Blog

I just don't understand American liberals and their attitude toward mathematical models. The left places an inordinate amount of faith in untested models predicting man-made warming of the global climate, while ignoring time-tested mathematical models in another important field important to all Americans.

The new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards – set by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in the new energy bill – will require vehicles to get 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020 and will add somewhere between $900 and $10,000 to the cost of buying a car, dependent upon which expert is consulted.

A WORSENING global food shortage is a problem far more urgent than climate change, top Australian scientists have warned. The Australian Science Media Centre briefing heard why prices for some staple foods had risen by as much as 60 per cent in the past year, and how dramatic price rises are expected to sweep across all staples in the near future.

Germany warned Thursday that a European Commission plan to auction pollution rights threatened key sectors of German and European industry.

 Some of the text of the comic strip: “More than 400 prominent scientists around the world now say they have major objections to the so-called ‘consensus’ that global warming is ‘man-made.’ Never fear, however; the ‘consensus’ on ‘man-made’ global warming in the mainstream media is as healthy as ever.”

There was only a question of time until politically correct energy rationing and reality TV would meet…

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Worthy of its own post (I didn't want it to get buried in the last one) is today's column by John Locke Foundation president John Hood, who follows up all the work done by his people and by the Beacon Hill Institute with his own devastating perspective:

Remember when your math teacher required you to show your work? There’s a good reason for it. In this case, thanks to diligent spade work by Carolina Journal and careful analysis by economists at Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute, it has become glaringly obvious that the “experts” consulted by (North Carolina) officials have no earthly idea what they are talking about….

…When scientists do, indeed, step forward to question the supposed consensus about an impending global catastrophe, the alarmists attempt to assassinate their character or compare them to Flat-Earthers. Only the minority of scientists who subscribe to the entire alarmist agenda are said to be credible.

They say this is science. It is precisely the opposite of science. It allows for no reasonable debate. It asserts the Truth as an article of faith, and treats dissent as heresy.

Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – no matter how much he may squawk. Whenever anyone claims that North Carolina should adopt regulations, taxes, and spending programs to combat global warming, and that the result will boost the economy and make North Carolinians better off in the future, check to see if the speaker is an economist trained to employ mainstream economic science. If not, you are permitted to respond with ridicule and contempt.

It is well worth your time to read the whole thing.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

It’s official: the so-called economic analysis that the Center for Climate Strategies is feeding to state governments is junk, which is what you would expect since their study does not quantify the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and they repeatedly misidentify costs as benefits.

Those are just some of the findings reached by the Beacon Hill Institute, who this week released a peer review study of the methodology used by CCS (and the North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group) in producing 56 recommendations for the state to act on reducing CO2 emissions. BHI did the study, in addition to a review of another economic model used by CCS (more garbage in, garbage out) to evaluate job impacts, and an earlier review that scrutinized CCS’s findings in Arizona, at the request of the John Locke Foundation. Here is the sobering assessment by BHI’s PhD economist Ben Powell, who wrote this week’s report:

The 56 global warming policy proposals now under consideration for North Carolina include ideas that would increase taxes, restrict land use, ration energy use, and raise energy costs.

“Surprisingly, the NC-CAPAG report claims that the implementation of these measures would bring ‘significant cost savings for the State’s economy,’” Powell wrote. “The NC-CAPAG report gives the impression that the state policy makers can have their cake and eat it, too, and that North Carolina can both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time actually save the economy money. Unfortunately, the seriously flawed nature of the report undermines these conclusions.”

“NC-CAPAG’s cost savings estimates are not just wildly optimistic; they are the product of a purely fictitious analysis,” Powell wrote. “Its cost savings estimates cannot be believed, and it fails to quantify the monetary benefits of reduced carbon emissions. Thus policy makers are left with no basis on which to judge the merits of the NC-CAPAG report’s recommendations for action on the mitigation of emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Finally someone is looking at the real costs (huge) compared to the alleged benefits (unidentified and not quantified) being claimed by the environmental left. Of course, it’s tough to apply statistical analysis when the only goal is to feel good about yourself.