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole.

Morell is giving logos and ethos. I am still not sure of her claim. Her article doesn't seem to have one. She gives no clues on whether or not she supports wolves or not. She is just stating facts.

Morrell is very nonbiased in this article. Throughout the paper, she gives no hints on whether she is biased or not. From her previous articles however, you see a trend of all her works being about animals.

Author gives first hint to the argument, though the claim is not too clear. Though the title is very open and non-bias.

This shows Morell's argument of the back-and-forth war of wolf conservation.

Recent updates and publications. The credibility and reliability of the site is a scholarly source.

Morell, Virginia. "Judge Returns Great Lakes Wolves to Endangered Species List." Science, AAAS. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 22 Dec. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

I also agree with this quote, which shows a possible compromise: Wyoming's plans be changed to be similar to Idaho and Montana while a regulation of wolf hunting is required.

Wyoming's wolves are constantly in danger with the aforementioned "shoot on sight" policy, whether the animal is just wandering or actually taking livestock. With this policy, any hunter or farmer, or civilian, would all go on an endless wolf hunting spree, rapidly decreasing the wolf population and setting the wolf conservation back to its original position (endangered species to possibly extinction).

This is typically true. Overpopulation of wolves need to be taken care of; there will be no prey species left and environmental problems could occur. Issues such as, forest (plus other nature-based species), prey and predator species' would deteriorate.

I agree with this decision by the FWS because Wyoming does not have a good, ethical, and (population-wise) humane way in dealing with their wolves. Unrestricted killing would place the grey wolves back on the ESL and the whole cycle would start again.

The author is giving another inside perspective of a state's possible solution to sate every side.

Now the author is giving solutions to the reader(s) to show that something is being done and using pathos.

The author is using a quote to use ethos from an inside perspective of the FWS. The author is showing the side where grey wolves do not need to be on the ESL any longer from the FWS and communities' efforts to reestablish wolf populations in the area.

The author gives statistical facts so the reader can piece their own opinions.

Hints back to the claim

The author shows the other side of the argument without giving their own insight yet.

The author is giving background information and increases credibility with it presented. The information is given without the author being biased yet.

The author is showing one side of the argument, that FWS is not allowed to make decisions of that caliber.

This is the article's argument and claim: to discuss FWS's decision on what states were allowed to have grey wolves on and off the ESL.

Important source and increases credibility and reliability because of Molloy's power as a judge for the United States.

"Wildlife Management Institute." Wildlife Management Institute. Wildlife Management Institute. Web. 06 Mar. 2016. http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content.

This gives this article and website credibility for the information and articles they write to the public. It is a popular scholarly source.

This author (the name nor publication date is not posted) is giving a title that is neither supporting wolves on the ESL nor are they against it. They show no bias. However, considering the website (I could not highlight the website title "Wildlife Management Institute", otherwise this part of the post would have been separate), this author must be a pro-wolf supporter.

Then because we can't be responsible as a whole society, we think laws and regulations will help. So we take away human rights and choices from those that may be working hard to make everything work. The point is it doesn't matter it takes away all choice and therefore, responsibility. Then it creates resentment, not towards those who make these flawed laws and regulations, but towards the animal or habitat its supposed to protect. It all boils down to educating people and fixing our humanities lack or responsibility.

This should stir something up in everyone. This is the problem... there are so many of us that we are encroaching massively on animal territory. Poisoning a water hole to keep elephants form damaging crops? There are enough humans to build a fence or chase them off if they come in, poisoning is absolutely ridiculous, lazy and unnecessary. We have enough people to have our own living and work around other animals. If a tiger is eating your sheep you can raise dogs or stay with them to protect them yourself. People just want the easy way like we used to strive for but now that we have it we can work a little harder of spend a bit more time so everything can make it together. When people are lazy and take the easy was the animals are the ones that suffer.

This is the main fact driving Anika's thought. She is not worried about the individual killings but about species wide. The problem is most species can't adapt and evolve as fast as we as humans can destroy it. Humans are destroying habitat for their own or for possessions.

The audience for this article is not one purely of human rights or animal rights but more of a hybrid of the two. It is for people that can see everything is connected and you can't just fix one thing and be fine you have to help the whole system to achieve success.

For me the title struck me because it hit on what I was looking for. I think is is still well done though, it askes a question that ques people up to talk and is not just a yes or no answer.

The claim of the author is that our expansion into the animal kingdom because of our needs is very dangerous for and affecting all animals adversely. I happen to believe this, we used to had plenty of space and that space was shared with animals but now there are so many of us that our sprawl is crowding animals and each other.<br> The world tends to like a balance, so when we get to overpopulated something will happen, plague, war, famine. It might already be too late for some species at that point or it may be the cause.

Anika Mohammed is a Doctors Without Borders member and a keen supported of animal rights. She gets to see first hand a lot of the issues caused by human overpopulation, unclean water, living quality, starvation, etc. As much as she cares for humanity she knows there are other living things in this world too. Some that may need help as much or more then humans.

This website is for the animal enthusiast to put it lightly. They veiw everyone as equals, humans and animals. So this article is going to be a bit bias by making everything equal. With the slogan "Transending Speciesism Since October 2008" you kind of get the hint, but at least they don't try and hide it.

Anika Mohammed. "Human Overpopulation as an Animal Rights Issue". November 26 2013. Web. March 5 2016. <animalblawg.wordpress.com>

This one seals the deal on extremely complicated. It also nails my question square on the head... When is an animals life more important then a humans. These aren't poachers that leave all the meat and take the tusks of a mother with child. No these are humans excercising their primal instincts to survive and provide for their families. Nature does, the Elephants and Rhinos are, the strong have survived and passed on their knowledge. Humans don't need this quality anymore, we are very safe and have an easy life. The only problem with us is us. Now these people have to poach an animal doing its job in this world because they have either been wronged by other humans or were not responsible enough to understand that you have to take care of yourself and the world before you can take care of a family. Our human traits of greed and irresponsibility have led to the near extinction of these animals. Luckly good people remain to try and help but we are being bread out and soon man will start to devolve if we haven't already.

the author may not really know much about this topic but Asgar Pathan does, he lives it everyday. He is a subject expert. You could crunch numbers and look at political issues and black markets and everything else surrounding this topic and make it some boring article passed by by many or let someone who is so in-tune with the topic his life literally depends on it.

This style borderlines on 100% credibility. The only option being if Ranger Pathan was a huge lier, but even though everything in his story is crazy it is told with a calm legitimacy that I personally believe.

This website CRACKED is definitely a popular site resource. It is full of a lot of gossip and forums. Its geared toward people with opinions and people that like to express those opinions.

I am sure the author had a certain view going into his interview with Ranger Pathan, you can tell by his words and his claim that everything is completely insane, more then you can imagine. That is basically all he is doing, shedding light on something that is so complicated and convoluted. Even more then the author could handle i believe. Most of the article is just quotes of Ranger Pathan. This means either the author is terrible at writing and has no thoughts or is so blown away with such a story the only thing that can do it justice is to let the story teller tell it, this is the latter.

Evan V. Symon & Asgar Pathan. "5 Ways Saving Wildlife Has Turned Into All-Out Warfare" June 23 2014. Web. March 5 2016 <www.cracked.com>

WWF or World Wildlife Fund, not to be confused with the one with oiled up wrestlers and bad acting, has been around for 20+ years. They are an international organization the fights for the protection of animal species and habitat. They are deeply invested in the rainforest but now have branches in all parts or the world.

"African Rhinos" WWF. web. March 5 2016. <wwf.panda.org>

This link leads to a page with a bit stronger tone on the topic of poaching.

I cannot verify these facts. They are listed to promote sympathy and action from the audience. I'll i know is the math is correct.

Here the other specific stake holder is addressed. The Asian culture is the main consumer of Rhino horns. The claims of the horn's powers are the main driver. Claims range from sexual prowess to curing cancer to status symbols. All in all bad if you are a Rhino.

If a Rhino horn really did cure cancer would it be fair to harvest then? If you or someone you loved had cancer, wouldn't you try anything to fix it?

This appeals to all, Animal activists, global activists, econimists and humanitarians. Everything has a part to play in life. If the world loses one part it affects the rest of the world, sometimes in ways we never even though possible. Its almost always negative.

European settlers have made a habit out of this. The author includes this not only as a historical reference but knows it should ring a bell with all Americans that have ever heard the story of the American West. We almost drove the American Bison to extinction for their hides. They numbered over 150 million in number and before regulations were put in place declined to only thousands.<br> History will repeat it's self if given the chance.

The claim is simple, we (the organization) are winning but the fight is not over yet and the audience's help is required. The audience appeal is to people concerned with the world's balance and animal lovers... hopefully ones with deep pockets.

The authors claim that Zika virus leads to not only microcephaly, but also Hydrops fetalis which occurs when abnormal amounts of fluid build up in two or more body areas of a fetus or newborn.

The authors are forecasting that Zika virus will bring about large numbers of abortions and stillbirths in infected pregnant women across the Americas and Caribbean. The authors stand neuter about the abortion issue.

The authors acknowledge their research have a problem which is difficult to generalize from a single example. The purpose of the investigation aims at raising public awareness about the risk of Zika virus to fetal.

This sentence indicates that abnormal fetus infected Zika virus can identify after 18 weeks gestation. Abortion at this point in a pregnancy is rare and hard to come by. Therefore, it makes more difficult to have abortion.

That is why Zika virus is dangerous to pregnant women because they are hard to notice whether they are infected or not.

In its final analysis, the authors state a hypothesis that Zika virus could lead to hydrops fetalis and fetal demise by using a research.

This is the major core content in the Scholarly Journal that finds the connection between Zika and microcephaly based on a case study from a Brazil Woman. While reading article, the audience can easily find difference between Popular Articles and Scholarly article. It is written by researchers and scholars from various medical institution, generally uses scholarly language such as ZIKV(zika virus), Hydrops, and Hydranencephaly. Also, it includes full citations on the bottom of article. Therefore, it is more difficult to appeal to the general public than Popular Article, but it includes accurate evidences which are actual ultrasound views and gives an exact definition about Zika virus by developing logos.

The authors attached four abnormal fetal ultrasound views in the article, so it gain credibility from the audience by using the viewable evidences. Also, it can help the audience better understand their main hypothesis.

Zika virus have been reported with the increase in microcephaly more than 4,500 cases. Therefore, it is highly possible with the connection between Zika and microcephaly.

The authors emphasize that Zika virus is not only problem of Brazil, but also entire Americas.

The authors suggest their theory and point out that Zika virus is a devastating disease to fetus because it can lead to fetal demise.

This is background of the scholarly journal that Zika virus and microcephaly would have some connection.

The authors report a case of a 20-year-old woman who was referred to their service after Zika virus outbreak. An induced labor was performed at the 32 weeks due to fetal demise. The authors formulate a hypothesis that Zika virus infection may have relevance to stillbirths. Although it has some persuasive points, their delivery could have been effective by developing more evidences. They commit the logical fallacy called sweeping generalization. It is nonsense to generalize to use just one case of stillbirth. To gain credibility, they need to find more examples about the case.

Most of the audience already acknowledge a correlation between Zika virus and Microcephaly. The authors calculate that Zika virus may result in other possible harmful effects on fetus.

The total population in Brazil was recorded at 204.5 million people in 2015. In my opinion, the whole number of people for the survey is too small to generalize as the most of nations’ views. The survey reflect only one out of hundred-thousandth of the entire population of Brazil.

The research depends on the authority of the Brazilian Social Research Survey (BSRS) to gain credibility from the audience.

The authors state why they write this scholar journal. It has a scholarly significance to perform the first research which explores the association between religion and abortion attitudes among the Brazilian population.

Although Catholic Church’s official dictum is strongly against abortion, the authors suggest that the Catholic laity’s opinion may different from it. It can lead the further research.

The authors present a hypothesis that role of religious factors is related to the abortion attitude in Brazil. There are no published research that reveals the link between religion and public policy in Brazil up to now. Therefore, the authors give the United States’ research result to gain credibility from the audience. However, Brazil has different socioeconomic situation such as the per capita national income, gross domestic product (GDP), or a political posture from the U.S. In my opinion, the authors committee the logical fallacy. It is nonsense to apply the study in Brazil which has different circumstances from the U.S.

Catholic leaders still cling to their position strictly that no abortion or contraception for Zika virus.

This sentence regards Brazil as one of the country which has a great influence of religion. Every policy should consider religious groups’ opinions.

These statistics is shocking that 25% of Brazilian women had received at least one abortion. The unproven process of illegal abortion can potentially make a negative effect on female health outcome. The situation will be exacerbated due to Zika virus. The Brazil government should prepare several measures before it is too late.

It shows that Brazil has hostile condition to get an accurate rate about receiving illegal abortion because the women who report abortions receive the fear of social and legal sanctions.

Historically, the abortion have been prohibited for 76 years in Brazil. The citizens have already recognized that abortion is illegal and they accept the reality and adapt themselves. That is why it is hard to change the abortion law although unsafe illegal abortions in Brazil are widespread and pose a significant health risk for women. However, Zika virus outbreak has prompted quite a commotion in public, so it may affect to revise the abortion law completely.

Dilma Rousseff is the first female elected president in Brazil. Although she was heavily popular with the public, she faced tough competition due to her position on favoring the legalization of abortion. This episode illustrates that the abortion is not only women’s rights problems but also a divisive cultural issue with moral and religious dimensions.

The audience can foresee the situation that a discussion on abortion and its policy in Brazil will be heated by a dramatic rise of Zika virus.

The authors formulate a hypothesis that Pentecostals and Catholics tends to the strongest opposition against the practice of abortion and its legalization.

The medical students who do not have any religion tend to support the abortion for any occasion. The audience can recognize that the religious conviction is related to a controversial issue such as abortion.

The medical students is younger generation than the civil servants. The research reveals that the rising generation has more flexible and acceptable opinion about the abortion than middle-aged people.

The authors amplify who the subject of the survey is and what kind of methods they used, so it can gain the credibility from the audience. However, it is difficult to generalize as all nations’ opinions because the authors choose only two groups to conduct their survey.

This is the purpose of the article. The authors maintain a neutral stance about an abortion issue in the whole article.

The Penal Code about abortion is still under review and it has become a hot issue while Zika virus is spreading quickly in Brazil. Although many people advocate women’s sexual and reproductive right, religion has much influence in changing the law in Brzail. Therefore, it will be difficult to amend the current abortion law.

In my opinion, Brazil government should provide the proper education of contraceptives to public before they strictly ban abortion in law. Effective birth control methods can reduce the illegal abortion rate from unwanted pregnancies.

This is interesting because it breaks a common notion that the country which restricts abortion would have fewer abortions than people who are living in liberal laws. The author claims that abortion rates is related to women’s access to and use of effective contraceptive methods. The audience realizes the importance of education which is the correct use of contraceptives.

A religious belief in one society have a significant impact on the law.

Looking through the sentence shows that a country with very restrictive abortion laws considers abortion as crime. Most of those countries are strict Catholic nations. The Vatican’s teaching on abortion is clear: It is a sin.

The authors raise a problem about the unsafe abortions. Although the total number of abortions declined around the globe, the unsafe abortions subsequently increased. They claims that it virtually escalates the overall abortions rates. The poor women with unwanted pregnancy go unlicensed practitioners and it causes a greater health hazards such as anemia, cervical trauma, and even death.

In fact, the abortion law in Brazil has not been changed.

This article is based on surveys and opinion polls. The majority of respondents are against the current Brazilian law that women who had had an abortion should be punished with prison. In my opinion, the present legislation about abortion in Brazil is very strict and it needs to be revised under the extreme conditions of Zika virus and microcephaly.

Although Latin America has very restrictive abortion law, unsafe abortion was common. Now, Zika virus has emerged as a serious social problem, so the audience can anticipate the current situation of Latin America that dangerous abortions would increase more than before.

At the end of the article, the author makes the audience think themselves what an ethical behavior is in the fiercely urgent situation about Zika virus.

The author concurs with Garland-Thomson’s argument that ability-selective abortion is unethical because it is a kind of set of discriminatory attitudes and practices against disabled people. Also, she claims that it should be a very deliberative process about considering their choices to terminate a pregnancy for anti-abortion movement.

These are a series of tweets written by Nicole Cliffe who is the editor of The Toast and the mother of a special needs child. I can read her feeling of frustration about raising a child with a complex impairment. In my opinion, the government cannot force women to bring children with disabilities without enough financial aid, education, and services.

The author claims that social welfare system for the handicapped should promote to establish a society which treasures life and does not throw it away simply because of fetal abnormalities.

This sentence shows one of the most awkward and uncomfortable truth in our society. No parents are prepared or would want to have a disabled child.

The author criticizes sharply against abortion rights advocates. They have bias against the disabled that their quality of life would be lower than the non-disabled.

The author states with the authority of Rosemarie Garland-Thomson who is a professor of English at Emory University and a pioneer of the discipline of disability studies. Disabilities’ reproductive coercion in historical event arouses the audience’s sympathy by using pathos. Her delivery is effective because she make an emotional appeal to emphasize the right of the disabled.

In the outbreak of Zika virus, the author raises a problem about an upcoming clash between the abortion rights and the disability rights. She claims that rights of disabilities to exist should be respected and should not be violated by the rights of a woman to have abortion.

The author brings up a subject that Zika virus and abortion is not just Latin America issue, but also the United States. This sentences are coded criticisms against the U.S government which has been silent on Zika virus issue.

The author exemplifies one country in Latin America how El Salvador takes emergency steps to deal with Zika virus. The government of El Salvador suggest women to delay their pregnancy until 2018. In my opinion, they show an irresponsible attitude about the current state of affairs. They should provide necessary information, education, and contraceptives for their nation to avoid pregnancy.

The title of the article stimulates audience’s curiosity how Zika virus leads to collision course between abortion right and disability right.

Latin America which has a serious medical problem due to Zika virus and the United States are geographically close. The author predicts that Zika virus will make hundreds or thousands of fetus with microcephaly in the U.S when mosquito seasons arrive. Also, she states that Zika virus will arouse controversy about abortion right because abortion laws vary in each state.

The author gives directly her argument that women should manage not only contraceptives, but also abortion. She claims that abortion is a right.

It shows poor women’s reality in Brazil that they have little opportunity to get a birth defect examination whether their fetus is infected by Zika virus or not in public health clinics. The author urges the government to provide financial support and social medical services for the poor women.

In this sentence, the author premises her main argument that women need to be given the power to have safe and legal abortion.

Although abortion is illegal in Brazil, wealthy woman can have an abortion in protected and safe conditions. It is a striking contrast from women in poverty who does not have enough money to get a secure abortion. The audience reconfirm the true picture of Brazil’s severe social inequality phenomenon.

The author claims that Brazil prohibits abortion in law, but 25% of Brazilian women had received an abortion at least one time in illegal and dangerous conditions. Though she has some persuasive points, her delivery could have been more effective by suggesting accurate evidences. She bases her argument on a national survey, but she does not state what exact name of the survey is or how many participants were enrolled in. Her lack of evidence discredits her claim and it cannot satisfy the needs of her audience who want to an accurate information about Brazil. Therefore, the author should reinforce her rhetorical strategies by developing logos.

The author presents a problem that Brazil government’s action against Zika virus. She criticizes their short-range policy which urges women not to fall pregnant without providing any education or information about birth control methods.

Brazil is one of the countries which have worst gap between the rich and the poor in the world. The author claims that Zika virus is a key indicator about social inequality of Brazil. Young, poor, black and brown women who live close to slum area are exposed to great danger of Zika. Also, they have fewer opportunities to access to sexual and reproductive health care. It is heart-breaking to me that the women who live in underprivileged backgrounds are also troubled with the epidemic. Brazil government should prepare measures not only focus on focuses on Zika, but also resolve social inequality in a long-term policy.

It is a very interesting fact that the affluent area in Brazil is perfectly safe from Zika virus, but the author does not give any evidence about it. It lacks of audience appeals and she should reinforce her rhetorical strategies by developing logos. She just relies on her ethos at this point. Although the topic is Zika virus and Brazilian women’s right to choose, she has the Brazil Olympics 2016 in mind and indirectly promotes that Brasilia which is the capital of Brazil is not dangerous at all.

What authority the author speaks is her ethos. She can observe current Zika virus problem in the immediate vicinity, Brazil. So, she looks deeper into the problem with a different perspective than other authors. The audience may think her article is more credible than others because of her nationality, Brazilian.

Subtle argument about the mix of privacy and publicness in notetaking: even when the notes themselves are private, the habit of notetaking, the mode of notetaking, the kinds of things that get notated, are part of a deeply social process of education and acculturation.

I'd be interested to drill down here. Is there a difference between page bottom comments and those made inline? Is there a difference between making such comments in personal notes/private groups/public?...

Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Backlash Against Serial -- and Why It's Wrong." The Atlantic. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

Friedersdorf's claim is in the title: he argues that Koenig did a good job of reporting in Serial and that we should focus on the larger issue of making sure the truth is out there in order to get, in this example, justice for both Hae and Adnan.

Friedersdorf establishes credibility by referencing commenters on Kang's article as well as an author from The New York Observer, thereby making me trust that others hold his opinion as well. However, I wonder how cherry picked the quotes from the comments section are. I checked and there were a few who agreed with Kang's analysis.