New research finds low cost for tackling climate change. But not when that research is reported by Planet Gore. Sterling Burnett recently authored a classic example of PG’s disinfotainment. He writes:

Has the media completely lost objectivity and the search for the “truth” with regard to the issue of global warming. The latest reason that made me ponder this question arose with the “non-story” of the recent reports by MIT and the CBO detailing the substantial costs and regressive nature of the costs that are estimated to arise if any of the current domestic proposals restricting carbon emissions to combat global warming are enacted. Despite the best efforts of Senator James Inhofe , among others, to get these studies publicized, I have barely seen a mention of the findings of either of these reports in the mainstream media.

He goes on to say, “it has surprised me how economic and science reporters have also ignored the MIT and CBO reports.” The same week I read this, however, I saw a science news article on the MIT report (“Damn you, Science magazine,” as Jon Stewart might say). The article requires a subscription, but I have copied the key figure below.

I believe Science has mislabeled the figure as to which line refers to which Congressional plan — indeed the main reason the media probably didn’t cover this study more is that 1) it is quite confusing and 2) the results are not terribly exciting, since, like most studies, MIT finds a low cost for cutting emissions.

The middle line represents a 50% cut in U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 (which is relatively close to the McCain-Lieberman targets the way M.I.T. does the math). Now that is a very deep cut — a 60% cut from current levels in just four decades.

Yet even with that deep GHG cut, as the figure clearly shows, welfare — the average citizen’s wealth — drops only 1% or less through 2040. Only PG would claim that is a “substantial” cost. That is the disinformation in PG’s post. But where is the entertainment?

Read more

April may have seemed on the cool side in this country, but globally it was the third warmest on record (and the warmest April ever over land). In fact, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reports that “globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the warmest on record for January-April year-to-date period.”

Drudge reported the April news perversely: “WARMING ON HOLD? April’s temperatures were below average…”

April temperature anomalies are shown on the dot map below. The redder it is, the hotter it is.

Note that the real news is that much of Siberia is a stunning 5°C (9°F) above average. This is especially worrisome because

1. Siberia contains probably the world’s largest amount of carbon locked away in the permafrost.
2. The permafrost is increasingly not so perma.
3. Much of that carbon would be released as methane, which is 23 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Read more

A worrisome trilogy has the day’s big news that carbon cycle feedbacks are starting to kick in, something Climate Progress has been worried about for a long time (here and here for instance):

• Climate change weakens carbon sink – ScienceAlert
• Rapd rise in global warming is forecast – TimesOnline
• CO2 sponge losing ability to soak up extra emissions – The Guardian

[The Washington Post buried this major news as a three paragraph wire story on page A10, admittedly with the most bombshell headline, "Oceans May Be Losing Ability to Absorb Carbon."]

Energy Standards Needed, Report Says – New York Times. Energy saving opportunities in American homes are immense with current technology — equivalent to the production from 110 new coal-fired 600-megawatt power plants — but new product standard mandates will be needed, according to a study by the McKinsey Global Institute. Quotable quote from McKinsey (hardly a hotbed of progressive thought): ” The study makes a strong case for what economists tend to shy away from — market intervention.”

US Says No Shift in Global Warming Stance – Reuters. Duh! So much for the claim, which we never believed, that Prime Minister Blair was “close to persuading George Bush to accept an ambitious plan to bring the world’s greatest polluters into international partnership to fight climate change for the first time.”