Included in the shortfall was $25m for a "COVID-ready campus"
To mitigate shortfall we had salary reductions of $14m
So CUB staff paid for the "Covid-ready campus" out of our salaries
Not that it failed, do we get our money back?
Had CUB simply started off online on Aug 24 rather than going online Sept 21 no campus employee would have needed to take a salary cut & campus would still have had an extra $11m as a buffer against enrollment declines
It is not a comfortable subject, but these are the facts
And I'd venture the July $25m for our "COVID-ready campus" is a significant underestimate (a colleague says $70m but I haven't see this officially)
CUB was hybrid for 19 days of instruction before going online
That equates to ~$1.3m per day (based on $25m) & still failed
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The idea it was perfect under Democrats, as @afreedma & other advocacy journos suggest, is simply wrong
The most recent NCA was totally capture by interest groups and companies that would benefit from the report - UCS, TNC, EDF, CAP, Stripe etc
Below just a few of its authors
@afreedma The head of the NCA5 stated publicly that she would never cite our work in the assessment, even though our work is by far the most cited research on economic losses in the US associated with floods, hurricanes, tornadoes
🧵Let's take a quick look at the implications of the regulations that have followed from the 2009 EPA endangerment finding
According to @C2ES_org the 2021 GHG standards for light vehicles would reduce projected CO2 emissions by a cumulative 3.1 billion tons to 2050 c2es.org/content/regula…
Over the next 25 years the world would emit 925 gigatons of CO2 assuming constant 2025 emissions and ~690Gt assuming emissions are cut in half by 2050
That means that the projected impact of the regulations would reduce global emissions by 0.0003% (constant) & 0.0004% (halved)
The idea that CO2 can be regulated out of the economy is flawed
If the purpose of CO2 regulation is to create a shadow carbon tax, then it is a horribly inefficent way to do that
Once again, all this leads us back to Congress and the need for smart energy & climate policy
🧵
The percentage of a percentage trick is increasingly common & leads to massive confusion
Here a undetectable difference of 0.01 events per year per decade is presented as the difference between a 31% and 66.4% increase (in the *likelihood* of the event, not the event itself)
The resulting confusion is perfectly predictable
Here is a reporter (NPR) explaining completely incorrectly:
"The phenomenon has grown up to 66% since the mid-20th century"
False
Also, the numbers in the text and figure do not appear to match up
I asked Swain about this over at BlooSkeye
A Frankenstein dataset results from splicing together two time series found online
Below is an example for US hurricane damage 1900-2017
Data for 1980-2017 was replaced with a different time series in the green box
Upwards trend results (red ---)
Claim: Due to climate change!
The errors here are so obvious and consequential that it is baffling that the community does not quickly correct course
The IPCC AR6 cited a paper misusing the Frankenstein hurricane loss dataset to suggest that NOAA's gold standard hurricane "best track" dataset may be flawed
JFC - Using flawed economic loss data to suggest that direct measurements of hurricanes are in error!
We’ve reached the point where an IPCC author is openly rejecting the conclusions of the IPCC out of concern over how their political opposition is correctly interpreting the AR6
The integrity of the IPCC on extreme events is now under attack
The IPCC explains that a trend in a particular variable is DETECTED if it is outside internal variability and judged with >90% likelihood
For most (not all) metrics of extreme weather detection has not been achieved
That’s not me saying that, but IPCC AR6
The IPCC also assesses that for most (but not all) metrics of extreme weather the signal of a change in climate will not emerge from internal variability with high confidence (ie, >90%) by 2050 or 2100, even assuming the most extreme changes under RCP8.5