Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government. —Thomas Jefferson A hot-button issue in the American/International Political climate is  climate change. This has also been heavily influenced by media  interpretation and coverage. The scientific evidence supports the  perspective that global climate change is the result of the impact of  our species on the environment. However, some hold the perspective that  it is just part of the earth's natural c ycle. In the meantime, billions  of dollars are being invested in projects and initiatives related to  climate change. This has become a very divisive issue, with strong  opinions about the topic. It also raises the question of who should be  trusted when it comes to issues such as these—the people running our  governments, scientists, or the media. After reviewing this week's material, in your initial response,  consider each perspective. In America, what "side" of the climate change  issue do you hear about most from politicians or the media? Do you  think this could have an influence on the direction in which climate  change research is headed? Why or why not? Consider what you have learned about the relationship between modern-day issues and the inherent value of the natural sciences. Peer 1 The  articles in this module's text were very interesting. Each have valid  points and explain their point of view in a convincing way. I find  myself still unsure of which is correct. It is important to understand  that there must be an underlying purpose for each perception of this  topic. I think it is very convenient for researchers to test only one  area of the continent, which seems to be the warmest because of natural  occurrences. I find it appalling that people do not work together and  use the data for our Earth's advantage. Because that's all that really  matters in the end. We shouldn't want to push the public into believing  something untrue or present only half of the important information.  In the media, I think it depends on which news stations you follow.  As sad as it is they are also very bias. For me, though, I seem to read  and hear more about Global Warming caused by humans. I am very aware,  especially now, of sources and reliability. I do, however, still scroll  Facebook like any other. If I read something interesting and want to  verify, I will open a tab and research it for myself to be sure. If I  plan to share it with another person, I want to be positive I am not  handing out false information. When reading articles about my specific  topic and others, I tend to head straight to the sources to determine if  their background is acceptable for the issue. Who is the author of the  article? Are they a scientist? A journalist? A politician? The majority of the public look up to our Government. We look to them  to keep us informed, safe, and taken care of. Politicians can enhance  their viewpoints on important issues with their loud voices. People are  watching them and it is crucial to keep all of us well-informed about  what is going on in our country and globally. Our country can not  operate correctly when divided and misinformed. Peer 2 Hello Everyone! I  can't believe we are in week seven already! What a great topic to  debate this week. Climate change is such a hot topic and one that has  such a variety of responses in the political and media arenas. I  loved the video of Dr. Neil deGrasse, Science vs. Politics. I found it  interesting when he identified that there are political leaders who are  mostly lawyers and with a spatter of business-oriented individuals. It  is my opinion that this makes sense, as most subject matter experts, who  are quite brilliant, with undeniable talents, are not usually  interested in the spotlight or not great public speakers. In  an attempt to remain objective, I believe it is important to hear both  sides of political debates. With that said, in America, the "side" of  climate change issues I hear about most is from the media as they are  the ones that bring politics to my living room. The "side" usually  depends on the channel that is currently on and what their interests  are. Blindly  and with limited to no research, I believed that media has the  potential to influence the direction in which climate change research is  headed. However, I do not think enough credit is given to the average  American these days. Americans have access to vast amounts of  information and knowledge. I feel that Americans can see through the  propaganda and make intelligent, well-thought decisions. While I believe  that media can influence the direction of climate change research, I  wonder to what extent. After  some research I came across the research paper, Shifting public  engagement: How media coverage of climate change conferences affects  climate change audience segments. It identified media had "limited  changes in public opinion" (Wonneberger, et al., 2019). The  article indicates, "Overall, our study finds small media effects.  Certainly, no large and sudden changes should be expected from a single  event that is competing for attention with other events or ongoing  problems and debates" (Wonneberger, et al., 2019). It is an interesting read and I would recommend you check it out: https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963662519886474? This is merely one study, what are your thoughts? -j References Wonneberger,  A., Meijers, M. H. C., & Schuck, A. R. T. (2019). Shifting public  engagement: How media coverage of climate change conferences affects  climate change audience segments. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1177/096366251...

In the media introduction to this module, it was suggested that you as a nurse have an important role in the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC). With a focus on patient care and outcomes, nurses may not always see themselves as contributors to the development of new systems. However, as you may have observed in your own experience, exclusion of nurse contributions when implementing systems can have dire consequences.In this Discussion, you will consider the role you might play in systems development and the ramifications of not being an active participant in systems development.To Prepare:Review the steps of the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) as presented in the Resources.Reflect on your own healthcare organization and consider any steps your healthcare organization goes through when purchasing and implementing a new health information technology system.Consider what a nurse might contribute to decisions made at each stage of the SDLC when planning for new health information technology.By Day 3 of Week 9Post a description of what you believe to be the consequences of a healthcare organization not involving nurses in each stage of the SDLC when purchasing and implementing a new health information technology system. Provide specific examples of potential issues at each stage of the SDLC and explain how the inclusion of nurses may help address these issues. Then, explain whether you had any input in the selection and planning of new health information technology systems in your nursing practice or healthcare organization and explain potential impacts of being included or not in the decision-making process. Be specific and provide examples.By Day 6 of Week 9Respond to at least two of your colleagues* on two different days, by offering additional thoughts regarding the examples shared, SDLC-related issues, and ideas on how the inclusion of nurses might have impacted the example described by your colleagues.Colleague replies will be posted on monday/tuesday.sources: you can also find more on your own if you need more info.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpyjPrpyX8https://digital.ahrq.gov/health-it-tools-and-resources/evaluation-resources/health-it-evaluation-toolkit-and-evaluation-measures-quick-referencehttps://digital.ahrq.gov/health-it-tools-and-resources/evaluation-resources/workflow-assessment-health-it-toolkit