Climategate’s Perry Mason moment

November 28, 2009

Quote of the day, from Steve Milloy:

First, by admitting that we “are nowhere close” to understanding atmospheric energy flows, the much-vaunted Trenberth has trashed all the climate models on which the gloom-and-doom IPCC forecasts are based. If energy flows in the climate system cannot be accounted for, then they cannot be modeled — and there can be no basis upon which to make predictions of future temperatures.

That’s case closed, right there. But there’s more.

To find out what else there is, and why this is a “Perry Mason moment,” read the whole thing.

After these last few revelations (and you can bet there’s more to come), the “science” of Anthropogenic Global Warming has about as much credibility as a game of three-card monte.

TRANSPARENCY: Don’t take my word (or anyone else’s) for it – search the emails in question for yourself.

Advertisements

A trillion for ObamaCare? Piker!

November 28, 2009

I’ll see your measly one-trillion dollars and raise you five-and-a-half trillion more:

One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019).  Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.”

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance.  When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax.  When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending.  But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending.  That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan.  And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs.  When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).

Here’s where things get really ugly.  TPMDC’s Brian Beutler calls “the” $2.5-trillion cost estimate a “doozy” of a “hysterical Republican whopper.”  Not only is he incorrect, he doesn’t seem to realize that Gregg and I are correcting for different budget gimmicks; it’s just a coincidence that we happened to reach the same number.

When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion.  That’s not a precise estimate.  It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be.

And this yet another example of why the progressives in Congress don’t want anyone to actually read the bills before voting on them: we might actually learn what disasters-in-waiting they really are.

(hat tip: Hot Air)


Good Climategate reporting from the MSM?

November 28, 2009

Yesterday I took a couple of well-deserved potshots at the American media for doing its best to downplay the growing scandal over the ClimateGate emails. Well, in the “to be fair about it” department, CBS posted a very good article at its web site: Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails.

Color me surprised.


Climategate and the significance of the emails

November 28, 2009

PJTV‘s Allen Barton interviews Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute on the implications of what’s been found in the emails leaked from the UEA Climate Research Unit:

RELATED: The CEI is suing the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies to force it to release its raw data regarding climate change. Like the CRU, NASA/GISS has refused to make its data available.

What are they afraid of?