ctr for data analysis

=
this is actually crit: <div class="top" style="padding-bottom: 2.08333vw; display: flex; justify-content: space-between; font-family: grotesk;"><h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 23.9143px; text-transform: uppercase;">RELEASE FORECASTS THAT WOULD HAVE SHOWN A SEVERE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN</h3></div>For over 40 years, the White House has published economic forecasts, including on growth and unemployment, as part of its midyear budget update to Congress. But this year, the White House decided to <a target="blank" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/21msr.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-color: rgb(237, 56, 43); transition: color 0.1s ease 0s;">omit such projections</a>. Officials <a target="blank" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/28/white-house-coronavirus-economic-projections/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-color: rgb(237, 56, 43); transition: color 0.1s ease 0s;">told The Washington Post</a> that the volatility caused by the pandemic made it difficult to model economic trends and that “there is no statutory requirement to release this information, just precedent.”Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a Republican adviser, criticized the move for getting the White House “off the hook for having to say what the economic outlook looks like.”Trump has <a target="blank" href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1282888821001072640" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-color: rgb(237, 56, 43); transition: color 0.1s ease 0s;">repeatedly predicted a rapid rebound for the economy</a> ahead of November’s election, but projections by the CBO, Federal Reserve and outside economists <a target="blank" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/18/economic-recovery-coronavirus-328684" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-color: rgb(237, 56, 43); transition: color 0.1s ease 0s;">suggest</a> that a full recovery may take years. As of early October, more than 12 million Americans were formally unemployed—double the number before the pandemic struck—and another 7 million Americans wanted a job but were not actively seeking employment. Congress and the White House have been unable to agree on the size and direction of a second stimulus bill that would aid workers and businesses.=
crc ludwig ~ Paris, social cost carbon:
<div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Creatures of the Green Lagoon: San Francisco Mega-Foundations Bankrolling Eco-Activism (full series)</div><div><a href="https://capitalresearch.org/article/creatures-of-the-green-lagoon-part-1/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Paris Rises from the Dead</a> | <a href="https://capitalresearch.org/article/creatures-of-the-green-lagoon-part-2/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Tom Steyer</a> | <a href="https://capitalresearch.org/article/creatures-of-the-green-lagoon-part-3/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Sea Change Foundation</a></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="https://capitalresearch.org/article/creatures-of-the-green-lagoon-part-4/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;" /><a href="https://capitalresearch.org/article/creatures-of-the-green-lagoon-part-4/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">Energy Foundation</a> | <a href="https://capitalresearch.org/article/creatures-of-the-green-lagoon-part-5/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">ClimateWorks Foundation</a></div>Summary: San Francisco is awash in five things: Homeless people, discarded needles, garbage, human feces, and virtually unlimited cash for the environmental Left. This once great city by the bay is ground zero for a bundle of mega-donors, pass-through funders, and powerful activist groups trying to “green” America’s prosperity and energy independence into oblivion. In its place they envision the stuff of nightmares: the end of the oil, gas, and coal industries; nationwide fracking bans; a return to the Paris Climate Agreement; an unprecedented spike in household energy prices; a radical Green New Deal; and “environmental justice” retribution to punish so-called climate polluters with fines and even prison sentences.“Do as I say, not as I do” [elite hypocrit bs]may as well be the motto of the environmental Left. From their [ivory? biz?] towers, eco-mandarins prognosticate a coming climate apocalypse and the freedoms we must sacrifice to stave it off. Yet they almost never live with the consequences of their own policies. The same global warming gurus who tell Midwestern Americans the icecaps are melting and the seas are rising because Americans still drive cars live in the world’s toniest coastal cities and own private yachts and jets.[not as many as putin or as bid, oligarch and FF ceos, joe manchin "houseboat?" NRA yacht for security?]]No city is a greater testament to climate hypocrisy than San Francisco, home to some of the eco-Left’s biggest mega-donors: the <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/sea-change-foundation/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Sea Change Foundation</a>, the pass-through <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/energy-foundation/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">Energy Foundation</a>, and Tom Steyer’s nonprofit network. Between them these giants have paid out over $2 billion in grants over the past two decades, almost all of it to left-wing groups lobbying for the disastrous Paris Climate Agreement, fracking bans, and a Green New Deal—the most extreme environmental policy agenda in American history. [vs NEPA et al signed by Nixon?]This is the so-called New Energy Economy, paid for by billionaire hedge fund managers and ideologically motivated, tax-exempt foundations eager to remake America in their own image. Ironically, one of the billionaires, Steyer, earned much of his fortune trading in the oil and natural gas industry. If they get their way, expect a grim future of poverty and “environmental justice” prosecution in Soviet-style “People’s Courts.” [what is basis for this bs?]Will Paris Rise from the Dead?On November 4, 2020—the day after the presidential election—the United States formally withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, an international climate change agreement entered into by President Barack Obama in 2015 and a major 2016 campaign promise of President Trump.While Obama officials negotiated the agreement as a foreign treaty, it never received a vote in the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate—analysis strongly suggests that environmental groups even <a href="https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/11/04/ditch_parisand_save_america_582938.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">advised</a> the administration against describing Paris as a “treaty”—despite the Constitution’s clear requirement that foreign treaties must be ratified by the Senate. Nevertheless, proponents widely treated the agreement as legally binding (and so unassailable) because it forced enormous greenhouse gas emissions targets on the country.[NOT BINDING YOU FECK]By one <a href="https://www.heritage.org/impact/president-trump-cites-heritage-research-paris-climate-change-agreement" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">estimate</a> <a href="https://www.heritage.org/impact/president-trump-cites-heritage-research-paris-climate-change-agreement" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.heritage.org/impact/president-trump-cites-heritage-research-paris-climate-change-agreement</a>   [note slIght of hAND]based on a U.S. Energy Department model, the Paris Climate Agreement could have cost the average family of four over $20,000 in lost income, raised household energy prices by as much as 20 percent, and cost the economy $2.5 trillion by 2035. Yet the effects on the global temperature would be minuscule. If United States cut all of its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, it would result in an estimated decrease of less than <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/320522-paris-treaty-a-bad-deal-based-on-flawed-logichttps:/thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/320522-paris-treaty-a-bad-deal-based-on-flawed-logic" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box;">two-tenths of a degree</a> Celsius by the end of the century.Trump’s withdrawal from the disastrous “treaty” [WHen was the last actual treaty signed?  last time congress declared war?  gop awash in dark FF $] was a landmark victory for constitutional government and the American economy—but under a Democratic administration that victory has been reversed, and the country has <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/paris-climate-agreement/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">reentered</a> the Paris Climate Agreement after President Joe Biden signed an executive order to that effect, as he <a href="https://www.influencewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/11/biden-2020-energy-revolution-plan.-11.09.2020.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box;">promised</a> during presidential campaign to do on “Day One.”That’s a scalp [odd slippage of metaphor, rt is master of character/hits]for activists in the eco-Left, the loudest supporters of the Paris “treaty,” none more so than Tom Steyer.In the <a href="https://capitalresearch.org/article/creatures-of-the-green-lagoon-part-2/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent;">next installment</a>, meet Tom Steyer—billionaire, major Democratic Party donor, former Democratic presidential candidate, and dedicated environmentalist with a wide streak of authoritarianism [says the trump [putin?] fan].REF who will spk for the greed?<a href="https://www.heritage.org/impact/president-trump-cites-heritage-research-paris-climate-change-agreement" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.heritage.org/impact/president-trump-cites-heritage-research-paris-climate-change-agreement</a>MAY 15 NO NAME "HERITAGE IMPACT]PResident Donald Trump cited <a href="http://archive.org/details/CSPAN_20170430_060400_Pres.Trump_Harrisburg_speech_only/start/932.1/end/1010.1" target="blank" data-external="yes" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Heritage Foundation research</a> on the Paris climate change agreement during his speech in Harrisburg, Pa., that marked his 100th day in office. “On top of that, it is estimated that for compliance with the agreement could ultimately shrink America’s GDP by $2.5 trillion over a 10 year period,” said Trump.  The figure is drawn from <a href="http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-paris-protocol-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">a report by Heritage experts Kevin Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris, and David Kreutzer</a>. They concluded that the Paris climate accord would inflict devastating economic costs for practical no environmental benefit.<a href="http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-paris-protocol-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-paris-protocol-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero</a><blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; padding-left: 2.5rem; border-left: 1px solid rgb(217, 227, 233); margin: 1.875rem 19.3438px 3.125rem 101.552px; line-height: 1.875rem; display: inline-block; clear: both; width: 589.979px; float: none;">“Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:  <ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.77778;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; list-style: outside disc;">An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; list-style: outside disc;">An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; list-style: outside disc;">A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; list-style: outside disc;">An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; list-style: outside disc;">Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent.”</li></ul></blockquote>This is not the first time the Trump White House has relied on Heritage research into climate change regulations. In March, Trump issued an executive order undoing an Obama-era policy requiring the EPA to consider the “social cost of carbon” when making regulations. Trump’s order was inspired by <a href="http://dailysignal.com//2013/09/16/scrutinizing-the-social-cost-of-carbon-comment-to-the-energy-department/" target="blank" data-external="yes" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">a 2013 Heritage analysis</a> finding that the EPA’s models were fundamentally flawed.
<a href="http://dailysignal.com//2013/09/16/scrutinizing-the-social-cost-of-carbon-comment-to-the-energy-department/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">http://dailysignal.com//2013/09/16/scrutinizing-the-social-cost-of-carbon-comment-to-the-energy-department/</a> Rolling back the “social cost of carbon” policy and other climate regulations could boost the economy, <a href="http://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/rolling-back-climate-regulations-will-boost-us-economy" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Loris wrote in March</a>.----=
wASHINGTON, D.C.—The Heritage Foundation's <a href="https://www.heritage.org/staff/paul-winfree" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Paul Winfree</a>, director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and <a href="https://www.heritage.org/staff/norbert-michel" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Norbert Michel</a>, director of Center for Data Analysis, released the following statement after the U.S. Senate's confirmation of Bill Beach to be commissioner of labor statistics at the U.S. Department of Labor. Beach previously worked at Heritage as the founding director of the Center for Data Analysis. Paul Winfree: “The Senate’s confirmation of Bill Beach as BLS commissioner is just excellent. Bill is an exceptional leader and economist. His commitment to objectivity and transparency is critical for the Bureau. I suspect that Bill will expand data collection while bringing an innovative mindset that will excite economists everywhere.” Norbert Michel: “Bill Beach was the long-time (and founding) director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. He is a gifted economist with a long track record of overseeing original statistical research on topics such as labor, Social Security, trade, and tax. Beach has always displayed a staunch commitment to producing high quality quantitative research, making him an ideal candidate to run the BLS.”
The State of Climate Science: No Justification for Extreme PoliciesApril 22, 2016 
Hysteria over global warming is now pervasive in the federal government, driving not just the Obama Administration’s energy and environmental policies, but also those of nearly every federal department and agency.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn1" name="ftnref1" id="ftnref1" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[1]</a> Throughout his term in office, President Obama consistently has said that policy action to combat man-made global warming is imperative and urgent. On the premise of fighting climate change, the Obama Administration has positioned the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, vehicles, and oil exploration, and taxpayers are being forced to spend billions of extra dollars in an attempt to transition to a carbon-free economy. The Pentagon has been ordered to incorporate climate change in weapons testing and training, on the dubious notion that climate change is one of the world’s biggest security threats, [BC THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY SAID IT WAS FOR DECADES ]thus diverting resources to the point that actions to combat the theoretical threat of climate change are undermining the U.S.’s ability to respond to the real threats of terrorism and global conflict.Beyond the waste and misallocation of taxpayer dollars, these policies enable cronyism, favoring elites and undermining the fairness of our economic system.Importantly, whether one thinks global warming poses little or no threat or that the planet is on a path toward catastrophe, the cumulative climate effect of these policies, if implemented, would be a change in the earth’s temperature almost too small to measure. It is important that policymakers understand the historical context of the global warming debate, what the data does—and does not—tell us about global warming, where there is consensus in the scientific community and where there is not, and what impacts global warming regulations can realistically be expected to have on the environment.the ConsensusThe Myth of the 97 Percent. There are profound uncertainties in nascent climate science. Nevertheless, global warming hypotheses have been narrowed in the press and public debate to a “consensus” view of catastrophic global warming in a political world that prizes agreement and confidence over exploration, and a media that thrives on crisis. This advances neither science nor sound public policy.A common claim among proponents of action on climate change is that the overwhelming majority of climatologists agree on global warming science. One commonly cited statistic is that 97 percent of climatologists agree on global warming. This 97 percent number is recited and embellished by politicians and environmental activist organizations pushing to decarbonize America and the world’s energy sector. In a 2014 commencement speech at Boston College, Secretary of State John Kerry said, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn2" name="ftnref2" id="ftnref2" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[2]</a> This is, in fact, not the case.The figure comes from a 2013 Cook et al. study in Environmental Research Letters that examines the abstracts of nearly 12,000 academic papers on climate change and global warming between 1991–2011. Of those papers, 66.4 percent expressed no opinion on anthropogenic warming, 32.6 percent “endorsed” anthropogenic warming, 0.7 percent rejected anthropogenic warming, and 0.3 percent were unsure of the cause.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn3" name="ftnref3" id="ftnref3" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[3]</a> Of the 33.6 percent expressing an opinion on man-made global warming, “97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn4" name="ftnref4" id="ftnref4" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[4]</a> Importantly, the claim says nothing about urgency or danger.Cook’s paper was the subject of much criticism. Richard Tol, a professor at the University of Sussex, warned that “[t]his claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low.”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn5" name="ftnref5" id="ftnref5" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[5]</a> David R. Legates, former director of University of Delaware’s Center for Climatic Research, along with three other researchers, analyzed the same set of papers in the Cook study. They found that a mere 0.3 percent of all papers, or 1 percent of the 4,014 papers expressing an opinion on the matter, claim that the majority of warming since 1950 is man-made.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn6" name="ftnref6" id="ftnref6" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[6]</a>Further, the Cook et al. study is misleading as to what there is consensus on and glosses over major points of uncertainty and disagreement in the scientific community. To be clear, Cook et al. do not attempt to quantify how much global warming is man-made, or even say that man-made emissions contribute to the majority of global warming. The specific or even generalized amount of warming caused by anthropogenic emissions, according to Cook’s study, is undetermined. Furthermore, the search terms Cook used to aggregate the climate papers exclude research papers from climate “skeptics,” such as MIT atmospheric physicist and former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contributor Dr. Richard Lindzen.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn7" name="ftnref7" id="ftnref7" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[7]</a>The 97 percent statistic is nothing more than a false talking point; no overwhelming consensus exists among climatologists on the magnitude of future warming or on the urgency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Biases in Climate Research. There is increasing concern that climate science and scientific reviews are no longer truly independent. The state of climate science should be concerning to everyone, regardless of where scientific evidence leads and how policymakers choose to act on scientific knowledge.The IPCC has had a powerful role in defining the scientific and political conversation and conclusions about global warming, especially through its guide for policymakers. Its prematurely declared “consensus” that global warming is dangerous, accelerating, and instigated by carbon dioxide (CO2) has had a far-reaching influence, conflating scientific research with certain economic, energy, agricultural, and social policies. Many scientists and scientific institutions consequently have become quasi-political lobbies.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn8" name="ftnref8" id="ftnref8" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[8]</a>The U.S. is not insulated from the political biasing of climate science; in fact, it actively contributes to it. U.S. taxpayers help fund the IPCC, having contributed $10 million in 2015,<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn9" name="ftnref9" id="ftnref9" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[9]</a> in addition to the $22 billion spent within federal agencies.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn10" name="ftnref10" id="ftnref10" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[10]</a> Rather than fostering scientific discovery in a field that is a mere few decades old, the U.S. government instead appears to express bias in funding science that supports federal climate policies.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn11" name="ftnref11" id="ftnref11" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[11]</a> And while there has been relatively little comprehensive study into the government’s potential conflict of interest, there have been numerous personal reports of government bias in climate research. As Dr. Judith Curry, climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences of the Georgia Institute of Technology, recently testified before Congress:<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; padding-left: 2.5rem; border-left: 1px solid rgb(217, 227, 233); margin: 1.875rem 19.3438px 3.125rem 101.552px; line-height: 1.875rem; display: flex; clear: none; width: auto; float: none;">I recently received [an e-mail] from a scientist employed at NASA: “I was at a small meeting of NASA-affiliated scientists and was told by our top manager that he was told by his NASA boss that we should not try to publish papers contrary to the current global warming claims, because he (the NASA boss) would then have a headache countering the ‘undesirable’ publicity.”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn12" name="ftnref12" id="ftnref12" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[12]</a></blockquote>In addition, there have been high profile efforts to stifle non-government research that challenges global-warming catastrophism. For instance, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D–RI) proposed criminal investigations into scientists and funding organizations for what he and others deemed “a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people” on climate science.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn13" name="ftnref13" id="ftnref13" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[13]</a>Frequently avoiding discussion on the merits of the science, critics of skeptics attempt, instead, to discredit the speaker.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn14" name="ftnref14" id="ftnref14" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[14]</a> Some scientists who were otherwise well-respected in the international scientific community have faced incredible pressure directed at their character rather than the quality of their science. For instance, Professor Lennart Bengsston, acclaimed Swedish meteorologist, gave some concerning reasons for his resignation just weeks after joining the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF):<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; padding-left: 2.5rem; border-left: 1px solid rgb(217, 227, 233); margin: 1.875rem 19.3438px 3.125rem 101.552px; line-height: 1.875rem; display: flex; clear: none; width: auto; float: none;">I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore [sic] than resigning from GWPF. I had not [been] expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc…. I would never have expect[ed] anything similar in such an original[ly] peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn15" name="ftnref15" id="ftnref15" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[15]</a></blockquote>More broadly, differing hypotheses and healthy scientific debate are shut down or discounted on the pretext that further scientific exploration and debate are dangerous, because our children and the future allegedly are at stake. President Obama has contributed to this by making anti-science statements, for example, castigating those with different opinions as part of the “flat earth society” with their “heads in the sand,” and encouraging people to “find the deniers near you—and call them out today.”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn16" name="ftnref16" id="ftnref16" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[16]</a>Conversely, politicians using catastrophic global warming as the basis for legislation have “camouflaged controversial policy decisions as science,” a trend that George Washington University’s Susan Dudley [koch] calls the “scientization” of politics.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn17" name="ftnref17" id="ftnref17" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[17]</a> There are numerous examples of this in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) defense of its Clean Power Plan (CPP).For example, while the EPA is quick to tout the number of lives saved according to its models, giving the rule a tone of scientific weight, the EPA has never clearly stated the most pertinent piece of information: What would be the impact on global temperatures—the supposed mechanism by which lives would be saved? Instead, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy claimed that the CPP was about “an investment opportunity”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn18" name="ftnref18" id="ftnref18" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[18]</a> and “the tone and tenor”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn19" name="ftnref19" id="ftnref19" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[19]</a> of the Paris climate negotiations. Another example is the President’s rejection of the permit application of the Keystone XL pipeline.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn20" name="ftnref20" id="ftnref20" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[20]</a> Despite the State Department concluding that the project would not contribute significantly to climate change, the President rejected the application, citing climate concerns as a major reason.<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 500;">A Brief History on Global Climate Change and Where We Are Today</h3>Climate change has been occurring ever since the earth’s formation 4.5 billion years ago. Long before any industrial activity, the earth’s average temperature increased and decreased for centuries.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn21" name="ftnref21" id="ftnref21" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[21]</a> The Medieval Warm Period (c. 950–1250) and earlier periods may very well have been as warm as or warmer than the present.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn22" name="ftnref22" id="ftnref22" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[22]</a> Since 1860, the planet has been recovering from the Little Ice Age (1300–1850) and has gradually warmed.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn23" name="ftnref23" id="ftnref23" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[23]</a> Climate research offers many theories to explain the cause and magnitude of changes in the earth’s temperature. Natural variations in climate such as fluctuations in solar activity, volcanic activity, or ocean oscillations like El Niño have all contributed to global warming and global cooling.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn24" name="ftnref24" id="ftnref24" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[24]</a>Chart 1 shows estimates of average world temperature variation for the past 1,000,000 years. As there were no appreciable human CO2 emissions over that span, the very significant changes were all due to natural causes. <a href="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/_{/media/infographics/2016/bg3119/bg-climate-science-chart-1-825.jpg}" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;"><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="399" src="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/_{/media/infographics/2016/bg3119/bg-climate-science-chart-1-600.jpg}" width="600" style="box-sizing: inherit; height: auto; border: none; max-width: 100%;" /></a>More recently, the focus of the climate debate has centered on man-made or anthropogenic warming, particularly as a consequence of the burning of natural resources like coal, oil, and natural gas and the associated carbon dioxide emissions. Looking only at a very narrow window of the Earth’s climate history, many climatologists and politicians claim the recent period of warming is evidence of a dangerous human-induced warming.While much is known about basic atmospheric physics, the gaps in our knowledge are significant.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn25" name="ftnref25" id="ftnref25" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[25]</a> However, a discussion of these large gaps in scientific knowledge is largely missing in the media and policy arena.Broad agreement does exist, even among those labeled as skeptics, that the earth has warmed moderately over the past 60 years and that some portion of that warming can be attributed to carbon dioxide emissions.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn26" name="ftnref26" id="ftnref26" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[26]</a> There are some credible scientists who also believe man-made carbon dioxide emissions have played almost no role in warming.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn27" name="ftnref27" id="ftnref27" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[27]</a> However, no consensus exists that man-made emissions are the primary driver of global warming or, more importantly, that global warming is accelerating and dangerous. Climatologists differ on the various causes of climate change, the rate at which the earth is warming, the effect of man-made emissions on warming, the most accurate climate data and temperature sets to use, and the accuracy of climate models projecting decades and centuries into the future.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn28" name="ftnref28" id="ftnref28" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[28]</a>The idea that the science of climate change is “settled” is an absurdity, contrary to the very spirit of scientific enquiry. Climate science is in its infancy, and if its development follows anything resembling the normal path of scientific advancement, we will see in the years ahead significant increases in our knowledge, data availability, and our theoretical understanding of the causes of various climate phenomena. Will future progress confirm the fears of those currently most alarmed about global warming? Perhaps. Just 45 years ago, however, some climate experts and environmental activists feared a coming ice age. C. C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn29" name="ftnref29" id="ftnref29" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[29]</a>Dire predictions for both global cooling and global warming have been found to be grossly inaccurate. The science may be settled that man-made emissions have had some impact on the earth’s temperature, but the consensus stops there.<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 500;">What the Scientific Data Tells Us About Climate</h3>Taking the World’s Temperature. The use of different data temperature sets, whether it is global surface temperatures or satellite measurements, is one of the major points of contention in the climate debate. There is no perfect dataset for world temperature and no single thermometer that measures average annual world temperature. The NASA dataset, which declared 2015 as the warmest year on record, takes measurements from thousands of sites around the world. However, these sites do not provide even or comprehensive coverage of the Earth’s surface, nor are the sites immune to contamination from land-use changes—all of which add noise and uncertainty to the world temperature measurements.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn30" name="ftnref30" id="ftnref30" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[30]</a> Even the weather stations in the U.S., arguably the best of any country, have serious problems with data quality.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn31" name="ftnref31" id="ftnref31" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[31]</a>Because of these quality and measurement issues, the keepers of these data employ a set of adjustments to address their many problems. However, such adjustments can introduce biases. A researcher that comes to the data compilations process with a preconceived notion that the world is warming may be eager to explain why the raw data shows no such temperature trend, and quick to accept a rationale for adjusting older temperatures down and more recent temperatures up. These are exactly the adjustments that have been made. Indeed, one investigator found that results from even the very best data stations (which should need the least adjustment) were adjusted to show greater warming.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn32" name="ftnref32" id="ftnref32" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[32]</a>In recent years, the perceived need by global warming alarmists to adjust the data has increased dramatically. The leveling off of world temperatures in the unadjusted temperature record is in stark contrast to the accelerating warming forecast by the IPCC climate models. This hiatus in global warming has been an embarrassment to those who base their dire climate predictions on these poorly performing computer models.So, perhaps, it should be no surprise that in a June 2015 article in Science magazine, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) authors attempted to eliminate the pause in warming by ignoring their own satellite data and introducing new global ocean surface temperature sets whose readings are taken from buoys and engine-intakes on vessels.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn33" name="ftnref33" id="ftnref33" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[33]</a> Intended or not, the adjustment process again seems to have inserted an upward bias to the temperature trend.Thus, there are serious questions about NOAA’s new data set. That this has become the data set for official proclamations is troubling, especially since there are other data sets that appear to be superior.Dr. Judith Curry recently compared five data sets of global temperatures and found that all but one show the warming trend has been essentially flat for various periods exceeding 10 years in length during the past 18 years.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn34" name="ftnref34" id="ftnref34" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[34]</a> More specifically, the observed climate data show a significant moderation of the warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, depending on the endpoints chosen, recent warming has been modest or even negative (slight cooling).No one knows how long the temperature trend will stay near zero. Climatologists have different theories as to where temperature trends will head and what will drive climate change. The Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age for a couple of centuries and recovering from a real ice age for thousands of years; it is simply impossible to know whether any observed current warming is a continuation of this natural trend or represents some new man-made phenomenon. Regardless of what fraction of the observed warming is due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the actual temperature trends are not troubling.Climate Models Versus Reality. With observed temperatures rising much more slowly than anticipated, the Administration’s claim that urgent action is required to head off dire consequences of global warming is based on the predictions of climate models—elaborate mathematical representations of various causes and effects related to global temperature. Regrettably, even the best model can hope to be no more than a rough approximation of the real world. The more complex the system, the more likely a model will miss important details. Climate is among the most complex phenomena ever attempted to be modeled, and a comparison of actual temperatures to predictions made by climate models shows how imprecise and imperfect the current models are.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/_{/media/infographics/2016/bg3119/bg-climate-science-chart-2-825.jpg}" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;"><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="539" src="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/_{/media/infographics/2016/bg3119/bg-climate-science-chart-2-600.jpg}" width="600" style="box-sizing: inherit; height: auto; border: none; max-width: 100%;" /></a>  None of the major data sets (including the adjusted NOAA/NASA data set) shows the accelerating warming projected by the IPCC models.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn35" name="ftnref35" id="ftnref35" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[35]</a> Award-winning NASA scientists Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer have shown that the IPCC models project warming that is twice as much as has been observed in both satellite and surface data sets.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn36" name="ftnref36" id="ftnref36" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[36]</a>The chart above compares actual temperatures from the earth’s bulk atmosphere as measured by satellites and weather balloons, to average theoretical temperatures from 102 model runs.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn37" name="ftnref37" id="ftnref37" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[37]</a> The results are striking—the models fail to do a reasonable job at predicting the past 30 years of temperatures, yet alarmists attempt to use them to forecast temperatures centuries from now.Many errors could account for the failure of the models to predict actual temperatures accurately. One that is widely suspect—equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—lies at the heart of the process. ECS is an attempt to quantify the earth’s temperature response to CO2 emissions, answering the question: How does the earth’s temperature change from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere? Recent peer-reviewed literature estimates that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is about two degrees Celsius, much lower than the IPCC’s assumed ECS of 3.0 degrees.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn38" name="ftnref38" id="ftnref38" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[38]</a>No Trends for More Extreme and Frequent Natural Disasters. Nearly every severe weather event is said to be caused by global warming, and individuals on both sides of the global warming debate claim the latest weather news as “proof” of their position. Even institutions deemed reputable mislead when it comes to the connection (or lack thereof) between extreme weather events and global warming.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn39" name="ftnref39" id="ftnref39" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[39]</a> Regrettably, it is precisely this kind of bluster that fuels and expedites political action.In fact, well-respected scientists have diverse views of the connection between global warming and extreme weather events.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn40" name="ftnref40" id="ftnref40" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[40]</a> The IPCC itself is inconclusive at best as to how to define, let alone measure, “extreme” weather.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn41" name="ftnref41" id="ftnref41" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[41]</a> Extreme weather events are a poor metric for measuring global warming given the limited data, since extreme events are exactly that—out of the ordinary. Data sets are often far too short to make many meaningful conclusions, data going back only as far as the late 1800s with earlier records often being less sophisticated and less thorough.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn42" name="ftnref42" id="ftnref42" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[42]</a>Nevertheless, some argue that even if an individual event cannot be linked directly to global warming, the collection of “extreme” weather events can. However, the most frightening weather events do not show significant trends, even as concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide have broached what was reported as a milestone 400 parts per million in 2015.Hurricanes are not becoming more frequent. The IPCC notes in its most recent scientific assessment that there are “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin,” and that there are “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency.” Further, “confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones [such as “Superstorm” Sandy] since 1900 is low.”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn43" name="ftnref43" id="ftnref43" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[43]</a>The IPCC found evidence for increases, decreases, and no trend at all in flood activity or severity.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn44" name="ftnref44" id="ftnref44" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[44]</a> Trends in local events like hail and thunderstorms were also inconclusive.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn45" name="ftnref45" id="ftnref45" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[45]</a> As for droughts, the IPCC noted that its previous conclusions about increasing trends were overstated and that “the compelling arguments both for and against a significant increase in the land area experiencing drought has hampered global assessment.”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn46" name="ftnref46" id="ftnref46" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[46]</a> Data for tornado activity in the U.S. shows tornadoes occur no more frequently now than in the past and that the number of strong tornadoes (F3 and above) has actually decreased.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn47" name="ftnref47" id="ftnref47" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[47]</a>Sea Ice, Glaciers, and Ocean Acidification. Another mainstay of the climate change alarmism movement is that glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, and the oceans are acidifying, which will disrupt ocean life and the food chain. Again, the data does not support such doomsday scenarios.Sea Ice and Glaciers. Only since the beginning of the era of satellite measurement (1979) have we had comprehensive, accurate data on sea-ice extent at the poles. Although there is significant season-to-season and year-to-year variability of world sea-ice coverage, there is no dramatic trend in global sea-ice loss. In general, the much-hyped downward trend in Arctic sea ice has been offset by a similar increase in Antarctic sea ice. The peak sea-ice area in 1979 was about 22 million square kilometers.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn48" name="ftnref48" id="ftnref48" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[48]</a> The peak sea ice in 2015 was a little over 21 million square kilometers, with the intervening period having some years with peaks above that of 1979 and some with dips below that of 2015.In any event, it would not be surprising to find a slight downward trend for sea ice as the late 1970s came at the end of a decades-long period of slight global cooling. While we do not have satellite records for that earlier period, it is likely that sea-ice extent was greater in 1979 than it had been decades earlier. It is also worth noting that sea ice is floating ice. The 23-century-old Archimedes Principle holds that when floating ice melts, it will not appreciably affect sea level.Permanent land ice is the defining feature of an ice age. Glaciers, the remnants of the ice ages, still persist at high elevations and high latitudes. Glaciation has retreated dramatically since the last ice age, though the retreat has not been at a constant rate and sometimes goes in reverse (sometimes for thousands of years).<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn49" name="ftnref49" id="ftnref49" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[49]</a> These rates and reversals vary by time and by region. In addition, it should be noted that factors other than average world temperature can change the size of glaciers.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn50" name="ftnref50" id="ftnref50" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[50]</a>Sea Levels. Though every year seems to bring on a prediction of imminent sea-level rise more dire than the last, the observed reality does not reflect this. Corresponding to the recovery from the Little Ice Age, sea level has risen about eight inches in the past 130 years. During this period, the rate of this rise has varied on multidecadal time scales making identifying exact reasons behind upswings, such has been observed over the past few decades, difficult. But whatever the cause, the current rate of sea-level rise (about 12–13 inches per century) lies far beneath alarmist projections of several feet or more by the year 2100.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/_{/media/infographics/2016/bg3119/bg-climate-science-chart-3-825.jpg}" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;"><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="494" src="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/_{/media/infographics/2016/bg3119/bg-climate-science-chart-3-600.jpg}" width="600" style="box-sizing: inherit; height: auto; border: none; max-width: 100%;" /></a> Chart 4 shows that since the last ice age, sea level has risen over 400 feet. Even the high end predictions of sea-level rise for the next century are on the order of 1 percent of the change since the last ice age.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/_{/media/infographics/2016/bg3119/bg-climate-science-chart-4.jpg}" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;"><img alt="" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" height="778" src="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/_{/media/infographics/2016/bg3119/bg-climate-science-chart-4.jpg?h=778&w=400}" width="400" style="box-sizing: inherit; height: auto; border: none; max-width: 100%;" /></a> Ocean Acidification. The oceans are not currently acidic, nor do any projections show them likely to become acidic. Acidity is measured by pH level where seven is neutral, above seven is basic, and below seven is acidic. At this time the pH of the oceans is a little over eight.Changes in the ocean’s acidity could have both positive and negative effects. According to NOAA, photosynthetic algae and seagrasses may benefit from higher CO2 levels. On the other hand, some shelled organisms, including oysters, clams, sea urchins, corals, and calcareous plankton could be at risk if a more acid environment interferes with the calcification process.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn51" name="ftnref51" id="ftnref51" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[51]</a>Studies show that estimated changes in ocean pH levels are within the ranges experienced in the past. The IPCC says that the ocean pH level has declined 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial era. To put that in perspective, the current pH difference between the Arctic Ocean and the Indian Ocean is about 0.16.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn52" name="ftnref52" id="ftnref52" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[52]</a> In fact, some places have daily pH changes well in excess of those projected from rising CO2 levels.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn53" name="ftnref53" id="ftnref53" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[53]</a>Oceans both absorb CO2 from and release CO2 to the atmosphere. As atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rise, so will the equilibrium levels in the ocean. This higher level of CO2 will in turn reduce the pH level, but the levels are not projected to get anywhere close to acidic (less than 7.0). The oceans will remain basic.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn54" name="ftnref54" id="ftnref54" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[54]</a><h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 500;">The High Costs and Negligible Benefits of Climate Policy</h3>Despite trends in the actual climate data and the failure of models to accurately depict reality, many alarmists still argue that carbon mitigation policies are necessary to combat damages caused by future climate change. Heritage Foundation research has found that any sort of carbon tax, cap and trade, or other combination of carbon regulations such as the regulations on new power plants and existing ones (the Clean Power Plan) will only kill jobs and cut income, all without having any meaningful impact on global temperatures, now or in the future.Higher Energy Bills, Less Economic Growth. A Heritage Foundation analysis<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn55" name="ftnref55" id="ftnref55" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[55]</a> estimates that, by 2035, the costs of the Obama Administration’s climate agenda to be:<ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.77778;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; list-style: outside disc;">An average employment shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; list-style: outside disc;">Average employment shortfall in manufacturing of 200,000 jobs;</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; list-style: outside disc;">An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of more than $2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted); and</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.25rem; padding: 0px; list-style: outside disc;">A total income loss of more than $20,000 per family of four (inflation-adjusted).</li></ul>Higher energy costs hurt low-income families the most as they spend a disproportionate percentage of their budget on energy bills. In fact, EPA Administrator McCarthy admitted that the Clean Power Plan would do as much, saying, “We know that low-income, minority communities would be hardest hit.”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn56" name="ftnref56" id="ftnref56" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">[56]</a>No Climate Benefit. The climate return, if any, is negligible as the President’s climate policies will have next to no impact on global temperatures. The same climate sensitivity modeling as used by the EPA shows that totally eliminating all CO2 emissions from the U.S. would moderate any warming by only 0.137 degree Celsius by 2100.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn57" name="ftnref57" id="ftnref57" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[57]</a> If the entire industrialized world totally eliminated all CO2 emissions, only 0.278 degree Celsius of warming would be averted by the end of the century.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn58" name="ftnref58" id="ftnref58" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[58]</a>Even supporters of the Obama Administration who believe global warming is a crisis have complained the Administration’s efforts fall pathetically short of what is needed.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn59" name="ftnref59" id="ftnref59" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[59]</a> EPA Administrator McCarthy has admitted in congressional testimony that the benefits of the Clean Power Plan cannot be characterized in terms of global temperature reductions.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn60" name="ftnref60" id="ftnref60" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[60]</a> Secretary of State John Kerry perhaps put it most clearly while speaking at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):<blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; padding-left: 2.5rem; border-left: 1px solid rgb(217, 227, 233); margin: 1.875rem 19.3438px 3.125rem 101.552px; line-height: 1.875rem; display: flex; clear: none; width: auto; float: none;">The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what—that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.</blockquote><blockquote style="box-sizing: inherit; padding-left: 2.5rem; border-left: 1px solid rgb(217, 227, 233); margin: 1.875rem 19.3438px 3.125rem 101.552px; line-height: 1.875rem; display: flex; clear: none; width: auto; float: none;">If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions—remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions—it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn61" name="ftnref61" id="ftnref61" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[61]</a></blockquote>Even the benefits of the Obama Administration’s climate policies need to be qualified. For example, the EPA claims that the Clean Power Plan, which is only one of a suite of the Obama Administration’s climate regulations,<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn62" name="ftnref62" id="ftnref62" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[62]</a> will prevent up to 90,000 asthma attacks, 300,000 lost days of school and work, and 3,600 premature deaths. What the EPA does not communicate clearly to the public, however, is that none of these health benefits come from decreasing carbon dioxide emissions to avoid global warming, but from coincidental benefits (or “co-benefits”) from reducing other air pollutants which the EPA already heavily regulates. In essence, the few health benefits the EPA claims from this one rule are actually double counted from other regulations.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn63" name="ftnref63" id="ftnref63" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[63]</a> And virtually none are the result from climate change mitigation. In addition, the EPA’s health claims do not square with the data that show asthma rates rising even as levels of these very same pollutants fall.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn64" name="ftnref64" id="ftnref64" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[64]</a>Social Cost of Carbon Deceptively Inflates Costs and Benefits. Underpinning the EPA’s proposed regulations and theoretically determining the degree of regulation is a cost-benefit analysis that uses the social cost of carbon (SCC). At least as it is currently calculated, the social cost of carbon is fundamentally unsuited for regulatory use. It purports to show the economic damage that one ton of carbon dioxide emitted in a given year will cause over the next 300 years. However, many of the factors used to calculate the SCC are arbitrary or imprecise.The higher the SCC, the greater the alleged benefits of carbon-cutting regulations. The SCC as calculated by the federal government has created a way to make more expensive global warming rules seem like a good deal.The EPA uses statistical models of the environment and economy (called integrated assessment models), to determine the value of the SCC. Regulatory use of the SCC is disturbing, because the method for determining the value of the SCC is fundamentally arbitrary. Even some proponents of policies to cut carbon dioxide emissions have pointed out the fatal flaws, particularly in the way the statistical models calculate damages from CO2 in estimating the SCC.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn65" name="ftnref65" id="ftnref65" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[65]</a>The EPA’s Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) distribution is also outdated and no longer considered scientifically defensible.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn66" name="ftnref66" id="ftnref66" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[66]</a> It was specified by Gerard Roe and Marcia Baker in the peer-reviewed journal Science in 2007. During the past few years, many more ECS distributions have been published in peer-reviewed literature, suggesting lower probabilities of extreme global warming.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn67" name="ftnref67" id="ftnref67" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[67]</a>Heritage Foundation research has illustrated that the statistical models used to estimate the SCC are “flawed beyond use for policymaking,” noting that the models can be easily manipulated by user-selected assumptions. In fact, under reasonable alternative assumptions, one of the models used to estimate the SCC provides a negative estimate of the SCC—implying that there are net benefits to global warming, which would argue for subsidizing, not taxing, CO2 emissions.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn68" name="ftnref68" id="ftnref68" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[68]</a>Ultimately, these models mislead the public and misinform politicians. Politicians should not base policy actions on models which have yet to accurately describe data from observed reality.Green Handouts Have Economic and Real Environmental Costs. Among the supposed benefits is that the Obama Administration’s climate actions stimulate investment in renewable energy technologies like wind, solar, and bioenergy with federal tax credits, grants, loans and guarantees, worker training programs, and RD&D. Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Ceres estimate that $12.1 trillion in renewable energy investments globally must be made in the next 25 years to keep global warming to two degrees Celsius.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn69" name="ftnref69" id="ftnref69" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[69]</a>Setting aside the harms federal subsidies do to the very industries they intend to help,<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn70" name="ftnref70" id="ftnref70" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[70]</a> renewable energy sources have their own negative environmental impacts, like other energy choices, despite their “green” image. By one calculation, roughly 310 square miles are required on average for a wind facility to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity and 60 square miles for a solar facility. By comparison, a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant requires 1.3 square miles on average.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn71" name="ftnref71" id="ftnref71" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[71]</a> Yet so many federal subsidies and regulations are geared toward replacing energy-dense (and therefore space-efficient) resources like coal with surface-hogging, intermittent renewables.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn72" name="ftnref72" id="ftnref72" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[72]</a>Preventing a Better Standard of Living, Here and Abroad. Speaking at a preliminary climate meeting, the environmental minister of India, Prakash Javadekar, said: “Unless we tackle poverty, unless we eradicate poverty, we cannot really address the climate change.”<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn73" name="ftnref73" id="ftnref73" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[73]</a> As a measure of general economic wellbeing, America’s GDP per capita was $54,629 in 2014. China’s was $7,590 and India’s was $1,581.<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-state-climate-science-no-justification-extreme-policies#ftn74" name="ftnref74" id="ftnref74" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">[74]</a> A mere 25 years ago, China and India’s GDP per capita were a few hundred dollars per person.Developing nations like India and China argue they should not have to forgo economic growth simply because past growth by developed nations raised world CO2 levels. The developing countries also need economic growth powered by affordable energy. While China does have serious air and water quality problems, they are not from carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. However, the Obama Administration’s climate regulations and international leadership at global warming venues like the UNFCC run directly counter to allowing the affordable, reliable, and widely available energy essential for combating poverty. Energy heats homes and meals; powers schools, hospitals, and factories; and creates products and opportunities that help lift people out of poverty.Eighty percent of the world’s energy needs are met through carbon dioxide emitting natural resources like coal, oil, and natural gas. Preventing and significantly restricting their use is a huge barrier on the road out of poverty for billions of the world’s poorest.<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 500;">Conclusion</h3>President Obama has made global warming a legacy issue for his Administration. The green stimulus, the Clean Power Plan, the regulations on new power plants, the rejection of Keystone XL, more stringent regulations on vehicles, reliance on the social cost of carbon and the Paris Protocol, these have all been done in the name of global warming. There is, however, little in real climate science to argue for the urgency and magnitude of these policies. The expensive and invasive climate policies are a non-solution to an unlikely problem. Congress and the next Administration should reverse course on climate policy in order to unchain economic potential and allow for the world to adapt to the real problems the future may bring.—David W. Kreutzer, PhD, is Senior Research Fellow for Energy Economics and Climate Change in the Center for Data Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation. Nicolas D. Loris is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity. Katie Tubb is a Policy Analyst for the Roe Institute. Kevin D. Dayaratna, PhD, is Senior Statistician and Research Programmer in the Center for Data Analysis. The authors would like to thank Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger for his very helpful comments.
=
HERITAGE IMPACT

Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis Earns Attention in Washington Nathaniel Ward 
Bill BeachBill Beach heads Heritage's Center for Data Analysis
Writing in the New York Times, Bruce Bartlett worries about the growing influence of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis.
Describing conservative efforts to explain the flaws in Keynesian economics, he writes:
My concern is that the Republican effort is just a smokescreen to incorporate phony-baloney factors into revenue estimates to justify unlimited tax cutting. How soon before the C.B.O. is required to incorporate estimates from the right-wing Heritage Foundation in its calculations?
It already has a very well-financed Center for Data Analysis that the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, used to analyze his budget plan last year, bypassing the Joint Committee on Taxation and C.B.O.
Ryan did turn to Heritage last year to help analyze the effects of his 2012 budget plan.
Far from competing with the Congressional Budget Office, however, Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis works with the group to help it produce more robust reports. For example, the CBO recently asked Heritage experts for technical help with their analysis of federal employee compensation.
Heritage has also worked to educate lawmakers directly about the importance of sound economic analysis. Heritage’s Bill Beach, who directs the Center for Data Analysis, testified before Congress last fall about the importance of considering the “dynamic effects” on the economy of tax policy changes.
lnx<blockquote style="margin: 1.5em 1em; padding: 45px 40px 20px 45px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; quotes: " background="background" url="url" images="images" bg.blockquote.png="bg.blockquote.png" left="left" top="top" no-repeat="no-repeat" rgb="rgb">It already has a very well-financed <a href="http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/departments/center-for-data-analysis" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Data Analysis</a> that the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, <a href="http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/heritageanalysis452011.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">used to analyze his budget plan</a> last year, bypassing the Joint Committee on Taxation and C.B.O.</blockquote><a href="http://www.myheritage.org/news/how-paul-ryan-uses-heritage-analysis-in-his-budget-plan/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">Ryan did turn to Heritage</a> last year to help analyze the effects of his 2012 budget plan.Far from competing with the Congressional Budget Office, however, Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis works with the group to help it produce more robust reports. For example, <a href="http://www.myheritage.org/news/cbo-confirms-heritage-study-on-federal-employee-compensation/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">the CBO recently asked Heritage experts for technical help</a> with their analysis of federal employee compensation.Heritage has also worked to educate lawmakers directly about the importance of sound economic analysis. Heritage’s Bill Beach, who directs the Center for Data Analysis, <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2011/10/it-is-time-to-include-dynamic-economic-analysis-in-the-process-of-changing-tax-policy" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">testified before Congress last fall</a> about the importance of considering the “dynamic effects” on the economy of tax policy changes.
=off bs
<a href="https://www.heritage.org/center-data-analysis">https://www.heritage.org/center-data-analysis</a>
the Center for Data Analysis specializes in quantitative research and simulation modeling of public policies for the Heritage Foundation. The CDA specializes in modeling the effects of federal fiscal policy, trade policy, federal social policy, and energy and environmental policy. Policymakers rely on CDA’s independent policy research in each of these areas to inform their decisions. This page lists research by CDA staff and documentation of the methodology behind CDA models, as well as notable results. It should be a useful reference for practitioners in the field of public policy. It will be updated as new publications become available. <hr style="box-sizing: content-box; height: 0px; overflow: visible;" /><h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 1.2;">Featured Backgrounders and Reports</h2>Public Finance<a href="https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/taxes-will-go-every-congressional-district-if-the-tcja-repealed" target="blank" title="Taxes Will Go Up in Every Congressional District if the TCJA Is Repealed" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Taxes Will Go Up in Every Congressional District if the TCJA Is Repealed</a> Adam Michel, Kevin Dayaratna, and Parker Sheppard | October 17, 2018<a href="https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/tax-cuts-every-congressional-district-every-state" target="blank" title="Tax Cuts in Every Congressional District in Every State" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Tax Cuts in Every Congressional District in Every State</a> Kevin Dayaratna, Parker Sheppard, and Adam Michel | July 23, 2018 Heritage Foundation Individual Income Tax Model Augmented Solow Growth Model<a href="https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-personal-and-fiscal-impact-the-social-security-2100-act" target="blank" title="The Personal and Fiscal Impact of the Social Security 2100 Act" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">The Personal and Fiscal Impact of the Social Security 2100 Act</a> Rachel Greszler and Drew Gonshorowski | June 11, 2019<a href="https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/social-security-worth-its-cost" target="blank" title="Is Social Security Worth Its Cost?" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Is Social Security Worth Its Cost?</a> Kevin Dayaratna, Rachel Greszler, and Patrick Tyrrell | July 10, 2018 Heritage Foundation Social Security ModelEnergy and Environment<a href="https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/report/assessing-the-costs-and-benefits-the-green-new-deals-energy-policies" target="blank" title="Assessing the Costs and Benefits of the Green New Deal’s Energy Policies" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Assessing the Costs and Benefits of the Green New Deal’s Energy Policies</a> Kevin Dayaratna and Nicolas Loris | July 24, 2019 Heritage Energy Model<a href="https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/report/turning-americas-energy-abundance-energy-dominance" target="blank" title="Turning America’s Energy Abundance into Energy Dominance" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Turning America’s Energy Abundance into Energy Dominance</a> Kevin Dayaratna, and Nicolas Loris | November 3, 2017<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/time-unlock-americas-vast-oil-and-gas-resources" target="blank" title="Time to Unlock America’s Vast Oil and Gas Resources" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Time to Unlock America’s Vast Oil and Gas Resources</a> Kevin Dayaratna, David Kreutzer, and Nicolas Loris | September 1, 2016<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/consequences-paris-protocol-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero" target="blank" title="Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero Environmental Benefits" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero Environmental Benefits</a> Kevin Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris, and David Kreutzer | April 13, 2016<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/unfounded-fund-yet-another-epa-model-not-ready-the-big-game" target="blank" title="Unfounded FUND: Yet Another EPA Model Not Ready for the Big Game" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Unfounded FUND: Yet Another EPA Model Not Ready for the Big Game</a> Kevin Dayaratna and David Kreutzer | April 29, 2014<a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/loaded-dice-epa-model-not-ready-the-big-game" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Loaded DICE: An EPA Model Not Ready for the Big Game</a><a href="https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/loaded-dice-epa-model-not-ready-the-big-game" target="blank" title="Loaded DICE: An EPA Model Not Ready for the Big Game" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;"> </a> Kevin Dayaratna and David Kreutzer | November 32, 2013Public Health<a href="https://www.heritage.org/public-health/report/statistical-analysis-covid-19-and-government-protection-measures-the-us" target="blank" title="A Statistical Analysis of COVID-19 and Government Protection Measures in the U.S." style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">A Statistical Analysis of COVID-19 and Government Protection Measures in the U.S. </a> Kevin Dayaratna and Andrew Vanderplas | March 18, 2021<a href="https://www.heritage.org/public-health/report/comparative-analysis-policy-approaches-covid-19-around-the-world" target="blank" title="A Comparative Analysis of Policy Approaches to COVID-19 Around the World, with Recommendations for U.S. Lawmakers" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">A Comparative Analysis of Policy Approaches to COVID-19 Around the World, with Recommendations for U.S. Lawmakers</a> Kevin Dayaratna, Patrick Tyrell, and Andrew Vanderplas | July 20, 2020<a href="https://www.heritage.org/public-health/report/the-challenges-forecasting-the-spread-and-mortality-covid-19" target="blank" title="The Challenges of Forecasting the Spread and Mortality of COVID-19" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">The Challenges of Forecasting the Spread and Mortality of COVID-19</a> Kevin Dayaratna and Norbert Michel | April 15, 2020<hr style="box-sizing: content-box; height: 0px; overflow: visible;" /><h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 1.2;">Peer-Reviewed Publications of CDA Staff</h2><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w" target="blank" data-external="yes" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND</a> Kevin Dayaratna, Ross McKitrick, and Patrick Michaels Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 22, 433-448 | 2020<a href="https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2010007817500063" target="blank" data-external="yes" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Empirically Constrained Climate Sensitivity and the Social Cost of Carbon</a> Kevin Dayaratna, Ross McKitrick, and David Kreutzer Climate Change Economics. Vol. 8, No. 2 | 2017<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1471082X16641793" target="blank" data-external="yes" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Bayesian semiparametric density ratio modelling with applications to medical malpractice reform</a> Kevin Dayaratna and Benjamen Kedem Statistical Modelling. Vol. 16, Issue 4 | 2016<hr style="box-sizing: content-box; height: 0px; overflow: visible;" /><h2 style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 1.2;">Speeches and Congressional Testimony</h2><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpSc9o9IV4c" target="blank" data-external="yes" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Cost/Benefit Analysis of the Green New Deal</a> Kevin Dayaratna International Conference on Climate Change | 2019<a href="https://www.heritage.org/testimony/healthy-oceans-and-healthy-economies-the-state-our-oceans-the-21st-century" target="blank" title="Healthy Oceans and Healthy Economies: The State of Our Oceans in the 21st Century" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Healthy Oceans and Healthy Economies: The State of Our Oceans in the 21st Century</a> Kevin Dayaratna | Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives | February 7, 2018<a href="https://republicans-science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-115-SY18-WState-KDayaratna-20170228.pdf" target="blank" data-external="yes" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s;">Methods and Parameters Used to Establish the Social Cost of Carbon</a> Kevin Dayaratna | Testimony before the Subcommittee on Environment and Oversight, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives | February 24, 2017
=ggl 1 22Showing results for heritage center for data analysis beachHeritage's Center for Data Analysis Earns Attention in ...https://www.myheritage.org › news › heritages-center-f...Bill Beach heads Heritage's Center for Data Analysis. Writing in the New York Times, Bruce Bartlett worries about the growing influence of The Heritage ...
Center for Data Analysis | The Heritage Foundationhttps://www.heritage.org › center-data-analysisThe Center for Data Analysis specializes in quantitative research and simulation modeling of public policies for the Heritage Foundation.Missing: beach ‎| Must include: beach
Heritage Experts Applaud Senate's Confirmation of William ...https://www.heritage.org › press › heritage-experts-appl...Mar 13, 2019 — “Bill Beach was the long-time (and founding) director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. He is a gifted economist with a ...
William W. Beach - USNews.comhttps://www.usnews.com › topics › author › william_w...William Beach is the director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. Recent Work by William W. Beach ...
A Report of The Heritage Center for Data Analysis A Report of ...http://s3.amazonaws.com › pdf › CDA_10-03PDFMay 5, 2010 — This Center for Data Analysis (CDA) Report ... A. Campbell, William Beach, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, “The Economic Consequences of ...
A Report of The Heritage Center for Data Analysis A ... - HACERhttp://www.hacer.org › pdf › cda_0802PDFMay 12, 2008 — THE HERITAGE CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS heritage.org. Chart 1 • CDA 08-02. Change in Total Private Employment Due to S. 2191.===