Did You Know...

   

Bogus cap-and-trade statistic of the day

Share
By Michelle Malkin  •  June 23, 2009 02:51 PM

Conn Carroll does the math:

Most problematic is their complete omission of economic damage from restricting energy use. Footnote three on page four reads, “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor).” That’s a pretty big chunk of change to ignore. In The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP hit in 2020 was $161 billion (2009 dollars). For a family of four, that is $1,870 that they ignore.

Posted in: Enviro-nitwits

Poll: What’s the dumbest ‘climate change’ hot take of the year (so far)?

January 8, 2018 08:51 PM by Doug Powers

“Science,” but not really

Blizzard of BS: Al Gore puts temporary freeze on warm winter alarm

January 5, 2018 04:39 AM by Doug Powers

Self-perpetuating joke

Global warming predictions for snow-free, sweltering winters are happe… wait, never mind

December 26, 2017 10:19 PM by Doug Powers

Missed it by THAT much

Effects of man-made climate change turn on a dime again, Part XXIV

December 19, 2017 07:30 PM by Doug Powers

Snow job


Categories: Enviro-nitwits, global warming