they also use as their base much of the data that was "massaged" by Mann, Jones, Briffa et al. as they say Garbage in Garbage out. Kind of like your posts.

Let me try putting it a different way, Mike.

The Pembina Institute released a study on the habitat range of the Sasquatch. Then along came Jack "what conclusions would you like me to reach" Mintz and Stephen "theories always trump reality" Gordon claiming the Pembina study is bull because they failed to account for the Sasquatch's dietary requirements.

What nobody has taken into account is that the economic theories that underwrite all of this are as bogus as Sasquatch.

No, most economic theories.

Unless Pembina is going to let us access their model, it's impossible to say, exactly, how important it's going to be (in terms of magnitude). But it's a really obvious variable that needs to be included. In fact, it's probably the *most* important variable and it's left out of the discussion entirely!

I can't give you the name of a single person in Bangladesh that would die if worldwide temperatures rose 4 degrees, but that doesn't make it any less of a concern.

It's not a matter of being 'theoretically' wrong, Dot, it's one of the major worries about the negative effect any attempts at reducing CO2 is going to have to the economy. The authors of the study are assuming the major question away. It's like disproving the theory of evolution by first assuming that the earth is 6000 years old.

Despite your and McClelland's objections, there isn't a single serious economist in Canada who sees this as a worthwhile assumption, including the folks at progressive-economics.ca.

You're assuming that Jaccard himself sees that as a worthwhile assumption. He may not – we don't know *why* he included it, unless you know something I don't.

All models have simplifying assumptions, in both the social sciences and the natural sciences. The art of modeling is to include assumptions that do not overly alter the underlying dynamics of what is going on. As such, economists put in assumptions they're uncomfortable with quite often – usually because they have to (typically because if they don't, it's because the math doesn't work without the assumption). Using a static model to estimate tax changes ten years out is a whopper. I would bet dollars-to-donuts that there is no way Jaccard would be able to publish this in a peer-reviewed journal. Fortunately for him, he's not trying to.

"Since Jaccard teaches at SFU, Mintz is at U of C, you are at UWO part time, and Gordon is at Laval, this looks to me like an economics internal turf war, or factional battle."

LOL – yeah, that well known Ivey-to-Laval-to-Calgary Axis. If there is a 'internal turf war' here (which, there isn't), it would be a methodological one. Economists have methodological debates all the time. Science isn't conducted by majority rule, but that being said, given that every single economist who has spoken publicly about this assumption has spoken out against it, and the economist who used it hasn't commented, should indicate something.

It seems to me Jaccard was a member or did modelling also for the NRTEE. I think his modelling was the basis for suggesting the current gov'ts policies (whatever they might be) would be inadequate to meet its target goals for 2020.
http://www.canadian-universities.net/News/Press-R…

Do you know if Jaccard also used similar assumptions when he did the modelling for the NRTEE? If so, were the same criticisms of his model assumptions made at that time, or was he using different ones? If not, why not? I presume his work there was the basis for this latest engagement.

No, I wouldn't call it an everyone hates SFU turfwar, more of I hate the guy making all of this consulting money turfwar.

If you were going to go the 'follow the money' route try considering the source of the funding TD Bank. Yes, they are notoriously cheap – that's why they show up annually at Ivey recruiting in their multiple stretch limos.

Oh, and you forgot another FP critic and University economics prof – one of Coby's favourites: Ross McKitrick of Guelph. Here's what he wrote Nov 3rd, before all of the piling on:

The cost estimates were done by Mark Jaccard's team in Burnaby, B.C. The technical report is a serious piece of work that tries to put some numbers onto far-reaching energy policy shocks. Although I have reservations about their modeling work and their cost estimates, they deserve credit for trying. It is astonishing and unacceptable that there has been nothing on this subject from Ottawa. Why do we even have a Department of Finance anymore? There should have been detailed cost estimates long before now. Instead we are sleepwalking into some of the most disruptive and costly energy policy misadventures since the National Energy Plan of the 1970s without the Conservatives having published a single estimate of the economic consequences.

http://www.financialpost.com/related/topics/story…

Perhaps his target is the proper one – the fed gov't for not supplying anything. It's very easy to criticize, I've found . Hence why I asked S. Gordon for a more appropriate report if we should discount this one, as he suggests. Not surprising, no reply from anyone. That speaks more to me than some questionable assumptions that may/may not be significant.

What are you talking about?

Go to S. Gordion's blog and read my comments, as I indicated in my first comment here. I posted as "Just visiting from macleans".

Btw, get over the Pembina fixation. It was commissioned by TD Bank and modelled by Jaccard. You sound like someone from Alberta, where the latest criticism originated.

Thanks for the link!

That's a very strange assumption. Particularly since, if they wanted to, they could assume carbon tax revenue is used to finance reductions in the corporate income tax and make a reasonable argument that this would increase capital flows into Canada. Then again, I couldn't imagine the Pembina institute calling for corporate income tax cuts.

Just for the record, I believe they were supportive of the Liberal or Green party plans in the last campaign both of which included a carbon tax shift, including reductions in corporate taxes.

So, let's review how this consensus of thought came about.

The Canada West Foundation, a very partisan western based think tank releases a critique of the TD bank – Jaccard study on Dec 10th.

That very same day, Jack Mintz from the School of Public Policy, University of calgary, publishes an op-ed in the National Post, picked up and quoted by Stephen Gordon in his blog. The Mintz op-ed repeats the CanadaWest Foundation criticisms.

Also, on that very same day, Dec 10th, uber partisan CAPP shill columnist Deborah Yedlin of the Calgary Herald repeats unfiltered, and embellished, a column piece reminding Pembian that it gets a significant amount of funding from oil interests, and also wonders if TD banks outlooks suddenly look less "Wild Rosie". Of course, Ms Yedlin assumes readers know she is married to a very significant oil analyst at a very significant Investment bank.

It's easy to see how one might be inclined to associate Pembina incorrectly, given the "spontaneous" media coverage.

i'm no expert on equalization, but i'm pretty sure Ab was a recipent…can't say for how long though.