JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Greens say deception, fraud “for the planet” is OK

PR is more important than anything else to the Greens. When Johnathon Moylan fraudulently tricked investors, costing some of them thousands of dollars, Green leaders praise him for “drawing attention” to something. It’s as if stupid punters are so dumb and Green’s brains so Omniscient, that any crime is forgiven in the quest to tell the world a green “fact”. Did Christine Milne think Australians don’t know the Greens blame coal miners for hot days? Did she think that people would hear for the first time that Greens really really don’t like the coal industry and they would suddenly awaken from their stupor and be converts to the cause? Did she think if Green chicanery raised the cost of capital formation in the coal industry, causing that industry to suffer, that everyone else would overlook Green illegality and applaud?

A delusional anti-coal mining activist, Jonathan Moylan, impersonated a bank spokesman and issued a fake media release,  falsely declaring that the bank had withdrawn a $1.2 billion loan facility from Whitehaven Coal because of ”unacceptable damage to the environment.” He created a dummy email inbox to push the deceit further to cause real damage. The story was picked up by some news outlets, and shares fell by 9% before people realized it was fake. Those who want to downplay the seriousness are calling it a “hoax”. The real world knows it is fraud.

Mum and Dad investors who may have sold too cheaply on the “news”, or even faced margin calls, could have lost thousands of hard earned dollars. The share transactions won’t be canceled. In response, two Greens leaders praised the liar.

On Tuesday, Senator Milne described Mr Moylan’s hoax as being ”part of a long and proud history of civil disobedience, potentially breaking the law, to highlight something wrong”. [SMH]

Senator Rhiannon, who wrote: ”Congrats to Jonathan Moylan, Frontline Action on Coal, for exposing ANZ investment in coalmines.”

Greens are crippled by this narcissistic sense of their own giftedness. They thought people would discuss the dangers of coal after this outrageous criminal act; instead people are discussing the danger of The Greens.

How much do the Greens care about the average voter? Not at all. Civil disobedience does not and has never meant doing something that hurts other citizens. (Isn’t it illegal to incite people to break the law?) And let’s remember the bigger picture (cough cough): the Greens are more gifted than the average voter, and the Green burden in life is to lead the proletariat.

Michael Smith says Milne must resign:

Christine Milne still doesn’t get it.   Forgery.   $300Million in financial disadvantage.   A blow to the integrity of our financial system.   But on the ABC’s 7.30 tonight, she’s still praising a prima facie felon.

Go and get some help Chris.   You’ve lost your sense of perspective.   This offender has caused actual, real harm to a financial market that is a fundamental element of our civil society.   No stock market means no investment, much fewer jobs, much more misery.   Moylan’s forgery and deception caused $300M in real damage and who knows how much damage to investment confidence.  And that confidence was further hammered when you as a leader of the Labor/Greens government endorsed his crime.

Milne and Rhiannnon don’t seem to realize that any halfwit with a computer could create a forged press release these days. If it were legal to do such a thing, activists could release fake documents about, say, solar companies, falsely saying that unaffordable government subsidies were being withdrawn, or that some “new” discovery made the whole production line of XXX-solar unviable. Since the renewable industry is utterly dependent on those subsidies, or the belief that it is a techno winner, this would trash the price, and once investors realized that “renewables” share were prone to regular spikes and “hoaxes” soon no one would want to invest in them. How well would this work out for Green investment — which is financial struggling and borderline even with subsidies — unlike the robust coal industry?

What happened to “one rule for all”? The Greens rule of law (where you break the law if you believe it’s ok) would destroy everything the Greens say they want, and allow the big guys to walk all over the little ones.

Katherine Wilson at The Age thinks green criminals should be forgiven, and Moylan should be called a hero because the nation is burning up, and he is “helping” save us from the coal-fired-weather. She thinks that honest talk, accurate discussion and free speech is not enough to convince Australians (they are too-stupid), and now the climate emergency is so bad that only cheating and lying will work.

“…to charge him with a criminal offence would be utterly immoral. For those citizens who have not given up on the conviction that taking action is ”the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation”, there is little choice but to pull off hoaxes of this kind. For all the ”free market of ideas” posturing, the media and finance marketplace that Moylan sought to disrupt is not some equal playing field operating under rules of fair play. As countless journalism academics have documented, news agendas are set by public servants, PR agents, politicians and business leaders. They are not commonly set by ordinary concerned citizens. This is why Moylan orchestrated his hoax at a time when the Australian Securities Exchange is operating at a fraction of normal levels.

In these contexts, it is difficult to sympathise with those who argue that we should condemn Moylan because of the so-called mum-and-dad investors who ”lost” money because of the hoax. True, his action may have affected the sort of ”ordinary” people who have blind faith that finance markets are based on trust and immutable laws. But are the people who gamble their spare funds in coal industry investments really the victims here? Moylan’s hoax asks us to consider a broader category of victims: the world’s citizens and environments who are facing the real consequence of big polluters such as coal companies.

Oh yeah Katherine. If it’s immoral to expect Greens not to hurt other people, what does “moral” mean?
She pretends to be compassionate (mouthing her care for the world’s citizens) so how does she rationalize the collateral damage in a PR campaign? She acts as though non-Greens are not human: the share investors are blind gamblers who deserve what they get. It’s a dark process of dehumanizing the enemy and we all know where that leads.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (130 votes cast)
Greens say deception, fraud "for the planet" is OK, 9.0 out of 10 based on 130 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/a6ecwlk

279 comments to Greens say deception, fraud “for the planet” is OK

  • #
    MudCrab

    Dear Katherine,

    how do you feel about investors who gamble spare funds in Fairfax investment?


    Report this

    292

    • #
      rukidding

      Yes I wonder if Katherine would be so happy if it was her super fund being ripped off.


      Report this

      170

      • #
        mareeS

        I’m a trustee of our family super fund with holdings in ANZ, and I wrote to ANZ’s corporate manager immediately this happened, insisting that legal action be taken against Moylan and others. I received a quck reply to the effect that they’re going for this guy, and he will be set up as an example.

        He has no right to interfere with my private financial arrangements.


        Report this

        100

  • #
    MadJak

    So you can be on the side of deceit and fraud or you can be a sceptic.

    My conscious makes the choice very clear.


    Report this

    512

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Madjak,

      I think that it is much worse than just deceit and fraud as far as the Greens are concerned …


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Dennis

        Bob Brown explained to the National Press Club luncheon last year that he and the other extremist Greens are seeking to have a “world parliament”, in fact they want control, no commerce and industry, and fewer human beings. And more in their quest to save Earth for a selected group of “Earthians”.

        On ALPBC THe Drum this week I heard a panelist greenie comment that food prices need to be higher and reflect the impact on the environment producing food has. Another panelist reminded this clown that even in Oz many people cannot afford to eat what they should regularly eat now.

        The extremist Green world extends way beyond environment, that is their cover for far left side communist-socialist totalitarian control government or dictatorship. Wish list.


        Report this

        170

  • #
    AndyG55

    Oh course Milne and the others of the green coven don’t want him charged.

    He is their future leader. Another fraudster to lead the cult.

    Criminal record, I don’t think he can stand for parliament.? so PLEASE convict the fool.

    or at least bring a civil case that will keep him a permanent bankrupt.


    Report this

    462

    • #
      AndyG55

      Think of him as Bob Brown junior.. If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will !!!


      Report this

      332

      • #
        connolly

        The amazing thing in this whole saga is that ASIC, a truely incompetent regulator (think Trio Capital collapse) managed to track the kid down in the tree. The stunt will have one good effect. In the coal field electorates the Greens generally try to down play their anti-coal mining unemployment policies. Their championing of a non-monetary fraud is nice timing for the next election. And the kid better get his toothbrush and a packet of rubbers packed. He will need them where he is going.


        Report this

        130

      • #
        Allen Ford

        “Think of him as Bob Brown … “, speaking of whom, St Bob penned a particularly awful piece in the SMH, yesterday, not only defending Moylan, but Jim Hansen!

        Read and enjoy.


        Report this

        70

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Green coven?

      Supposedly, there are good witches and bad witches, but green ones?

      Once upon a time, being ‘green’ meant you cared for the state of the environment. Those days are long gone; the term ‘green’ today has morphed into meaning goofy, gullible and/or dangerous.

      Whenever the expression “the end justifies the means” is put into practice, the innocent always suffer. Sometimes, it is just a few people, sometimes it is tens of millions.

      Green tactics today are just a milder version of those practiced by the Taliban. However, the intolerance for all other viewpoints is exactly the same.


      Report this

      312

    • #
      Dennis

      I understand that the ANZ Bank is commencing legal action against the boofhead.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        Sean

        They should demand that he repay looses of 300 mil, or forfeit his head for mounting on a pike outside of their bank.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          shauno

          Have to correct you on that. It wasn’t actually a loss of 300 million it was the share price going down and then back up. So in theory people sold and people bought back and ended up essentially back where it was. So some people could have actually made a killing on it too if they sold at the top and bought at the bottom. What would be interesting is if it could be shown that there was a big sell off prior to the fraudulent news coming out in public.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    Turtle

    Yes Katherine. What’s more, how do you feel about investors who WOULD NOT ‘gamble’ their spare funds in Fairfax investment?

    Here’s my response to Nikki Williams’ (chief executive of the Australian Coal Association) article in The Australian.

    A brilliant article Nikki. Can I take this opportunity, Nikki, to thank everyone in the coal industry, investors included, for providing me with this wonderful, cheap, non-renewable energy. You people are fantastic. I hope Moylan receives the full penalty of any law that can be levelled at him. The environmental movement is showing its true colours when it strikes out this way: they have no respect for other people’s property, or even the concept of property itself.


    Report this

    632

  • #
    Jim from Brisbane

    It’s really pretty straightforward.
    Transpose the Fairfax headline with the following;
    “Monsanto executive admits to fake press release on behalf of Greenpeace admitting that genetically modified organisms help feed the starving.”
    What would the Fairfax / ABC / Greens line be I wonder (I actually don’t).
    Would the focus be on intent or the law – definitely a rhetorical question.
    it’s as simple as that.
    The ends justify the means.
    This is the value system which rationalises any action regardless of harm to the innocent, on the basis of a belief by a self sanctified few,that they alone can and will determine the greater good.
    It is known as fascism and once upon a time the West laid down lives in the millions to combat it.


    Report this

    390

  • #
    handjive

    On the BoM & Katherine Wilson’s “day of the purple crayon“, it snowed in Victoria!

    Might help to explain Now you see it, now you don’t.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Peter Whale

    What is it with greenies, lefties and extreme socialism that gives them the frame of mind that lying, manipulation of data and fraud are alright for them to engage in.? Gleick, Lewandowsky, Mann et al. The IPCC, WWF, The Greens,Greenpeace, ABC,BBC, all follow the lying agenda. Its time that someone took this fraud to court and all the others. The Uk government should be done for manslaughter with the deaths of the elderly brought in by the feed in tariffs for their wealthy landowner friends.


    Report this

    472

    • #
      Rick Bradford

      The simple answer is ‘malignant narcissism’, an emotional deficiency where people imagine the whole world revolves about them, and other people are viewed coldly as obstacles which hinder them, or as tools to be used.

      It’s hugely prevalent among the middle classes in Western societies, and perhaps exceptionally so in those societies that have subscribed to the lure of the ‘self-esteem’ movement.

      Malignant narcissists lack empathy for others, and lack insight into themselves, and hence readily engage in unpleasant behaviour without any idea of how the mass of normal people will react.

      So we see Splattergate, Gleick, and the recommendations for the branding, gassing, imprisonment, and execution of skeptics.

      They claim it’s “for the planet”, but in reality it’s about placing themselves at the centre of a heroic narrative where they bravely stand up and battle the monolith of the Big Oil funded “denialist” movement, etc etc.


      Report this

      271

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        In other words; it’s full on delusional.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Well said Rick.

        Form the PCL-R checklist for Psychopathy (aka malignant narcissism).

        Factor 1: Personality “Aggressive narcissism”

        Glibness/superficial charm
        Grandiose sense of self-worth
        Pathological lying
        Conning/manipulative
        Lack of remorse or guilt
        Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
        Callousness; lack of empathy
        Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

        All the listed elements are present in the leadership of the Greens (and unfortunately – many people who aspire to political leadership)


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Ian

      What it is with the Greens is their security. Most are either still living at home and attending university or have left university to take up a secure well paid job with a good pension, no manual labour needed, working in air conditioned comfort and living either in the inner city or in well to do suburbs. Prime examples are university academics and journalists such as Katherine Wilson. Stop logging so we can relax knowing the trees are still there even though we never visit them. Never mind about those losing their livelihood, they’re dispensable. Stop burning coal use for power production. Never mind that those in developing countries need reliable, relatively cheap power to advance their standard of living, that’s their fault for being born there. Let’s have a “carbon” tax. Even though it will make not an iota of difference to atmospheric CO2 levels we can afford the extra cost and its the symbolism that matters. Never mind those who can’t afford extra costs, that’s not our problem. Nothing affects the Greens personally in terms of their living standards so bugger the rest. A more self centred mob of hypocrites it would be hard to find.


      Report this

      181

    • #
      Dennis

      ALPBS News today, the hot summer weather is definitely global warming and as predicted twenty years ago, the pattern is clear, they claim.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    bobl

    I really hope that any investors that suffered any loss (Ie sold out below the peak) set up a class action to sue the pants of this pratt.

    At least this would be a good use of a class action.


    Report this

    411

  • #
    Russell

    I think the scariest thing in this article is the quotation marks around “lost” and “ordinary” in Wilson’s column. If shares are sold at an artificially low price, the probability is that the shareholders lost money. Also, with computerised trades today, it is more likely that the shareholders most likely to be hit by this sort of fraud action will be ordinary Australians.
    Scary how the Greens leadership and the Fairfax journalists have so much power and so little comprehension of the world they live in.


    Report this

    360

  • #

    Jo, this asylum is definitely being run by the inmates. Just what has this country come to?
    I thought the Greens were supposed to be doing something about their fruit-loop reputation. Then we get this crap confirming their fruit-loop status.
    I never would have thought that that Australia would be run by the kindergarten class. These people are nothing less than a bunch of sub-humans.
    Please bring on the election!


    Report this

    360

  • #
    manalive

    Katherine is only doing her job, what all Fairfax journalists do best viz. destroy shareholder value.


    Report this

    250

  • #
    sophocles

    They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

    (Hosea 8:7).

    He who sows wickedness reaps trouble.

    (Proverbs 22:8)

    This behaviour and it’s results is a recurrent them throughout the Old Testament.

    How sad. It is ultimately highly destructive of whatever cause indulges itself with this behaviour. No matter how important their cause is, stooping to these tactics is always self-destructive. .


    Report this

    150

  • #
    John Brookes

    It is the age old question of means justifying ends.

    Should George W Bush have lied about WMD to justify his invasion of Iraq that cost tens of thousands of lives, but did rid the world of a dictator? Was the cost worth it?

    Should people who believe passionately in an environmental cause follow America’s example, and accept that there will be some hardship caused?


    Report this

    381

    • #
      Paul S

      The answer, quite obviously, is no.


      Report this

      311

    • #
      The Black Adder

      John, John, John!

      So it’s ok for the greens to lie…

      For what? For u to keep a research grant?

      The scam we have to put up… Sux!!

      You, as a human being with the advantage of a large brain disappoints me no end!!


      Report this

      341

    • #
      NicG.

      @JB

      Ditto Paul S’s response but louder…NO!

      Cheers
      NicG.


      Report this

      140

    • #
      rukidding

      So JB you would be quite happy if your super fund was defrauded.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      llew Jones

      If you followed the history of the prosecution of that war, Bush in Sept 2002 asked Congress to give him authority to use force against the Saddam regime. Some of the Democrats, not confident that Bush’s advisors were being honest about the WMD asked the National Intelligence Agency to present an assessment of Saddam’s WMD capacity. The National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002 was then presented to Congress in October 2002.

      [From October 2002 NIE]

      Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

      We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass
      destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and
      restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as
      well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if
      left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during
      this decade…..:

      http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html

      It is important to note that in 1998 Bill Clinton had signed into law the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998″ which as much as the (wrong) NIE 2002 was the motivation for Congress to authorise the use of military force against the Saddam regime.

      Here’s the bit of ILA 1998 that Bush and the Congress Acted on:

      SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

      It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

      If you follow the Bush pre-invasion speeches (eg UN Speech September 2002)it is obvious that implementing the ILA 1998 was very much in his thinking as well that of the Congress when it authorised Bush to use force in Iraq on 10 October 2002.

      Which tells us that Bush did not lie about the WMD but the National Intelligence made a monumental stuff up.

      The difference between the removal of the Saddam regime and destroying Western economies through say banning the use of fossil fuels is that the removal of Saddam by a superior power was a foregone conclusion. There is no such certainty that the banning of fossil fuels will make one iota of difference to Earth’s climate.


      Report this

      281

      • #
        Dennis

        About thirty years ago the Green movement demanded that pollution be banned and various Environmental Pollution Acts were created. Ever since polluters face consequences for polluting and industries have to produce regular inspection reports in accordance with the Act. There is far less pollution now in the developed world, no more blackened buildings in cities from Coke and Coal burning under dirty conditions etc. So the Greens have created global warming changed to climate change as a weapon against progress and population growth, and the wealth creators jumped onto the gravy train created.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        John Brookes

        Sure Llew. Cheney, Rumsford et al wanted to invade. That the NIA told them what they wanted to hear is hardly surprising, and doesn’t justify the invasion.


        Report this

        14

    • #
      Sonny

      “people who believe passionately in an environmental cause”…

      As I suspected, we are dealing with cultists.


      Report this

      191

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        It’s the escape clause “environmental cause” that causes the confusion. In everybody’s mind there is a different meaning to this phrase, and that’s the mental trap that so many fall into.

        The whole premise is, just like a trafficker in fortune telling, make the proclamation nebulous enough yet fitting enough that anyone can believe some random event during the day fulfilled said prophesy. It is deception by trickery.

        United Nations, Green Peace, World Wildlife Fund, Political Correctness. They have become part of our natural language. Hiding in plain sight, sapping our ability to see clearly the peril we are facing against such ideology in authority.


        Report this

        120

        • #
          Dennis

          And the agendas are being implemented and the movement grows stronger and when it has gained control and power many people will wake up, too late. But ask yourself why the conservatives never seem to dismantle the UN based international new world order campaign.


          Report this

          60

      • #
        John Brookes

        In his case, yes.


        Report this

        01

    • #
      bobl

      Should people who are passionate about the environment be allowed to cause the starving of millions to pay for windmill subsidies or the burn their food for fuel to ultimately do nothing to cool the climate?

      Global warming fanatics are immoral, uncaring people who can’t or wont see the damage their idealism is causing to the poor and disadvantaged. The carbon tax is killing people NOW – but what’s a few dead pensioners…


      Report this

      300

      • #
        bernk

        Of course they have no qualms about poor people suffering for the “greater good”. The millions that died from malaria from the precipitous banning of DDT due to the proven fictitious work of Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ were just considered collateral damage.


        Report this

        101

    • #
      MangoChutney

      John,

      No, it’s not ok and Bush & Blair should be condemned for their actions.

      Now please tell us, was this justified?


      Report this

      96

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      From Brookes we get the usual rationalization.

      Should George W Bush have lied about WMD to justify his invasion of Iraq that cost tens of thousands of lives, but did rid the world of a dictator? Was the cost worth it?

      Bush did not lie; he relied on the best intelligence he could get at the time. There is a big difference. But you’re willing to call him a liar for the sake of your cause.

      Now we have Obama, who’s almost every word is a lie. But you can’t muster up the courage — or is it the wit — to call him for what he is.

      Do you know what the difference between them is, John?

      George Bush would not kiss anyone’s ass. Obama will kiss any ass that will get him a vote or some support.

      Where does that put you?

      You are an amoral fool, John. Get yourself a better reason for all this corruption in the name of saving the planet. The old one has been worn out. The end does not justify the means.


      Report this

      310

    • #
      Jaymez

      I’m sure Bush thought Hussien had WMD capabilities. They certainly did have in the past, and used them against the Kurds – that isn’t disputed. They claimed to have destroyed them but refused to do it under UN supervision and refused to give UN arms inspectors unfettered access to check possible sites which was a requirement of the ceasefire and withdrawal agreement from the original invasion. And months before the invasion a ship from North Korea had been intercepted which was shipping WMD materials to Iraq – also not disputed. Both Bush and Blair talked about evidence being on the balance of probabilities. You may recall that the actual invasion was done on the basis that Iraq breached the agreement to allow weapons inspectors access which was the rules from the original ceasefire and withdrawal. So you can’t really say the invasion was illegal, immoral or unexpected from Iraq’s POV just because they didn’t find any WMD’s as expected. It’s not like Bush said:

      “There will be no invasion under a government I lead”.


      Report this

      250

      • #
        Mark D.

        Jaymez, Why would the likes of JB complain about Bush applying the “Precautionary Principle”?

        Isn’t it the same thing the warmists are using to justify the ruin of current economies?


        Report this

        180

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        During the 10 year war (Iran Vs. Iraq) both sides used chemical weapons against the other. Millions died on both sides. Chemical weapons are banned by the Geneva Convention, and are classed as a weapon of mass destruction.

        And as you pointed out, after the first war with Iraq Sadam used his chemical weapons on the Kurds killing 120,000 of them.

        Sadam also attempted to make the biggest cannon in the world capable of sending a single warhead all the way to Israel, it never got off the blueprint. But he was building a nuclear power station which the Israelis bombed and destroyed. He told all his advisers, friends and enemies alike that he head nukes. It wasn’t until after the dust settled that it was found out to be a lie.


        Report this

        110

      • #
        Dennis

        Remember that Hussein had WMD and used them against the Turkish Kurds in Iraq and against Iran. Weapons inspectors did find artillery shells designed to deliver WMD in Iraq. And the people had nics for two of the chemists, Chemical Ali and Doctor Death.

        Hussein thought he was frightening the US from attacking, he was afraid after they chased his military out of Kuwait and nearly reached Baghdad. Hussein begged the UN to stop them and made promises to be good if they stopped. But then he made out that he might have WMD thinking that tactic would deter the US.

        Big mistake.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Catamon

        I’m sure Bush thought

        Bad Premise.


        Report this

        03

    • #
      Otter

      I dunno, Pedo brooksie, what do you think?


      Report this

      91

    • #
      Mark D.

      Brookes @13:

      It is the age old question of means justifying ends.

      I always heard it as “ends justifying means” JB, as usual you get things bass ackwards.

      The Greek playwright Sophocles wrote in Electra (c 409 B.C.), ‘The end excuses any evil,’ a thought later rendered by the Roman poet Ovid as ‘The result justifies the deed’ in ‘Heroides’ (c. 10 B.C.).” From “Wise Words and Wives’ Tales: The Origins, Meanings and Time-Honored Wisdom of Proverbs and Folk Sayings Olde and New” by Stuart Flexner and Doris Flexner (Avon Books, New York, 1993).


      Report this

      90

    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      John,

      First of all, I think you meant “the age old question of the end justifying the means”. What you actually said instead made no sense whatsoever.

      Second of all, in answer to your question, it is NEVER OK to deceive the general populace in order to achieve your own ends, whether you be an idiotic US President or an idiotic environmental “crusader”.

      The fact that you don’t understand that makes you a very scary individual indeed.


      Report this

      180

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      John,

      You need a new picture. It should be of you, of course but with a paper bag over your head. That way no one will recognize you when you post in the future.

      In other words, you really got your butt self nailed up to the barn door on this one.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      connolly

      So you are usuing the example of a war criminal to justify a crime. A new low in moral logic even for you.


      Report this

      83

      • #
        John Brookes

        No, I did not draw a conclusion. I only asked the question.

        I was leaving you guys to think about the morality.

        For myself, I don’t think that Bush or the hoaxer should have done what they did, but that Bush’s was much the greater crime. Or rather, the crime of the people pulling Bush’s strings was worse.


        Report this

        22

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Or rather, the crime of the people pulling Bush’s strings was worse.

          John,

          I hope you don’t mind if I ask, exactly who was pulling George Bush’s strings?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            John Brookes

            No, I don’t mind Roy. Ask away.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            John,

            I did ask. There’s no other way to understand what I wrote. So I conclude that your reply is an evasion of an honest answer to my question, “…, exactly who was pulling George Bush’s strings?” You made the statement so it’s entirely reasonable to ask the question and expect an answer.

            In case there’s still any doubt, I will make it completely clear to you. I am asking you, exactly who was pulling George Bush’s strings? Do you know anything about it or not?

            I await your reply.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            It appears that John knows nothing, else why not answer me?

            :-(


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Lank has finally brooken

      Prof Brookes – Do you “accept that there will be some hardship caused” as you mislead and deceive the populace on AGW?

      What will your excuse be when temperatures do not rise dramatically but continue at near constant trend as they have for the last 16 years despite the increasing output of a trace gas/plant fertiliser?

      Are you going to blame Bush for that too?…. Maybe Mann for his infamous ‘hockey stick’…. or perhaps Gore and his inconvenient ‘mistake’?

      Nevermind that Australia will undergo plenty of future ‘hardship’ through the stupid energy schemes and taxes that you support and for zero results to the climate. Do you accept any responsibility now that this fraud is shown to be clearly based on poor models, political vote gathering, research grants and greenie halucinations – not solid scientific understanding or review?

      This will certainly ’cause some hardship’ to your future scaremonger career.


      Report this

      92

    • #
      junkpsychology

      So far as we know, Dubya Bush didn’t lie about WMD in Iraq.

      So the analogy fails.

      If it turns out that Obama made up a riot in Benghazi to cover a pre-election exposure, that will be a stronger analogy.

      But probably not one that Brookes wishes to own.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Ian

      Hey John. Got air-con? A SUV? Any car at all? Use the roads at all? Building roads is very environmentally unfriendly so I hope you don’t. Use electric light and power? All from the sun/wind? Hope you don’t get any from power stations. Dreadful things environmentally aren’t they? Any gas use? Anything made of wood at home? If so all pine I hope. How about anything made of aluminium? Hope not. Dreadful CO2 footprint to produce. Anything in the house made of concrete? You know like the foundations. Also big carbon footprint to produce. Use mains water? From a dam? Hope not as dams are very anti-environmental aren’t they? Any air travel in your life style. Hope not? Got any super John? Any of it invested in fossil fuel shares by your superannuation managing company? Have you checked? Come to that have Ms Milne and Ms Rhiannon got any shares in coal companies via their very generous government super scheme? Can you be sure they don’t? Are they sure they don’t? How about Katherine Wilson’s super investments? Any fossil fuel exposure to fossil fuel companies there? She wouldn’t have, would she?

      Don’t be hypocritical John it isn’t becoming. If you want to renounce everything and live in the forest like Mr Moylan then go for it. But until you do remember your living is detrimental to the environment. Oh and if you do emulate Mr Moylan no phone or computer for you. Their production is certainly not compatible with the environment and you really wouldn’t like that would you?


      Report this

      130

    • #
      Sean

      should john brookes seek medical help to remove his head from his colon?


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Streetcred

      Hello Moby Dick … you swallow everything ? Including Jonah ?


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Nathan

      So John, you reveal yourself to have no problem with lying and deceit thereby declaring anything you say may not be truthful based on your predetermined belief system. This makes sense because I can’t believe anyone would actually believe the childish things you say. I doubt I can trust George Bush either.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      David

      Cite a reliable source for “tens of thousands of lives”. Please note the source has to be reliable – you know the idea of data being verifiable.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    RWTH

    …and who was selling short I wonder?


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Jim from Brisbane

    If It is the age old question of means justifying ends.
    Should Gleick have lied about his sources and Mann about his evidence to justify the imposition of “clean ” energy schemes and taxpayer subsidies,, desperately needed food converted to energy, loss of jobs for the manufacturing sector and higher power costs for zero impact on world temperatures for an unproven and growingly doubtful theory about climate?
    Was the cost worth it?
    Should people who believe passionately in an evangelical cause ignored by America/Russia/China/Canada/ Japan and India be allowed to impose their beliefs on the majority of the rest of us despite the hardship caused?


    Report this

    211

  • #

    The only problem about shorting the solar sector and then talking it down, is that the prices are already at rock bottom.

    Pointman


    Report this

    300

    • #
      The Black Adder

      G’day Pointman,

      Happy New Year!

      What about the Carbon Price?

      Currently $23 per tonne, followed by a increase as of July 1 to $25 per tonne!

      What is the EU paying at the moment ?

      And then we have to worry about the wind and solar scams…

      I tell ya… our work is never done!!


      Report this

      120

    • #

      M’lud Edmund,

      a Happy New Year to you too, good Sir. The biggest player in the EU carbon market appears to be organised crime, judging by the number of times it’s been temporarily suspended. No doubt, there’s a few Ockers doing the same in your realm. When the CCX closed its doors for good, the price had dropped to a nominal 5c per metric tonne. I’ve a sneaking feeling the Aus price will also be heading downward this year …

      Pointman


      Report this

      180

    • #
      Streetcred

      They’re ‘shorted out’ already !!


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Goodbye Greens, it was interesting knowing you, but your time is over. You’ve blown your own credibility and outlived your use by date. We won’t miss you.


    Report this

    341

  • #
    rukidding

    Why should he not get the same jail time as someone who robs the ANZ bank off $300 million with a gun.


    Report this

    260

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      Wish I’d written that. Exactly right as “charges” have not been laid. Seems there are two sets of Laws, one for greenies and another for us mug punters. Yet another example of why so many are severely disillusioned with current western democracy.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      ianl8888

      I’ve posted before – Moylan is allegedly guilty of forgery, identity theft and malicious damage to property (about $314m of it, in fact)

      Eventually, he will be admonished severely for a “silly, stupid hoax” – this will encourage copy cats, just as he himself learnt from the Gleick affair

      The MSM, especially Fairfax, will avoid any accountability for their hopelessly incompetent “fact-checking” (these journos wanted the forged ANZ press release to be true)

      Milne et al will NOT be publically admonished by Gillard for supporting and encouraging these alleged criminal acts. In fact, Gillard has and will, ignore the entire episode completely, but Roxon will work hard with the corporate cop ASIC to bed the whole imbroglio down

      No MSM journo will ask Gillard to comment on this

      This is how power actually works


      Report this

      120

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    You cannot look for honour or decency from any marxist, only destruction of society.


    Report this

    221

  • #
    Andrew

    So I have a good faith belief that the Greens’ policies are killing pensioners and will in 40 years bankrupt the country through $57bn p.a. of imported carbon credits – making it impossible for us to fund the necessarily accommodations for CAGW such as storm surge walls. Is it then “proud tradition of protected and heroic civil disobedience” for me to blow up wind farms, solar plants and other Green slush fund projects? After all, it shouldn’t matter whether I’m disobeying the Greens’ favourite laws under their “choose your own morality” rule. What if I published an evil lie about Milne herself – got it published on the Fewfacts websites? Clearly I believe she’s a dangerous person harming the country.

    In fact, carried to the logical reductio ad absurdum, Milne’s position could be taken to justify the killing of people who oppose your views in a manner you consider immoral. Oh, wait…


    Report this

    280

    • #
      AndyG55

      “reductio ad absurdum”

      umm… Milne’s point of view is already at the absurd level, or beyond.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      john robertson

      Exactly the logic of that other piece of fog the greens use, The precautionary Principle.
      Lacking proof one is still justified if they believe greater harm can occur by not acting.(The UN’s argument)
      Well I believe the greens are enemies of civilization, I believe they intend to rob me of wealth and freedom.
      So I should act accordingly.?
      The look on the eco-nuts face is priceless, when I put that question to ‘em.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Eliza

    Nothing absolutely nothing will happen until some very very wealthy person is prepared to initiate legal action and keep that action up for many many years against these criminals. Especially in about 5 years when it will be so bleeding obvious to even the AGW diehards that it was an hoax all along.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      Farmer Doug 2

      Eliza
      Trouble is we can’t win till the defence taxpayer runs out of money.
      Doug


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      Hello Gina. Gina where are you? Greenies will never ever be made accountable for their actions till supporting serious illegal activities (forget protests they are to be applauded as part of free speech) HURTS. And, and, and they are judged the same way under the Law as the rest of us.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Very good, except that as time goes on it will become obvious that it was no hoax, and the world is in trouble.


      Report this

      28

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Some of the punishments being called for by the lynch mob seem a bit heavyhanded for a hoaxer who obtained PR but no money by his deception (that we know about). The one good thing about allowing unfettered free speech in this case is… at least we know who the loonies are and how far they’re prepared to go. The enemy is de-cloaking.

    But Milne defending this guy is… indefensible. At least we know what the Greens stand for: outright thieving from the capitalists and retarding supplies to the techno-utopia that 2/3 of the world relies upon.

    Maybe Milne should take a sabot off one of her well-rounded feet and literally throw it into the looms of Billabong and R.M.Williams just to absolutely cement their chosen role and unmask the truth of the Greens for all to see.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Well said AM!!

      Why did the chicken livered Green Milne cross the road?

      Because she thought it was Carbon Neutral…

      Bwahahaha…


      Report this

      100

      • #
        AndyG55

        I wonder how many people realise that that many of our roads are made of waste product from coal fired blast furnaces. ie Ashphalt !!!

        And the bitumen, is of course an oil product. As are some cosmetics, perfumes, face creams etc

        The ash from steel production is even used in making some grades of cement.

        The world would be a much less advanced place without COAL and its many, many, many by-products.


        Report this

        91

    • #
      Jaymez

      Andrew an arsonist gains no financial benefit and eventually the fire is put out, but a lot of damage is done to innocent people in the mean time! The courts must make an example of this guy, they cannot afford to set a precedent by being lenient. What about a bomb hoax to parliament house because you are sick of the way they are acting in question time? No one loses money or gets hurt. And you are just making a statement and drawing attention to their bad behaviour after all. Do you think the judiciary would be lenient in that case?

      Would Christine Milne think it a pretty good idea to phone in a bomb hoax to a mine site or a port or a live cattle ship to draw attention to that – or maybe even a nuclear power plant? Would she be tweeting her congratulations about that?


      Report this

      180

    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      In America, shouting “FIRE!!!” In a crowded theater, thereby causing a panic in which some people are trampled to death, is not considered “free speech”. Here, we consider that “murder”.

      In the same way, willfully disseminating a fraudulent press release with the intent that it be believed as real by the public, thereby causing the loss of $300M would SHOULD not be considered “free speech”, but should be considered as slanderous fraud.

      Your natural rights STOP at the point which they create harm to another free being. Loss of $300M certainly falls under the category of “harm”.


      Report this

      160

    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      It doesn’t matter that the perpetrator did not profit by his own actions. What does matter is that the actions of the perpetrator caused direct harm to other individuals.


      Report this

      120

      • #

        Also that it was deliberate and with that intent (to cause harm).


        Report this

        120

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Yes, okay, it was irrelevant that he didn’t profit from the lie.

        But I reckon you are overstating the “harm” that he “caused”.
        Firstly, the “harm” was not real harm to anyone or anything real, but was at worst some reduction of subjective societal goodwill towards one company based on estimated future earnings.
        Secondly, this “harm” was not exclusively “caused by” the liar (as he was incapable of disposing of the stock) but was directly caused by the shareholders and traders themselves, dumping stock based on information which by its provenance was unlikely to be true and which they could have checked but failed to check. To argue otherwise is to argue that traders live in a market in which rumours do not ever occur, i.e. unrealistic. That word “realistic” means the fact of the world today, not the kind of world you would prefer to have.

        As “the trickster” points out, so very few people believed the lie and acted on it that their responsibility for their own actions cannot be disregarded when judging how much pseudo “harm” the liar was “likely” to cause by their lie.

        The liar is clearly guilty, the relevant Corporations Law clause is quite general and far-reaching, but how can his sentence be gauged when many victims were also victims of the ineptitude and laziness of themselves and journalists? That is the question the court judge will have to decide. It is not as straightforward as the lynch mob grunts it is.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      cohenite

      Possible criminal offences committed by Moylan are covered by the Corporations ACT, Division 2, sections 1041 E and F.


      Report this

      81

  • #
    Shevva

    If AIG can sue the US goverment for giving it 81 billion dollars can’t the share holds sue this moroon for losing them millions? did the share price recover?

    The funny thing is the rest of the world seems to be waking up to the CAGW scam you Ozzys where always 6 months behind with such things as music but with your political enviroment CAGW seems to be 6 years behind.

    Shane Warne for PM. http://www.shanewarne.com/


    Report this

    91

  • #
    the trickster

    This whole Whitehaven Coal/Moylan scandal is choc full of ironies, hypocrisies as well as a lynch mob mentality taking hold. Lets break down somewhat.
    1) The actual hoax: It is unclear what law if any has actually been broken. The thing is markets are rife with rumours of all kinds which move verbally, via blogs, emails, txts, investment websites etc etc. I note many people are suggesting Moylan should be charged under Corp Law, ASIC rules and ASX listing rules. The problem is Moylan is neither a director, a participant, a trader, an insider etc. He has effectively no connection to the mkt. He is technically not bound by any of the rules simply because he is not a player in the market. He didn’t profit, so far it appears he did not use that hoax for anyone around him to profit either so ASIC will struggle to get him under S1041A and they may even even struggle under Division 137 of the Criminal Code. While I don’t condone what Moylan has done he didn’t transmit the information either to the market, he simply sent it to some journos who then did the rest. The question is, is sending a dodgy email to a journo/s a criminal offence? I would suggest a learned lawyer would easily defend this.

    2) The question is, what fact checking did the journalists and receivers of the “fake” email do to check its veracity? This is a question no one is asking. These people have a much higher and stricter test and level of responsibility before broadcasting information to the market. A couple of phone calls to ANZ and Whitehaven would have quickly established the bona fides. The fact of the matter is media organisations and even market participants are often bombarded with rumours true and otherwise all the time, however participants all understand that they simply cant broadcast to the market without some verification. I would humbly suggest if ASIC wants to make an issue of this they need to look beyond Moylan and to the behaviour of some of the participants directly involved and whether they breached market rules and corp law.

    3) If the ASX is of the view that the market was manipulated or false they can simply break the trades. The ASX seems to sticking to some 10% rule re price move before applying it, but this is a weak argument. The ASX already has precedence when various market participants have made errors, algo and High frequency trading machines have gone wild the ASX has then forced trade cancellation. Its either a false market or not. If some participants go crazy on rumours i dont think that constitutes a “false” market, for participants you have been around for years they would have all seen even crazier trading all based on rumours and no substance. For examples See Internet Boom.

    4) To the Greens, the greens have spread false information re so called climate change, we have had politicians lie, and so on. For those calling on Moylans head and for an example to be set, can i suggest we first start with the Prime Minister and work our way down. It is hypocrisy to simply go after Moylan but ignore all the falsehoods and lies pushed by our so called (mis)leaders. How much money has been lost, how many business and livelihoods destroyed by some of the nonsense that has been put forward? So for the Greens in this case to come out and support him but at the same practice the nonsense of false info they are really stretching things.

    5) Market participants crying foul, well one can have some sympathy the markets have been riddled with players talking their own books and sprukers pushing their own self interests ahead of the public. It has come out recently that various investment banks pushed recommendations for investors to put their money into toxic products while at the same time they bet against them. Where was ASIC? For the real doozy before the GFC you had Hank Paulson and Benarke telling every one how strong and robust financial markets were and how the future looked only better and within weeks the financial world went down the toilet in 08. IS this false and misleading? And what about algo and HFT when various banks put machines at the ASX to effectively scalp the punters, its not a level playing field but the ASX and ASIC allow it because of the money that gets paid and the lobbying that goes on.

    Any we can go on and on and on!!

    Rather than behaving as a linch mob i think this serves an important lesson that markets are not robust and do not have the integrity that people think and the most important lesson is that buyers and sellers should be alert and that participants need to verify info before broadcasting it as gospel. I know people will object to this post but one has to cut through the hype.


    Report this

    257

    • #
      bobl

      So it’s ok for me to orchestrate a “Pump-n-dump” provided it’s my brother-in-law that makes the killing on the stock market? It’s up the the market to detect my fraud – right?

      You are so full of contradictions here. Moylan should be made to pay back the losses that resulted from his fraud -ie $300M – Greenpeace will cover it I’m sure – Milne & Rhiannon will kick in 1/2 no doubt…

      /sarc


      Report this

      190

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I’m just another opinion here but there’s some justice in asking, where was the due diligence on everyone’s part, all the way around? It isn’t necessary to let one dishonest party do so much damage. Journalists, for instance do have a responsibility for fact checking. The ASX does have a responsibility to keep things honest.

        I realize you’re being sarcastic. But the history of any financial disaster always seems to show a number of points where someone could have discovered the problem in time to cry foul.


        Report this

        111

    • #
      Jaymez

      I can’t agree with most of that Trickster.But I will start with what I can agree with and that is point 3. I fully expected to here that the ASX had ordered all trades between certain points in time to be reversed, but it never happened. There were apparently only 1600 trades and while the share price fell significantly theoretically chopping $314 million off the value for the company, maybe the actual number of shares traded wasn’t that high. So I ma guessing the reason the ASX hasn’t reversed the trades is that the notice was never lodged with the ASX and never published by the ASX, so the ASX do not feel they have any action to remedy themselves.

      Moylan didn’t send the notice to the ASX he sent it to media outlets. I understand Fairfax rang him to confirm (as he put two ANZ contact numbers on the ‘ANZ Notice’ but both went through to him. He masqueraded as the ANZ person, confirmed the story and it hit the internet.

      The fact is many share traders, mum and dad investors as well as institutional investors set preset sell triggers whether it be selling volume or sale price. So a lot of trading would have happened automatically irrespective of notices from the ASX, just based on the movement in the share price. So it will have only taken a couple of traders on Hot Copper to have possibly start the slide and the story buzzing.

      Which partly goes to your point 2. You must know that a lot of trading – in fact I would say the majority happens not on the basis of sound assessment of long term fundamental value, but on being able to react quickly to news which affects the share price. That is why auto triggers are set and that is why honesty in the system is so important.

      Do you seriously expect every day trader, mum and dad trader, corporate trader, funds manager and stock broker to pick up the phone and call ANZ or Whitehaven to check the veracity of the communication as the sales are happening and the price is sliding? That is not realistic and I know any journalist that has made such a suggestion either has no idea about investing in the stock market or is jealous of investors because they have no investments themselves, so they are secretly happy the capitalist pigs have lost money!

      I think you are confusing whether ASX rules have been breached versus whether the law has been broken. It may be difficult to find an ASX rule that has been broken as he is not a member and did not trade and he didn’t sent the notice to the ASX. But there are a number of areas of law that appear to have been broken. Your ‘test’ as to whether he personally benefited from the hoax has nothing to do with any of them. Just the same as if you rob a bank and give the money away, or break in or trespass but steal nothing.

      1. The Corporations Act says it is a criminal offence to disseminate false and misleading information to the market, whether or not the disseminator has any intention to make money out of the action.

      2. It is an offence to create a false document in the name of a corporate entity and distribute it as if it came from that entity – forging and uttering – again, it makes no difference whether or not you intended are actually succeeded in making any money out of it.

      3. It is an offence maliciously cause financial damage or damage to a person or entities reputation. There is no question there was malicious intent. This may require civil action by a person or corporation, and they could be lining up if it is found he has any assets once he is convicted of the above.


      Report this

      220

      • #
        the trickster

        I think you guys are missing the point. This story since it broke has all the hallmarks of lynch mob and scapegoat mentality. After all how can a supposed “hippie” living in a commune somewhere cause so much damage to the alleged “sophisticates” of the financial markets?.
        I have been a market professional for most of my career and and if you ask any seasoned professional for the truth they will tell you rumours true, half true and down right lies continually circulate throughout the market. In the old days its simply verbal, these days its through every medium there is. You will never get rid of rumours or participants pushing their “barrows” so to speak.
        The irony is this is what also helps a market function, a differing set of views on the facts as well as the various speculations that go on is what creates a market. Rather than jumping to a conclusion you need to carefully consider what that statement actually means.
        Lets now look at how the info got out to the market. It wasnt via ANZ, nor via Whitehaven nor the ASX. Apparently he sent it to Business Spectator and the Fin Review. This needs to be confirmed but from what I can gather it was only one or 2 media organisations. So what did these guys do? Clearly they had no idea. Any professional would of smelt a rat straight away!!! Why would ANZ be telling the market it is not lending money to Whitehaven.? Are not negotiations between a bank and a client confidential? If a clients project is dependent on finance from a bank and statements have made to the market that the project depends on this finance and it falls through, would the announcement not come from the client? The point is, if the journalists did their job properly a few phone calls to both parties would have quickly confirmed it. Why would not a professional just ring the number on a “media release” to confirm veracity. A primary school kid could do better. You see, if the journos had even just called Whitehaven they would of suspected somethings is wrong, because if true Whitehaven is required under Corp Law and Listing Rules to maintain a informed market. Directors risk serious penalties otherwise.
        And once the media organisations posted it on their sites, well the rest is history, it went viral through the blogs etc and people took it as gospel.But here is the thing, the smart operators who made money out of this went to confirm the info and when they discovered it was a hoax they were buying. Nice trade!!! The ASX to their credit realised something was out of kilter, but whether it was the correct decision to halt the market is debatable.
        Nor is it reasonable that everyone call , but the point is very few people actually confirm facts, most market players are simply lemmings, but the irony is when the lemmings get it right they pat themselves on the back on how clever they are, but when they get it wrong they want a scapegoat.

        The other points relating to markets stops etc, out of market orders that got hit are irrelevant. That is the risk of set and forget strategies. I know it is harsh but that is reality. The reality is the financial markets are actually speculative information markets and its has very little to do with so called fundamentals. Some free advice, by the time a company hits its so called “fundamentals” you best be sold out of it. It is misguided to think “allot of trading happens on sound assessment”. I can suggest some good books and reading material which will forever change your view.

        In relation to laws and market rules, i could of explained it better but there are so many and it would be an essay, but the key point is whether it can be taken that he actually disseminated the info. It will depend on the interpretation of “false and misleading” in the context of the act. ASIC will unlikely get him on any of the market and corp law provisions. All the Corp Law, List Rules etc are geared for participants, they have trouble proving and making it stick on people who deliberately “rig” markets, the best they can do is bust some punters who have been silly enough to “inside trade” and the only reason they succeed is a because of a blatant crum trail.

        All he did was send a “dodgy” email to some journos. My sense is the normal police may be able to prosecute him on the basis or either “making false statements” or “creating a public nuisance” . If he gets a good lawyer, they will struggle to get him on that as well.

        But the bigger problem is of which Moylan is a symptom is that we live in a culture where lies and shallowness has become acceptable. We are happy to accept these when it suits us but seem outraged when it doesnt. The good thing here is that it has generated some outrage, because for the most part people simply accept lies even when they know they are lies. And that is where we all have to take responsibility.


        Report this

        74

        • #
          ianl8888

          The MSM, especially Fairfax, will avoid any accountability for their hopelessly incompetent “fact-checking” (these journos wanted the forged ANZ press release to be true)

          See my post downthread 8:28am

          I’ve been posting that comment for a week, so your diatribes about how “a corrupt and shallow society is to blame” and no-one is questioning the stupid journos are hopelessly inaccurate

          You need to answer this question:

          If, as I expect, Moylan finishes with some stern admonition about a “silly, stupid hoax”, how will we then deal with the copy cats ?

          Just answer the question, please, no long-winded rants needed


          Report this

          70

          • #
            the trickster

            Answer: You will just have to deal with these hoaxes on a case by case basis as they come up.
            If you think a law or authoritarian edict will solve the problem you are kidding yourself.
            Anyway where do you draw the line?
            I note that very few were actually fooled, it apparently went to over 40 media organisations, only 2 or so actually believed it and went on to publish it. As I said most school kids would have smelt a rat. Quite a brokers I know knew something was up straight away.
            Don’t believe everything you read


            Report this

            21

        • #

          He used his on phone number and pretended to be an ANZ officer. So much for that excuse.
          Society works on trust. This sort of thing leads to the erosion of trust and we are all far worse off for it. Think of all the security nonsense at airports because the authorities don’t trust the people and all the other hoops we must jump through now for the same reason.
          If the authorities don’t prosecute and jail him for a substantial period(10 years, no parole sounds about right)and bankrupt him as well it will eventually lead to the situation where the “remedy” for those who suffered loss will be to engage a couple of thugs [snip "for vigilante type justice" -- we don't need all the details thanks. -Jo] He’s extremely stupid as he has no idea who he has pissed off.


          Report this

          90

    • #
      connolly

      I stopped reading at the first point. The Corporations Act has clearly been breached. It carries a custodial scentence. There is no legal concept of “hoax”. Deliberate misleading of the market is closer to the law. Not only that the arse clown has virtually convicted himself by his bragging about why he did it. He has actually supplied his own incriminating evidence in regard to motive. A famous criminal lawyer in the US has a marlin mounted on the wall in his office waiting room. The caption underneath reads. “This guy is stuffed because he couldn’t keep his mouth shut”.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        the trickster

        Has the Corporations Act really been breached? I don’t think it is clear cut as allot of posters and journos seem to think, and it is not clear that he has incriminated himself either. Writing an email that contains false information is not exactly an offence. I know some people may find that hard to believe, but you can write anything and say anything you want last time I checked, the question then is what you do with it. He sent it to around 40 media outlets of which 2-3 took the bait. Up until this point, it is questionable what offence has occurred and a defence is easily mounted.
        2-3 media organisations post it because they have not verified it, calling the number on the media release does not constitute adequate verification for market release, sorry but that doesnt save the media groups . We do not know what he said to these 2-3 media outlets, so again we are speculating and clutching at straws, but again we may struggle but possible with imposing a false and misleading statement charge. They release it and the some in the market go crazy. I find very instructive that the ASX refuses to break the trades. If it was a true breach and a false market i suspect the ASX would of broken the trades, there is plenty of precedence of the ASX doing this. ANZ, WHitehaven nor the ASX were provided with nor released anything on the matter at the time. Its a case of an out of control rumour. The stock started rising well before the trade halt, people had already figured it was fishy.
        I do not agree nor support what he has done, but I have been around markets for long enough to see the problems with this case. What i think they will do is charge him knowing that most if not all the charges wont stick (after all they need to protect their egos) and when the story disappears quietly drop the charges. I also note some people have referred to the importance of market trust and integrity, indeed, but which integrity are we talking about here? the integrity when mugs like Moylan cause problems by sending dodgy emails or when big institutions fleece punters of tillions and the so called industry bodies, politicians and regulators close ranks? Why do you think the GFC happened? What do you think the carbon market is about but to rip you off? And don’t be surprised to see another far worse GFC .


        Report this

        22

        • #
          John Brookes

          Yeah, I recently read “Liars Poker”. Inside Saloman Brothers you were a hero if you managed to dump some rotten stock that the bank was stuck with onto some schmuk. The salesman who sold it knew it was crap, they lied to the customer, saying it was good, and they never disclosed that the reason they were recommending it as a “buy” was because the bank was stuck with it and didn’t want it.

          And yet that is not illegal. It makes you wonder just what you have to do to break the law.


          Report this

          31

        • #
          Jaymez

          Trickster you seem to keep forgetting that the false information he emailed round was emailed on forged ANZ letterhead and ‘signed off’ by two assumed ANZ executive’s identities. So it wasn’t just false information, it was intended to deceive. In his interview he did express some surprise that his hoax was so effective, but he did indicate that the intention was to cause damage to ANZ and Whitehaven, so his malicious motives were self admitted, not unintentional consequences from the publicity prank of an activist attempting to highlight an environmental issue.

          ASIC has to protect the market from copy cat hoaxes so in my opinion they have no choice but to take action. Whether the courts decide to slap him on the wrists or take the matter seriously is another thing and that will probably be political.

          I maintain it is likely the ASX will take no action because they had no involvement in allowing the hoax and as you point out, he personally didn’t trade. If they had published a report which they later found to have been deliberately misleading then that would have been a different matter. In this case, I think the ASX will leave it to anyone who suffered financial loss to seek their own personal legal remedy against Moylan.

          It sounds like you know something about trading so you would know that the continuous quoting of the $314M loss figure may be pretty melodramatic. There were only 1600 trades. We don’t know how many shares were sold, and we don’t know how many were sold at the lowest price. The $314M loss is simply the number you get by multiplying the number of shares on issue by the price before the hoax and then at the price at the bottom of the hoax. but for all we know most shares sold out for just a few cents lower and the last sale at the bottom of the market may only have been a few hundred shares.

          How little people may have lost doesn’t make what he did right, though I notice on many left wing blog sites he is being hailed a hero and people can’t understand what all the fuss is about.

          To my mind the fuss is that he has made a decision that coal mining is bad, so that anything he does to stop it is OK even if it is a breach of the law or causes damage to others. The problem with people thinking like this is where do they draw the line. We’ve seen what radical Muslims do when they believe their faith has been insulted. Well Moylan is simply protecting his man made global warming faith, and taking the law into his own hands. He doesn’t have the right to do that. We shouldn’t condone it or excuse it, or try to blame the people who were taken in by the hoax.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            the trickster

            I hear what you are saying but i making the distinction between real “false and misleading” info and “false and misleading” info that is rubbish and really not misleading because a simple sensibility test shows it up. I will make 2 points. 1) Do you not think it is odd that a bank would publicly announce they are not lending money to someone? You see Whitehaven is listed, if they made a prior announcement to the market that they were working with banks on a finance deal for some purpose, and that deal falls through they would have to inform the market. It is not up to ANZ or any other bank to make public announcements on behalf of Whitehaven, in fact ANZ risks serious penalties if was to do so. When you go for a loan and if you are knocked back, is there some announcement publicly ? No. And this is the stupidity of it. Anyone worth their salt on receipt of the press release would have to suspect something is strange here.

            Which leads me onto point 2) He sent it to over 40 media and PR groups to disseminate via the market. I suspect he also may have sent it to the ASX (question mark, but there is some talk). Only 2 or 3 of these groups actually took it seriously and then pushed it out into the market. What does that tell you? Even Moylan has admitted he was surprised that it was believed. Many market participants actually did not react and actually sort to confirm, because on first reading they would have been doing what i mentioned in point 1. Why is a bank announcing this and not Whitehaven? something is not right????
            But in the world of direct access electronic trading where many people dont interact with professional brokers etc it is no surprise they took a erroneous rumour as fact.
            I am not hailing the guy a hero and the left wing websites are misguided to think that, however on the substantive notion that there are serious Corp Law breaches and that he faces jail or penalties, I don’t think so, he will get at best a slap on the wrist if that.

            A more serious issue is why did those 2-3 media organisations pass on false information? That is the real scandal here. Notice how everyone is quiet on that question. I wonder why?


            Report this

            00

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    More example of green fraud


    Report this

    40

  • #
    StopTheWatermelons

    Hopefully this incident helps the people of Australia realise that the Greens are nothing but a bunch of genocidal, communist maniacs who care more about their own wellbeing than the average man in the street. Milne’s defense of Moylan is simply the final nail in the coffin of the Green’s credibility (or lack thereof).


    Report this

    181

  • #

    The end never justifies the means. Every bottom feeder there ever was has never come to grips with this and have ultimately disappeared up their own rear ends in a maelstrom of contradictions.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Catamon

    Greens say deception, fraud “for the planet” is OK

    He did a bad thing by deceiving people, agreed. Some people lost money, some people made it on the trades that day, it being a market and all.

    Donna Laframboise – Secret Santa leak of AR5 Working Group II material

    Did “Secret Santa” do a bad thing by deceiving the IPCC that he/she/it would keep that draft material confidential and then leaking it??


    Report this

    127

    • #
      Len

      Why would it even need to be confidential?


      Report this

      150

      • #
        Catamon

        Why would it even need to be confidential?

        Irrelevant to the question i asked Len.


        Report this

        121

        • #
          Sonny

          No, the ends justify the means.
          We have to expose the liars and frauds and limit the damage they cause.
          We are on the good side Cat.


          Report this

          110

        • #
          PeterB in Indianapolis

          Catamon,

          Wrong! Not irrelevant at all. First of all, the IPCC CLAIMS to be a “transparent” organization, so why should their draft reports be unavailable for the general public to review?

          More importantly; however, you are missing the main point entirely. An action is only morally wrong if that action causes direct harm to another free, individual human being.

          Therefore, disseminating a false press release with the actual intent of causing harm to a company and the shareholders of that company (many of whom are free, individual human beings), would be CLEARLY immoral.

          Releasing unpublished drafts of the IPCC AR-5 reports, on the other hand, causes no direct harm to any individual. You MIGHT be able to argue that it somehow may cause “indirect harm” to some researcher who loses face due to the release of the draft material, but even that is a huge stretch.

          Since, in the case of “leaking the IPCC AR-5 draft reports” you cannot show any direct harm to any free individual human being, it is clearly not an immoral act.

          Now do you understand the difference?


          Report this

          201

        • #
          Apoxonbothyourhouses

          Wrong. The IPCC, BBC, PBS and ABC are all using MY money and when taxpayer’s money is involved we are entitled to total transparency. When its YOUR money that’s a different kettle of fish.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Lars P.

          No, you are wrong, it is very relevant to the question.
          Why would an organisation that should do analysis of scientific papers ever have the need of secrecy? It should have been very open and transparent from the beginning.
          Do you fail to see the difference?


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Apoxonbothyourhouses

            Will he see the difference Lars? I very much doubt it as apparently Catamon failed 101 Science Ethics along with the Manns, Lewanwhateverhisnameisski et al on the gravy train. Real scientists actively seek criticism whereas the “et al” mob hide behind the Law because transparency would shine a revealing light on their work. As Jones ? said ~ “why should I reveal my sources as you might find something wrong with them”.


            Report this

            100

    • #
      Mark D.

      Catamon, that is a good philosophical question and worthy of argument. Do you think it is more moral to disclose information that doesn’t cause people to lose savings (investments) than it is for someone to lie or defraud that ultimately causes people to lose money?

      You might even apply the “buyer beware” principle, I suppose, that investors should know all investments are risky.

      But I digress. Who was harmed by the data leak? Was it Donna’s moral obligation NOT to publish it? Or does any judgement lay only upon the person that supposedly was obligated not to leak it?

      It seems to me that no one was harmed by the data leak. Unless you think that foiling ones propaganda plan harms them………


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Did “Secret Santa” do a bad thing by deceiving the IPCC that he/she/it would keep that draft material confidential and then leaking it??

      Catamon,

      Secret Santa blew the whistle on a fraudulent operation (in case you didn’t get the message previously).

      I think that in your world spying and encouraging whistlblowing would never be justified. We would just trust our neighbors to stay on the straight and narrow path, ad infinitum. Har-de-har-har!

      I don’t think you would last very long in that world. So you should say along with me, thank God for whistleblowers, thank God for the CIA/Aussie Intelligence Service (whatever it’s called). Don’t you know that our embassy and consulates in Australia are full of ears listening to every bit of communication they can find? Don’t you know yours here are doing the same?

      Now in a legalistic sense you may well be right. So maybe the ethics are sometimes situational. I owe my employer complete loyalty, including not disclosing proprietary or trade secret information. I even owe them discrete enough behavior that I never embarrass them. But if I discovered they were engaged in any shady business practice, much less anything illegal, I would be the first to blow the whistle. All the agreements I signed when I accepted the job would make no difference at all.

      So go ahead and complain, Cat. The world is what it is and you can’t change it any more than I can.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      Otter

      Did “Secret Santa” do a bad thing by deceiving the IPCC that he/she/it would keep that draft material confidential and then leaking it??

      NO


      Report this

      120

    • #
      MadJak

      Catamon,

      One of these acts is leaking real information in the interests of giving more people input into something that affects everyone.

      The other is an act of fraud with fabricated information designed to misrepresent and slander two businesses with an aim to seriously damage peoples livelihoods.

      Nice attempt at projection, but in the end, as always, utterly useless execution.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      AndyG55

      There is a big difference between letting the truth be heard, and deliberately lying to deceive.

      But you wouldn’t know that, would you.


      Report this

      140

    • #
      Lars P.

      Well, people need to learn what these so called greenies are.
      John and Catamon here do their best.
      For John “means justifying ends” (whatever that means) excuses any deception that a self-named-green does in the name of his cause, for him it is ok.
      For Catamon blowing the whistle on fraudulent operation is the same as causing people to lose money through delusion.
      A couple of days ago we were told by John that climate science is no hard science like physic, chemistry – which explains what greens understand under “climate science”.
      So John, Catamon, Gleick, Lew, Gergis and others, keep on the good work, thank you.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      connolly

      There is huge difference in law and morality between someone who breaches a contract or contractual confidentiality and someone who deliberately misleads the public at large (he put out a forged press release) which causes distortion in stock trading price. One is a private harm and the other is a public harm. Who is more damaging to the public interest – a pick pocket or a fraud? Think Lenny Lightfingers v Alan Bond


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Catamon

        One is a private harm and the other is a public harm.

        So Moylan did a “private harm” by deceiving a few journo’s when they didn’t fact check? A secondary effect was that some people lost money. Now, whatever “harm” Moylan did could be mitigated by ASIC if they cancelled the trades for that period. As they have chosen not to, who is actually responsible for the “harm” done to the losers in this??

        As far as the release of the IPCC drafts, depending on you position on AGW it can be seen as publicly very harmful since its the release of an unfinished document, by someone who has abrogated their confidentiality agreement, to stoke the outrage of the true disbeliever cult in the hope that will influence the politics around the issue.

        Now its become obvious to me that the consensus position here under the received wisdom of the true disbelievers is that anything, regardless of provenance (or even content) that can be seen or spun to look like it might possibly damage the credibility of the IPCC or anyone associated with is is ok. Deception is fine provided its the true cause.

        Good to know.


        Report this

        17

        • #
          Mark D.

          Whoa boy, calm down. The last time we talked it was generic questions about various perspectives on morals.

          You never answered my questions, and now you lump me into a wide sweeping “consensus”?

          And then:

          it can be seen as publicly very harmful since its the release of an unfinished document, by someone who has abrogated their confidentiality agreement, to stoke the outrage of the true disbeliever cult in the hope that will influence the politics around the issue.

          Is interesting given this comment from you earlier:

          i suspect you overestimate its significance.

          So it seems you are either disingenuous or filled with fauxrage. Which is it?

          Oh yeh it’s both…….


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Catamon

            i suspect you overestimate its significance.

            I was unclear on that. Should have been:

            i suspect you overestimate its significance outside of the small, true disbeliever universe.

            But I digress. Who was harmed by the data leak?

            All the poor scientists who are going to have to waste more time dealing with the queries about it. But purveyors of blood pressure meds to the perennially grumpy will be pleased. :)

            Was it Donna’s moral obligation NOT to publish it?

            I’m sure she feels a moral obligation to publish given her position however misguided on AGW, and as far as i know she never agreed to any kind of confidentiality agreement with the IPCC.

            Or does any judgement lay only upon the person that supposedly was obligated not to leak it?

            Primary responsibility certainly lays with the person who leaked it.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Ace

    “Civil Disobedience” was pioneered by the NAZIs, they called it Kristelnacht.


    Report this

    81

    • #
      Ace

      …how exactly does trashing any business you dont like differ from trashingany business you dont like?

      Then again, millimetres under the skin of every Green is an anti-semite who swears the planet is being murdered by Jewish bankers.

      This includes the nastiest self-hating, Jew-hating Jews among their ranks. The Kapos of the ghetto.


      Report this

      91

      • #
        Sonny

        You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to oppose the big banks.
        I’m so sick Of people playing the anti-Semite cars to stifle debate. It’s bullshit.


        Report this

        80

      • #
        Ace

        BUT when they say “Jewish bankers”….

        As for your general posture, I guess you havent been on the receiving nd of anti-semitism all your life …I have. Only last year I had a fecking shelf stacker in aBerlin supermarket refer to me as “untermensch”

        So walk a few yards in my shoes, asshole.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Ace

          2011 FBI hate-crime summary:

          http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/narratives/victims

          Note:
          “■63.2 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
          ■12.5 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
          ■5.7 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.”

          Stick that in your ignorance and choke on it.


          Report this

          71

        • #
          Sonny

          I’m Jewish Ace.
          Get over it. Don’t fall into the traps of using “anti-semitism” as a weapon in debates.
          It is ugly and unnecessary.


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Ace

            But it is also true.

            What you refer to is calling those you disagree with anti-semites for diagreeing with you. Valid objection. But Ive never done that.

            What I wrote above (and I see I posted it in the wrong place, so cryptic to many as to what I was referring to) was that a preponderence of Greens are the same people who form the now fashionable leftist new anti-semitism. A legitimate claim, which you may or may not agree to be the case but which is not the line of argument that you just accused me of.

            I tell you, Ive known these people. I had one employee give me long uninvited lectures on how the world is run bu a Jewish conspiracy.

            So you dont like bankers. Besides the point. The people I referred to specify Jewish bankers.

            And as for “get over it” I suggest you havent seen it.


            Report this

            40

            • #
              MadJak

              Ace,

              I agree – the Australian greens are rabidly anit-israel. This makes them antisemetic.

              It’s yet another reason I loathe them (aside from their obviously communist leanings).


              Report this

              71

              • #
                john robertson

                Its a rerun, look at the UN’s useful idiots, the caring green children. Sure they hate Israel, but dig a little deeper these delusional twits are best described as secular anti-humanists.


                Report this

                61

              • #
                Louis Hissink

                When I was a teenager I was invited to some young people’s do at Clive Evatt’s home and was told by one of the adults there that I was a humanist. At the I didn’t understand whether that was a compliment or an insult; today I would call it an insult.


                Report this

                50

              • #
              • #
                Catamon

                He [snip]??

                [not funny] ED


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Catamon

                I agree – the Australian greens are rabidly anit-israel. This makes them antisemetic.

                For those can actually walk and whistle at the same time Maddy, its is quite possible respect Jews who aren’t fanatics, the same as one can respect any religious group apart from its fanatics, but to also have issues with the behaviour of the State of Israel.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                MadJak

                Catamon,

                It was the Greens who successfully convinced an Sydney Council to Boycot Jewish businesses – now for that to be a protest and not be anti-Semitic, it would also mean the night of broken glass in the 1930s wasn’t anti-Semitic -i.e. B.S.

                It is worth considering that Hamas’ stated aim is the destruction of Israel. It is also worth asking the question – if israel didn’t exist, would Israels neighbours support an independent palestinian state or would they continue to treat the Palestinians like they do with the Kurds?


                Report this

                10

            • #
              John Brookes

              There is a difference between being anti-semitic and not being happy with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It reminds me too much of apartheid in South Africa. Not that I have the faintest idea how the problems can be fixed. It should also be noted that the behaviour of some of the countries around Israel is despicable.

              I’m basically prejudiced against all racial/ethnic/cultural groups in general, but find that the individuals I meet from those groups are always the exceptions to the rule, and are nice people :-)


              Report this

              22

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                John,

                I appreciate your point (and your sarcasm). So you get a rare green thumb from me.

                However, about the Palestinians: If you were to look into recent history, say the years from 1945 to 1948, you would discover that it’s the Palestinians who insist on being separate from Israel, not the other way around. Israel made no effort to disenfranchise anyone living in Palestine. Any Arab in Israel enjoys the same rights as any Jew, including religious freedom. It was the Palestinians who began a war against Israel. And as you no doubt know, one tends to want to defend oneself when attacked.

                This isn’t a statement of blame. I don’t know how the problem can be fixed either. But if we say that the decisions of the United Nations are the final authority — and that is what the UN was supposed to be in such disputes — then Israel is a legitimate state. The UN formally recognized Israel and welcomed it into the family of member states as you know. So there can be no excuse for any member of the UN calling for Israel’s destruction.

                I understand the Palestinian desire for a homeland. I understand the Arab anger over the formation of Israel. I understand all of that. But I don’t understand the willingness to keep on killing. I don’t understand the willingness to keep on hating. It destroys the hater more than the hated.

                I can’t foresee the future any better than you can. But I fear the direction things are now going. I fear it greatly. Where is the UN now? Where is the United States? Where is Australia? Where is Europe? AWOL describes us all quite well.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Word Press is out to lunch again.

                That was aimed at comment #72 (if it stays 72).


                Report this

                00

              • #
                John Brookes

                Like I say, Roy, I have no idea how to solve it. But the Israelis did steal the Palestinian’s land, houses etc. So perhaps its understandable that they feel a bit miffed. Moving on would be the best course of action. Trying to forgive and forget past wrongs, and move on…

                11

              • #
                MadJak

                John,

                Then Israelis took the land from Israels’ neighbours by force. Palestine was not a nation.

                They should accept they were defeated and move on. Tuff nuts and all that.

                Or should we be questioning the possession of lands that were ver taken by forced by anyone throughout the course of history (boy the lawyers would just looove that one).


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                John @82,

                Trying to forgive and forget past wrongs, and move on…

                I agree; that would certainly be the best course of action. The past cannot be changed no matter who tries it or how long they keep trying.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                But the Israelis did steal the Palestinian’s land, houses etc.

                In thinking about this statement I feel compelled to point out that the Jews have a claim on the turf called Palestine that predates even the existence of Islam by many centuries. It was King Solomon who built the original temple in Jerusalem, not to mention the city itself. The Mosque now sitting on top of what is suspected to be the ruins of that original temple and the Palestinians themselves are all a Johnny-come-lately to the scene.

                Were the Jews justified in taking back their ancient homeland? I can’t answer that question. But I know what I would want had I been through WWII as a European Jew.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                wayne, s. Job

                John, Moving on and forgiveness is a very christian ethic, trying to do the right thing by others as in do unto others is very Jewish, the behavioral ethics of Islam makes it very difficult as they believe in neither. Thus we have the Orwellian war is peace in the middle east.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                MadJak

                John,

                It was the Greens who successfully convinced an Australian Council to Boycot Jewish businesses – now for that to be a protest and not be anti-Semitic, it would also mean the night of broken glass in the 1930s wasn’t anti-Semitic -i.e. B.S.

                It is worth considering that Hamas’ stated aim is the destruction of Israel. It is also worth asking the question – if israel didn’t exist, would Israels neighbours support an independent palestinian state or would they continue to treat the Palestinians like they do with the Kurds?


                Report this

                10

    • #
      Manfred

      And before that, the The Massachusetts Bay Colony referred to it as ‘The Boston Tea Party’.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      connolly

      Civil disobedience was NOT pioneered or even practised by the Nazis. The term originates from Thoreau’s 1849 essay “Resistance to Civil Government” which was renamed “Essay on Civil Disobedience in 1866. John Brown’s feeing of slaves by direct action (illegal at the time) was one of the earliest instances of civil disobedience. People deliberately breaking unjust laws has a long and honourable history, including Jews who perished fighting Nazism. What the kid did was not civil disobedience. He did not break an unjust law i.e the section of the Corporations Act prohibiting false and misleading statements nor was it in a good cause – ie. throwing coal miners out of work.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Catamon

    Tony Abbott won’t gain much bounce in carbon tax stance

    THE carbon tax has failed to incite a tsunami of complaints from the public, with new data from the consumer watchdog indicating Labor’s policy may have fallen off the public radar.

    Jeeez, but you lot are slack. :)


    Report this

    024

    • #
      AndyG55

      We know its gone as soon as the Libs get in :-)

      It’s dealt with, gone, kaput! .. why muddy the waters.

      There are MANY more idiocies from the ALP/Green mess that still need dealing with.

      Much corruption, fraud, lies to bring to the surface.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      rukidding

      Don’t worry Cata just sitting back with the baseball bat nicely oiled just waiting for the election.No sense waisting energy on some thing that can’t currently be changed.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      John Brookes

      You may remember a long discussion here about how much the price of a bottle of Coke would rise. It was going to be huge.

      But strangely, this, like so many “skeptic” predictions turned out to be a dud.


      Report this

      31

  • #
    Mark D.

    Off topic (I think) this is for Tony and Jo:

    http://www.ref.org.uk/press-releases/281-wearnandntearnhitsnwindnfarmnoutputnandneconomicnlifetime

    The Renewable Energy Foundation [1] today published a new study, The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark,[2] showing that the economic life of onshore wind turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 years projected by the wind industry itself, and used for government projections.

    More here:
    http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/280-analysis-of-wind-farm-performance-in-uk-and-denmark

    And the full PDF
    http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/280/ref.hughes.19.12.12.pdf

    More bad news for wind power. Was it a deception from the start?

    You decide.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Was it deception from the start?

      It may well be but maybe not as intentional as we might think. Electric cars and trains get the same treatment. They look so good where you drive them around, never mind the need for generating capacity (oops, fossil fueled) to keep them going.

      The temptation to avoid looking deeper is overwhelming to the zealot.

      I’m reminded over and over of the saying: Marry in haste, repent at leisure.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Mark D.

        Darn, I thought it was merry in haste!
        No wonder I had hangovers…….

        Roy, the deception would have been from the builders, profiteers and politicians not the buyers (investors).

        Wind power has been around for quite awhile. I find it hard to believe that the dismal records of output performance and poor mechanical performance weren’t well known to the manufacturers. They just didn’t bother to mention it when Green infected investors and politicians started spruking wind as a way to save the world.

        That, if true, is fraud by omission in my humble opinion.


        Report this

        110

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Mark,

          Put that way I’ll agree. On the other hand, the manufacturers could only go on the way they have if there were the kind of incentives that are fueled by plain old zealotry. Think about it for a minute — government incentives, constant media indoctrination of the public… …quite a list.

          As to the hangovers — for those you are on your own. :-)

          Roy


          Report this

          60

  • #
    theduke

    Now that pisses me off.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    • #
      Roy Hogue

      So there is sometimes a little good news after all.

      The New York Times has been going down the drain for years. It’s not at all a surprise that they say this is an effort to save money. In reality it’s part of their long time effort to remain irrelevant and still keep operating.

      The New York Times is probably the most leftwing news organization in this country. Even the Los Angeles Times is better. They prove that the public has better judgment than they think.


      Report this

      150

  • #
    Bruce

    The Green members of the Senate are despicable but what about the latte-lapping idiots that elected them?


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Douglas Cotton

     

    The issues involved in the greenhouse conjecture relate to the physics of heat transfer. Most climatologists have limited understanding of this physics and have rarely done a full degree majoring in physics, as I and many of my peers have. Often it’s a case of a little knowledge being worse than none at all, because it is very obvious to physicists that the assumption of an isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field violates the First Law of Thermodynamics and assumes energy can be created

     


    Report this

    101

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      Wake up Douglas the AGW view has nothing to do with science, its all about “faith” and the gravy train.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      John Brookes

      But Doug, they still know far more than you.


      Report this

      12

      • #

        John:

        No they don’t when it comes to the correct physics of the atmosphere, because it is obvious where they have made serious mistakes which completely negate their GHE conjecture.

        Read my papers on Principia Scientific International, and those of Joe Postma, Alberto Miatello and also cited references in my papers. It may take you three hours or more, but will be worth the time if you want to learn about the 21st Century paradigm shift in Climate Change Science.

        Doug Cotton


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Dougl.Cotton

    The issues involved in the greenhouse conjecture relate to the physics of heat transfer. Most climatologists have limited understanding of this physics and have rarely done a full degree majoring in physics, as I and many of my peers have. Often it’s a case of a little knowledge being worse than none at all, because it is very obvious to physicists that the assumption of an isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field violates the First Law of Thermodynamics and assumes energy can be created


    Report this

    32

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Doug

      I see you comment that : “Most climatologists have limited understanding of this physics and have rarely done a full degree majoring in physics, as I and many of my peers have”.

      Doug , I would go even further and say that people who have only done degrees in Physics and have no engineering thermodynamics training could possibly be in the same boat as the climate scientists.

      Using mass, heat and momentum analysis on the atmosphere has been shown to confuse even the smartest cookies because IT IS SO COMPLEX.

      Mind you I have no problems with people going at it, hell for leather, trying to make sense of the problem as a scientific version of Sudoku, mental exercise is great, but the issue of CO2 as an Eco Incendiary device is well and truly dead.

      Even if it was possible to bring everything together to depict what is happening in the atmosphere I think it would be impossible or irrelevant to extract the Man Made CO2 Heating Signal from the mess; it is too small and insignificant.

      The science behind the original claims about CO2 need to be stated but CAGW has now morphed logically to a political analysis of how they scammed us all and what we are going to do about it.

      KK :)


      Report this

      60

      • #

        Yes Kinky – I agree that I have learnt things from engineers in their climate comments and their papers. The good thing about Principia Sscientific International (with over 200 members now) is that we have a wide range of disciplines, including engineering, astrophysics, chemistry, physics, applied mathematics, meteorology and climatology. So the papers and articles I write there get subject to severe scrutiny, as is about to happen with a new article sent today – keep watching!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    Flannery’s claims in this one need to be dissected by those with the data, but to write ” Australia’s emissions curve is beginning to flatten out” when we export our emissions to China is hypocrisy & self-delusion:

    10 Jan: Guardian: Tim Flannery: As Australia burns, attitudes are changing. But is it too late?
    Raging wildfires are forcing many to rethink their stance on climate change. But there’s little time left to reduce emissions
    The unprecedented conditions of recent weeks have seen many Australians rethinking their attitude to climate change. A good friend of mine farms just outside Canberra. A few years ago the drought was so severe that his 300 year-old gum trees died of thirst. Then the rains came on so violently that they stripped the precious topsoil, filling his dams with mud and sheep droppings. This week he watched as his cousin’s property at Yass was reduced to ashes. When I called he was trying to secure his own historic homestead and outbuildings from fire. He asked me if I thought the family would still be farming the area 50 years from now. All I could say was that it depended upon how quickly Australia, and the world, reduced their greenhouse gas emissions…
    This week’s extreme conditions have once again raised the political heat around climate change. The Greens party condoned an anti-coal activist who created a false press release claiming that the ANZ bank had withdrawn support for a major coal project, causing its share price to plunge. Meanwhile the acting leader of the (conservative) opposition, Warren Truss, said it was simplistic to link the hot spell to climate change, and “utterly simplistic to suggest that we have these fires because of climate change”.
    Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter, and the mining lobby is exceptionally strong. As calls to combat climate change have increased, the miners have argued that “mum and dad investors” will lose out if any effort is made to reduce the export or use of fossil fuels. But the smart money is no longer backing fossil fuels. In South Australia, wind energy has gone from 1% to 26% of the mix in just seven years, and nationally solar panel installations are 13 years ahead of official projections…
    And finally, with a carbon price in place, Australia’s emissions curve is beginning to flatten out. Despite these efforts, Australians are already enduring the kind of conditions they’d hoped to avoid if strong, early action had been taken. Now, more than ever, we’re in a race against time to avoid a truly catastrophic outcome.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/11/australia-burns-attitudes-changing-too-late


    Report this

    40

    • #
      john robertson

      How is that possible? Don’t the worst forest fires ever, produce CO2?
      Never mind Asia. Flannel mouth is correct as long as you know he is lying, right?


      Report this

      70

  • #
    GerardB

    Would Christine Milne, Lee Rhiannon and fellow Greens come out in support of business if, in a fit of civil disobedience, they collectively decided to withhold tax payments because they deemed the government to be wasteful, incompetent and a danger to freedom of speech?


    Report this

    130

  • #
    pat

    more jovial, isn’t he a hoot type reporting on Moylan by Andrew Main at The Australian. compare with the MSM coverage of the much larger anti carbon tax protests!

    12 Jan: Australian: Andrew Main: Inside the mind of a coal scammer
    Dr Moylan, a semi-retired associate professor of electronic engineering, told The Weekend Australian that while he did not agree with everything his son Jonathan believes in, “to be blunt, I would not have the courage to do what he does”.
    “I think that society should be grateful that there are still some young people who are willing to act according to their moral views even while knowing that they risk retaliation by the rich and powerful. There are not many of them, but then there never have been.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/inside-the-mind-of-a-coal-scammer/story-e6frg916-1226552329116

    Andrew Main’s work history – from JP Morgan to Fairfax to Murdoch Media:

    Andrew Main
    http://au.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-main/9/873/928


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Popeye

    Jo,

    Here’s Getup’s latest scare program.

    Note who they quote down the page for “Research & Analysis” (Ben Cubby being one of them – ha ha)

    Cheers,


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Nick

    I’m more concerned that the irrational environmental movement has become mainstream enough for it to beleived by enough people that a statement of “Withdrawing finanacing due to environmental damage” issued by Bank?

    So enough people beleived that a Bank may put financial advantage behind their care for the evironment? Enough people beleived that a Bank may think it a reasonable marketing ploy to use a stand on the environment?

    What?! A Bank? Your joking?! who would beleive such a thing?

    Apparently enough people to make a decision and drop the share price of a company big enough to borrow a $ billion.

    Wow!

    This will happen again, maybe in another guise, but it will. It’s been shown to be successful.

    Unless this midset changes? Our system really is doomed. And something like this could trigger the next collapse. And what a complete suprise it would be…. To some.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Mark

    There goes my breakfast!

    Just heard David Karoly having a hot flush over the latest Climate Commission report. I won’t go into details as you all would know his talking points.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Tim

    Captain Brown is now sailing the high seas on the Sea Shepherd saving whales and sharks, while his cohorts are busy [snip be specific in allegations] human beings and denying them cheap energy.

    They need to get their priorities right.

    41

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    This is one of the most interesting developments of recent times. It will be absolutely fascinating to see how “liberal democracy” – the stock exchange and the courts etc. will handle this. I suspect this guy will come out smelling of roses – perhaps at most a slight slap on the wrist – as all the movers and shakers in the business community and in the courts rush to demonstrate their green / progressive credentials. I suspect we are becoming a nation of Neville Chamberlains in a race to the bottom.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    pat

    managed to copy the following before the page became unavailable without subscription:

    11 Jan: ICIS: Vote to ban Russian carbon emission reduction units from EU ETS set for 23 January
    The EU’s Climate Change Committee is set to vote on 23 January on the European Commission’s proposal to restrict rules regarding the use of emission reduction units (ERUs) in Phase III (2013-2020) of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)…
    http://www.icis.com/heren/articles/2013/01/11/9631170/vote-to-ban-russian-carbon-emission-reduction-units-from-eu-ets-set-for-23.html

    11 Jan: Reuters Point Carbon: ERUs plummet 61 pct on commission ban plans
    LONDON, Jan 11 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) plummeted as much as 60 percent on Friday on news the EU had watered down its proposal to restrict the use of some types of U.N. carbon credits from the bloc’s emissions trading scheme, traders said…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2134315?&ref=searchlist

    10 Jan: Reuters Point Carbon: California to net less than planned from carbon market
    SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 10 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Weaker-than-anticipated demand for permits at California’s inaugural carbon auction has caused the state to lower its forecast for expected cap-and-trade revenue from $1 billion to $200 million for the year, dealing a blow to the governor’s plans to use the money to fund a costly high-speed rail project…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2132722?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    i couldn’t access the reuters 61% drop article to find what the price is now, but maybe someone can find it online. however, it’s hard to see how low it can really go, given:

    12 Dec 2012: Reuters Point Carbon: U.N. offsets crash to 15 cents ahead of EU ban vote
    ICE Futures Europe Dec 12 ERU contract opened at 32 cents, but crashed to a record low of just 15 cents in morning trade.
    By 1550 GMT, it traded at 23 cents on relatively large volume of 7 million units traded…
    A second trader said prices had been dragged down by an impending EU vote that could ban companies from using some credits in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
    The EU’s Climate Change Committee will on Thursday vote whether to ban ERUs from countries that have not signed up to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.
    The decision would mainly affect credits from Russia, which account for about a third of total supply.
    The heavy selling dragged down CER prices, with the Dec. 12 contract falling to 31 cents, yet another record low, before it nudged up to 39 cents by the time of writing…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2098417


    Report this

    20

  • #
    david

    Slightly off topic but when David Karoly links the present heat wave to global warming in todays media I wonder what evidence he is basing the comment on? From my reading (of the science) he is an embarassment to the scientific community. Am I right?


    Report this

    61

    • #
      Streetcred

      You are partially right, David … he is an embarrassment to all Australians.


      Report this

      31

    • #
    • #
      Mattb

      well global temps have demonstrably risen. Current science opinion is that it is AGW. Therefore it is not really all that strange to suggest that hot weather is happening more often.


      Report this

      11

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Now if you could give us a credible reason…


        Report this

        00

      • #
        wayne, s. Job

        Mattb, I am very concerned about the state of global warming, in fact just today I found out that the northern stratosphere has warmed by 7C. It would seem that this is caused by a huge input of warm air blasting into the stratosphere from the pacific. This is my concern that with the sun asleep, a new La Nina upon us, the last of the warm pool in the Atlantic, being cooled by the Arctic we have a serious global warming problem over the next decade or three. Except that is a deficit of warming, it is as ever cold that is our enemy and useful idiots that can not see the forest for the trees.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    12 Jan: Australian: Lauren Wilson: Tony Abbott won’t gain much bounce in carbon tax stance
    THE carbon tax has failed to incite a tsunami of complaints from the public, with new data from the consumer watchdog indicating Labor’s policy may have fallen off the public radar…
    The study predicts steel emissions will decline by more than 21 per cent this year, with aluminium smelters also predicted to curb their emissions by more than 6 per cent as a consequence of a downturn in both industries.
    Despite the carbon tax being designed to fast-track the transition from coal to renewable power generation, the research predicts coal generation will increase by 8 per cent to 2020…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abbott-wont-gain-much-bounce-in-carbon-tax-stance/story-fn59niix-1226552338445

    11 Jan: Australian Retailers Association: Carbon tax hits retailers
    A survey by The Australian Retailers Association (ARA) has found that 80 per cent of retailers feel their business had been negatively impacted since the introduction of the carbon tax in July 2012…
    “The introduction of carbon pricing was a massive legislative change for small business and one which has had a significant impact. In a climate of already suppressed retail spending, retailers are taking the hit of the carbon tax as consumers bypass the stores to pay household bills.”
    The survey results showed that 80 per cent felt business has been negatively impacted, 98 per cent aren’t aware of government compensation programs, and 60 per cent say consumers have spent less since carbon pricing was introduced…
    “The ARA is calling on government to provide the funding and information retailers need to cope with the adverse affects carbon pricing is having on their business.”
    http://www.insideretailing.com.au/IR/IRnews/Carbon-tax-hits-retailers-7190.aspx


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    murdoch media on a roll today:

    12 Jan: Australian: Craig Emerson: Let’s do the right thing by our kids and our planet
    ATTEMPTS to link the frequency of extreme weather events such as this week’s catastrophic bushfire conditions with climate change are usually greeted with derision. But this time it’s highly reputable scientists who are making the link. We should take notice…
    Armed with its alarming report, the World Bank embraces the principle of intergenerational equity in calling on the world “to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest”.
    As to the precautionary principle, despite the CSIRO concluding that the projections of climate scientists “have been accurate”, there remains a substantial body of opinion – outside the Australian parliament and within it – that the science is not settled and that Australia should not act on climate change until it is.
    On the conservative side of politics, every Liberal leader, including Tony Abbott, has supported putting a price on carbon…
    It’s not as if carbon pricing has wrecked the economy or wiped out entire communities. And it’s not as if the climate-change science is highly contested by actual climate scientists. Surely, based on the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity, putting a price on carbon is the least we can do for future generations…
    Let’s do the right thing by our children and the planet.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/lets-do-the-right-thing-by-our-kids-and-our-planet/story-e6frgd0x-1226551494224

    surely this would be better headlined as “Greens to look into farmer’s complaint”:

    12 Jan: Australian: Sue Neales: Greens reject ‘lazy claims and stereotypes’
    TASMANIAN Greens leader and cabinet minister Nick McKim has hit back at claims by farmers the Greens’ environmental policies are to blame for last weekend’s ferocious bushfires.
    Mr McKim said it was inaccurate and wrong for Tasmanian farmers and residents to suggest the Greens did not support safe burning-off in autumn and winter to reduce the risk of catastrophic summer fires such as the one that nearly destroyed the Dunalley, Boomer Bay and Connellys Marsh communities last week…
    Burnt-out Carlton River farmer Leigh Arnold claimed in The Australian yesterday that he had been prevented by the state government and its bureaucracy from conducting cool-weather burn-offs on a timbered hill ridge on his property for the past two years.
    He alleged the state Environment Department had banned him from burning understorey on Steele’s Hill in autumn and winter because of an eagle’s nest in the trees and the potential for the endangered swift parrot to forage in the blue gums for food.
    The Tasmanian Greens pledged to take up Mr Arnold’s case specifically…
    The Facebook pages of the Tasmanian Greens and Mr McKim have been swamped with angry vitriol, and what a Green spokesman called “lazy accusations and stereotypes”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bushfires/greens-reject-lazy-claims-and-stereotypes/story-fngw0i02-1226552340463


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    and more:

    12 Jan: Australian: AAP: US warns of extreme heat, severe storms
    THE US could face more frequent severe weather, including heat waves and storms for decades to come as temperatures rise far beyond levels being planned for, according to a government report.
    The draft Third National Climate Assessment, a scientific study legally mandated to advise US policymakers, made few bones that carbon emissions have been causing climate change – a source of controversy among some lawmakers.
    “Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” the study said. “The sum total of this evidence tells an unambiguous story: The planet is warming.”…
    The assessment expected temperatures to keep rising and offered different scenarios for the future – including temperatures rising between 2.8C and 5.6C after 2050 if emissions climb further…
    The report warned that climate change “threatens human health and well-being in many ways,” including through more frequent storms, wildfires, diseases and worse air quality…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/warming-is-changing-us-daily-life-report/story-fn3dxix6-1226552490191


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Speedy

    The Greens are bankrupt – both morally and financially.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Mark Allinson

    Here’s the really scary thing – given the level of hysterical propaganda about the threat of global warming, if such a case were to go to trial it could possibly lead to a “not guilty” outcome. In the UK 4 or 5 years ago, a jury found six members of Greenpeace not guilty of causing thousands of pounds damage to coal-fired power station. The jury accepted that the power station wreckers “were legally justified because they were trying to prevent climate change causing greater damage to property around the world.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Farmer Gez

    The best solution for Mr.Moylan is a court imposed order that requires him to do voluntary work at the Whitehaven coal mine. Oh, the inhumanity!


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Sonny

    Yeh I’ve seen it Ace,

    I went to an Australian University and the greens/marxists were always the loudest on campus.
    They hate Israel with a passion. But I’m not sure how many of them are genuine anti-semites based on my interraction with them.
    As far as the issue of “Jewish bankers”, maybe this is just a stereotype considering how many Jewish bankers there are.

    Is it possible to hate these high profile “Jewish bankers” but not hate all Jews?

    This is my issue with using the word “anti-semitism” to defame anybody who even mentions the word “jew” in an argument.

    Jews can and should be criticized along with any other group of their is merit in that criticism.
    This does not always necessitate the stereotypical defensive knee-jerk reaction…

    “ahaa!!! You are an anti-Semite”.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      connolly

      Well it is anti-semitic. What is the point of linking the religion or ethnicity of SOME bankers and financiers to the economic or social function of financing or banking? Unless your point is the anti-semitic libel that Jews dominate the capitalist financial system? Or that there is something inherent in Judaism that influences financing? Just what is your point and why should it be displayed on this site Mods?


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Mark D.

      Sonny, I’ll come to support you here (carefully)

      Based on what you are saying I don’t think you are antisemitic. You, like me, are not Jewish. For that reason we probably don’t really feel the pain felt by ACE when chastised as ubersomething. On the other hand ACE was more than happy to dis the stock boy for his lowly position……..

      Let’s face it we all have our hangups and predispositions. Me? I have several close Jewish friends. Several more distant. I absolutely love the culture of education and study of history that Jews stand for. Yet we argue about politics? They more than any culture should be CONSERVATIVE! They instead vote Left.

      This may seem to be anti-Semitic but that is far from true. I would say they are the chosen. Call me anti-Semite for that comment?


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Drapetomania

    It is the age old question of means justifying ends.
    Should George W Bush have lied about WMD to justify his invasion of Iraq that cost tens of thousands of lives, but did rid the world of a dictator? Was the cost worth it?

    sweet baby jesus.
    The media let everyone down..Thousands are dead..billions wasted..and it turned out the story was false based on bad data…but thats okay..
    And switch that for $CAGW$..its the same thing
    No wonder you and other here remain silent when all the $CAGW$ scama are revealed..

    Should people who believe passionately in an environmental cause follow America’s example, and accept that there will be some hardship caused?

    But..you clueless clod..the science for your supposed “environmental” cause is just lousy..and whose hardshio..yours.?
    Are you off the grid 100% and grow your own food..and have no cars..and dont use public transport..or are you the same as the rest of them…??lecturing here yet wont walk the walk…because it makes you feel better..??
    Dont answer that question..just hide.. as usual….
    The green supporters are moral an mental cretins and hypocrites


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Sean

    So now it “is immoral” to charge criminals with criminal offenses, as per the government. Lets see where this ends up….


    Report this

    50

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    Reading what the greens have said and their rather misguided supporters here, it would appear that it is OK to do anything, to further a cause if you are a true believer. Very Marxist of them, I am a true believer in the uselessness of wind mills in power generation.

    I am wondering if the same courtesies would be given to me if in my zeal I did a Don Quixote and did some wind mill tilting. I think only Marxists are allowed the end justifies the means, all others must do as they are told.


    Report this

    41

    • #
      john robertson

      I’m with you, buts its the greens that I am a true believer in the uselessness of.
      Maybe I can claim religious dispensation?


      Report this

      20

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      I am of the view that wind turbines (apart from pumping water) are a scam. So it is good to hear that a small charge placed at the base of wind turbines is OK because of my deep personal conviction.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    SharkfinSoup

    It’s all fun ‘n games until Mr. Moylan wakes up one morning to find his bank account empty …. swim with the sharks, just saying he’s fair game now.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    warren raymond

    “the Green burden in life is to lead the proletariat.”

    Ditto.

    Those of us who believe that Greens care about the environment are deceiving themselves. Same old commie tosh under false flag. They need to be treated as the subversives they are.


    Report this

    21

  • #

    [...] Its  immoral to expect Greens not to hurt other people. WTF does “moral” mean anyhow? [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Belfast

    To make a brief point.
    NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION.
    As Annie Sullivan said, “It has a name.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Belfast

    To make a brief point.
    NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION.
    As Annie Sullivan said,”It has a name.”


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Speedy

      Belfast

      The beautiful trick about doing something “for the good of the planet” is that ONLY THE GREENS know what the planet wants. If you or I turned around and said that higher atmospheric CO2 levels will improve growth of (say) rain forests, (which is true) we would be howled down as ignorant of the subject (refer peer review etc).

      So the “planet” becomes a vehicle for allowing the greens to do whatever they want. Perfect.

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      30

  • #
    llew Jones

    Noticed reference to a Left Wing climate skeptics blog when browsing the over the top environmental articles, by such ignoramuses as Bill McKibben, on the The Nation.

    Haven’t really evaluated its stance but noticed this in a series of short articles by one who calls himself a climate scientist:

    “One of the arguments frequently heard is that we should leave the science to the experts. When the experts on UHI effect were telling Phil Jones’s “team” what they didn’t want to hear, they simply ignored all existing literature on the subject and wrote their own, even though they didn’t have any experience in it. This pattern was repeated with tree rings, glaciers, and sea level.”

    http://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/the-climate-scientists-story-part-3/

    Which of course is relevant to this topic in that, given the accuracy of the above, even the alarmist scientists are as dishonest as the Greens and can never be taken seriously. Notice that other scammer, David Karoly, has rushed out a bit about about our current ACC caused “soaring” temperatures. Looks like the weather in Melbourne is not playing ball with him as it is around 18C in this Melbourne suburb right now.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    janama

    Todays SMH

    A new temperature high for the great heatwave cooking much of the continent has been set with Moomba clocking up 49.6 degrees today.The scorching conditions, which saw the mercury peak at 3.42pm, local time, at the remote South Australian gas region, also sent temperatures soaring in other parts of the eastern interior. The 49.6 reading is the highest for the location and the hottest recorded during the fortnight-long heat spell.
    Other temperatures of note today include the north-western NSW town of Bourke, which hit 48.3, while Birdsville on the Queensland section of Corner Country touched 48.6 degrees.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/new-high-reached-during-great-heatwave-20130112-2cmbw.html#ixzz2HlDwebju

    Moomba has a temperature record going back to 1995!! so naturally “The 49.6 reading is a record for the location”

    Bourke Airport only has data back to 1999 and the HQ data used the Brewarrina Hospital data which has a maximum of 48.9 on the 19th December 1912. and a 48.3 max on Jan 14th 1939.

    The BoM is playing games!!


    Report this

    30

  • #
    janama

    More BS from David Jones of BoM in The Australian.

    Central Australia has become a record-breaking hot zone since the start of the year and the intense heat will linger into next week.

    David Jones, head of the Bureau of Meteorology’s climate monitoring and prediction unit, said the weather pattern over inland Australia had lifted national average temperatures to new levels.

    Yulara, 85km west of Curtin Springs and in the shadow of Uluru, has already experienced its longest-ever recorded run of plus-40 days, with every day this year above 40C and eight days above 44C.

    In 2011 Yulara had only 10 days out of 31 that were below 40 degrees and were consecutive from the 14th through to the 30th!

    He said recurring temperatures in the high 40s recorded in towns such as Oodnadatta and Marree in South Australia’s north this year were “one in 20-year values”.

    At Marree in January 2006 there were only 3 days below 40C. At Oodnadatta in January 2011 there were only 7 days below 40C with the 14th through to 31st consecutive apart from the 18th which was 39.8C.
    The past 5 days at Oodnadatta have been – 48.2 – 39.7 – 39.2 – 44.7 – 45. Past 4 days for Marree were 48.4 – 40.1 – 38.0 – 44.3.

    Yeah sure David Jones – this is extremely unusual weather for these places….NOT!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    janama

    Also in the Australian David Jones produced a chart showing the first 11 days for Curtin Springs

    Here’s Curtin Springs from the 14th through to the 30th in January 2011.

    41 – 43.2 – 41.3 – 41.5 – 41.5 – 41.1 – 42.2 – 42 – 41.7 – 42.8 – 43.8 – 42.8 – 42.7 – 44.5 – 45.5 -44 – 42.5

    Here’s Curtin Springs from the 1st through to the 14th in January 1979.

    41.6 – 42.8 – 43 – 43 – 42.5 – 41.5 – 42.5 – 43.2 – 43.5 – 43.5 – 43.6 – 42.8 – 44.4 – 43.5


    Report this

    30

  • #
    janama

    BoM at it again in SMH

    In northwestern New South Wales yesterday Bourke reached 48 degrees, its hottest day since 1939, which was also a year of a heatwave. Bourke’s 48.3 degrees is the highest recorded temperature in NSW since Ivanhoe had a 48.5-degree day in February 2004.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/australias-highest-temperature-in-15-years-20130113-2cn7p.html#ixzz2HoGcGWk9

    Bourke registered 49.7 on Jan 4th 1903!

    In 1896 Bourke registered 48.6 – 47.8 – 46.4 – 48.6 – 48.3 – 45.6 – 48.1 – 47.8 – 48.3 from Jan 15th – Jan 24.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] couple of days ago Jo Nova highlighted another example of an environmentalist, Jonathan Moylan, who thought that to save the [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have looked at Katherine Wilson’s arguments in the Age. It seems to me a relativistic argument. To use this approach requires three conditions to be met.
    First, the likely harm from future unimpeded climate change will have catastrophic consequences. Second, the likely harm of the action to highlight awareness of the issue is trivial compared to the impending climate catastrophe. Third, that will be significant success in getting the issue recognized.
    I argue on my blog that not a single one of these arguments is valid. What is more, Wilson appears to misrepresent Moylen. He is now claiming local environmental issues were his motive, not global climate change.
    http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/01/13/the-calculus-of-climate-change-morality/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    clive hoskin

    Did anyone notice that moylane was using a Laptop in the interview.Wonder what he was using to charge it up?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MJSlattery

    I watched a little of News24 Breakfast this Sun morning. There was an interview with a BOM scientist who supported the .8 degree temp rise “fact” and the 3 times more high records than low records standard David Jones theorem. However he was certainly less supportive of the recent cold & hot weather situations being the result of global warming. Despite the efforts of the host and the lengthy vision of burning countryside, he would not be drawn into connecting our recent heatwave with global warming.

    Despite finding a slot for an interview with Dr Carl about bar codes, the ABC does not have the BOM scientist’s interview on its News24 Breakfast web site.


    Report this

    00