Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Blogging for a sustainable energy future.

Get Energy Smart! NOW! header image 2
← →

Bachman-Horner Overdrive of Global Warming Denial

April 10th, 2009 · 5 Comments

Michele Bachman, (R-MN-6), held a global warming denial promoting townhall without, par for the course for, even taking a question at the “townhall”. This session, which featured a presentation by Global Warming denier Chris Horner is most accurately described, as per the title, as the “Bachman-Horner Overdrive of Global Warming Denial”.

Despite an MIT professor’s written rejection of the misuse of his work by the Republican Party, Republicans around the country continue to distort the economic issues surrounding climate legislation with the dishonest citation of MIT as one of the crutches to their disinformation efforts.

Michele Bachman has go on the record, in writing, with spreading the lie.

According to an analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average American household could expect its yearly energy bill to increase by $3,128 per year.

Uh … FALSE … And, the author of the MIT report has directly refuted this reading of his work.

“It’s just wrong,” said John Reilly, an energy, environmental and agricultural economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the report. “It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”

Not only is it wrong, but he told the House Republicans it was wrong when they asked him.

“Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this,” Reilly said. “I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time.”

He even wrote a letter to House Republicans asking them to stop this falsification of his work. As per Bachman‘s words, this clearly didn’t stop the deceit.

And, Bachman had a range of deceit in her presentation.

For example, she happily pointed to an astroturf study that used deceptive analytical approaches to argue (FALSELY) that green programs had cost jobs in Spain.

As they say, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics … Of course, we need to add a fourth category: Statistics Spouted by Global Warming Deniers.

Tags: climate change · climate delayers · politics · republican party · truthiness

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Bachman-Horner Overdrive of Global Warming Denial | The Gaia Resource // Apr 10, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    […] Continue here: Bachman-Horner Overdrive of Global Warming Denial […]

  • 2 Paying attention to “friends” // Apr 14, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    […] in the climate ‘blogosphere’, myself not excepted, the siren’s call of tackling global warming denial, of deceitful astroturf “studies” distorting the situation, and of shoddy ‘faux […]

  • 3 Pat // Apr 17, 2009 at 11:44 pm

    The issue may be the assumption stated by the professor that the cap/trade money would be returned to the public. I do not believe Obama,s plan to spend 400B on cap and trade over the next 10 years includes 20k for my family. That would be roughly my share. If Obama is sending a check someone please let me know so I can order a truckload of beer..

    If you believe that government services and taxes and common property has no value and wish to pay no taxes, please do not drive on the roads, send your children to public schools, call the police, buy food that has been checked by the Agricultural Inspectors, etc …

    You see no value, I would suspect, to come from a smart grid and better power management. No value in job creation that will boost economic activity in your community and help reduce the numbers of people relying on welfare, unemployment insurance, food stamps. You see no value …

    And, by the way, as part of “cost-benefit”, that economic activity creates, can you say that word, taxes and government revenue. Focusing only on the “cost” without paying any attention to revenue and benefits is lunacy.

  • 4 Pat // Apr 18, 2009 at 12:01 am

    Quoting an environmental groups “research does nothing for me.

    And, I’m sure, you would reject UN research. And, well, who can trust the government. And, scientists and researchers at universities. And, who cares about Nobel prize winners.

    If you throw enough government money at green technology you will create more energy sector jobs than you destroy. This is basic economics. However, if you idle existing carbon plants, build all new green plants which cost more per unit of energy then carbon.

    Simply, what is cost? You clearly do not believe that increased asthma rates due to coal-fired electricity particulates is a cost. You clearly chose to ignore cancers from fossil fuel pollution. You do not see acidification of the oceans as relevant. … You think that one should be able to dump pollution, without regard to consequences and implications, into the common domain. If this isn’t true, then your calculations are far off.

    The net effect has to be loss of overall jobs and social wealth. An inefficient/wasteful uses of resources can not vreate wealth. If any econ geeks which to refute this be my guest. So once again the argument must come back to “but we have to or the earth will burn up. No warming in the last 11 years and the oceans are also cooling.

    Sigh. The “no warming” meme. Yes, 1998 was a warm year. There is scientific dispute over 1998 or 2005 was warmest globally in recorded records, but still it was a warm year. Climate is about trends, not one year events. What is the warmest decade in recorded temperatures? 1999 to present. The constant pointing to a year that was hot due to a strong El Nino piling on top the trend is like saying there has been a real cooling trend when Sunday was 111 degrees and Monday-Saturday to follow were only 110.

    Give me something better before I give up my SUV. Just kidding I drive an AVEO to save money but not to prevent global warming.

    Do you have any clue of what a ‘no regrets’ strategy is?

    We can do, individually and societally, a tremendous amount to cut emissions at a cost savings, at a profit.

    Smart grid will end up boosting economic performance while create efficiencies.

    Insulating houses makes them more comfortable, reduces wasteful pollution, and saves money.

    After doing these profitable activities, an “insurance” cost for paying for stronger measures is relatively inexpensive. Are you so sure that you are right and Nobel prize winners are wrong that you’re willing to not pay that small insurance premium?

  • 5 Republicans Reject Science; Scientists Reject Republicans // Jul 12, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    […] in understanding reality. Should it shock anyone that they have a liberal bias? Now, as Republicans continue to proudly flaunt their Anti-Science Syndrome (A.S.S.) suffering Haters of a Livable […]