John Reilly, the M.I.T. scientist whose cap-and-trade analysis has generated the #1 Republican talking point on the issue, is no doubt frustrated. GOP lawmakers have twisted his work beyond all recognition, and try as he might, Reilly, the source of the Republican lie, can't stop the lie from spreading.Brian Beutler wrote up this helpful timeline:
* April, 2007: Reilly and several coauthors release a paper titled "Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals," which estimates early annual revenues from such legislation would run $366 billion
* Sometime between April, 2007 and March, 2009: House Republicans get a hold of his paper, divide $366 billion by the number of households in America, and conclude, erroneously, that the quotient ($3,128) will be the average cost per home.
* March, 2009: Republicans begin using this number in press releases, citing Reilly's study
* Shortly thereafter: The Obama administration gets in touch with Dr. Reilly and asks him to explain his study and the number -- he corrects the record.
* A week or so ago: Independently, a woman who says she's with the House Republicans calls Reilly -- aware of the number, she invites him to come testify against cap and trade legislation. Reilly informs her that her number is probably wrong, and that he supports cap and trade legislation.
At that point, the story should end. But it just keeps going.
Of course, the method Republicans used to get the $3,128 was itself absurd. Brad Plumer noted that the GOP's arithmetic "brushes off the fact that most carbon revenue would be rebated back to consumers, and that certain conservation measures could help reduce energy bills. But the actual MIT study implies that the welfare cost would be around $31 per person in 2015, rising to an average of $85 per person per year -- not including the benefits of cleaner air and a habitable planet."
But what's especially frustrating isn't just the bogus claim or the ridiculous policy analysis, it's that John Reilly told Republicans that they were wrong, and they kept lying anyway.
They relied on Reilly's scholarship, but when Reilly implored the GOP to tell the truth, they couldn't be bothered. As a result they've lied in press releases, they've lied in op-eds, and they've lied, over and over again, in speeches.
Saying something that's not true is a policy problem. Repeating the false claim after having been told it's not true is a character problem.
Yglesias: George Will Doesn’t Understand What a Trend Is
Another doozy from George Will on climate change:
Reducing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming, which is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics published by the World Meteorological Organization, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998.
I really think anyone working at The Washington Post or in conservative journalism who has a shred of intellectual conscience has a duty to stand up to this kind of nonsense. As the Secretary General of the World Metereological Organization wrote in The Washington Post two weeks ago:
Data collected over the past 150 years by the 188 members of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) through observing networks of tens of thousands of stations on land, at sea, in the air and from constellations of weather and climate satellites lead to an unequivocal conclusion: The observed increase in global surface temperatures is a manifestation of global warming. Warming has accelerated particularly in the past 20 years.
It is a misinterpretation of the data and of scientific knowledge to point to one year as the warmest on record — as was done in a recent Post column [”Dark Green Doomsayers,” George F. Will, op-ed, Feb. 15] — and then to extrapolate that cooler subsequent years invalidate the reality of global warming and its effects.
I’m beyond caring what Will is thinking or doing here. But what on earth are the Post’s editors doing? This is an obvious fallacy, and the Post itself has run a thorough debunking of this talking point. Why did they do that if they intend to keep using their brand to enhance the credibility of Will’s misrepresentations? It’s unfathomable. Why would you expect anyone to pay money to read a newspaper that publishes willfully misleading information?
Benen: OBAMA'S CENSUS DIRECTOR....
Given the recent Republican uproar over the Obama administration and the census -- Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) believes the president will use the census as part of an elaborate conspiracy to keep Democrats in power for up to "40 years" -- there's been more interest than usual in the president's choice as census director.
Now that Obama has chosen an expert in statistics and sampling, the GOP is even more upset.
Robert M. Groves, a former census official and now a sociology professor at the University of Michigan, was nominated Thursday by President Obama to run the Census Bureau, a choice that instantly made Republicans nervous. [...]
Republicans expressed alarm because of one of Mr. Groves's specialties, statistical sampling -- roughly speaking, the process of extrapolating from the numbers of people actually counted to arrive at estimates of those uncounted and, presumably, arriving at a realistic total.
If minorities, immigrants, the poor and the homeless are those most likely to be missed in an actual head count, and if political stereotypes hold true, then statistical sampling would presumably benefit the Democrats.
And what matters more than an accurate, reliable count is a census that undercounts those who might be inclined to vote for Democrats. Adam Serwer summarized the matter nicely: "Republicans are mad about the census choice because his ability to do his job correctly might benefit Democrats."
Groves, by any reasonable measure, is uniquely qualified for the post, and was associate director of statistical design at the Census Bureau in the H.W. Bush administration. Mark Blumenthal explained, "It is something of an understatement to describe Robert Groves as 'an expert in survey methodology.' He is one of our nations' most respected survey methodologists and arguably the leading authority on the subject of non-response in surveys."
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and of the institutions more embarrassing members, described this nomination as "incredibly troubling" and evidence that the administration wants to use the census to "advance an ulterior political agenda."
Blumenthal responded to these complaints, noting, "The notion of Bob Groves yielding to partisanship is laughable. As in rolling on the floor laughing out loud laughable. Groves is well known and universally respected among survey researchers and Census Bureau professionals alike. He is an ideal choice for this appointment."
No comments:
Post a Comment