Global Warming

[Liverpool]

You may well question my logic but that doesn't change the fact it is simple greed and aversion to change that drive yours.

Its nothing to do with being greedy, but if you haven't noticed, Australian manufacturing and businesses in general are under pressure.

The last thing we need is an extra hurdle that many of the big polluters overseas are not having to jump over.

People will get on forums and complain about the loss of jobs over the last year at Telstra, the various banks, Ford, Target, Qantas, Holden, IBM, Rio Tinto, etc...yet in many cases, it is the same people who want barriers like the carbon tax.

Another example of things to come....a company like Incitec Pivot wants to build an ammonia plant...do they build it here locally in Newcastle? or over in Louisiana?
The answer:
http://www.afr.com/p/national/how_louisiana_beat_newcastle_to_lk3ictRwSzt0QOA4Rb324H

Nothing to do with greed but future survival.

 

[Liverpool]

As for your obsession with Flannery, time to move on and consider the science from the vast majority of other climatologists. The whole notion that 30 years of climate science breaks down because one scientist presented some worst case scenarios is patently absurd. Once again, it proves that you can only target the man and not the science. Not to mention the fact that securing our fresh water supplies should be at the forefront of government policy, drought has already had a devasting effect and will continue to do so.

Bullus...listen to yourself mate...Flannery came up with his predictions, presumedly, from the science he is advocating.
I am not only targeting the man for scaremongering and exaggerrating, but I am also questioning the science in which he used to come up with these completely false predictions.
If he did NOT use the science to come up with his predictions, and he is simply attention-seeking with these outrageous comments, then any person, including people such as yourself should be applauding Abbott for removing this person from their role as a chief climate commissioner.
If he DID use the science, then any layman has the right to also question the science and its accuracy.

You take your pick.

You insinuate that Flannery is scaremongering yet excuse Abbott for deliberately gagging any scientific debate. Such willful blindness is dangerous in the extreme, after all, the buck stops with the prime minister and not one particular scientist whose views you find unacceptable.

I'm not insinuating it, I'm straight out saying it!
When dramatic predictions are communicated to the Government and the Australian people and they don't come to fruition, then I think I am in my right to call it, at the very least, scaremongering.
If the person coming up with those predictions is actually the climate commissioner and he has used the science, in good faith, to come up with these predictions, then I think I am also in my right to question the science behind it.
And therefore, I think I am also in my right to question a Government making important economic and environmental policies that could affect us for years to come, based on a questionable science communicated by a questionable scientist.

Change just doesn't automatically happen, governments need to create a level playing field and not just prop up their buddies at the top end of town. Make no mistake, Abbott and his cronies are tied to the hip with the big miners, the same couldn't be said for renewable companies who have been continually hamstrung by unsympathetic policy.

I get the impression from your posts that all this is more to do with Abbott in power than the actual environment.
When you talk about "level playing fields"...well, with already higher overheads and labour costs than most of Asia and also a carbon tax, then in a global market, we are far from being on a level playing field with our global competitors.

If Australia was serious about tapping into the next economic goldrush, they would adjust the MRET, they wouldn't be shutting down the green loans schemes, they wouldn't be cancelling licenses to build wind farms, they wouldn't be building massive coal ports on the Great Barrier Reef and they wouldn't be stripping scientific R&D agencies of their independence.

So you were pretty p!ssed off with Gillard and her cronies when the Solar Panel subsidy was cancelled then and their dealing with the big miners ?

The Federal Government is phasing out its subsidies for solar panels six months early.
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says the solar credits scheme will stop at the beginning of next year.
Greens leader Christine Milne says the decision is particularly galling because the Government has simultaneously announced mines and landfills will not face higher costs for methane emissions until 2017.
"They've brought forward an end to support for solar while at the same time delaying the full cost of methane emissions," she said.
"That tells you where Labor is coming from. They obviously think there are more votes in coal seam gas and mines and fugitive emissions than there are in actually supporting the new renewable energy technologies."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-16/solar-panels-subsidies-scrapped-early/4376520

If that was Abbott who did that......

 

[bullus_hit]

Bullus...listen to yourself mate...Flannery came up with his predictions, presumedly, from the science he is advocating.
I am not only targeting the man for scaremongering and exaggerrating, but I am also questioning the science in which he used to come up with these completely false predictions.
If he did NOT use the science to come up with his predictions, and he is simply attention-seeking with these outrageous comments, then any person, including people such as yourself should be applauding Abbott for removing this person from their role as a chief climate commissioner.
If he DID use the science, then any layman has the right to also question the science and its accuracy.

You take your pick.

I don't want to continually harp on about Flannery's so-called 'predictions' but like I said in a previous post, Flannery presented a range scenarios, some which didn't eventuate like the period of drought experienced in Adelaide. This is the job of scientists, presenting a range of outcomes, some which may be gloomy, but which are necessary never the less. Now I gather from the poison barbs you are flailing in Flannery's direction, you no longer believe Australia should worry about drought or fresh water supplies. This is where we beg to differ. Australia will almost certainly experience more dry spells, it will also experience more weather extremes, particularly at the hot end of the scale. Temperatures have risen by 0.9 degrees over the past century and will continue to rise even further. Just how we cope with such conditions will rely largely on government planning, infrastructure like a desalination plant may not be used from time to time, but it should be of some comfort to know that it's there if we need it. Along with abundant food supplies, fresh water should be at the forefront of government planning, one simply can't install the infrastructure at the drop of a hat.

I get the impression from your posts that all this is more to do with Abbott in power than the actual environment.
When you talk about "level playing fields"...well, with already higher overheads and labour costs than most of Asia and also a carbon tax, then in a global market, we are far from being on a level playing field with our global competitors.

So you were pretty p!ssed off with Gillard and her cronies when the Solar Panel subsidy was cancelled then and their dealing with the big miners ?

The Federal Government is phasing out its subsidies for solar panels six months early.
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says the solar credits scheme will stop at the beginning of next year.
Greens leader Christine Milne says the decision is particularly galling because the Government has simultaneously announced mines and landfills will not face higher costs for methane emissions until 2017.
"They've brought forward an end to support for solar while at the same time delaying the full cost of methane emissions," she said.
"That tells you where Labor is coming from. They obviously think there are more votes in coal seam gas and mines and fugitive emissions than there are in actually supporting the new renewable energy technologies."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-16/solar-panels-subsidies-scrapped-early/4376520

If that was Abbott who did that......

For the record, I didn't agree with scrapping the solar panels rebate, it has been a highly successful initiative which should have continued indefinitely. But if we're talking about being proactive on the alternative energy front, the Gillard government trumps the Coalition in just about every conceivable way. That's not suggest every LNP member is anti-renewable energy, sitting members such as Malcolm Turnbull are extreme progressives compared to Abbott. In fact my vote would have been firmly in the Turnbull camp if he was running for PM.

My dismay with the current administration is the unfathomable denial of a climate which is changing at a disturbing rate. Whether you believe it's anthropogenic or natural, carbon sensitive or the result of unprecedented deforestation, the fact remains that governments have a responsibility to guard against all possible outcomes. Firing the Climate Commission is a retrograde step, and contrary to your deep suspicions about Flannery, he was merely the head of the organisation and not the sum of its parts. Sacking the Ministry for Science was also another indicator that Abbott sees science as voodoo, and the attempt at dismantling the green loans scheme was just plain fundamentalism (quite possibly unconstitutional as well).

So now you get the picture as to why I think Abbott needs pull his head in and treat science as independent and essential to our future prosperity. Believe it or not, there is a future beyond coal and fossil fuels. To think otherwise is indeed a step back into the 20th century. From my perspective, Abbott is taking Australia one step closer to a regime dominated by lobby groups and severely compromised policy makers - a clone of the American system which is on it's knees as we speak.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Its nothing to do with being greedy, but if you haven't noticed, Australian manufacturing and businesses in general are under pressure.

The last thing we need is an extra hurdle that many of the big polluters overseas are not having to jump over.

People will get on forums and complain about the loss of jobs over the last year at Telstra, the various banks, Ford, Target, Qantas, Holden, IBM, Rio Tinto, etc...yet in many cases, it is the same people who want barriers like the carbon tax.

Another example of things to come....a company like Incitec Pivot wants to build an ammonia plant...do they build it here locally in Newcastle? or over in Louisiana?
The answer:
http://www.afr.com/p/national/how_louisiana_beat_newcastle_to_lk3ictRwSzt0QOA4Rb324H

Nothing to do with greed but future survival.

All perfectly rational if a little over-stated (future survival?). Except that so far you haven't addressed what got this discussion kicked off again, your citing of bad science by quoting a serial offender who turned out to be both wrong factually (again!) and embarrassing professionally. The reason you fall for this is due to the structure of your reasoning. You work backwards from your conclusion and search for evidence to support it. This is a debating technique but like many of the arguments used by politicians you fail to adjust it when dealing with science. This failure is what confuses the public. I wonder if Greame really exists or if it is Janet Albrecht's (un)scientific pen name?

Greed is absolutely at the heart of it though. Companies (and economists and market analysts and news services) measure and report profit "growth" as though it were profit. We allow markets to control supply so as to confect demand which really means the model is broken doesn't it?

Like a good conservative you argue for the status quo with an eye on next years profit report. But for many the bigger picture matters more.

 

[Liverpool]

I don't want to continually harp on about Flannery's so-called 'predictions' but like I said in a previous post, Flannery presented a range scenarios, some which didn't eventuate like the period of drought experienced in Adelaide. This is the job of scientists, presenting a range of outcomes, some which may be gloomy, but which are necessary never the less.

No, the job of scientists (like Flannery) who are in a role advising the Government is to give advice based on the facts they have.
Not speculation, not guesswork, not predictions....but facts.
If they don't have facts, then the science isn't very accurate then, is it?

So now you get the picture as to why I think Abbott needs pull his head in and treat science as independent and essential to our future prosperity. Believe it or not, there is a future beyond coal and fossil fuels. To think otherwise is indeed a step back into the 20th century. From my perspective, Abbott is taking Australia one step closer to a regime dominated by lobby groups and severely compromised policy makers - a clone of the American system which is on it's knees as we speak.

I agree, there is a future beyond fossil fuels and coal....however, there is no need for Government supported carbon taxes for this change to happen.
Natural business evolution will force this. A public wanting it will force this. A drying up of fossil fuels and forcing businesses in these areas to diversify, will force this.
Years ago, people threw spears to kill....then arrows, guns, bombs, and nuclear weapons. We didn't need taxes for evolution to take place.
Balloons, biplanes, prop planes, jets, rockets...again, evolution with taxing people.

Greed is absolutely at the heart of it though. Companies (and economists and market analysts and news services) measure and report profit "growth" as though it were profit. We allow markets to control supply so as to confect demand which really means the model is broken doesn't it?

Like a good conservative you argue for the status quo with an eye on next years profit report. But for many the bigger picture matters more.

If there is a market for green technology and products then businesses will move naturally into these streams.
Its not greed, its survival, then profit.
And companies who don't diversify, won't survive.
Simple as that.

 

[Brodders17]

is it profit or gov regulation that has limited clear felling of forrests? or child labour? or unsafe work practices?

sometimes government regulation is needed.

 

[Liverpool]

is it profit or gov regulation that has limited clear felling of forrests? or child labour? or unsafe work practices?

sometimes government regulation is needed.

we're talking about technologies, not morals or social legislations.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

If there is a market for green technology and products then businesses will move naturally into these streams.
Its not greed, its survival, then profit.
And companies who don't diversify, won't survive.
Simple as that.

I disagree. As long as people like you pretend that there is a problem with the science by using sources you know to be inaccurate in order to muddy the waters and extend the life of polluting industries in search of profit growth, it is far from simple. Because people of a like mind are in the ear of company executives and work in their Greenwashing Marketing departments and have the ear of conservative politicians and work on conservative leaning newspapers.

"Evolution" is founded in accidental step changes that happen to confer an advantage and thus live on. It is ruthless because it is random. In this way your analogy may be right. In the drive for profits what companies actually do is try to keep the regulator from the door while exhuasting the natural resources at their disposal until there is nothing left or profits dry up. Evolution, like Magic, doesn't "happen". Industry doesn't "self-regulate".

The affect on our environment of 100+ years of industrialisation with little regulation is becoming clear. It does not make sense to continue to damage the air we breathe because to change course would adversly affect profits. Thatuis a perverse notion.

To intentionally use claims you either know or at the least suspect to be dubious to suggest that these effects are less serious is incredibly dishonest. Argue all you like about American Tea Party Conservative style "small government" and have an "anti-regulation" mantra. But to use lies to bolster your argument can only undermine it.

And fair dinkum "if there is a market"? How much is the oil and mineral industry susidised? Fair market my arse.

 

[Azza]

Years ago, people threw spears to kill....then arrows, guns, bombs, and nuclear weapons. We didn't need taxes for evolution to take place.
Balloons, biplanes, prop planes, jets, rockets...again, evolution with taxing people.

What nonsense. Those technologies developed through government sponsorship of defence industries, very often by government-owned companies. Your taxes at work.

 

[Liverpool]

I disagree. As long as people like you pretend that there is a problem with the science by using sources you know to be inaccurate in order to muddy the waters and extend the life of polluting industries in search of profit growth, it is far from simple.

Of course you disagree.

When I use quotes from the Climate Commissioner's mouth that turn out to be wild, exaggerated, scaremongering predictions and reported in left-leaning media outlets as "science" to try and muddy the waters between fact and fiction, and these predictions turn out to be wrong, then its natural that people of that persuasion disagree with me.

"Evolution" is founded in accidental step changes that happen to confer an advantage and thus live on. It is ruthless because it is random. In this way your analogy may be right. In the drive for profits what companies actually do is try to keep the regulator from the door while exhuasting the natural resources at their disposal until there is nothing left or profits dry up. Evolution, like Magic, doesn't "happen". Industry doesn't "self-regulate".

By searching for profits or continual growth or further investments...call it what you will, evolution is a natural progression. It isn't about Government regulaton.
I'll give you an example.

I know of a mate's company that has large indoor lighting for their warehouses. From research carried out, 'green' lighting installed to replace old sodium lighting was found to cut the costs of electricity by a half. A $1-million dollar electricity bill can be lowered to $500,000 per annum, a saving of $500,000.
The initial cost of the installation of the lights will be paid back within 3 years.
After the 3 years, this will be a $500,000 saving and money that can be invested into other parrts of the business or to takeover or acquire other businesses.

You don't need Government regulations to force companies to make a change to more 'green' technologies...if the market is there, if the saving is there, then business will naturally evolve towards this.

What nonsense. Those technologies developed through government sponsorship of defence industries, very often by government-owned companies. Your taxes at work.

Yeah...spears to arrows to guns...all forced evolutions by Governments :

And when Governments did get involved, they evolved towards machine guns, atomic weapons, etc.
There was no sanction forcing anyone to go that way...the technology evolved through investment and anybody still using spears or arrows learnt that they would need to go that way also to compete.

Look at the Aborigines or Native Americans.....they went towards guns once they realised that spears were no match for the newer technology.

 

[bullus_hit]

No, the job of scientists (like Flannery) who are in a role advising the Government is to give advice based on the facts they have.
Not speculation, not guesswork, not predictions....but facts.
If they don't have facts, then the science isn't very accurate then, is it?

We're talking about the future here Livers, therefore there will be some element of guesswork involved. We can use 'facts' to draw conclusions, we can apply the best computer modelling to be as accurate as possible, but there will always be margin for error. Tim Flannery offered a range of outcomes with the duration of the drought, his worst case scenario didn't eventuate, hardly reason to condemn him to the realms of an opportunistic charlatan.

And while we're on the topic of facts, do you believe the world is heating up? Do you believe in the greenhouse effect? Do you even place any credence in the work of 97% of climatologists who insist upon a robust framework to cut emissions?

It really sounds to me like you aren't really fussed about facts at all. You've even said so much in your unwavering view that climate change is a great big con. You prefer to cherry pick your 'facts' from dubious sources tied to the hip of mining companies and corrupt politicians. You're part of the 'climate change is crap' crew, your choice of course, but bleating on about facts is a bit rich.

I agree, there is a future beyond fossil fuels and coal....however, there is no need for Government supported carbon taxes for this change to happen.
Natural business evolution will force this. A public wanting it will force this. A drying up of fossil fuels and forcing businesses in these areas to diversify, will force this.

Give me one good reason why companies shouldn't pay for pollution and other externalities? If you are indeed remotely interested in creating a level playing field for industry, then this is essential. Failing to do so merely creates a gross imbalance with clear winners and losers. At the moment, farmers are losing out to miners, eco-tourism losing out to loggers, fisheries losing out to manufacturing, and so on.

Tony Abbott is a mining man, he's been propped up by Rinehart and Forrest, and will create an environment where his pals run amok with impunity. Renewables and alternative energy are not in the frame I'm afraid, and we will continue to see policy outcomes which entrench fossil fuels at the top of the totem pole.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Of course you disagree.

When I use quotes from the Climate Commissioner's mouth that turn out to be wild, exaggerated, scaremongering predictions and reported in left-leaning media outlets as "science" to try and muddy the waters between fact and fiction, and these predictions turn out to be wrong, then its natural that people of that persuasion disagree with me.

By searching for profits or continual growth or further investments...call it what you will, evolution is a natural progression. It isn't about Government regulaton.
I'll give you an example.

Man you are incorrigible! I have at no stage have I quoted Flannery nor was I talking about Flannery but this is the Livers "bait and switch" again and I have called you on this once on this very topic. You quoted the Aus, I have pointed out before and it has been pointed out ad nauseum that Graham Lloyd of the Aus is a climate skeptic who consistently miss-reports or flagrantly disregards the facts in order to further his agenda of denial. This is the discussion we are having. Lloyd's article was the one that the skeptics on here jumped on and it was worse than even his usually poor standard. You want to have your cake and eat it. You argue against government action designed to nudge industry towards more sustainable practices because you think it is heavy handed. On this point we fundamentally disagree. But to use the articles of Graham Lloyd diminishes your argument don't you think?

 

[Azza]

And when Governments did get involved, they evolved towards machine guns, atomic weapons, etc.
There was no sanction forcing anyone to go that way...the technology evolved through investment and anybody still using spears or arrows learnt that they would need to go that way also to compete.

Again, what nonsense. Governments set the requirements - we want an aircraft that can do "x", and industry produce competitive designs and prices to meet those requirements.

 

[Liverpool]

We're talking about the future here Livers, therefore there will be some element of guesswork involved. We can use 'facts' to draw conclusions, we can apply the best computer modelling to be as accurate as possible, but there will always be margin for error. Tim Flannery offered a range of outcomes with the duration of the drought, his worst case scenario didn't eventuate, hardly reason to condemn him to the realms of an opportunistic charlatan.

These 'range of outcomes' are what the head of Greenpeace called "emotionalising"

[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE[/youtube]

And this is the problem I find....that the "science" is then skewed into wild predictions or range of outcomes and reported as 'the science'...and Governments are forced or entrusted to act on things that are not correct and not fact.

It really sounds to me like you aren't really fussed about facts at all. You've even said so much in your unwavering view that climate change is a great big con. You prefer to cherry pick your 'facts' from dubious sources tied to the hip of mining companies and corrupt politicians. You're part of the 'climate change is crap' crew, your choice of course, but bleating on about facts is a bit rich.

You make out that on one side we have the evil mining companies all dressed in black and corrupting things with similar politicians but you would be naive to think all is rosy on the other side.
Greenhouse Effect, global warming, climate change....its been a big business for the likes of Greenpeace for many decades now. Its in their best interests to keep the scaremongering going, hence the above YouTube clip.
You also have scientists looking for Government grants and handout, groups looking for financial backing...the other side is just as corrupt and looking after their own interests.

 

[Liverpool]

You argue against government action designed to nudge industry towards more sustainable practices because you think it is heavy handed. On this point we fundamentally disagree.

That's your opinion.
But carbon taxing isn't "nudging"....its hitting it with a big hammer and can have dire consequences to is without any real benefit.

Again, what nonsense. Governments set the requirements - we want an aircraft that can do "x", and industry produce competitive designs and prices to meet those requirements.

The Government had nothing to do with the company I mentioned going the way of 'green lighting'...it was purely because the market was there and the market saw a chance at a saving.

 

[bullus_hit]

And this is the problem I find....that the "science" is then skewed into wild predictions or range of outcomes and reported as 'the science'...and Governments are forced or entrusted to act on things that are not correct and not fact.

So Livers, what aspect of the science do you believe or disbelieve? Once again you hunt down some perceived exaggeration or distortion and you use that to dismiss 4 decades of research. Never mind addressing the science, that would be a little too inconvenient.

Once again, do you believe in the greenhouse effect? Do you believe the world is warming? Do you believe humans are playing some role in warming temperatures?

Failure to answer these questions keeps you in the realms of shock-jock and lackey for the fossil fuel industry.

You also have scientists looking for Government grants and handout, groups looking for financial backing...the other side is just as corrupt and looking after their own interests.

Comparing scientists to big business on the issue of corruption is just laughable. You'd be hard pressed to find a more ridiculous comment.

 

[Azza]

The Government had nothing to do with the company I mentioned going the way of 'green lighting'...it was purely because the market was there and the market saw a chance at a saving.

:hihi Nice try Livers. But unfortunately for you, you were quite specific in your statement -

I agree, there is a future beyond fossil fuels and coal....however, there is no need for Government supported carbon taxes for this change to happen.
Natural business evolution will force this. A public wanting it will force this. A drying up of fossil fuels and forcing businesses in these areas to diversify, will force this.
Years ago, people threw spears to kill....then arrows, guns, bombs, and nuclear weapons. We didn't need taxes for evolution to take place.
Balloons, biplanes, prop planes, jets, rockets...again, evolution with taxing people.

Also unfortunately for you, you brought up the one instance where massive government spending and strategic and tactical direction has been behind a great deal of technological development (both military and civil) since taxation began, most notably in the 20th and 21st centuries. I don't know the figures, but I'll bet public spending on technological development in the last 100 years or so dwarfs that of private investment.

Of course you don't admit there's an AGW crisis, but your back-up line is that the free market should resolve the issue if it should exist. Since if it does exist, the crisis is far more far-reaching and dire than the threat of war, history shows there's a key role for government in fixing it both through taxation and direction.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

That's your opinion.
But carbon taxing isn't "nudging"....its hitting it with a big hammer and can have dire consequences to is without any real benefit.

An excellent dodge followed by a diversion into greenpeace nonsense. You can have your cake "business and markets will self-regulate" or you can eat it "the IPCC got it wrong" but you can't have both I'm afraid. You have yet to cite any credible source for your anti-agw stance and have failed to back away from your badly discredited source.

It is your opinion that there is no real benefit. I couldn't disagree more. The "nudge" had heaps of loop-holes it was far from a hammer. The potential to massively reduce the cost of energy generation through renewables partially because they don't require the monumentally expensive and dirty and destructive mining and refining industries seems obvious to me. If you are able to generate power without mining and without being beholden to commodity markets why isn't that a benefit?

 

[Liverpool]

So Livers, what aspect of the science do you believe or disbelieve? Once again you hunt down some perceived exaggeration or distortion and you use that to dismiss 4 decades of research. Never mind addressing the science, that would be a little too inconvenient.

As I keep saying...if the science is that irrefutable and we have four decades of it...why are the likes of Flannery and Greenpeace (to use their own words) "emotionalising" the subject matter?
That's not science and its not 'perceived exaggerations' at all, but blatant ones.
Its pretty hypocritical to accuse others of not addressing the science based on inconvenience when we have Climate Commissioners and Greenpeace 'emotionalising' to suit their own agendas.
Seems like people can make sh!t up and its all o.k by you if what they say suits your opinions but if others do it, then its 'dismissing the science' :spin

Once again, do you believe in the greenhouse effect? Do you believe the world is warming? Do you believe humans are playing some role in warming temperatures?

I've said many times that I think the world is gradually warming and yes, humans do have a small role in this but the majority of it is from a combination of natural consequences.

Comparing scientists to big business on the issue of corruption is just laughable. You'd be hard pressed to find a more ridiculous comment.

Not at all...another YouTube vid from the co-founder of Greenpeace:

[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUx2hgxXFfg[/youtube]

Greenpeace is more of an anti-capitalist organisation than a pro-'greenie' organisation.

He also states at 3:41 the following, "we do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred over the last 200 years"

This from the co-founder of Greenpeace 8-

From another co-founder of Greenpeace, Paul Watson: "The secret to David McTaggart's success is the secret to Greenpeace's success: It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.... You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."

Its very naive to deny that global warming is indeed a big business in its own right with the generation of revenue Greenpeace gain from it, the grants and money given to research organisations, scientists, and universities.
The only thing that is ridiculous here is that you seem to be oblivious corruption being on more than one side of the debate.

 

[Liverpool]

An excellent dodge followed by a diversion into greenpeace nonsense. You can have your cake "business and markets will self-regulate" or you can eat it "the IPCC got it wrong" but you can't have both I'm afraid. You have yet to cite any credible source for your anti-agw stance and have failed to back away from your badly discredited source.

Its only discredited if you don't agree with it

It is your opinion that there is no real benefit. I couldn't disagree more. The "nudge" had heaps of loop-holes it was far from a hammer. The potential to massively reduce the cost of energy generation through renewables partially because they don't require the monumentally expensive and dirty and destructive mining and refining industries seems obvious to me. If you are able to generate power without mining and without being beholden to commodity markets why isn't that a benefit?

Ok, lets say Abbott keeps the carbon tax.
Lets also say that big business stays and actually changes the way they do things.
What difference will our carbon tax make to global warming??