Mid Semester Quiz
1) Carbon intensity and GHG reduction is not the same thing. Carbon intensity ties the changing climate to economics while GHG reductions deal with the changing climate as an independent entity, not as a subset of economy. So, instead of assisting in risk assessment, carbon intensity fosters propaganda. This is good because:
A. Economics is as important as the climate
B. Economics impact your trust fund and climate does not
C. Carbon intensity makes no sense, but let’s use it anyway
D. Let someone else worry about the climate
E. None of the above
2) We have an upper target of a 2 degrees C for temperature rise. Many say 2 degrees C is the most our society can tolerate. What do you believe are the chances we will hold this 2-degree line through 2050?
A. 10%
B. 5%
C. 0%
D. 3 degrees C is more like it
E. It isn’t about temperature. It is about retained energy in the atmosphere
3) To achieve that goal of 2 degrees C, we have groups saying we need to maintain a level of 350. What does 350 refer to?
A. It is better to not clarify this so we can avoid litigation
B. 350 PPMV of CO2e (GHGs) in the atmosphere – a measure of GHG concentration in the atmosphere
C. 350 has no relevancy except as a talking point as GHG levels are at the 400 PPMV level
D. 350 as a ratio between carbon emissions and economic activity, therefore, carbon intensity
E. A specious chart could help…
4) When told the French peasants had no bread to eat, Marie Antoinette replied, “Let them eat cake.” Carbon intensity has been likened to that famous quote. Why?
A. Both are expositions of ignorance by entrenched interests
B. Carbon intensity is a non-palatable solution to the problem of hunger
C. Carbon intensity is a ratio between carbon emissions and economic activity so by its nature, gives economics weight over the climate–making it less a measurement and more food that feeds the myths of the aristocracy. Or to put it another way, “Let them eat spin”
D. In a corrupt society, wealth and power do not indicate a capacity to lead
E. All of the above
5) Read the following spin (news report):
“…In news regarding risk assessment, the efficacy of risk assessment been raised by a journeyman plumber in Weehawken NJ. Said the plumber, “Think of human induced climate change as an overflowing bath tub–where we have no way to turn off the spigot. We evaluate a home for plumbing issues, go right to the source of the problem, and fix it. We don’t do risk assessment. We know what we are doing. No one has ever benefitted from risk assessment–it is another faith-based religion of our time–like climate models…”
As we all know, a journeyman plumber is the highest rank a plumber can achieve. Many in the Senate are beginning to think of risk assessment as just another thinly veiled cult; researchers who seek more funding for their work, while trying to push junk science upon the population.
“Risk assessment cannot tie any single drop of water to the overflowing bath tub. When your bathtub is overflowing there is only one answer. Stop the flow. It’s the only thing that solves the problem. Risk assessment is not an answer. A signed contract to do repairs is the answer…”
Obviously this spin (news report) is the beginning of a campaign to divide political will on the part of the population as regards to analyzing risk assessment for the changing climate. Many already criticize the campaign because risk assessment is commonplace in business, government, and financial instruments. Others claim the perceived truth of declarations is directly proportional by the quantity of thumbs-up in the “Comments Section” of a web page and that any blather that receives enough thumbs-up will be considered.
Is risk assessment relevant to the changing climate?
A. Only for economic activities
B. Only for dividing political will
C. It is not relevant unless the markets say it is relevant
D. Risk analysis means we need a hedge, but it does not mean find a solution
E. That depends on how the jury sees it
6) NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is a subsidiary–it answers to–the US Chamber of Commerce. True or False?
A. True
B. Let’s discuss something else
7) Certain comments paint an unflattering view of the United States’ long-term climate policy. Consider this comment from a spokesperson in the EU:
“…At some point there will be a worldwide agreement to limit GHGs. At that point, there will be a rush to develop and deploy appropriate systems. Costs for equipment, transmission lines, labor, IP, and materials will sky rocket. Therefore, it is in our best interests to support corporate corruption of the US political system to delay American popular acceptance of anthropogenic forcing of the radiative balance until (our) sustainable energy generation systems are close to meeting the needs of our nation. Specifically, US fossil fuel companies and their horrific spin campaigns to downplay “global warming” should be supported, or at least ignored. As those retrograde industries will help the fatherland meet its goals–and then eventually force the US to pay the price we will set for our resilient technologies–after the US population becomes incensed by disasters…”
Is US funding of dead-end fossil fuel industries allowing other nations to take the technological lead in sustainable systems?
A. Stupid is as stupid does
B. Don’t ask me. An oil company is one of my major customers
C. If the US becomes a banana republic, who cares? We’ll always have Paris
D. Whatever…My markets and supply chain will tell me what to do
E. Lunch?
8) Some in the US continue to call for the evisceration of environmental regulations and the government entities that enforce those regulations. Further, lobbyists claim those environmental regulations are job-killing, unlike outsourcing, corporate tax evasion, and a low wage work force. If you are told to support the murdering of environmental regulations through the media, how will you do it?
A. Quote the Heritage Institute or the Enterprise Institute – say nothing else
B. Find a subordinate, drop it in his or her lap, and force them to embarrass themselves
C. Call in sick
D. Discuss the issue with the media outlet’s marketing people threatening to pull key advertisements if the outlet does not heel
E. Drink heavily and try to keep a straight face
9) The drought continues in the US Southwest and California with numerous areas declared natural disaster areas. As well, sea-level rise will soon swamp more coastal cities–Miami already has inundation on an annual basis. With the price of solutions rising everyday, the search for a scapegoat is underway. Front running candidates include El Nino, the sun, the moon, and a plumbing company in Weehawken, New Jersey. Whom do you nominate for scapegoat of the coming climate crisis?
A. Politicians
B. Scientists
C. Lawyers
D. The population in general
E. All of the above
10) The US education system is floundering under the weight of entrenched interests seeking to foster education that supports only those entrenched interests. This is okay because:
A. Can you go over the question again?
B. I will soon be an MBA and my job will be revenue generation for my company
C. Let them watch Simpsons
D. I like Marie Antoinette’s cake line. What was the problem with it?
E. How much education do they need to cut our lawns and fix our sewers?
11) Entities like cities will face a shortage of resources in the new climate regime. Supply chains and markets will be damaged by the new climate regime. Cities needing repair will compete for basic materials. Will a displaced population make good consumers? Will they be angry?
A. The coming climate crisis is well-funded and that will meet the needs of industry
B. The population will be reduced by a deadly climate so we need not worry
C. Feed them GMO food and promote Alzheimer’s. We can deal with Forrest Gump
D. Military occupation is the only solution
E. I still don’t understand the overflowing tub thing
EXTRA CREDIT –
Certain parties have suggested that every major university in the United States sign a document calling for direct and meaningful action against the clear and present danger of anthropogenic forcing of the radiative balance.
Don’t you agree this is a bad idea? Why?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.