Actual journalism has been committed:
That’s because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.
When you put the inflation-adjusted price of gas on the same chart as U.S. oil production since 1976, the numbers sometimes go in the same direction, sometimes in opposite directions. If drilling for more oil meant lower prices, the lines on the chart would consistently go in opposite directions. A basic statistical measure of correlation found no link between the two, and outside statistical experts confirmed those calculations.
“Drill, baby, drill has nothing to do with it,” said Judith Dwarkin, chief energy economist at ITG investment research. Two other energy economists said the same thing and experts in the field have been making that observation for decades.
The statistics directly contradict the title of GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s 2008 book “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less,” as well as the campaign-trail claims from the GOP presidential candidates.
I can’t wait to see how the Politifact folks will spin this.
cathyx
I thought the rising prices was because of speculation.
Shinobi
PANTS ON FIRE. Everyone knows that more supply makes prices go down. So while graphs may indicate that prices are independent of supply, they are wrong, because of common sense.
JPL
The local newspaper AJC.com (Atlanta) highlighted this story. Unfortunately, the true believers won’t bother reading the article but at least it’s a start.
Baud
@JPL:
The true believers aren’t the audience we should be concerned about — they are a lost cause.
dmsilev
(Looks at source analysis). Huh. An R^2 of 0.0038 for the correlation between oil production and gas prices. That’s pretty damn uncorrelated.
(R^2^ = 0 is completely uncorrelated. R^2^=1 is a perfect linear relationship)
Edit: FYWP
Short Bus Bully
This shit is too complex. It’s all the fault of the lazy blackity black black black…
/wingnut
Cluttered Mind
Pants on fire. Judith Dwarkin said that “drill, baby, drill” would not work, but Newt Gingrich clearly said “drill here, drill now, pay less.”
How’d I do?
tofubo
it’ll only rate a mostly false, because there are only two thruthful statements in it
Baud
@dmsilev:
I’m assuming that’s U.S. oil production and prices. I would expect global oil production would have a more significant effect on prices.
MikeJ
@JPL:
But you can bet your ass they’ll comment.
dmsilev
@Baud: That’s correct. Domestic production and pricing, since this analysis was aimed at seeing if there was any truth behind the “Drill baby, drill” blathering. There was a weak correlation between gas prices and gas consumption, which isn’t too surprising.
PeakVT
One of Fallows readers catches NPR doing the same thing.
jl
@JPL:
I heard this story twice driving to work this morning on the local CBS news station.
Maybe some news outlets are looking for an excuse to actually do something rather than sit around and emit hack boilerplate.
Let’s hope more organizations are looking at McClatchy and some others and wondering ‘Gee, what if we had actually factual news to report… what would that be like?”
I won’t hope for much from most of the national corporate media organizations.
Though, this is an AP story. Who is in charge of AP news now? The Ron Fournier types have moved out of AP, or what? Anyone know?
khead
Forget Politifact.
Check out my favorite southern WV wingnut – Smokey Shott.
David Koch
“Drill baby, drill”
Bristol Palin has that tattooed on her cooch.
jl
@dmsilev: I can’t find the Rsquare of 0.0038 in the link at the top of the post. Is it there or another link I missed?
Gus
Seriously? It’s simple. The lamestream media is in the bag for Obama. It doesn’t get any easier than that.
dmsilev
@jl: If you go to the third page of the story, down at the bottom is this link which is a document containing the source data, a scatter plot, and the statistical analysis. Scroll down to page 12 for the analysis.
El Cid
I think we need a Stand And Drill Your Ground Law allowing anyone to shoot their yard as much as they want until oil begins flowing.
piratedan
I wish I could make folks understand that once the government has sold the rights to allow someone to drill/mine/exploit, that the resources extracted belong to the company that bought the lease, not the country on whose land the lease resides. For all of these yahoos that don’t want the government involved in nationalizing industry seem to forget that corporate multinationals are not “subservient” to any one national entity and as such, those resources are bound to the international marketplace.
David Koch
@El Cid: laugh, but that worked wonders for Uncle Jed.
Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.)
They’ll say it’s mostly untrue. How could they not? It’s so clear:
It says right there: “the numbers sometimes go in the same direction, sometimes in opposite directions.” And it further says, “If drilling for more oil meant lower prices, the lines on the chart would consistently go in opposite in directions.” This means that what they’re saying is that drilling for more oil means higher prices, so the lines should always go the same way. And they don’t! Q.e.d.
jrg
It’s safe to report this. The ’08 campaign is over.
However, If the Romney campaign makes the same statement, some truthyness will be needed to even things out, so a claim that Obama once sodomized an ewok while visiting Bill Ayers in Equatorial Guinea will have to be rated “mostly true”. ’cause balance… And both sides do it.
JPL
Call me cynical but when the news media covers, talks about and/or prints that the keystone pipeline can help China or where ever more than us, then I’ll believe in journalism again.
dww44
Well, along the lines of “both sides do it”, from the linked article at ABC News is this little gem, though, while true, just makes me chuckle.
So, I don’t remember. Did we blame Bush’s policies, aside from invading Iraq, as a factor in influencing gas prices at the pump? I know we didn’t urge him to go a drillin’. That wouldn’t be in our nature.
amk
Pants on fire. This drill baby drill shit works. Just tell the guy at the pump that noot sent you.
jl
@dmsilev:
Thanks. I missed the link because I was looking for highlighted hyperlink.
The analysis is ridiculously over simple: an ordinary linear regression done using data from a two dimensional scatter plot. The statistical consultant did two simple Granger causality tests to check that direction of causality was consistent with the regression specification.
On other hand, if the task at hand is to test a ridiculously over simple hypothesis that some one puts forward, then good enough for the purpose at hand.
Ball in is in their court to explain why there is no evidence for their ridiculously over simple theory, and see if they take the trouble to try to do better (my bet is that they won’t try).
I downloaded the data, to play around with it when I have time. Which I won’t have, unless I can fit it into learning a new stat program I need to use for a project.
WyldPirate
Just for balance and “both sides do it bullshit” those journalist in Cole’s link a deed this at the bottom of page 2:
ruemara
On ABC, no less? Will wonders never cease.
The Republic of Stupidity
@David Koch:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah… ya beat me to it…
The Republic of Stupidity
Just asking…
Did that need Clinton’s signature, or was another one of those bills that could have withstood his veto?
WyldPirate
@The Republic of Stupidity:
I didn’t bother looking the bill up in the Congressional Record, but it was signed in the last month of Clinton’s second term.
Greg
It passed the House 217-214 and the Senate 52-43, so theoretically Clinton could have vetoed. But it wasn’t voted on by itself, it was bundled up into a giant consolidated appropriations bill that included stuff like Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP benefits, etc.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR04577:@@@R
Bill D.
More domestic oil production *will* help our balance of trade/current account deficit so there is a definite economic benefit. As the post states, though, the oil *market* is global so we don’t get the lower prices some are hoping for. Those happen when the economy goes down for a time, when a scary geopolitical issue shows real improvement, or even when high global prices stimulate enough new global production and conservation for a time.
I predict we will open up the remaining major undrilled areas in the U.S. in time… like when gas gets to $15-20/gallon. Actually, exploiting this oil under those conditions means it will last longer as it’ll be consumed under conditions of much higher prices so it will be used more carefully.
The resulting environmental damage is a whole other matter, though.
AA+ Bonds
Hmm I wonder if maybe capitalism is premised on the ignorance of the masses
AA+ Bonds
A contributing factor, at the very least, if we must be Red about it
liberal
@Bill D.:
That must be weighed against the likelihood that currently the government charges way too little for the resources. Much better to leave it in the ground as long as possible, to see if that might change.