A number of things occurred to me while reading this.
As the article says, "ya can't get somethin' for nothin' ". I don't care what it is.
The trouble is that these models embody wildly unrealistic assumptions: there are no business cycles; the economy is always at "full employment"; strong growth is assumed, based on past growth rates; the economy automatically accommodates major changes -- if fossil fuel prices rise (as they would under anti-global warming laws), consumers quickly use less and new supplies of "clean energy" magically materialize.
Of course. How do they sell this ridiculous idea without pie-in-the-sky assumptions? But the next paragraph was really telling:
There's no problem and costs are low, because the models say so.
Modeling the economy is almost as difficult as modeling the climate. If they are willing to fudge economic models to get their agenda passed, isn't it reasonable to believe they would fudge climate models?
The Green Agenda is not about "Saving the Planet". It's about making a Socialist Utopia come true. Where everyone behaves as they are told. Where there are no business cycles and there is always full employment, thanks to Big Brother.