by Patrick Appel

Manzi responds:

I cited Knappenberger’s analysis for one purpose: prediction of the temperature impact of Waxman-Markey in the year 2100. I used this one source because it was the only such climate model prediction of which I am aware for this specific bill. He used the MAGIC model (which is the standard model for such analysis), linked to the site where you can download it yourself, and specified the parameter assumptions. I have done similar back-of-envelope math on this specific prediction myself, and get a very similar answer. I welcome any competent GCM-based alternative predictions, and will happily modify my analysis based on an improved forecast. I think you will find, however, that no such credible forecast will change the conclusion of the cost-benefit analysis.


Anyone? In other Waxman-Markey news, MoJo has reports on the climate lobby trying to shape the bill and on Waxman's speed reader. Wonkroom summarizes the EPA study Manzi cites in his post.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.