Comments on: Exclusive: MIT Professor says GOP, Weekly Standard “misrepresentation” of his April 2007 study to project costs for Waxman-Markey is “inappropriate,” “silly” and “just wrong” http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/23/mit-study-waxman-markey-weekly-standard-misrepresentation-of-his-april-2007-study-to-project-costs-for-waxman-markey-is-inappropriate-silly-and-qu/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:44:51 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Marcus http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/23/mit-study-waxman-markey-weekly-standard-misrepresentation-of-his-april-2007-study-to-project-costs-for-waxman-markey-is-inappropriate-silly-and-qu/#comment-41827 Marcus Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:14:04 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5958#comment-41827 "The MIT model projects a real (inflation-adjusted) price for gasoline in 2020 of $2.40 and in 2050 of $2.10. " I am guessing that these very low gasoline prices are actually a result of the assumed policies: eg, that the demand for gasoline is dropping as most nations switch to biofuels, efficient vehicles, less driving, and electric vehicles, and as the demand drops, the price drops. “The MIT model projects a real (inflation-adjusted) price for gasoline in 2020 of $2.40 and in 2050 of $2.10. ”

I am guessing that these very low gasoline prices are actually a result of the assumed policies: eg, that the demand for gasoline is dropping as most nations switch to biofuels, efficient vehicles, less driving, and electric vehicles, and as the demand drops, the price drops.

]]> By: cougar_w http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/23/mit-study-waxman-markey-weekly-standard-misrepresentation-of-his-april-2007-study-to-project-costs-for-waxman-markey-is-inappropriate-silly-and-qu/#comment-41344 cougar_w Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:08:23 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5958#comment-41344 This looks like a setup. The problem for this professor is that the reading public wants to hear "$3,900" more than "$39" because the former probably equates, in political calculus, to "business as usual for the foreseeable future." People desperately want all this to just go away. They will volunteer to wear blinkers if the problem will just go away. Reality has nothing whatever to do with it. Whoever can make the bad problem seem to go away wins. cougar This looks like a setup. The problem for this professor is that the reading public wants to hear “$3,900″ more than “$39″ because the former probably equates, in political calculus, to “business as usual for the foreseeable future.”

People desperately want all this to just go away. They will volunteer to wear blinkers if the problem will just go away.

Reality has nothing whatever to do with it. Whoever can make the bad problem seem to go away wins.

cougar

]]> By: Rick C http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/23/mit-study-waxman-markey-weekly-standard-misrepresentation-of-his-april-2007-study-to-project-costs-for-waxman-markey-is-inappropriate-silly-and-qu/#comment-41320 Rick C Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:48:43 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5958#comment-41320 When I tried to explain this to a poster on the cleanmpg website I got slammed for being unrealistic. It just goes to show you that what Stephen Colbert said was right. Reality has a liberal bias. When I tried to explain this to a poster on the cleanmpg website I got slammed for being unrealistic. It just goes to show you that what Stephen Colbert said was right. Reality has a liberal bias.

]]>