820555

﻿ In recent years the issue of global warming has reared its head more and more. As new information (however true or false) //<<-- is this necessary?// is presented, the public becomes alternately paranoid and/or disbelieving. Leaders in various fields such as business, science, and countless others ,  must take these changing times into account when making policies connected with global warming. When creating these policies, the leaders must consider firstly how real or serious the perceived problem is, secondly how best to present it to the public, and thirdly how feasible their proposed policies or solutions actually are. In doing this they will be able to form more accurate and effective policies.  (good thesis, I can see how you are setting up tour essay, howver I am not sure if you need the world firstly in order to be gramatically correct) thesis is very original. it also clearly defines what you will discuss in your body paragraphs.

The first and most pressing aspect of global warming to be considered is an obvious (do not say obvious) one: is it real? If so, is it a serious problem? //reconsider using rhetorical question// It seems now to be fairly obvious to most people that global warming does, in fact, exist. Not only are we hearing naturalists warn us of the one degree rise in global temperatures ( not very specific from source, try to draw mroe significant information) (Source A), but even the government is releasing statistics, cold hard facts which point to a rise in global ocean temperatures (Source B). If the water is warmer, that means that, logically, its surroundings must also be warmer (but why?) . Besides this, people can see around them new and bizarre weather patterns; can feel the increasing warmth as the years go by  (give examples to strangthen argument such as snow storms or tornados...) . It's a safe bet to say that global warming is real. //good connection back to how global warming affects people but you dont have to say safe bet//This being settles, policy makers must no consider how serious it is. After all, if you structure a whole slew of policies around a fairly harmless occurrence, you'll (try not to use contractions or say you, or generally sound like you are talking, because this essay should sound eloquent) only end up looking paranoid. For an example of the seriousness of global warming, let us examine the words of ecologist Terry Root. Root is worried about the "tearing apart of [natural] communities" with the "global environment [changing] so fast" that species are being damaged. Some lack food, others cannot survive the new climates, still others can no longer find the space to construct their homes (Source F). As we all know, what affects one animal group on this planet must affect us all sooner or later.//lol, MLK essay// In light of all this, we can conclude that global warming is both real and serious <span style="color: #17baba; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> (good summation of paragraph and bringing back to thesis) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Once policy makers have determined if the issue exists and how serious it is, they must figure out how to present this information <span style="color: #17baba; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> to the public <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">. If their policies are shaped by it <span style="color: #17baba; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(what is "it") <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">but the people feeling the impact of those policies do not know why, tensions will arise unpleasant to all sides. It is therefore imperative that the information be presented well and in a manner that its intended audience will comprehend. To do this, policy makers must consider their audience. An article in a widely read magazine such as Time, while probably utilising easy to read, colloquial terms like "power-hogs" (Source C), may not be viewed as the most reliable by professors and scientists. On the flip side, most people would be thoroughly bemused if presented with pages of scholarly research and numbers. Therefore policy makers must tailor their presentation to their audience (a practice popular for centuries, and even used by the Bard himself). If that audience is comprised of your average Johns and Janes, then colloquial, casual text and simple facts are perfectly acceptable. If, however, the audience is one of businessmen, or perhaps professors, that approach would be less effective. //you said it yourself: you sound too casual// <span style="color: #17baba; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Need more sources for this paragraph in order to sound compelling, and still you sound to casual. points made in this paragraph should connect to points made in next paragraph.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">FInally, policy makers must take into consideration how realistic their proposed policies or solutions therein actually are. It's all very well to promise or demand grand things, but often it's harder to follow through on them. In the book The Skeptical Environmentalist, author Bjør﻿n Lomberg points out that "the cost...will always be ridiculously high" <span style="color: #17baba; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">good use of source! <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(Source D). We would all of course <span style="color: #17baba; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">too casual! <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">love to live in a safe, clean, peaceful world. The reality is not such, and it never will be. There will always be people who think differently; always companies looking out solely for their own interests. That is inevitable. As tragic as it may be, we live in an imperfect society. As such, our flaws must be taken into account. A bill prohibiting smoking would never pass, for instance, because so many politicians receive funding from tobacco companies. With our society controlled by the wealthy, we must take into account their existence. No policy maker can hope to please everyone, but it is safest to displease as few as possible. <span style="color: #17baba; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I feel like you are talking in generalization that might not be true for everyone, but good example from tobacco company and also use more sources TO MAKE STONGER ARGUMENT)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is very likely that global warming policy makers will //never// I like your use of italics please everyone. If, however, they are careful to consider its seriousness, how to present it, and how feasible their policies regarding it are, they stand a greater chance of success (and probably face less lawsuits and protests). This concept can in fact be applied in all areas: health, education, etc. There will always be naysayers-you just have to learn how to make them the minority. relate back to policy good job trying to bring in a larger conclusion :) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">﻿ ﻿ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive; font-size: 10.5pt;">