Question

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 conside

Answer 1

"Editorial blogs are considered an unreliable source because the author may not have a science background."

Explanation: an editorial/blog post is an opinion piece, not peer‑reviewed research. Such pieces can be biased, selectively cite evidence, and may be written by journalists or commentators without relevant scientific expertise. For scientific claims about climate and hurricanes, rely on peer‑reviewed studies and authoritative agencies (e.g., IPCC, NOAA, NASA).