Having given up on getting any sense from the advocates of AGW I’ve decided to do my own modeling.

I’ve also extended this research to include modeling for the CO2 tax, renewable energy and government policy.

For the climate modeling I’ve used blue modeling clay, red for the CO2 tax, green for renewable energy and brown for government policy.

The climate model looks good. It’s basically round with pinholes in the top hemisphere to represent temperature measurement locations, no holes in the lower hemisphere as there are only the “seven station series” from NIWA in NZ. So it’s sort of only half a global model.

Anyway, I have managed to create a “feedback loop” and a “tipping point” but since there are no engineering drawings for such structures i’ve used the very same principle as the original authors, imagination. This has nicely plugged the hole in the model.

The white patches on the top and bottom are moveable and can be changed at will. These represent the polar icecaps and by moving these or shrinking them we can move them out of reach of most of the polar bear populations. All in all I’m quite impressed with my efforts.

The red modeling clay for the CO2 tax model is interesting. The results have produced confirmation that taking clay from the production side of the model and sticking it onto the compensation side, we create imbalance which causes the model to roll around uncontrollably. There seems to be no means of stopping this once it is started.

The renewable energy model required more green clay than was available in the whole of Australia. Even on a small scale there was no observable structural integrity and it just kept falling over.

The brown clay for government policy was a challenge. No matter how our researchers pulled, stretched, squashed or rolled this model, it always came out the same. In fact most researchers observed that the government policy model actually resembled a doggy poo, come to think of it, it did rather smell that way too

Oh no! Arjay's running a DSS attack! (Denialist Spam Swarm). To run a DSS simply employ the following tactics.

1. Quote a handful of common Denialist myths that are *all* easily explained by 5 minutes of googling those sites that document the peer-reviewed sources.

2. (Quietly: always ignore those sources when ever reminded of them.)

3. After completely ignoring those sources — even when reminded of them — info dump a bunch of other Denialist myths. There's 160 of them to choose from. Hopefully some uninformed member of the public will read the DSS and think there is a 'climate debate' because of all the complex sounding arguments and papers being referred to.

4. Never ever admit that most of the papers being referred to are NOT in the climate peer reviewed literature, but might instead come from another discipline like geology. Or not even a peer-reviewed discipline at all.

5. If you DO quote from a climate peer reviewed source, make sure you focus in on one *small* factor in global warming that is currently under further investigation and blow it out of all proportion. Then say something banal like "It is hardly surprising that XYZ is being debated. After all, carbon dioxide is natural, we exhale it. Co2 is plant food." (Water is also quite natural but can flood and drown and form Tsunamis.)

6. Adopt the moral high ground when you have none. Rant about 'respecting science' although you never actually quote from the climate peer-reviewed sources with any integrity. Create a flame war.

7. While maintaining the moral high ground as the only one who respects science, simultaneously accuse thousands of climatologists and *every* reputable scientific body on the planet as being "in it for the money". Yep, and the Moon Landing was faked just to scare the Soviets! ;-)

8. Above all, create an *air* of debate where there is none. Exaggerate some of the smaller debates within the overall larger picture that is regularly confirmed. For example, scream "There's no Tropospheric Hot Spot!" as if this somehow disproves Beer's Law and the basic absorption spectra of Co2, and ignores the fact that balloons see the hot spot, some satellites see the hot spot, and some may have missed it due to orbital drift and decay.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm

9. Create the impression that the Denialist must be protected because only he or she is truly sceptical. The freedom of speech becomes the freedom to ignore the peer review process and promote lies against the public good. But there is nothing sceptical or scientific or especially heroic to make a habit of quoting cherry-picking straw-man attacks.

10. Ignore the fact that scientists are professionally trained sceptics *always* on the look out for other variables. Ignore that they are competitive human beings out to make their careers and mark on the world, and that any young budding climatologist would give their eye teeth to be THE climatologist that made global warming go away, that discovered a previously hidden climate safety valve.
As Realclimate.org says:
"It has often been remarked upon that scientists and academics make their reputations by breaking down orthodoxies and by challenging previously widespread assumptions (but it will only work out well if they’re right of course!)."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/consensus-as-the-new-heresy/

So Dr David Evans is a liar? Very few on the IPCC are actually climate scientists.30,000 scientists have signed a doucument that they don't support the theory of AGW.Dr Tim Ball didn't sign because he does not believe in the consensus science.This where people like Christopher Monckton wins the debate.Consenus science is not science at all.The proof of AGW is not there and the imperical evidence does not support it.

Arjay I am still waiting for the influx of Polynesians who live on sea level islands ...they have not had to move yet, but I recall early in the dis information campaign 20 years ago that they would be gone in 10, and as low lying islands were to be the first casualties. But not so according to Tanya Plibersek, it seems the Central Coast faces the greatest risk from sea level rise if no action is taken against climate change, so she told a forum of old folks. I have old rels who moved up the Entrance in 1946 and they are water people and they see it for the rubbish it is, ask the oyster farmers if they have seen any change in sea level they said to me, we live with it.

Yet Tanya (only ever been on the public payroll) married to super bureaucrat and convicted narcotics smuggler Couttes Trotter tells us to get the floaties. Is there any Labor personality that does not have an integrity issue, either directly or by close association? The husband obviously was not averse to stretching his moral code for personal gain and neither is Plibersek. How morally bankrupt would you have to be to run a scare campaign with a forum of pensioners, probably the same pensioners that in 2009 caused Gillard to remark to cabinet "don't give them a pension rise, they don't vote for us anyway". No morality or integrity in this lot

Luddy when the modern Green movement started the proponents were focused on the obvious degradation and pollution that modernity brings with it. The effort was industry focused with the aim being to force the polluter to invest in cleaner technology and clean up the existing mess.

Regarding the green cost I recall reading minutes from early Green think tanks (1960’s) where they had rationalized that the industry segment should have legislation in place that prevented them from passing green costs onto the consumer directly, industry would be compensated via tax breaks to partially subsidize the clean technology along with dispensations from the Municipal authority of some of their fixed costs. The rest was to come from the increase in product and saving on their wage bill due to technological advancements, in other words shave your EBIT by a couple of percent.

Compare this thinking to the modern Greens; they have shifted the emphasis from the polluter to the consumer. Their plan is to tax us directly, and with no way of defraying it, but to allow the polluters to go on with polluting. Carbon Credits only foster corporations buying up our forests and when the crap is over they can harvest them. Have a look into who owns a load of NZ’s forests, factories buying carbon credits from a related forestry company.

There is no Green movement, just stooges of the “money” who own Green