Computer modeling

The Social Cost of Carbon: Garbage In, Garbage Out

Combined climate and econometric computer models produce any desired result.


Economists, regulators, and activists all try to calculate the social cost of carbon—that is, the economic and ecological damage caused each time we add a ton of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. If we know how much harm each additional ton of carbon dioxide causes, the thinking goes, regulators can offset the effects by putting a price on in it, in the form of taxes or regulations. Unfortunately, they calculate that price using dubious computer models. The results are an example of an old programming adage: garbage in, garbage out.

Consider the White House Interagency Working Group, which in May issued a technical document aiming to calculate carbon's costs. To estimate the monetary value of the damages caused by carbon emissions, the group focused such things as projected changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, flood damage, and ecosystem services due to climate change.

To get this figure, the Working Group ran three different integrated assessment computer models (IAMs) that combine climate science models with econometric models. The models were each run with various discount rates to obtain a range of estimates for the social cost of carbon. Discount rates recognize the fact that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow, a year from now, or a hundred years from now. (How much interest would you require to put off getting a dollar for 10 years? Congratulations: You've just estimated a discount rate.) Many analysts believe the discount rate should be inferred from market rates of return, since spending today to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be financed out of current consumption, just like any other investment.

The Working Group cranked the IAMs with discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent, and it also supplied a high-end estimate to account for possible higher-than-expected impacts of future climate change. Interestingly, the Working Group evidently ignored the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directive that 3 and 7 percent discount rates should be generally applied to determining the costs and benefits of regulatory decisions and that the outputs should be confined to domestic impacts. The 7 percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy, and the 3 percent rate is real rate of return on long-term government debt.

In any case, the White House group's new estimates for the social cost of carbon in 2020 are $12, $43, and $65 per ton of carbon dioxide in 2007 dollars (at the 5, 3, and 2.5 percent discount rates, respectively). The Working Group derived a high-end figure of $129 per ton in 2020 by looking at the worst 5 percent of the distribution of possible damages using a 3 percent discount rate. The corresponding figures for 2050 are $27, $71, $98, and $221 per ton.

Can regulators, companies, and consumers take these figures to the bank? I'm afraid not.

In an incisive new study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Robert Pindyck rips the social cost of carbon estimates derived from integrated assessment computer models to pieces. In his National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, "Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?," Pindyck concludes that the models all "have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs such as the discount rate are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the social cost of carbon estimates that models produce." Pindyck adds that the "models' descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the social cost of carbon, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome."

Pindyck is clearly right with regard to how choosing the discount rate affects estimates for the social cost of carbon. By tweaking the rate, the Working Group reported estimates for 2020 ranging from a low of $12 to $65 per ton – a fivefold difference. As Institute for Energy Research economist Robert Murphy testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in July, had the Working Group applied the 7 percent discount rate as part of its cost-benefit analysis, as required by the OMB, the estimate for the social cost of carbon would have been negligible. Murphy also noted that the OMB requires cost/benefit analysis to be reported in terms of domestic impacts, with global impacts being optional. The Working Group reported estimates using global figures only. Using the Working Group's own data, Murphy reckons that the domestic social cost of carbon could be as low as $2 per ton.

Pindyck points out the inputs for the IAMs must include projections of future carbon dioxide emissions, the amount of carbon released per dollar of GDP, future concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, average global temperature changes, changes in rainfall, hurricane frequency, sea level, economic losses due to higher temperatures, costs of abating carbon dioxide emissions, and make assumptions about the discount rate. All of these parameters can be modified to conform to the views of the modelers. "Thus these models can be used to obtain almost any result one desires," writes Pindyck.

Let's look at a couple of his examples, climate sensitivity and how future damages are calculated. Climate sensitivity is defined how much temperature would increase from doubling the amount of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial levels in the atmosphere. As Pindyck points out, climate scientists have not yet succeeded in nailing down this number. In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that climate sensitivity was between 2°C and 4.5°C, with 3°C the most probable figure. Yet more recent studies are reporting values that are significantly lower. Lower climate sensitivity suggests that humanity has more time to develop low- and no-carbon energy technologies as a way to avoid harmful man-made global warming. In any case, modelers can pick among lots of different estimates of how much and how fast future warming is likely to be. Higher warming estimates mean a higher social cost of carbon, and vice versa.

The models also try to estimate how much various increased temperatures would reduce future GDP. But Pindyck points out that no economic theory underlies such estimates; there is just not much in the way of data correlating temperature changes with economic output. Consequently, modelers use "guesswork" to come up with plausible values as damage function inputs. "The bottom line here is that the damage functions used in most IAMs are completely made up, with no theoretical or empirical foundation," asserts. Pindyck He argues that model-based "analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading."

As hard as he is on the delusions of precision promised by the computer models, Pindyck does not want to just throw up his hands when it comes to addressing problems caused by man-made climate change. The best we can do, he argues, is to sketch out "a plausible range of catastrophic outcomes" and then calculate how much it would cost now to avert those outcomes. He admits that "'plausible' would mean acceptable to a range of economists and climate scientists."

Because catastrophic climate change cannot be ruled out, Pindyck favors imposing a carbon tax that is roughly equal to the social costs of carbon concocted by the Working Group. "This," he argues, "would help establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices consumers and firms pay."

Pindyck makes a devastating argument that recent estimates of the social cost of carbon amount to garbage. But his suggestion that we count on the fever dreams of smart economists and climate scientists to formulate global warming policy doesn't seem all that plausible either.

NEXT: US Issues Worldwide Travel Warning

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A dubious computer model? In climate change research/advocacy? Well, I never heard of such a thing! I must go lie down before I’m all overcome with vapors!

    1. The mileage this failed ideology has gotten is so far out of proportion to its validity and necessity is amazing. Fucking people are still blathering on about it even though it’s completely finished, and deep down, we all know it. But they’re going to milk it for years to come.

      1. my buddy’s half-sister makes $74/hour on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 7 months but last month her pay was $21120 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more

        1. Uh. Just who’s “lap top” was she using, spambot?

          And who was paying her, Elliot Spitzer?

          1. She was actually dancing on Eliot Spitzer’s ‘laptop’ whilst sexting with Anthony Weiner.

    2. my friend’s ex-wife makes $74 an hour on the computer. She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her income was $15442 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here,,,

      1. I have a feeling that link you posted doesn’t lead to your friend’s ex-wife’s web cam of her fisting a unicorn.

        No sale, Galbreath.

        1. Site is registered in Panama. Could be some of Noriega’s family.

      2. I bet you make $74 an hour on the mattress.

        1. I think you meant $7.40 an hour on the mattress. It’s easy to lose those decimals.

    3. before I looked at the draft four $6657, I accept that…my… cousin woz like actualy bringing home money part-time from their laptop.. there moms best frend has done this for only about seven months and resantly took care of the depts on there appartment and got a gorgeous Cadillac. go to,..

  2. An honest economic assessment of CO2 emissions would look at their net effect, including the benefits of higher CO2 and higher temperatures (if you insist on including dubious results from climate models).

    An honest economic assessment of the effect of rationing or taxing CO2 emissions would look at the drag this will put on the economy.

    1. So, if the net effect is actually positive, will korperashunz get paid money for producing CO2?

      1. Not all korperashunz. But the kochtopus certainly will.

    2. “An honest economic assessment of CO2 emissions would look at their net effect,”

      This is the biggest problem I have with the whole debate. NOBODY knows what the impact of a warmer world will be. Yes, there are studdies, but the big problem has been selection bias. There are a whole bunch of scientists with an axe to grind against capitalism who are LOOKING for net-negative changes brought on by a warmer climate. And so the research tends to support that.

      But very few to no scientists are actively looking for positive changes. Yes, higher water levels may impact coastal cities, and a lot of research has been done to quantify that. But relatively little research has been done to quantify the positive impact of arid areas that get more rainfall.

      That is why this is such a farse. All the people are CONVINCED that the future will be bad, so the more they look, the more they see bad stuff and overlook anything good.

      1. Clearly, these vague and largely unquantifiable environmental threats, that may or may not happen in another 100 years, are a far bigger threat now, than is a lack of potable water or enough to eat, today.

    3. the benefits of higher CO2 and higher temperatures

      The Left seems to think the current environment must be maintained at all costs. It sounds more like they fear change and an irrational desire (justified with ‘models’ created for this purpose) to simply to keep the status quo.

      1. The status quo is the environment the human species has thrived in for its entire history. It’s more than likely that we alter that at our peril.

        Of course this bullshit is nothing (emphasize nothing) but an excuse to do nothing and keep drilling oil.

        1. Its entire history? Oh my, I do think that qualifies you officially as a flat earther. Humanity in its modern form has endured at least one glaciation which produced global temps so low that Chicago and New York were buried under literally a mile of ice. The holocene climate optimum circa 10000 years ago was significantly warmer than modern global temps. The Roman, Minoan, and Medieval warm periods were all warmer than today and evidence suggests that humans did better. Certainly it was possible to actually grow crops and livestock in portions of Greenland a thousand years ago with quite primitive technology. We can’t do that today. Meanwhile the LIA 300 years ago severely stressed human populations around the globe. And that is the Panglossian Earth you so desperately want to return to.

          What’s bullshit are your failed climate models and cargo cult science.

          1. First time you made Tony look like a complete fucking idiot, NAS?

            Even though it’s not all that difficult…

            …well done!

          2. None of the events you’re referring to were global in nature nor were they the result of as rapid a change as we’re experiencing now.

            1. The ice age wasn’t global? So right where the glacier ended half way down the United States it went from below freezing to 75?

              Do you have some secret tablet on which is written the average global temperature for the past 25,000 years?

              Oh, you don’t? Well then, you’re talking out your ass. Again.

            2. Tony, that officially qualifies as herp-a-derp.

        2. Humans thriving for their entire history? I would say the human species is thriving only recently with industrialization, oil production and massive changes to the evivoremental status quo being an essential part of it. Human life before was shorter, more violent, less comfortable. Also there were far fewer of us. Not knowing the cost of an emitted ton of carbon-dioxide is a great excuse to drill for more oil. Should we just guess and assume that the cost of incurring more climate change damages is greater than the cost of fundamentally changing our economy? If we do so, and we are wrong and the oportunity cost is actually greater than the potentially averted climate-change damages, everybody will be worse off.

    4. “An honest economic assessment”

      Can you link to one or is your point that an honest economic assessment doesn’t exist? Or that they do exist but you aren’t aware of them…

  3. Can somebody run a computer model on the economic cost of adding a tax to every ton of CO2 emitted and see what the “social cost” of that will be? Then compare that to the perceived “social cost” of the initial carbon emissions?

    1. Oh that’s easy- the cost will be negative because those taxes will be spent on stimulus that creates jobs in the Green Industry.

      Those green industries will free us from pollution, create new jobs and be a benefit to the world.

      Taxes as a cost? Sheesh. What’s wrong with you?

  4. We should use the models employed by municipal sports venues,and just changed the “pluses” to “minuses”. Social Benefits become Social Costs.

    That should work.

  5. Unfortunately, they calculate that price using dubious computer models.

    They are like the CBO economic models for Obamacare: They are tweaked repeatedly until they give the desired result. Tn this case, that the sky is falling.

  6. Bob Murphy isn’t just an economist. He’s also a respected zombie.

    1. +1 neoconfederate

  7. Them:
    Carbon Dioxide is bad because the planet Venus has an atmosphere of mostly CO2 and the surface temperature is that of mokten lead.
    Me: The atmosphere of Mars is also mostly CO2 and the temps there are about 100 degrees below zero.
    Them: You’re can’t compare Mars and Venus-they’re completely different!
    Me: But Venus and Earth aren’t?

  8. Who wants to take bets on Tony appearing in this thread?

    1. Toneee:

      Make no mistake, the problem is twofold: Naysayers and the fack thet carbon emmissions cost will be more than $278.396 trillion dollars per taxpayer by the year 2016. We must place Hitlery in charge then.

  9. BTW, Ron. Have you seen why 1978 was the BEST YEAR EVAH!

    The New Scientist says so:…..-ever.html

    1. What happened to the old one?

  10. Corporations should be taxed 100% of profits, because they can’t make profits when Earth develops a thick, corrosive Venusian atmosphere. Math!

    1. I’m sure someone will find a way, unless more government regulations get in the way.

    2. But if you taxed them 200-300% of profits just think what “investments” could be made in more EPA regulators paid for by the “revenues”. Clears skies ahead!

  11. How the fuck do you become an economist without understanding the calculation problem?

    1. Krugnutz knows

  12. the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which adjusts expenditure in 26 ways to account for social and environmental costs, such as pollution, crime and inequality

    So, if after 2 decades, your poor are 20% less poor, but your wealthy are 25% wealthier, you’ve gone backwards?

    Did they account for George Zimmerman? He’s like a 40% drag on the GPI.

    1. inequality is the new hobby horse for the left. Terms like social justice don’t wash, so as global warming became climate change to sell the concept, so justice becomes inequality because you don’t equality, do you?

      1. Perhaps the GPI should be called the Goal Post Indicator.

        GPI factor 8, Mr. Sulu! They’re onto us!

    2. Economies driven by genuine growth are denigrated for a fatuous conception of social equality, while economies sapped by cronyism (like Venezuela) are celebrated for their leaders’ lip-service to Marxist ideology. Madness.

      1. while economies sapped by cronyism (like Venezuela) are celebrated for their leaders’ lip-service to Marxist ideology.

        Everyone in Venezuela is equally able to have a shitty ass.

        1. Obamacare will encourage back-alley coat-hanger surgeries and death panels while Barack, Michelle and the girls (including Pelosi) will enjoy platinum level care.

  13. Because catastrophic climate change cannot be ruled out, Pindyck favors imposing a carbon tax that is roughly equal to the social costs of carbon concocted by the Working Group.

    Because there’s no way there can be non-catastrophic climate change.

    We get it: Change is bad. ANY change.

    1. Oh, and never mind that their calculations are complete shit, let’s run the economy into the ground with the taxes anyway.

      Good work there, Pindick.

    2. going that route, being hit by a catastrophic asteroid can’t be ruled out, either, along with a host of other not-very-likely scenarios. That’s a lot of new tax possibilities, though this is probably giving the nannies watching us ideas.

      1. being hit by a catastrophic asteroid can’t be ruled out

        This of all the economic growth created! /sarc

    3. The social costs are exactly $666 X 10^666. Pay up.

    4. We get it: Change is bad. ANY change.

      That is why they are call “progressives”. They want to move forward into the past, by not changing anything in the present.

      Didn’t you read 1984?

    5. You know, I think I have the answer to this. Obviously, this is going to be an awful, terrible thing that we’ll be facing. So, we need to save up money to deal with it. So, to do that, we need to institute an immediate halt to all federal science funding. And institute a 25% surtax on all scientists.

  14. America’s first climate change refugees: Hundreds forced to flee their Alaskan village before it disappears underwater within a decade

    Read more:…..z2aq1wQBYU
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    1. Nando, you’re the worst sockpuppet ever.

    2. Were these the same people who reclaimed the land after the ice age glaciers receded?

      1. “It is no longer protected from ferocious storms by a think layer of ice ”

        Global warming has melted the think ice!

    3. It’s Gaia’s revenge for them eating all her whales and seals.

    4. Speaking to the BBC, Kivalina council leader, Colleen Swanm, said: ‘If we’re still here in 10 years time we either wait for the flood and die, or just walk away and go someplace else.

      ‘The US government imposed this Western lifestyle on us, gave us their burdens and now they expect us to pick everything up and move it ourselves. What kind of government does that?’

      Yes, living on a sandbar and surviving on subsistence hunting really is a “Western lifestyle.”

      And you have 10 years worth of advance warning. Get thee to Anchorage and stop whining that you can’t live in your little racial enclave at the far end of the world.

      1. Holy shit that is stupid.

  15. The Earth goes through minor changes often within these overall cold or hot periods. So we shouldn’t be worried since this is all natural, right?


    The rate of temperature change is pretty fast this time and we’re seeing serious effects even within a single human lifetime. The number of species that go extinct is a direct function of the rate at which the temperature changes.

    So we should be very, very concerned since the rate of change going on now is dramatic even for the big kill times in the distant past.

    1. what we need is to put giant umbrellas in the sky to shade the earth… wait we can use clouds! problem solved.
      or we could just give all our money to the fucking POLs. problem now behind us(as in ass rape).
      or NANDO can STFU. real problem solved.

    2. The number of species that go extinct is a direct function of the rate at which the temperature changes

      Citation needed.

      You do understand that over 90% of all species that ever lived on Earth were extinct before the Industrial Revolution, don’t you? Or does that fit in with your narrative?

    3. So that would be the statistically zero rate of change over the last decade and a half? You do understand that even the “dangerous” temperature rise from the late 70’s to the late 90’s had essentially the same slope as the beginning of the century, don’t you? You know, back when humans had a trivial impact on global CO2. Even the IPCC admits that the human era starts around 1950. How could the Earth have possibly been warming before we were emitting much in the way of CO2?

      Logarithmic dependence? Please say logarithmic dependence! If you want to claim that the first bit of extra CO2 has the most impact you would be right. The problem with that understanding is that each additional ppm you add has less and less effect which basically says stop wasting your time because what’s done is done. Additional CO2 just won’t do that much. Oh, and just watch those climate sensitivities continue to come down…

  16. OT:
    Dashcam shows man getting ticketed for “running” a yellow light. Note: he took it to court and won. Town refuses comment.

    1. How dare this fucking peasant deny his masters REVENUE!

      Someone serve him a 12AM, no-knock warrant and shoot his dog.

      1. And steal his kids.

  17. I thought all the tree hugging hippie idiots like Nando and Tony loved them some trees, so why the fuck do they want to decrease the amount of CO2 that trees need to survive?

    1. Hardcore misanthropy trumps tree love with idiots like Nando and Tony.

    2. …why the fuck do they want to decrease the amount of CO2 that trees need to survive?

      Because it doesn’t help trees, a study done by a second-year grad student at UltraHipster College proved it!

      /tonyando mode

    3. It’s jus’ science.

  18. Don’t you worry, Ron, we carbon based life-forms will thrive on, and therefore balance out, any “surplus” of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere.

    1. It’s jus’ science.

  19. my friend’s ex-wife makes $74 an hour on the computer. She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her income was $15442 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here,,,

    1. She lied to you. I’ve been dropping by for a couple hours of mattress dribble in the afternoon and she’s only barely worth the $37/hr I’m paying her.
      Evidently I’m not alone, what with the $15K figure, which would explain the damp mattress.

  20. The level of delusion here is astounding. What is it about your political beliefs that requires you to behave like poo-flinging morons on this subject? The science here is not that hard to understand. The probabilities with respect to outcomes are not that hard to appreciate. None of you is being paid by the oil industry to shill, I presume, so I just simply cannot understand why it’s so difficult for you guys to view this subject dispassionately. It’s weird.

    Not much weirder than the fallacy that is the claim that because we can’t calculate the value of something exactly then that value must be zero. Maybe you’re all just a bunch of idiots?

    1. The science isn’t that hard to understand. Your hysteria is. The models upon which you base your entire premise have been falsified. NONE of them predict current global temps. NONE of them predicted the stagnation of global temps for the last 15 years. The tropical tropospheric hot spot isn’t there. Antarctic sea ice extent should be receding according to the models but it’s at record levels. Carbon sinks were going to saturate real-soon-now, but haven’t(sure seems like a well behaved diff eq to me…). 50million climate refugees by 2010. Where are they? The Maldives are drowning and need subsidy. Would that be the same Maldives that are building new airports and hotels mere feet above sea level? Himalayan glaciers GONE by 2045!! Um, nevermind. That latter one made all the more delicious by the claims that only peer reviewed Science(TM) makes it into the IPCC AR bible. Whoops. In short, anything that is actually testable from the CAGW camp has failed. Real science would move on. Cargo cult science just gets more subsidy. Emotion and hysteria and hyperbolic statements are on your side of the fence, not the skeptics’.

      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynman

      1. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Sorry, but I can’t help you. Only a dispassionate reading of the current science can–but you refuse to do so; you refuse to approach this issue outside of the bounds of your ideology.


    2. But since you are a paid sock-puppet shill for the SOROS/Clinton progressives…………

    3. Wait, who said that “because we can’t calculate the value of something exactly then that value must be zero?”

      Do you ever get tired of peddling nonsense?

      The argument is that the inability to provide a real calculation for carbon costs combined with arguments that global warming will be a catastrophe betrays ideological bias.

      Similar to how your comments are betraying an ideological bias, which you project onto everyone else.

    4. “The science here is not that hard to understand. The probabilities with respect to outcomes are not that hard to appreciate.”

      If you take the claims on faith. I don’t. I do econometrics in the course of my work. If I tried pulling some of the shit Bailey is describing, I get canned. I know enough to know I’m being bullshitted. And saying there is a non-zero cost (which I won’t stipulate to; it could well be a negative cost) does not forgive and mean we should buy into bullshit.

      1. it could well be a negative cost

        You mean longer growing seasons and more land for growing food and the ability to traverse the Northwest Passage and the lack of need for as much energy for heating could be a net benefit?! Unpossible! Warmer is bad, m’kay, cause there are a few people who might have to move inland!

  21. “You must believe whatever the ugly, violent, secretive extremest progressives tell you whether it has to do with global military intervention, drone-assassination, global surveillance, death panels, or global warming/cooling/change. It’s science and no, they will not release the documentation. It’s a secret, and the tax-paying saps have no right to challenge anything. Here’s to a little pepper spray in the eye and a trip to the mental ward!”

  22. For some reason the Carbon Scam makes me think of Tipper Gore which instantly gives me an erection that lasts longer than 4 hours, so I have to call my doctor.

    Based on current computer models mapping the frequency with which we hear about the Carbon Scam we can confidently predict one of two catastrophic outcomes:

    a) My doctor is going to become a stupendously wealthy man OR
    b) My Johnson is going to fall off.

  23. uptil I saw the check which had said $7127, I did not believe that my friend woz like they say actualey bringing home money in their spare time online.. there great aunt haz done this less than 21 months and resently repaid the debts on their appartment and bourt a great Lexus LS400. this is where I went,

  24. I’m not sure why Reaction Magazine prints this shit when we know co2 has been up to twenty times higher during past Ice Ages.

  25. And, Oh Yeah, HIDE THE DECLINE, BABY!

  26. I basically make about………$6,000k-$8,000k a month online………. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home. go to this site home tab for more detail …. http://WWW.JOBS31.COM

  27. The problem with basing policy on possible catastrophic results of having global warming is that there are also possible catastrophic results of not having it. We are, after all, in an interglacial–the more usual state of the earth for the last million + years is a glaciation and we don’t know what causes interglacials to start or end. Half a mile of ice over the current locations of London and Chicago would be quite a large catastrophe. It is possible that anthropogenic warming is all that is keeping the glaciers from coming south.

    This is one example of a more general problem–we don’t know enough to calculate the sign, let alone the magnitude, of the externality from global warming. My first piece of published economics, written about forty years ago, dealt with the same problem in the context of population growth and concluded that in that case as well we could not sign the externality, could not tell whether one more child made the rest of us, on net, better or worse off. The predictions being made then about the dire effects of population growth have so far proved strikingly false.

    1. David, it is wonderful to have you posting here, just make sure none of it rubs off on you. We can be a nasty bunch.

  28. my buddy’s step-sister makes $72 an hour on the computer. She has been laid off for 8 months but last month her payment was $12918 just working on the computer for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more,,,,

  29. GIGO was “an old computer adage” in the days of punch cards and one dimensional climate models, and moved from being a mere cliche’ to a partisan excuse for not examining parameter assumptions one at a time around the time of Ron’s epiphany that radiative forcing is real.

    The problem of partisans concatenating best or worst case assumptions to force models in the direction they want is alwys with us , but then so is its corollary- the polemic abuse of global economic models. While politically comforting , abusing their users in turn is not going to impact the economic reality, which is that if the atmosphere is worth something , altering it may have its costs .

    In other words, Ron, TANSTAAFL

  30. my buddy’s sister makes $72/hour on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $12389 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.