Climate Change, Is It a Hoax, or Is the Hoax a Hoax?

Climate Change is a long standing public issue that has coalesced into a highly divisive issue in America’s political landscape. This is one of those irrational oddities since the majority of the public (that includes Republicans, Democrats and independents) believe that Climate Change is real and that the country (and its government) should be doing something about it. There is a subset of politicians, and of course their corresponding constituencies, that believes that Climate Change is a hoax, a conspiracy, or foreign plot being orchestrated to destroy America.

This bipolar reality creates a natural and obvious context for an American Intelligence Test. While Climate Change may be another irrational political issue that provides funding opportunities for incumbents and contending candidates, Climate Change isn’t at its core really a political question. You should thus be aware that the test isn’t simply about whether Climate Change is real or not on the political front. Further, just because politicians have simple answers to this or other issues has never been a reliable indication of intelligence, and usually is more an indicator of the incompetency of politicians than it is any demonstration of politicians understanding of an issue.

So, if you think you can weather the test, just click and start.

Question A:   What is the Climate Change issue?
Select the statement closest to your advocated position.

(1). Climate Change is a hoax and has no scientific basis.

(2). Climate Change is a shift in the earth’s weather (temperature, precipitation, humidity, sea-level, …  and other factors that characterize the “physics” of weather) on a global basis, and that is sustained over decades, centuries or geological eras.

(3). Climate Change is a shift in the earth’s weather (see 2. above) that is caused by human activities and that would not have occurred without that activity.

(4). Climate Change is a shift in local/regional weather (see 2. above) but need be reflected globally across the planet.

(5). Climate Change is a shift in local/regional weather (see 2. above) that is caused by human activities and that would not have occurred without that activity, but need not be reflected globally across the planet.

(6). Climate Change is any shift in the earth’s weather (see 2. above) that is different than it has been over the last ten years or less.

(7). Climate Change is any shift in local/regional weather (see 2. above) that is caused by human activities and that would not have occurred without that activity, but need not be reflected globally across the planet and is different than it has been over the last ten years or less.

(8). I don’t know.

(9). My definition of Climate Change is substantively different than any of the above.

Answer - A:  3 is the correct answer.

Answer 2 is a close second but misses the issue.

None of the other answers are adequate to score positively on the test, and no answers receive negative scores (thought this may be a procedural mistake).

Rationale -A:       The “issue” is “man-caused” Climate Change, and gains its energy from disagreements over whether it warrants global, national and social efforts to affect its impact on the earth and nations.

Answer 2 is not “the issue” in America because the “issue” is related to the ‘man-caused” aspect of Climate Change. Answer 2 is a generic definition about how a ‘change’ in climate would be quantified regardless of cause. There may be questions and issues around whether the Climate is changing irrespective of human activity, but that is not the political issue that makes the headlines and constitutes the question that the public fights over.

Answers 4 and 5 are at best a sub-set of 2 and 3 respectively, but not the main issue argued about.

Answers 6 and 7 are not adequately distinguishable from variations in the weather that can occur but are not indicative of a change in the normal state rather than just being different from one year to the next.

Answer 1 is not the “issue” but an assessment on the issue. This answer reflects negatively on the likely outcome of your test results.

Answer 8 suggests that you need not proceed if you know so little of the issue.

Answer 9 indicates you have a less than commonly recognized definition. This answer is thus non-responsive.

Question B:   Is Climate Change occurring? 
Answer each sub-question Yes or No or IDK (I don’t know)

(1). Generic Climate Change - globally (as in by Answer A-2)?  Yes  |  No  | IDK

(2). Climate Change from human-activity - globally (man-caused)?  Yes  |  No  | IDK

(3). Generic Climate Change – regional/local (as in Answer A-2)?  Yes  |  No  | IDK

(4). Climate Change from human-activity – regional/local (man-caused)?  Yes  |  No  | IDK

Answer - B:  1. Yes,   2. Yes,  3. Yes,   4. Yes

Rationale -B:       1. Data on the physical environment that characterize climate indicate a shift from what would be the ‘norm’. The changes are sufficient to establish a credible assessment of the Climate having changed and probable expectation that the change will continue. Plus, there is the scientific community, nationally and internationally, that have concluded Climate Change has occurred.

2. Given 1 above, then simple physics.

3. Consider the impossibility of 1 being true and 3 not being.

4. Integrate the logic of 2 and 3. You could just consider any major city.

Question C:   Which of the following person(s) or entities constitute an authoritative source you would recognize and trust regarding the validity of Climate Change?

(1). President of United States

(2). NASA

(3). National Academy of Sciences, USA

(4). National US news broadcast media

(5). American Institute of Physics

(6). Environmental Protection Agency

(7). Congress: The Senate

(8). Science departments of Private and Public Universities

(9). International Council for Science

(10). National Science Foundation

(11). Americans for Prosperity

(12). Russian Academy of Sciences

(13). Congress: House of Representatives

(14). United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(15). American Enterprise Institute

(16). Politicians in general

Answer - C:  2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14

Rationale -C:       These entities strive to operate in the name of science and in service to humanity and the future. If you expect to be prepared for the future, you need have those who study and become experts in understanding reality. You can choose to follow a different route, but the best and brightest would point you to Darwin to contemplate the consequences. If you’re particularly religious and of a Christian faith the Bible teaches to go with science.

1, 7, 13 and 16 are generally not trusted by the public. What amount of reliance would you place in people you don’t trust? If they are just presenting the views of those entities noted above then you are not trusting in them, but in the sources.

11 and 15 are examples of entities funded by interest groups whose influence and objectives compromise a trusted confidence in their goals, results and efforts. Achieving a recognized level of respect and integrity as leaders in their field would be simple to do, but none of them have attempted to demonstrate their status as ‘best in class’ scientific organizations.

4 is not a source for the expertise on the issue. The media is a conduit for dissemination of the information that the experts produce. The media can succeed or fail at their job and thus cause turmoil but they do not change the science.

Question D:   What actions are appropriate or inappropriate for Congress or the Executive to take if they doubt/reject the scientific consensus and public consensus that Climate Change is occurring and a risk to the nation?
Indicate ‘A’ if an item is appropriate or ‘I’ if it is inappropriate.  Indicate with a “Y” on inappropriate actions that have been done by Congress or the Executive; and a “N” on appropriate action that have not be done.

(1). Promoting and increasing the funding of research programs in colleges and universities on Climate Change.

(2). Restricting the use of the term “climate change” in state or federal reports.

(3). Directing the EPA to collect additional information/data and perform additional analysis to provide a better understanding of the issue.

(4). Reducing agencies’ budgets for research and analysis related to climate change related work.

(5). Engaging in international efforts to establish initiatives to combat climate change.

(6). Prohibiting government agencies from engaging in climate research.

(7). Funding alternate energy research, production and use to combat Climate Change.

(8). Preventing/Restricting state and local legislatures and agencies from affecting climate programs on their own via overriding federal action.

(9). Incorporating IRS tax code incentives for investments in technologies or infrastructure that reduce causal factors that contribute to Climate Change.

Answer - D:  1. A, N
2. I, Y
3. A, N
4. I, Y
5. A, N
6. I, Y
7. A
8. I, Y
9. A, N

Rationale -D:       Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 would be reasonable actions to advance and improve the science and understanding of Climate and Climate Change. Even if you doubt the judgement and recommendations of experts, these are tasks that would be necessary if you wanted more information about Climate Change.

Items 2, 4, 6, and 8 are the polar opposite of advancing knowledge and information to resolve the issues that obstruct someone who doesn’t agree with the scientific community, and creates obstacles to sustain a state of ignorance.

Question E:    Politicians that oppose government actions on Climate Change often claim that it is an “unsettled scientific issue”. Answer the five sub-questions on this line of reasoning.

E-1: Based on who’s judgement are politicians claiming the issue is “unsettled?

(1). Their own understanding of ‘the science’.

(2). A consensus of the scientific community.

(3). A majority of the scientific community.

(4). Individuals, foundations and other entities funded by petrochemical companies

(5). Their respective electorate.

(6). Special-interest groups that contribute to their campaigns.

(7). The public policy position of their political party.

Answer - E:  E-1: 1, 4, and 6

Rationale -E:       E-1: 1, 4, and 6 are the most likely factors used by politicians since the motivating elements are not basically scientific.

Item 7 may be a second-tier factor if items 4 and 6 are less engaged in the politician’s campaign funding sources. Item 5 would only be relevant if their constituency were a statistical aberration.

Items 2 and 3 would imply politicians relied upon informed and reasoned judgement.

E-2: Which conditions are necessary to “settling” the scientific issue?

(1). Agreement of and with scientific entities and organizations that are recognized by the general scientific community as knowledgeable and competent in the subject.

(2). The news media accepts the issue as settled based on their sources and assessment of the scientific communities’ inputs.

(3). No entity or organization claiming expertise in the particular scientific area disagrees with the consensus position.

(4). Congressional committees’ agreement where they have jurisdiction over public policies related to the scientific issue.

(5). The majority of the public holds the same opinion as the majority of the scientific community.

(6). A “cause and effect” process/model that can predict future data / observations.

Answer - E:  E-2: 1 is the only necessary condition.

Rationale -E:       E-2: When dealing with a scientific issue, the only reasonable method of providing the current status and nature of the issue is to rely on the ‘best current’ knowledge the experts, authorities and communities in the field agree upon. The use of the “unsettled” concept is an insipid attempt to distract and confuse. There is no “settled” science, since the entire scientific enterprise is the active and continued exploration for a ‘better’ understanding and  better theories to more fully explain reality.

While item 6 is a desirable goal to achieve, it doesn’t prohibit others from claiming that it doesn’t “settle” the issue.

None of the other answers warrant an effort.

E-3: Whose judgement would be adequate to “settle” the science?

(1). Congressional committees’ determination based on their holding hearings with scientific leaders (of their choosing) and concluding the state of the issue: settled, unsettled or rejected.

(2). The general media and news outlets

(3). An international scientific forum

(4). Federal agency(ies) that have legislative responsibilities related to the scientific issue.

(5). President of the United States

(6). National scientific organizations, associations and universities that represent the research, educational, and oversight of their respective scientific, mathematical, technical, and engineering areas.

Answer - E:  E-3: 6

Rationale -E:       E-3: Item 6 is adequate because it possesses the relevant knowledge base to be applied to the decision. Item 3 is a superset that would include 6 and thus is redundant with 6, so “more than adequate”.

E-4: Is Climate Change an “unsettled scientific issue”?    Yes  |  No

Answer - E:  E-4: No

Rationale -E:       E-4: It wasn’t meant to be a trick question but even most groups that oppose the ‘man-made’ contribution to Climate Change position are willing to cede that the world’s climate has changed during the last several decades.
The continuation of their resistance to acknowledge a ‘significant’ contribution from human activity is a different issue. It is the human contribution issue that is the prevalent, popular and profitable point of contention.

E-5: Does human-activity contribute to Climate Change? Yes  |  No

Answer - E:  E-5: Yes

Rationale -E:       E-5: Consider how even the uninformed would explain how it is possible for human activity to have “no” influence on the world. To have an absolute zero impact on climate would require that mankind also has no impact on anything. It is not a possible reality.

At this point the argument will shift to mankind doesn’t make a ‘significant’ contribution to Climate Change. So now we are haggling over the price? If you don’t get the reference, that’s really unfortunate for you.

Question F:    Is Global Warming a current instance of Climate Change?  Yes  |  No

Answer - F:  Yes

Rationale -F:        If your answer was no because you do not support human-activity as a ‘significant’ contributing factor, then go back and read the question. Is your assumption valid? Do you know what assumption you made that misled you?

When the physical factors provide information/data that does not conform to a statistical rejection of the hypothesis that past data and current data are different then there is a change. Is it warmer? Look at the data.

Question G:   If the US government (Executive and Congress) were to hold a position that rejects that Climate Change is real and that Global Warming is a good description of its current state, what actions should the government take?

(1). Refuse to act prematurely and demand that the science be “settled”.

(2). Fund more research on Climate.

(3). Establish policies that account for the risks that Climate Change would pose if at some later date the science is “settled”.

(4). Fund research in areas that would deliver reductions in factors that are linked to Climate Change.

(5). Provide incentives (or increased incentives) for clean-energy investments.

Answer - G:  2, 4 and 5

Rationale -G:       These are proactive efforts that benefit the nation even if the government is in disagreement with the scientific experts and the most informed judgement on the issue.

Item 3 is at best a non-backward step, it would be the act of politicians trying to appear to be responsible while they delay work that may be crucial to the nation’s interests.

Item 1 is a measure of the incompetence of those in government, or a disingenuous position used to support other interests that would not pass a ‘red-faced’ test.  

American Intelligence Test: How Sick Is America’s Health-Care System?

Preface: The Affordable Care Act – ACA, aka: Obamacare has existed for the last 6 years, and by some counts there have been approximately 60+ attempts to repeal the legislation. This would appear to represent a significant investment in time and effort in addressing the profound ideological issues and problems that the ACA presents to those who oppose(d) it.

Beginning in 2017, those previous efforts will come to fruition with the expected … uh, now this is where it gets interesting since the clarity of direction to repeal has become just a touch ill-defined. But with the years of work that has gone into its repeal, or replacement, or redesign, or yet-to-be determined reconstruction there should be a high-level of information and understanding about the issues and problems with Obamacare and of necessity with America’s health-care system.

So, this AIT will obviously be easy to answer. What’s unclear is whether with 6 years of practice the test can be passed or not. If nothing else, you may wonder what our politicians have been doing for the last 6 years, the last decade, and the last quarter of a century in grappling with the nation’s health-care policy and system.

Question A:    What are essential elements to setting America’s health-care public policy and solving the health-care system issue? Select each principle or facet of health-care that needs to be part of any solution to the nation’s health-care issues.

(1). Single-payer system

(2). Competitive marketplace

(3). Universal coverage

(4). Voucher - based support

(5). Individual Mandate – based support

(6). Limited to a Basic-type of medical coverage only

(7). Limited to “Catastrophic” medical coverage only

(8). Block-grants to States to be managed by States

(9). Service/Treatment/Procedure – based pricing

(10). Outcome / Results – based pricing

(11). Prescription Drugs included

(12). Includes Medicare / Medicaid

(13). Safety-net for the poor

(14). None of the above

Answer - A:  2 and 3

Rationale - A:        These two elements are the only requirements in the above list necessary to achieving a rational, effective and sustainable health-care policy; but they are not the only requirements that are necessary. What is important about these two items is that they represent conditions that must be understood within the context of designing a health-care system as they are seminal concepts that when ignored, misunderstood or misapplied sow the seeds of ruin in any health-care system that is created. This explains why Congress has never been able to adequately deal with the issue. Congress is not up to the cognitive requirements needed to solve the health-care issue; beginning with understanding it.

The other choices are elements from which politicians pick their preferred subset to proclaim as a matter faith that their approach will solve the health-care system’s problems. But in lacking an understanding of the problem, our politicians will continue their propensity to fail at their jobs. This is not to say that some/any of these elements can’t be used to create a well-designed, efficient, lower-cost, and sustainable health-care, but simply including them is also no guarantee that they will produce desirable effects. A phenomenon that is beyond the ken of politicians.

Question B:   Who should pay for what the nation’s health-care system provides?

(1). Federal government

(2). State governments

(3). Federal and State governments

(4). Individuals and families

(5). Employers

(6). All the above

Answer - B:  4

Rationale - B:      This may come as a surprise to many people but there is only one group that can pay for a health-care system. This is because only people (individuals and families) can pay for anything. The only source of revenues is via taxation for federal, state, or any governmental entity.

Employers can be taxed as proxies for individuals and families but this only provides an indirect source since the companies that employ people passes their costs along in their products which ultimately end up at their customers who are people. Nothing wrong with taxing companies, but that doesn’t mean that you should think it isn’t being paid for by the people.     

Question C:   How should income-level get accounted for under a US health-care public policy?

(1). No accommodation. One price for everyone, either pay or no health-care

(2). A tiered price structure, something similar to proposed Tax-brackets, that sets a premium rate based on income-level

(3). A single tax-rate based on total earned income (no deductions or exemptions) that will support a ‘basic’ policy

(4). Government funding for poverty-level individuals/families

(5). Government funding for poverty-level children only

(6). The commercial marketplace will offer policies designed to provide plans that are priced to low-income individuals/families

(7). None of the above

Answer - C:  7

Rationale - C:      You cannot choose a pricing structure on to a health-care system without understanding and agreeing to what the health-care policy and the system are going to be. While Congress may not understand this, the reality of economics imposes an unavoidable balance sheet to the health-care system, just like it does for every other area of social existence.

That there must be some accommodation to income-level(s) in the health-care policy is essential. How that accommodation will be made and what it will means the cause and effect consequences are will depend upon the definition of the policy and its requirements.

If you’re a proponent from one of the other options, well then you’ve assumed a lot about the health-care policy that is most likely what you want it to be, not what it is going to be, nor what it ought to be if the nation wants a rational, effective, and sustainable system.

Question D:   Which would define one or more “direct measures of success” for the nation’s health-care?

(1). Lower federal expenditures for health-care programs

(2). Lower rates of increase to federal expenditures for health-care programs

(3). Fewer people dying under the health-care programs per dollar spent

(4). Less expenditures on last-year of life costs

(5). Lower cost-per-capita for health-care programs

(6). More individuals covered without increase costs to programs

(7). Lower premium prices for average individual

(8). Lower rate of increases to premium prices for average individual

(9). Increased ‘life expectancy’

(10). Decrease in ‘mortality’ rates for top-ten fatal medical conditions

(11). None of the above

Answer - D:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Rationale - D:      Any of these, and thus all of them, would be a direct measure of success. There could be any number of additional direct measures of success for the current ACA, for its repeal-replacement, for a ‘fixed’-ACA, or for whatever Congress ultimately delivers.

Of course the possibility that there could be and should be well-defined direct measures of success for the nation’s health-care policy and system; there is little to no chance that Congress would understand this, and thus will not provide any.

Question E:    Should an individual’s health-care services’ cost or their health-care insurance cost differ for (answer Yes or No for each item):

(1). Age

(2). Gender

(3). Smoking vs. Non-smoking

(4). Number of years of active insurance coverage

(5). Obesity

(6). History of Drug-abuse

(7). Employment / Unemployment

(8). Occupation / Life-style choices

(9). Preexisting conditions

(10). Wealth

(11). Citizenship

Answer - E:  Yes, for every item.

Rationale - E:      The cost of health-care depends upon many factors and thus to provide it requires that a competent understanding of the influence that those factors contribute need to be incorporated into the planning, implementation and operation of the nation’s health-care policy and system.

Some of these factors are already part of health-care programs and there are others. Some new factors would provide useful tools and methods to assist in countering cost drivers. Others are a recognition that the health-care system is a societal construct and ought to hold the society accountable for its public policy and the cause and effect consequences of that policy.

Question F:    A leading element in some of the proposed ACA-replacement health-care policies is the use of vouchers in place of the ‘individual mandate’ for insurance coverage. Is a voucher-based approach better than the mandate approach?

(1). Yes  /  No

Answer - F:  No

Rationale - F:      A voucher system is an implementation choice that in and of itself doesn’t guarantee anything. Fundamentally, a voucher system is little different from an individual mandate system. It fundamentally comes down to a different form of taxation and where the funding is derived.

Question G:   Do emergency health-care conditions have a different public policy basis than general medical needs? What about catastrophic illnesses? What about pre-existing conditions?

(1). Emergency conditions:   Yes  /  No

(2). Catastrophic illnesses:    Yes  /  No

(3). Pre-existing conditions:   Yes  /  No

Answer - G:  1. Yes,  2. Yes,  3.  Yes

Rationale - G:     1. Since emergency rooms are treated differently under current law, they will require well-defined requirements and cost-support structure. If the care requirements are changed then the method of funding needs to be correspondingly addressed. If the requirement to provide emergency services is maintained, then the healthcare policy ought to address how it’s costs are to be accounted for in the funding.

2. Coverage or non-coverage of catastrophic illnesses needs to be spelled-out under the health-care policy and any costs accounted for in the pricing structure and revenue sourcing that will be tied to that policy.

3. There are numerous facets to pre-existing conditions that need to be accounted for under a policy. Whether public policy provides for pre-existing conditions or not, there are consequences to the health-care system; thus like anything else that is part of the problem, Congress can’t ignore it and the public can’t ignore it without there being consequences (acknowledged or not).

Question H:   Which of the following factors contribute to a high-cost, inefficient, and irrational health-care policy and system?

(1). Mandated emergency room treatment

(2). Medicare / Medicaid exclusion from prescription drug price negotiating.

(3). State-bounded insurance products

(4). HMOs, PPOs, POSs, EPOs, …

(5). Procedure-based pricing

Answer - H:  All the above.

Rationale - H:      These are health-care policy requirements or approaches that are not designed to accomplish socially beneficial health-care systems. They reflect decisions that have been made in the past to provide the health-care policy and system that we have today. If that system is flawed, broken and unsustainable then these items have a priori contributory.

Question I:      Indicate which of the following entities are/have been a contributing factor in increasing the cost of health-care? Select all that apply.

(1). Executive branch

(2). Congress

(3). Department of Health

(4). Insurance Companies

(5). Democrats

(6). Republicans

(7). Medical (health-care) Corporations:  hospitals, treatment facilities, pharmaceutical companies, assisted living facilities, …

(8). Medical products and device manufacturers

(9). Financial industry

(10). Physicians

(11). Special-interest lobbying groups

(12). The public

(13). All the above

Answer - I:  12

Rationale - I:        We did not arrive at this juncture with a broken health-care system without either the active or passive participation in creating the policies, programs and processes that have wrought the mess that we have today. It would be pointless to attempt to assess which entities (CONGRESS) have played the biggest role in causing the health-care crisis.

Question J:    Who does pay for health-care costs in America? Select those that apply.

(1). Individuals / families who buy insurance

(2). Companies / corporations that provide employee health-care as a benefit

(3). Federal government

(4). State governments

(5). Health-care Insurance companies

(6). Tax-payers

(7). Companies / corporations that provide executives or owners with health-care benefits

(8). Medicare / Medicaid participants

(9). Employees

Answer - J:  1

Rationale - J:       The answer to Question B and its rationale are unchanged. The public pays for the health-care it provides or doesn’t provide. The nature of the costs that are being paid are thus not necessarily what you would think of as health-care costs.

So how confident are you in Congress’ ability to ‘fix’ health-care? Well, don’t worry; it’s not like it’s going to cost you anything.