considering non-scientist do not have the knowledge about the cases and evidence of global warming it is hard to understand and make an educated decision as a polis on what we are going to do about the "issue" of global warming. The experts and scientists depending on the information or experiments they conduct should try to put it in terms that the non scientist can understand. those who believe this is or could be a major issue you should do your own research to see if a half a degree difference is really that big of a deal, or try and research the possible affects on the planet or causes, non scientists, just because the science can be intimidating, should still try to begin to understand all the facts to decide whether its is something to act on or not. they should try and educate themselves to make a knowledgable decision on something that could possibly affect us all.

The information which I have been presented (I watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and "An Inconvenient Truth" along with reading these articles)have thoroughly confused me about climate change, such that I do not know what to believe anymore on that issue.
But this I believe:
Whether or not the Earth and climate itself is harmed by CO2 emissions, humans have an ethical responsibility to take care of the planet they inhabit. Is it right to live somewhere and pollute it in hopes that it doesn't matter anyways? Is it better to be safe or sorry? The arguments about how whether or not climate change is due to human cause is essentially irrelevant because the bottom line is that it is wrong to do something which may negatively affect everyone and leave the safety of the future in question.
Also, it's a good idea to recycle.

Non-scientists will simply have to put their trust in the scientist and experts on this issue. If Scientists are suggesting that global warming is a problem then we have to listen. Non-scientists have to talk to scientists and figure out the steps they should take to make policy changes. However, a non-scientist should not be making decisions regarding global warming without inputs from scientists. I do not like the argument about doing our own research to find out if global warming is true. I dont like that argument because Scientist are the ones putting the information out there and so it would be the same thing. Now, are we suggesting doing all the intensive research on our own that the scientists did? That is ludacris because that is why we have specificity and specialties for people to concentrate on their area. Yes, it is good to do research and educate ourselves about the issue, but it is another thing to take on the role of a scientist. I always say it is better to believe something than not to believe it and when time comes it is actually real. Finally, to make decisions about global warming, there has to be a diverse pool of scientist alongside policy makers because without the scientist, policy makers will make the wrong decisions and without the policy makers, scientists will make the wrong policies. The diverse pool of scientists is also important because not all scientists believe in the same things or take the same approach to do research.

Non-scientists have a variety of options to go by that most of us do currently. You can ignore the issue which I believe is an absolute favorite of most, or you can find a scientist who has an argument you can agree with and whom you understand well enough that you can defend your position. Either of the three ways works, but to be a responsible citizen and human being I think you should count out not caring at all. Not knowing for sure, but keeping an open mind is far better than one who simply lacks the will to care at all. Anyone who chooses to pick sides in my opinion should not believe that either way their opinion is set in stone or that maybe they only know part of the story. Either way the lesson to take away from it is whatever your choice you should understand your position to a degree and also remain skeptical of your idea and realize its not neccesarily correct.

"The diverse pool of scientists is also important because not all scientists believe in the same things or take the same approach to do research."

That's right, so instead of listening to climate scientists alone, listen to all types of scientists. Climate scientists have basically only one opinion while a diverse pool have differing opinions. For example climate scientists don't know alot about the worlds oceans, yet the worlds oceans control the worlds climate. So ocean scientists should have a much bigger say in understanding climate, yet they are marginalized. Climate scientists consider CO2 as the clue to understanding the earths climate, yet ocean scientists know that the oceans ability to store and release heat is the real clue to understanding the earths climate.

I think that just because someone is a "non-scientist" does not mean they cannot conduct their own research in order to validate/invalidate a specific claim. We've talked many times in class about if it's our responsibility to know things- like is BPA is bad for you or not. I do agree that with certain carcinogens we would all hope we were made aware of their negative effects. However, I do believe that as a global citizen you should be knowledgable and inform yourself as much as possible (uneducated voters= scary...). As far as global warming goes, there has been debate between since I can remember. In my opinion, the best thing a "non-scientist" can do is to be aware of the potential effects of carbon emissions and be conscious of how you may be contributing to the increase in carbon emissions. Whether global warming is a real threat or not, it never hurts to be cautious when it comes to anything.

This may be a cop-out, but I believe that, as with everything else in public policy, choosing the middle ground is usually the right call. This approach applies to climate change, as well. Contrary to what liberals say, the world's climate and atmosphere is NOT fragile. It is excellent at adapting to changing conditions, and has very high tolerances with regard to changes in its composition. Conversely (and contrary to what conservatives say), the world's economy is not fragile, either. Free markets are inherently conformable to changing conditions, even when government regulations or restrictions are introduced into the equation.

Public policy makers should take advantage of this flexibility and introduce reasonable measures that create incentives for corporations and individuals to begin utilizing renewable resources.

Non-scientists essentially do not have the same amount of knowledge, information, opportunity, or experience to make claims that scientists make or to even debate their claims. Experts on this issue have been working on it their entire careers, observing the data and noticing the trend and difference in aspects that prove global warming. Also, there isnt just one scientist working on these issues; there is a wide variety so that the diversity can eliminate any potential flaw in their experiments or even in their conclusion. Therefore, the nonscientist can personally go against the scientists' claims, but politically there shouldnt be too much importance given to his beliefs since there are experts working on this issue.

The non-scientist who wishes to make policy decisions should look to try and protect the polis and make the polis happy. The simplest course of action would to be cautious and try and prevent any sort of global climate change. However, the simplest action is not always the easiest. This drastic change would require a lot of effort so a better option is to look to the experts who can give a definite answer on how to handle global climate change.

Non-scientists have a very tough job in attempting to interpret all of the published and given research information. Both sides on this debate have published works whose results and conclusions favor their respective sides, but, if there is such thing as a truth, then only one side can be true, thus making some of the research findings false. I do believe that as policy makers, we should take it upon ourselves to be responsible for the well-being of the planet, mostly because it is our home and we should treat it with respect. However, I do not think it is time yet to take extremely radical policy stances yet. Global warming, in my belief, is just beginning and is not really a huge problem, at least not just yet. Therefore, we should not make irrational policies regarding the environment. Instead, we should take a more moderate approach on this subject, in hopes that an agreement can be reached between the feuding interest groups.

To me, facts are things that can be scientifically proven by experiments and testing and then confirmed by multiple people who have also done testing. Regarding global warming, the statistics show that the earth has gotten warmer over time. How can people argue that fact?
It does make sense though that those facts will be interpreted and warped in many ways by different people; everyone has different motives. "The New War on Science: Climate Change Deniers" references how Powell accuses climate change deniers of spreading the myth that scientists who support climate change have financial motives at stake. I believe that finances is a factor worth considering in this equation, but there are also many people who are simply passionate about what they do (some think they will save the world). The media, news, and ideas presented to students in school all create a stir of many different perspectives. There should be a worldwide consensus though that in no way is consciously disrespecting the earth justified.

I agree with S. Rice, but I also think policy-makers should focus on the issues that effect their constituents measurably and immediately.

Pollution has immediate negative effects in communities and it has negative effects on our food sources, particularly those in the ocean.

Global warming is an attractive cause and if marketed effectively, can mobilize people to prevent pollution before it enters their bodies through the air they breathe and the water they drink.

However, it may be more effective for policy-makers should try to look beyond the climate change debate and instead focus on the health effects of pollution because they are more difficult to politicize.

I agree with what Magen said, it is hard to make educated decisions as a polis as far as what we we can do to fix the problem. Global warming has become a huge issue in the past 5 years and some people do not take it seriously or think that it is actually happening. This is a very hard issue to resolve as a polis and their is not one just one way to solve the problem. Even though the research being done at Oregon State has no scientific proof people will still want believe what is being said and be will still want to know about any research being done because it is a big issue that needs to be solved. In order to make a policy judgement not knowing everything about the problem knowing scientific research has been done along with other non scientific research we as a polis can make a decision on what would we be the right thing to do for the environment .

I am not sure what is the best way for non-scientist to interprete the mixed reports of the effects of CO2 on the earth in public policy but I am not sure it really matters. Even if the earth wasn't warming I still think it is in humanities best interest to efficiently use our resources and not pollute the air with no intentions to deal with the negative effects by doing so.

I believe that non-scientists should try to validate the claims presented about global warming through their own research, although I am not sure about how beneficial it would be to most people. Most people would not be able to understand well the information they find in their research. Scientists should be the ones to present their findings in a way that allows others to understand the issue further. Given the nature of the issue of global warming as determining if it is a lasting trend, it is difficult to be certain how extreme the situation is. For the moment, the role of nonscientists should be to try to learn more while the policy makers look to the needs of their constituents. Even if global warming does not present a danger on its own, there are other environmental issues that could be addressed through efforts to reduce pollution that would affect constituents in the present. Climate changes are seen as a very important part in conserving the environment, but there are other concerns for which pollution should be addressed.

It's up to the non-scientist to make their own judgments about the existence and extent of global warming. The blog itself juxtaposed two of the most pertinent arguments for and against the existence of global warming. How can we be expected to make policy when all the details aren't explicitly clear? Unfortunately, we are just left to our best devices. Adopting policies that are financially sustainable and better for the planet, for instance, has no downside. Whether global warming exists or not, these policies will neither harm nor hurt the cause. Adapting policies aggressive on climate change and global warming that demand extreme cutbacks and changes are very unlikely pass, as unlikely as policy which removes all environmental safety regulations from large corporations. Our only choice when a potential truth, inconvenient or not, proven or not, presents itself is to seek the right answer and try to preserve the middle ground until the answer comes to the light.

I think the scientific consensus is the real issue. Science is about creating and testing a theory. Science is about facts, not feelings. If you have a way to prove that humans are the cause of global warming, then one should provide proof and allow science to test that proof. To use consensus is simply to say that if more scientists believe in something then it must be true, no matter what the facts might be. Ask yourself if this was a new drug, would you accept scientific consensus that it was safe or would you want that drug tested by the FDA's scientific process of testing? It just seems that science has not answered some of the basic questions on climate, so how can scientists be so sure of the cause of global warming. I wouldn't say that humans have zero input, but I would think that we would want to have a better understanding of all the factors first. We need to do what we can to reduce our impact, but we also need to understand everything that is going on with our climate.

It is hard to determine balance between taking something as completely true bases on what the experts have established to be correct, yet how can we not believe those whose life resolves around the study of a subject we are questions? It leaves the "non-scientist" in this situation in which they need to make decisions, choose a side that is going to provide a better outcome for the society as a whole. The idea thus because where do we draw the line? How much information should we take as truth and when is it that we need to explore on our own to ensure that what we are being told isn't bias? Just like we have been discussing in class, fact and opinions are completely different, yet we tend to confused the two when making choices, especially in policy making. Global warming may be a hoax created by scientist to bring in financial incentives or we really might be harming our environment by all the pollution we are creating. The only thing that is left to do, is to find a gray area, in which we create some CO2 control policies to see if a change occurs. Even if that means the society compromising some of their personal believes. We must think first about the weel being of our society. It is inevitable than we cannot please everyone, that we will not always make the best policies, so in a sense we must choose the lesser of the two evils.

Well we have already discussed the problems with this..if we don't prepare for the worse, what damage (possible unrepairable damage) do we leave for the next group of people on the earth? I understand the warnings and problems but their are so many other issues going on in society today, United States alone has enough problems, is whether we really have enough motive/resources to allocate to something that might be nothing. How do we find something that is exactly truthful and perfect on what is going on in society? These numbers and theories flip flop more then a politician on a sensitive issue. So what do we do? I think we take 3-5 years do a worldwide study, conducted by all nations, not just one. I am willing to do the part of the U.S., in improving the environment, but whats the point if only one society is taking it seriously, it has to be a global initiative.

I don't know whether or not global warming is a real or unreal issue. I think most people would also agree and say that they are unsure what's real and what's not real. However, I do believe that we should get involved and create solutions for this possible issue...at the end, it is better to be safe than sorry. Yeah, we might have to spend money to try to solve the problem, but we would be doing something that we should have been doing ALL ALONG...which is keeping the Earth clean[er]. People argue that there isn't enough proof to determine whether or not global warming is real. But, what are we waiting for? The Earth to become complete chaos before we actually consider getting anything done to solve it?? By then it would be too late to do anything about it. Another arguement is that we would be spending alot of money for something that we aren't even sure is real. The truth of the matter is that we already spend too much money on things that are not as important, so why push this matter to the side and say "nope, too much money"-? At the very worst, we would only be helping ourselves keep the Earth clean[er] for all the living creatures that inhabit it, which would in turn help increase our health. Others say that why should we be investing our time, effort, and money into something that doesn't have a global initiative; that alot of other countries don't do their part in helping the environment, so we shouldn't/can't do anything either. To this, I respond: It is just like that example that is always given to us, "If so-and-so jumps off a cliff, would you jump off the cliff too??". It is the same exact scenario, and if anything, this only gives us the chance to be the ones to try and enact solutions to this problem and help create the initiative for other countries to do the same. The solution to anything, is not backing down and saying you can't do anything or that there isn't enough proof. Policy decisions with respect to this issue, should be based on solving this possible problem of global warming, even if it proves not to be true, because we would have helped better ourselves and the Earth anyways, which is definitely not bad either.

Since non-scientist don't have the knowledge of a scientist they can’t make logical decisions for the specific issue thats occurring. They need to converse with the scientists who are experts on this issue and find out the problem, before addressing it to the polis. They need to figure out what the proper way to approach this issue to make changes. So without input and knowledge from a scientist, non-scientist should not make decisions.

I think that non-scientists should try and process the information themselves. If they are truly "citizens" then they can take the time to make a judgment call themselves. When it comes to science, it may or may not be true. Like we discussed in class, nothing is ever 100% certain however we can infer from data gathered that there are patterns in data that are undeniable. It is up to us as citizens to make the choice and to be informed. They should look into the data, ask scientists questions that are based on fact not opinions, and then create their own opinion on it.

I think that there are too many conflicting views on global warming. Some scientists believe its going to kill us in a couple years and some think that it is not man made and our atmosphere will evolve to counter it. I think that if it is the responsibility of the world to see what the true damage would be, is to do what ryan said and conduct a worldwide study and have everyone conclude with the same idea. But I still think that there would be some scientists that still do not go along with the others. I think it is absolutely hysterical how we are talking about global warming that will destroy the environment but about 30 years ago the scientist were proclaiming that global cooling would destroy the earth. I think that all these theories on global warming are just a sham and that man is not the main cause for global warming cause the earth goes through cycles and corrects itself. If it didn't then the earth would have never corrected itself after the Ice Age. If the world collectively decided to seriously do something to combat this so called global warming, then it would cripple the world's economy and decrease the standard of living everywhere.

These posts provide an example of the technocratic nature of our society disproportionately privileging expert knowledges. Even if scientists do figure out what the exact amount of carbon will destroy the planet, it's not clear how to manage resources in other countries. Social scientists are spilling a lot of ink right now trying to determine the best policy strategy.

This logic of environmental management prescribes decreasing carbon emissions. 'Nonscientist' participation in this process is limited to the ethical-consumption of 'eco-friendly' products and the subsidization green industrialization efforts.

Everyone is an expert in the spaces and communities they have the most direct contact with. Deeper engagement with local government and markets is one strategy 'nonscientists' can use to influence policy-development while strengthening community resiliency against unforeseen crises.

Although the claim that global warming is going to destroy the planet completely and make it inhabitable by humanity may seem a little farfetched to some, it is apparent, that with the evidence we do possess, something must be done and not ignored. It is always best to be safe, rather than sorry, especially dealing with extreme danger.
However, since we cannot be 100 percent sure of global warming, it is not logical to devote 100's of billions of dollars or trillions of dollars to programs designed to slow the believed global warming process down. We cannot place all of our eggs in one basket, but we do need to protect ourselves. IF there is global warming that poses an extreme danger on the planet, then it should be discussed as a global program and a solution/answer needs to be designed as a whole and by all nations. America should not and can not be the sole contributor in trying to stop global warming.
IF we are going to deem global warming a real threat, it should be a world wide goal to stop. Not something that America, on its own, spends all of its money on for nothing.

This is based on no analysis of the global warming scientific data, so I do not have a strong opinion on it.

It is almost impossible to find truth when it comes to climate change unless you yourself are researching the situation. Looking at every piece of evidence is of course one way you can reach a better understanding. However perhaps double checking the pieces to see if they prove the point may not be the way to go. Perhaps listen to the underlying message along with looking at evidence. The underlying push behind climate change is to change society's lifestyle in their use of resources. If you think about this you can see that this would only benefit us so why not investigate further and change ways of living, it can only be beneficial.

I think we might have possibly discussed this already in class but there is a video on youtube that discusses the options we have in deciding what to do about Global Warming. The two options of course being, do nothing or do something. Then of course there are two possibilities about Global Warming, it's not true and the world is fine or it is true and we're all going to die. If we do nothing and it's not true then we're fine, no loss. But that is only a one of four options. If we do something and it isn't true then there is probably some financial loss but the world doesn't end. But if we do nothing and it is true eventually the world ends. Of course finally if it is true and we do something then we have saved the world. It seems pretty obvious that our best bet is to take action and make policies that will ensure that we don't destroy the world.

A non-scientist who makes policy decisions should consider the environment in order to please not only those who do believe in climate change, but the general public. For example, recycling is something that everyone agrees is good. I feel as if most people agree that it is wise to use natural resources to their full potential. Making other policy decisions in this way... a way that keeps the environment in mind but also doesn't conclude that climate change is a fact... is the best route to take so that you are pleasing the most people.

Global warming is a very controversial topic and not all of the research that has been conducted, quoted, or used is considered scientific or is valid. With that being said, Non-scientist should tread with caution when interpreting information given or they have stumbled upon. It is important to be able to distinguish between empirical and normative information. If non-scientists can do this when making policy and focus on the best outcome and well being of the population then I believe that would be one of the most effective approaches to making policy. global warming, climate change, however you refer to it is still something many people need more hard evidence to believe. Since it is so widely debated, sifting through the massive amounts of information and looking at it with an open mind and logical sense will help when policy makers are making policy.

I think that we have to use discernment about the scientific data that we see and read. We should try to seek credible sources and studies and think critically about what is presented to us. When it comes to the formation of actual policies, consideration of data and the reality that we can observe should be taken into account and our best judgement should be applied. I don't think that it is prudent to spend bucko bucks on legislation/regulation that would aim to "fix" the climate if it would cause any number of other undesirable effects, be they fiscal or social. Making extreme policies to combat a problem that the data still shows as contentious is unwise.

I think that the best thing a non-scientist can do is to look at every side of the story. In this case, that would mean looking at the research of scientists who agree with the concept of global warming and those who disagree. This is especially important when it comes to making policy decisions. Just because the majority of the scientific community may support an issue one way or another does not mean that the other side does not have any validity. It is extremely important to make fully informed decision in forming policy, and that cannot be done if the policymakers do not focus on both sides of the story. The best way to do this would be to have meetings with credible leaders in the scientific community and have them present their information to the policymakers. Global warming has become too much of a meme- we should not simply accept or reject it on principle.