“If you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.”  Yes, that old ditty from grade school has direct relevance from time-to-time.  The atrocious ACCF/NAM study on the fiscal implications of climate legislation seems to take this adage to a new level. 

As already noted in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Statistics from industry on pollution control costs, this report works with absurd assumptions, such as that the annual wind power introduction into the electricial grid will have an upper limit lower than what occurred in 2007. Reminder: wind power installations (in the US and globally) have been growing over 20 percent year. This study assumes (makes ASSes out of U and ME, Seriously) that the installation rate goes backward.  Where they can be determined, the so-called “study”‘s assumptions run counter to common sense.

Footnotes matter and this “report” done by SAIC for the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has a doozy of a note. Page 3, Footnote 4, the last sentence reads:

“The input assumptions, opinion and recommendations are those of ACCF and NAM, and do not necessarily represent the views of SAIC.”
This is extremely strong from SAIC, from a company contracted to do the analysis. Does this means that the SAIC team is very uncomfortable with the assumption set that they were told to work with and do not want to take responsibility for this?
Now, in their press release and website announcement of this report, the NAM advertised and promoted this with the following words:
Conducted by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), the independent study examines the implications of the legislation with respect to future energy costs, economic growth, employment, production, household income and the impact on low income earners.
By definition, an “independent study” would not have the form of disclaimer that the SAIC team put into this report.
How is it an “independent study” if all the “input assumptions” are provided to the research team?
How can it be an “independent study” if the “opinions and recommendations” are not those of the study team?

4 responses to “ASS-U-ME

  1. Pingback: Putting some Hill Heat on Lobbyist Truthiness « Energy Smart

  2. Pingback: Reviews are coming in: NAM/ACCF are full of it! « Energy Smart

  3. Pingback: Environmental Capital - : Strange Bedfellows: Manufacturers Lobby For Clean-Energy Subsidies

  4. Pingback: Alle Jahre wieder… « Dulsberg-Nord

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s