“Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) is a massive database containing information on the carbon emissions of over 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies worldwide. Power generation accounts for 40% of all carbon emissions in the United States and about one-quarter of global emissions. CARMA is the first global inventory of a major, emissions-producing sector of the economy.” At least that is according to CARMA an initiative of the Center for Global Development, a Washington-based think tank.

But according to environmental consultant Shakeb Afsah, of Performeks, the overall data and the analytical architecture of CARMA are flawed. Afsah’s findings are detailed in a new report ‘Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA): Climate Activism Built on Specious Data’ at a new website, www.climatedataduediligence.org.

Polar bears are now a “threatened species” according to the Interior Department. The Associated Press reports, “This is the first time that the Endangered Species Act has been used to protect a species threatened by the impacts of global warming.”

This is not true. The staghorn and elkhorn coral were the first species to be protected back in 2006. In 2007, the Interior also decided to protect the coral’s habitat. Polar bears come in third.

According to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, two thirds of the polar bear population could disappear in fifty years because of melting sea ice. It is estimated that there are currently 25,000 to 30,000 polar bears in the world, with 15,000 in Canada. That would mean in fifty years, the population would have to drop by 20,000.

Yet another example of just how far off the mark the main stream media is on global warming. How many times have you heard on the news lately that global warming is now melting Antarctica?

The image pretty much speaks for itself, April 2008 had 46% greater Antarctic sea ice extent and 70% greater sea ice concentration compared to April 1980. The penguins are apparently very safe from the effects of global warming despite what the media may lead you to believe.

There are several global climate models (GCMs) produced by many different groups. There are a half dozen from the USA, some from the UK Met Office, a well known one from Australia, and so on. GCMs are a truly global effort. These GCMs are of course referenced by the IPCC, and each version is known to the creators of the other versions.

Much is made of the fact that these various GCMs show rough agreement with each other. People have the sense that, since so many “different” GCMs agree, we should have more confidence that what they say is true. Today I will discuss why this view is false. This is not an easy subject, so we will take it slowly.

Suppose first that you and I want to predict tomorrow’s high temperature in Central Park in New York City (this example naturally works for any thing we want to predict, from stock prices to number of people who will vote for a certain USA presidential candidate). I have a weather model called MMatt. I run this model on my computer and it predicts 66 degrees F. I then give you this model so that you can run it on your computer, but you are vain and rename the model to MMe. You make the change, run the model, and announce that MMe predicts 66 degrees F.

Three reports appearing within 48 hours of each other in three different countries suggest that not only does New Zealand need to stop for a cuppa to look more closely at the science of climate change, but that we now have the time to do it.

First, the report of the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research (NZIER) has made us all realise the enormous cost of the emissions trading scheme proposed by the Government, and the adverse effects on our economy over time. Now that we have a better handle on what it will cost us, we can do a more meaningful cost/benefit analysis.

Here are some numbers to help: