Here’s a (self-described) polemic video by Ryan Cooper to set the mood (with a bit of printed language nsfw):
.
So yeah, the risk of climate change is up there, in the minds of a lot of people, with war and existential threats to our civilization.
At a minimum, it’s worthy of serious risk assessment by senior decision-makers, given that their jobs, whether as heads of government agencies or corporate departments (or even universities), are to figure out what kind of change is coming down on us, how serious it is (separating facts from emotions), and what their organization (and they as individuals) should do about it.
So I figure this question is a good indicator of seriousness:
When did you last get a briefing on the latest science of climate change?
Conclusions could fall along a range of responses. From: not a problem in the short-term (or maybe long). To: Yikes, we’re in for trouble, let’s rethink our assumptions and get ready for some serious change.
But the first step is to find out whether the people in charge – the ones in the executive offices who assess risk and prepare for the future – are doing their jobs.
Here’s a quick way to find out. Ask that decision-maker what they know about the Keeling Curve, and the significance of it going above 400. (The details are here – and what 400 means.)
The point is: Do they even know what the Keeling Curve is? Are familiar with the basics of climate change, the essential science, the rate of change, the risks change implies?
You’re not looking for a policy position, just whether they keep up to speed and allocate enough time on their agenda to be reasonably well informed.
If not, they’re winging it, expecting to respond to the consequences of climate change only when some external force, whether nature or legislation, forces them to do so. In which case, they’re not doing what those of us who will live with the consequences of their negligence should reasonably expect of those whose job it is to assess risk.
.
PS: If they respond with sound bites (“There is no consensus”), send them here: Climate Comebacks: 154 skeptic rebuttal one-liners.
We need to start injecting more money in ADAPTATION instead of mitigation given the type of Keeling Curve that we have and universities will play a significant role in training future emergency specialists.
I get my regular updates on CC science. Here’s my latest pick:
“If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch. But it would not yet be downgraded.”
http://soa.li/A0O8UEJ
“Ask that decision-maker what they know about the Keeling Curve, and the significance of it going above 400. ”
This is a good test. If the decision maker says that over 400 means the end of civilization and we need a national carbon rationing program and global governance, then I know this person is a complete nut-bar and I want them out of office. If they say it means absolutely nothing, than I know this person is rational and I will vote for them in the next election.
This is a great idea, thanks for this.
cheers
If we don’t stop burning fossil fuels then it is fair to say that the dinosaurs are going to have the last laugh.