CO2 paper presentations

On Friday and Monday all six groups presented their cases for either supporting the CO2 paper or opposing its view points.  The criteria discussed in class was references and scientific methods.  Some of the strengths of these criteria were that they were very objective and didn't leave a lot of room for speculation.  A weakness of the criteria were that they were very broad, and it was very hard to narrow the information down.  Are group seemed to be well organized and managed between the five of us.  We fairly divided up the work load and all coloaborated to make our power point presentation.  There wasn't much that I can think of that didn't go well in terms of managing the group, dividing the work, and combining out thoughts.  My personal ethics were not an issue in this presentation.  I do not have a strong feeling to either side of the argument I was just fighting on the side I was put on.  All of the groups seemed to stay on task and present only these two criteria with out going off task.  I personally thought are presentation went quite well.  We were a group supporting the paper, but I really liked group 3's presentation against the paper.  They had many valid arguments, and exclusively presented scientific methods and reference flaws.  At the end of class morning we voted on whether we believed the paper was still valid and which group won.  The results of our vote was quite interesting.  There were many people who had switched votes for yes or no on the papers validity and which group won.  I thought it would be an equal amount in each category, but several people choose yes or no for if they thought the paper was still valid.  And there response for who won was opposite.  Overall, the class was on the "no" side of the argument, which seems like a good decision for the global environment.  I don't believe or disbelieve global warming, but I think if the world was a little more resourceful and "greenier" it wouldn't be a bad thing.

I believe the statement "what we do in the US, soon will not matter" means that we will eventually hit the point of no return and won't be able to go back.  If we reach a point where there is no returning then it will not matter what we do after that point.

The statement "what we do as individuals matters" to me means that even though the small things that you do as a individual hold great power.  When individual acts are combined together into a whole population the impact is magnified to an amount that an individual may not be able to see.