The climate is always changing. Fortunately, the climate of the climate reporting is changing, too. News that would fill the front pages of all the newspapers just a year ago are ignored by the media today.
Five days ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its findings about the impact of the proposed American Power Act (APA):
And they "calculate" that the probability of the Armageddon is 99 percent if the APA is rejected and only 25 percent if it is approved. It's a great conclusion because it effectively identifies APA with non-Armageddon :-) and it was published by a "powerful" institution whose administrator has the right gender as well as the right race ;-) so it would surely be promoted by the media during the peak days of the AGW era.
Still, something had to change about the media because, as Susan Kraemer in Scientific American noticed, the media ignored the "story". A few media that noticed the documents wrote about the costs, rather than benefits, of the bill.
The EPA thinks that it would only cost O(100) dollars per person and year to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%. That's extremely unlikely because just your electricity bills could triple (the solar/wind alternatives that would have to thrive are 5 times as expensive) - check whether your bills are just $50 per year today or more (it's $1,400 per average U.S. household and year now!) - and the same changes would affect your gasoline and many products (and services) that need a lot of energy during production (or execution).
Needless to say, the document is complete rubbish in its non-economic points, too.
Even if the climate sensitivity were 3 °C as they assume, rather than closer to 0.5-1.5 °C which is what it is, the 2010-2100 change would be affected by other terms comparable to 0.5-1.5 °C (ocean cycles, volcanoes, and many other effects). The behavior of countries other than the U.S. would be uncontrollable by America. The temperature change would also depend on the region (note that the bulk of Antarctica has seen no warming for 50 years) and even the change by 2 °C would have no significant impact on the life anywhere. The report is indefensible at all levels.
Via Marc Morano
Bonus: Maurice Strong and birth
In 1972, Maurice Strong explained that even Canada would have to introduce permits to have babies. A decade ago (1997-2005), he would be Kofi Annan's main guy over similar policies. Others from the doomsday sect, including James Hansen and Ted Turner who co-funded the U.N. program, have been at the top for years, too. Let's hope that the times are finally beginning to change.