Pay no attention to footnote #5
UPDATE 12:35pm: I’m now hearing NAM/ACCF has indefinitely postponed their press call to release their bogus jobs study. Apparently they’re saying they need to “further analyze” the numbers. Does that mean “even with our thumbs on the scale, we couldn’t outweigh the benefits of clean energy, so we need more time to figure out how to come up with better phony-baloney numbers”?
Two industry groups, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), are getting ready to release an “independent” study today on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. But if this study is anything like the last one NAM/ACCF released, it’ll come with a major footnote.
The latest study isn’t out yet, but I’m sure we can figure out what it’s going to claim. ACES will destroy the economy. Massive job losses! Huge increases in energy prices! Children shivering in the dark! Panic!
There’s just one problem. And it’s a biggie. Last year, NAM/ACCF released a similar study on the Lieberman-Warner bill from the same company, Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC). That study included a caveat that admitted NAM/ACCF had their thumbs on the scale:
On closer examination, footnote No. 5 of the study says that SAIC does not endorse a word of the document. According to the footnote, the study’s inputs came from the groups that paid for the report — the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), which have an interest in the results coming out that way.
SAIC used its computer model on the data, but that was the extent of its involvement. “SAIC is a policy-neutral, non-advocacy organization,” the footnote states. “Analysis provided in this report is based on the output from the … model as a result of the ACCF/NAM input assumptions. The input assumptions, opinions and recommendations in this report are those of ACCF and NAM, and do not necessarily represent the views of SAIC.”
Margo Thorning of the ACCF accepts that view but asserts that the study is not undermined.
So NAM/ACCF just used the model and got to hand-pick the inputs themselves. Gee, do you think that might have skewed the results? Just a little? And if you have to assert your study isn’t undermined … well, it’s probably already too late.
We haven’t seen the latest study yet, but it might be wise to skip straight to the footnotes. Keep an eye out for thumbprints.
Get Grist in your inbox