Showing posts with label lobby groups. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lobby groups. Show all posts

Friday 27 April 2012

Australian Mining Industry: So which version do you believe is the more accurate?









mUmBRELLA 20 April 2012:

Less than two hours after publishing the story we received the following letter from XStrata Coal:
I refer to the video titled “Ad pastiches mining industry’s ‘This is our story’ campaign” published on your website:
http://mumbrella.com.au/ad-pastiches-mining-industrys-this-is-our-story-campaign-86514
The video found on this link contains a parody of the piece concerning (name withheld by Mumbrella for legal reasons).
Xstrata recognises that there is legitimate scope for parody in public debate, and appreciates the importance in public life of a free and frank exchange of views. Nonetheless, we take exception to the piece concerning (name withheld by Mumbrella) because it makes a number of suggestions concerning (name withheld) that are unfair and defamatory. In particular:
(allegation withheld by Mumbrella for legal reasons);
(allegation withheld by Mumbrella for legal reasons);
(allegation withheld by Mumbrella for legal reasons);
(allegation withheld by Mumbrella for legal reasons);
These examples are by way of illustration only.
Xstrata is happy to accept robust criticism. But we are not content to allow a valued employee to be defamed in so unfair and personal a fashion. We therefore require that the video found in the above link (and on any other website hosted by Mumbrella or YouTube) be removed immediately and remind you that all persons involved in the publication of defamatory material are equally liable for defamation. We also observe that the reproduction of the whole of the video taken from www.thisisourstory.com.au appears to constitute a breach of copyright. We request your immediate confirmation that the videos will be removed from Mumbrella and YouTube and we expect that it will be taken down forthwith.
We do not wish to escalate this to a legal dispute, but you should not underestimate our willingness to do so if your website continues to defame our employee.
Yours sincerely
Tom Cregan
Legal Counsel
Xstrata Coal

Saturday 7 April 2012

Three tales of the same Tweed River


“The Tweed Shire council have funded a report on boat wake and river bank erosion. The report is very misleading, inaccurate and BIAS towards boat wake. The report does not comment about how the natural environment and human kind has an effect on the river banks or even the recent floods on the Tweed!
There is a group called TRAC (Tweed River Awareness Committee) and they have uploaded a website for YOU to have your say to all of the Tweed Shire Councillors! WE NEED to have our say because we are up against a minority group that have do not have anything better to do then voice up and complain!”
 howled rubberjohnny. Rather strangely ignoring the fact that this study did take the natural environment into account and definitely looked at flood impact.
Over at tweedriverusers.org an unknown voice was getting all shouty about sneaky bans being just around the corner for Tweed boaties. Mr. Unknown seemed to believe that just because a river erosion study on the NSW South Coast did not identify wave action generated by boats as a problem this applied as a natural law to all Aussie rivers.
Apparently this Tweed River ban will be capable of blinding and strangling water skiers as well – if this pic is to be believed.
Of course Tweed Council is doing little to douse the conspiratorial flames, because the Mayor foolishly tried to play down the fact that recommendations in the Impact of Wake on Tweed River Bank Erosion Study did contain Supplementary Bank Enhancement Measures which listed “Vessel management to restrict boat wake waves” and that council has oversighted the preparation and implementation of detailed management plans for specific sections of the river and specific issues eg. bank erosion” according to NSW Roads & Maritime Services.
Turn it up, fellas! Any fool can see power boats won't be banned from the river - they'll just have to keep to a 'below hoon' speed and maybe stop towing water skiers in particularly vulberable areas.

Wednesday 15 February 2012

GetUp! does Monckton, Rinehart and capturing the news media

Click on image to enlarge

GetUp! mock up of newspaper under a Fox News-style editorial policy envisioned by Lord Monckton and relayed to members attending a meeting at the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation in West Australia.

Saturday 23 July 2011

GetUp! shoots over the bows of Mining Billionaires

Newspaper advert which began appearing on breakfast tables across Australia last Friday.
Just gotta love these young scrappers.....

Tuesday 5 July 2011

Willie Soon tells the world that porkers can fly

 

“One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies.

Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

In addition, freedom of information documents suggest that Soon corresponded in 2003 with other prominent climate sceptics to try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN's leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Soon, who had previously disclosed corporate funding he received in the 1990s, was today reportedly unapologetic, telling Reuters that he agreed that he had received money from all of the groups and companies named in the report but denied that any group would have influenced his studies. ‘{The Guardian on 28 June 2011}

Porker flew in from Google Images

Friday 3 June 2011

The Strange World of Alan Jones


Michelle Grattan writes of 2GB Radio shock jock Alan Jones on 1 June 2011:
Jones “has agreed to be the founding patron of Australia's newest and arguably most extreme climate-science denier organisation - the paradoxically titled Galileo Movement.
This group's leaders aren't merely sceptical about mainstream climate science - they outright deny that the world is warming (the thermometers are in the wrong place). They scoff at the idea that human activity can cause warming (carbon dioxide is just plant food); and they even reject that global warming could be harmful (relax, do nothing - it's natural).
Instead, they fervently believe that it's all part of a secret ideological conspiracy by corrupt scientists using fake data to collude with greenies, socialists, libertarians and the United Nations to falsely alarm the gullible and enrich themselves by stealing our money and sovereignty. Fair dinkum.

Now that new movement has a familiar ring to it. Ah, yes – it’s the Monckton mob downunder.

The Galileo Movement Pty Limited which was registered in February 2011 and has a Crows Nest NSW address:
“has available expert advice from Australian and international specialists across all diverse fields of global warming including meteorology and climate science, palaeoclimate, physical sciences (physics, chemistry), life sciences (biology), social science (economics), formal science (mathematics, statistics), communication, law.
These experts include eminent professors, PhD's, scientists and people with diverse life experience including”
{wait for it}:

And; “The Galileo Movement's patron is Australia's own Alan Jones. Alan has a long history of speaking out for the downtrodden and for protecting freedom. His innate expertise straddles the fields of politics, sport and the media. His wealth of experience complements the basic science that is the Galileo Movement's core.”
The Movement was founded by Queenslanders John Smeed (who professes to be a retired company director with a diploma from QIT School of Mechanical Engineering who supports the Liberals) and Case Smit (another retired company director who claims a Bachelor of Science from a unstated institute of higher learning). The same duo who organised former journalist and climate change denier Lord Monckton’s antipodean tour in 2010.
This group now has its very own dedicated page over at Source Watch.

During May this year Alan Jones interviewed Professor David Karoly (who supports global warming as a scientific reality) and those Galileo Movement advisers Professors Bob Carter and Richard Lindzen, along with Timothy Ball another adviser - as well as Malcolm Roberts the Movement’s project manager.
Now I’ve only heard the Ball podcast listed as “Alan Jones speaks to Professor Timothy Ball about climate change and the Galileo Movement”, but I don’t remember hearing Jones declare an ‘interest’ in the Movement – did you?
Perhaps that’s something else the Australian Communications and Media Authority might consider if they again investigate this outrageous propagandist (
previous investigation).


Galileo download webpage with all Alan Jones podcasts

Tuesday 26 April 2011

Australian Christian Lobby sharing a little bit of God's love


Jim Wallace (tweeting since 3rd February 2010) sharing the love....














Then blamimg Twitter for his own bad judgement....

Friday 22 April 2011

The War On Science - an update


The Australian Press Council published thirty-eight adjudication notices on a variety of issues in 2010 and is off to a good start in 2011 with five listed so far this year. However, complaints about inaccurate or misleading reporting on the subject of climate change appear to be thin on the ground.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority received hundreds of complaints in the 2009-10 financial year - none of which appear to have involved radio presenters speaking about climate change.

Last Tuesday Simon Sheikh for the GetUp! team sent out an email which stated in part that this organisation had; Put the shock jocks on notice with formal complaints about their misinformation.

Hopefully he will succeed and hopefully he will also consider objecting to some of the more outrageous claims made in the print medium. Particularly those claims published by The Australian newspaper, often referred to on Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog as The Australian’s War On Science.

Saturday 29 January 2011

Sunday 16 January 2011

The GMO lobby creates a LOL


So which contributor in the BIOfortified: stronger plants, stronger science and stronger communication online community was responsible for telling the world that the humble macadamia nut (eaten by indigenous Australians for thousands of years) is a relatively new food?


franknfoode Frank N. Foode

@HerbRealm How many years have Kiwifruit and Starfruit and Macadamias been trialled on humans to ensure their safety? (relatively new foods) 13 Jan

The joke gets better when we remember that 'Starfruit' is merely the commercial branding of a fruit cultivated and eaten for hundreds of years in Asia and, that 'Kiwi Fruit' is the marketing re-brand of a conventionally created cultivar of another ancient food.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Tuesday 4 January 2011

Never a truer word - GetUp! continues to disappoint


Save Wooli would be the first official GetUp! campaign I have heard of which doesn’t appear to have been canvassed with members first. Or as this activist organisation now coyly plays it – joins campaign to save Wooli.

This is the opening and very inaccurate salvo in its online campaign:

“I hope that people look after Wooli so that it will be here forever.” That’s six year old Evie talking about her favourite place – the small coastal community of Wooli.

But this typical beachside town might not be here forever. Increasing coastal erosion due to climate change is on a course to wipe out half the houses as higher and higher tides climb the sandbanks. Rather than readying a response to increasing coastal erosion due to climate change, the recommendation before the Clarence Valley Council is to head for the hills and abandon the village to the rising tides.

Does someone senior in this activist organisation have a pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in land or business in the Wooli area on the NSW North Coast? Or has the organisation fallen into the error that it must always have a ‘new’ campaign on offer to remain relevant with the fickle enthusiasms of mainstream media?

The Daily Examiner 27 December 2010:

LABELLING a “Save Wooli” campaign and online petition by GetUp! as “misguided”, Greens Clarence candidate Janet Cavanaugh has come out in support of Clarence Valley Council’s planned retreat proposal for Wooli.

The environmental scientist said the proposal had also been endorsed by the council’s climate change advisory committee and local environment groups.

“I am usually supportive of the progressive stance taken by GetUp! but I’m concerned by the level of misinformation being used to support this campaign,” she said.

“The proposal put forward by council is to relocate the southern residents to another area within Wooli. There is no plan to ‘abandon’ the village as claimed in the campaign.”

ABC News 28 December 2010:

The Greens candidate for the seat of Clarence says she is surprised and disappointed by a campaign to help Wooli residents deal with erosion.

The national advocacy body Get Up has launched campaign to try and block the Clarence Valley Council's proposed strategy of a 'planned retreat'.

Local candidate, Janet Cavanaugh, says the council's policy to relocate residents to other areas of the village is the only 'realistic' approach.

"I would have expected from Get Up that they would have actually consulted with their local members before taking on what is a very complicated issue," she said.

"I disagree with the fact that they are criticising the planned retreat as a legitimate form of climate change adaptation.

"They're calling for alternatives, though the campaign is extremely vague on what those alternatives should be."

Ms Cavanaugh says Get Up's stance is misguided and will further confuse residents affected by erosion.

"I was surprised and a little bit disappointed with the fact that Get Up supported this campaign," she said.

"I think it was an ill-conceived campaign for them to run.

"But it does highlight that there will be local consequences to climate change and that there are hard decisions that will need to be made.

"This is an emotional issue because it's talking about people's houses."

Comment to GetUp! from Antony McCardell:

As an environmental scientist I can say that, sadly, the campaign to save Woolli is misplaced. What can rate-payer funded local councils like Clarence Valley Council do? The most common method used to protect beach communities is to build protective sea walls and groins. This can cause as much harm to up-current beaches and their ecosystems as they produce "security" for the settlements "protected". This is because sea walls dramatically increase beach erosion up-current. This is supported by extensive studies here and worldwide. No, beach erosion and sea level rise are pretty much inevitable unless the world tackles climate change head-on. More power to GetUp if it can achieve THAT... but...

Timthorncraft on the same subject:

Wooli is built on a sand spit. On energetic unprotected coasts like NE NSW, sand spits are temporary features at the best of times and in the face of sea level rise we have two options.
We can go with the geomorphological flow and gradually retreat from low lying vulnerable sand areas like the south end of Wooli Spit or,
We can have the real estate industry pick which bits we want hang on to, fortify them with vast amounts of concrete and rock, costing vast amounts of public money, releasing vast amounts of CO2, and turn places like quaint dear old Wooli into something resembling an industrial wharf complex, and then in 20 or 50 or 100 years we can watch the rising sea eat it all anyway!
I'm a long standing supporter of Getup campaigns but I think that Getup is backing a real loser this time.

Letter from a Coffs Harbour shire councillor:

Dear Getup!

I have been a proud supporter of Getup! over recent years and have, to date, agreed with and supported most of your campaigns. I too love Wooli greatly and will be greatly saddened to see the coastline of the Clarence Valley change drastically as a result of sea level rise.

In the instance of your "Save Wooli" campaign I completely disagree. This is because:
1. Sea levels are rising - most estimates now commonly exceeding 1m of sea-level rise by 2100, with many recent indications that it could be 2m by 2100. There is no indication whatsoever that sea levels will stop rising at 2100, to the contrary they are likely to continue rising due to our (the human species) ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.
2. There are only two solutions to adapt to the impacts of sea-level rise on residential, commercial and industrial premises:
i. Move to higher ground
ii. Engineer costly solutions such as sea walls, levees and put in place fill to physically protect premises.
3. The cost of engineering solutions to protect all vulnerable coastal properties is most likely well beyond available public funds.
4. It is not an equitable use of public funds to pay for the protection of a very limited number of properties in a highly vulnerable coastal locality. If Clarence Valley Council and the State and Federal Governments are called upon to fund the protection of a very limited number of properties at Wooli this will draw much-needed funds away from Hospitals, Schools, Aged Care Facilities, Libraries and Environmental Protection and Restoration projects.

These are the hard realities and consequences of the fact that Australians are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases globally. We are the greatest per-capita contributors to the very problems that you highlight in your "Save Wooli" campaign. As a nation we need to make some very tough decisions in the public interest. Protecting a limited number of coastal properties to the detriment of many needy social and environmental services is not, in my opinion, a fair and equitable campaign.

I have always associated Getup! with fairness, equity, reason and rationality and a fair-go for our people and environment. In this instance I feel very strongly that you have got it wrong.


Yours Sincerely
Councillor Mark Graham
Coffs Harbour City Council
.

Petering Time on the Save Wooli campaign here.

Sunday 19 September 2010

Fast food giant McDonalds 'enraged' over PCRM's public service announcement [video]




Washington-based health lobby Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has commissioned a provocative new fast-food commercial drawing attention to the link between heart disease deaths and fast food.

Reportedly this advertisement was recently aired on American television and has "enraged" fast food giant McDonald's.

Given that McDonald's Australia is on schedule to impose its presence on the small NSW coastal community of Yamba before Christmas 2010, I'm sure that this ad is being noted and that residents will bring it to the attention of Clarence Valley shire councillor Margaret McKenna who brazenly argued that McDonald's food was "nutritious" before voting for the multinational's development application.

Monday 13 September 2010

Banned advert is political statement or encouraging suicide? You choose [video]


Exit International which asserts that is is a non-profit information and advocacy group (supporting the idea that all individuals should have end of life options available to them such as voluntary euthanasia) has run foul of FreeTV's legal advice that its attempt to run an advertisement on free-to-air television is in fact '"...a promotion or encouragement of suicide as voluntary euthanasia would be considered to be a subset of suicide."

Now I cannot see that motive in the short advertisement which was originally scheduled to run on Channel 7. To me it seems to be a straightforward attempt to lobby Australian governments.

The advertisement was posted on YouTube. You decide.

Wednesday 11 August 2010

GetUp! calls Abbott a welcher and throws down the gauntlet


Excerpt from today's email from the lobby group GetUp!:

Yesterday Tony Abbott sent a campaign email entitled, "We will stop the boats." Ahead in the polls, he's announced that the Pacific Solution will return on day one of an Abbott Government. It seems Tony Abbott has a lot to say on refugees, except to those he promised to meet in June after GetUp members won a charity auction.

GetUp members chipped in more than $16,000 to help secure the winning bid in a charity auction for a surfing lesson and meeting with Tony Abbott. We gave the prize to a group of refugees because we know how powerful human stories are. But his office, having suggested the meeting would occur before the election, have now stopped returning our calls. They are refusing to hold up their end of the deal.

If Tony Abbott won't come to meet us, we've got to go and meet him. That's why today, with your help, we'll begin rolling out (literally - they're mobile!) massive billboards to follow him around on the campaign trail and remind him of his broken promise to go surfing for charity with a group of refugees............

We know it is only fair that Tony Abbott meet with Riz Wakil. After all, he promised to do so. When Mr Abbott's Press Secretary told us that Mr Abbott would like to have the meeting before the election, and that he would ring back to confirm a date, we took him at his word. But after repeated phone calls from us - that his office have now stopped returning - its time for us to up the ante.

With a week and a half left there's still time for Mr Abbott to meet his commitment before the election. That's why with your help we'll take a message to him that he can't miss: massive mobile billboards asking him to honour his commitment and meet with Riz.

You've stood behind Riz before - can you stand up for him again?

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/HonourYourCommitment

Sunday 30 May 2010

Australian mining industry piles on the tax distortions as it tries to win over the electorate


If one relies on media reports it would appear that the Australian mining industry might have a case against the Rudd Government's proposed Resource Super Profits Tax which is due to activate in 2012.


However, if one cares to open the media releases put out by the Mining Council of Australia the flimsy nature of arguments used by the anti-RSPT lobby begins to emerge.

To date my favourite assertion is; The super tax is, in effect, a Government-mandated sale of 40% of Australia's resources industry at a Government mandated price.
Another favourite is the statement that; For the industry as a whole in 2007-2008, ATO statistics show mining companies paid 27.8% effective corporate tax rate, which rises to 41.3% when royalties are included.
While Mining pays a higher tax rate than any other industry stands out as a blatant attempt at misdirection.

All these quotes are found in the Mineral Council's The truth about the super tax –the myths and the facts, 25 May 2010.

So let's look at the forced sale argument.
No established mining corporation is talking of selling off the parent company or subsidiaries - in the middle of a resources boom most of these companies are very profitable and likely to continue so for many years even with mooted tax reform.
The only threats being made by some mining companies is that they will reassess their scheduled mining projects in light of the proposed tax and rebate scheme.

What about that colossal corporate tax rate quoted, I hear you ask.
Well in 2007-08 there were according to the Australian Taxation Office 2007-08 statistics; 4,290 mining companies having combined incomes which totalled $160,323,192,189, which in turn had combined taxable incomes of $29,010,243,407 and net tax actually paid was $8,068,463,15 after all allowed deductions had been made.
As for royalty payments made in Australia these added up to $3,924,902,975 in 2007-08, which was a little over half of all royalty payments across all listed industries made in that financial year. (Update: A hat tip here to Peter Martin for pointing out in a recent post that mining royalties are tax deductible)

What the Tax Office also points out is the fact that of these 4,290 mining companies there were some who paid no tax at all and, these comprised 68.3% of all mining companies.
In fact the mining sector has the second-highest percentage of 'no tax paid' than any other listed industry.

How did they do that?
Well there are at least 20 deductions, rebates, concessions, exemptions, offsets etc. available to the mining industry and their combined value is literally worth billions.
The industry total for expenses claimed under R&D concessions alone was $2,508,321,897 and immediate deduction for capital expenditure $3,785,347,506, in 2007-08.

So how does the claim that the mining industry is paying a higher tax rate than any other industry fare?
Quite frankly the mining industry tax rate does not stand alone from some other listed industries in terms of comparable tax percentages to taxable income.

It is worth noting that in 2007 the Business Council of Australia in Tax Nation calculated corporate tax (as a percentage of profit) at 20% for the mining industry.
Interestingly this same document stated; Taxes Collected are negative for the mining industry group because as major exporters survey participants reported a significant GST refund which more than offset other Taxes Collected.

It is also interesting to see that the Mining Council of Australia's advertisement presently being broadcast states that the mining industry currently pays 38% tax, which is a figure significantly lower than those quoted in other council documents which had the combined company tax and royalties running at 41.3%.

Next time you see a talking head spruiking for the mining industry or catch one of the industry's televised advertisements - remember that all is not as these miners would have you believe.

Image from Mumbrella

Monday 24 May 2010

ICAC investigation into lobbying in New South Wales - have your say on undue influence and corruption


Communities on the NSW North Coast are subject to sustained population pressure and the growing influence of developers both large and small is distorting the democratic process in relation to planning policy and implementation at state and local level.

Here is an opportunity for Northern Rivers residents to have their say on failing processes in formal and informal interactions between government, elected representatives, public servants/local government management and communities.

From the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) website:

The Independent Commission Against Corruption is conducting an investigation into lobbying of public officials and public authorities in NSW and the related procedures and regulatory system.

The Commission is seeking input from individuals and organisations through a call for submissions which must be received at the Commission by 5pm Wednesday 23 June 2010. See the guide for making a submission for more information.

Submissions may respond to the Commission's issues paper on lobbying, the investigation scope and purpose and other relevant issues concerning lobbying in NSW.

Lobbying in NSW - issues paper

Guide for making a submission to the ICAC

Scope and purpose of the investigation

The scope and purpose of the investigation is to examine whether the relationship between lobbyists and public authorities and public officials may allow, encourage or cause the occurrence of corrupt conduct or conduct connected with corrupt conduct and to identify whether any laws governing any public authority or public official need to be changed and whether any methods of work, practices or procedures of any public authority or public official could allow, encourage or cause the occurrence of corrupt conduct and if so, what changes should be made.

Is your local council using this tool?
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has recently released a Development assessment internal audit tool. The ICAC recommends that councils adapt all or part of this tool to address the potential corruption risks within the development assessment process.

Wednesday 13 January 2010

It's conspiracy theories and dubious 'facts' galore over at Agmates, as it falls under the spell of an articulate fantasist



But surely part of Mr Spencer's problem is the land he owns.
It's hilly, rocky marginal land that would be of little use for anything outside a few goats and rampant bushfires.
Bigpond News on 11 January 2010

When members of the Spencer family went public on 8 & 9 JJanuary 2010, with their concerns that the media, certain websites and fora had lost the plot when discussing Peter Spencer's hungerstrike protest, I wondered how one of the principal offenders Agmates Community Site would react.

On January 8 contributors at this site did indeed begin to react - just not to the criticism of the part they are playing in the silly little drama being played out at "Saarhanlee".

At one thread the Spencer family is attacked for going public, but the issue of the accuracy of what Agmates itself was publishing is not addressed.

For good measure one contributor also suggested that the police are monitoring Agmates - though why and what for is never fully revealed.

A call to blockade local government administrative centres across the country brought a smile to my face, as did the claim that the Peter Spencer issue will bring the Rudd Government down.

However, what I enjoyed most was watching the idea form amid the chatter that the somewhat anti-Labor newspaper, The Australian, was either slanting its coverage at the request of the Rudd Government or because it had been threatened by that same government.
I'm sure that the newspaper would be rather puzzled as to why some thought this might actually have happened in this instance and, perhaps even been a mite indignant that it was also thought to have completely ignored reporting on Peter Spencer for 47 days straight until the family spoke out.
It seems that the Agmates family never let facts get in the way of a good story, so casually brushed aside The Australian's articles published on 18 December 2009 and 5 January 2010.

Less amusing was the assertion that Kevin Rudd's "dirt squad put them [Spencer family] up to it" and the very strange X Files-style whisper that there is something extremely valuable on or under Peter Spencer's land which the government seeks to obtain by actively forcing him off it.

There was only one thread which advised caution when it came to some conspiracy theories, however this warning was from a representative of a lobby group/website which freely indulges in these theories itself at times. To its credit, as of 13 January this particular group continues (on another thread) to advise Agmates against going down the weird road.

Yet another Agmates thread has this audio statement by Peter Spencer. If you listen, particularly enjoy the fact that near the end he attempts to draw the Petrov Affair into the 1970 gun incident and, the crew on this particular discussion thread did not bat an eyelid when he implied this 1954 event actually occurred close to the time he threatened to self-harm.

On 12 January 2010 Agmates congratulated itself on the number of visitors to these discussion threads - I of course was one of these and I have to say that, although my jaw dropped on occasion and I laughed aloud at other times, little that was posted on this website was of any real value in looking at the issue of compensation for farmers who may be negatively affected by native vegetation legislation. As a lobbying effort it was going nowhere fast and, following Mr. Spencer's directions meant credibility became hopelessly lost somewhere in the back paddock many days ago.

Perhaps the final word should go to Geoff Cockfield quoted in The Australian yesterday:

SUPPORTERS of hunger-striking farmer Peter Spencer risk derailing debate on vital issues of property rights with their fringe views, a leading agri-politics expert has warned.
Heated online debate over Mr Spencer's 50-day protest atop a tower is continuing, often lurching into conspiracy theories.
Geoff Cockfield, a specialist in agri-environment policy from the University of Southern Queensland, said it was not helping the NSW farmer's cause that he should be compensated for not being allowed to clear his land near Cooma.
"You always have fringe populists in rural areas thriving around particular issues, whatever they might be," he said.
"They start plausibly enough, just picking on minor irritations people have about governments, but as you get more information we start to get into the worldwide conspiracy.
"There's quite a few mainstream agri-politicians and economists and public policy people who would be sympathetic to the argument that if we are actually preventing full use of property rights in the interests of some sort of supra-national agreement on carbon sequestration, then what's the case for everyone bearing the cost of that?
"I think it's a strong case," he said, "but it creates a problem for the various farm organisations who have been working away on the issue.
"Who do you associate with?"


UPDATE:
Peter Spencer reportedly ended his hungerstrike on 13 January 2010.

Monday 14 December 2009

The Not Evil Just Wrong! team are at it again


The anti-global warming Not Evil Just Wrong team are presently at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen busily trying to live up to their brag You helped us make history! Now help us redefine it!

According to one Standford University view at Fiat Lux:

Professor Stephen Schneider, leader of the Stanford delegation to COP 15 and co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with the IPCC, was yesterday verbally assaulted by an Irish documentary filmmaker at the UN event in Copenhagen.....
The culprit is one Phelim McAleer, a little-known Irish filmmaker who recently completed "Not Evil, Just Wrong" a feature-length documentary attacking the environmental movement. Judging from the man's tremendously disrespectful behavior, one could easily distinguish that he views environmentalists with disdain, contrary to what his restrained film title might suggest....
With McAleer apparently intent on pursuing his harassment of Schneider, a security guard escorted the irate Irishman away from the professor upon completion of the Q&A.

Alternatively the Not Evil Just Wrong team over at Jennifer Marohasy's blog:
"A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him "inconvenient questions" during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
"Professor Stephen Schneider's assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book…

The Huffington Post reported:

Nobel laureate, renowned climate scientist and good friend of former US vice-president Al Gore, Dr. Stephen Schneider, was verbally attacked today during a press conference at the United Nations Climate Talks in Copenhagen.
Dr. Schneider, an outspoken proponent of climate legislation, was announcing his latest book, "
Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate , " when an unidentified man jumped on stage and began to intensely interrogate Schneider. The man became angry after Schneider addressed the leak email controversy from The University of East Anglia's world renowned Climate Research Unit. He repeatedly shouted, "do you approve of deleting data, Dr. Schneider? Do you approve of deleting data?" The man then accused the professor of attempting to censor the press.

As these particular climate change denialists have a recent history of being very loose with the truth, I know who I'm inclined to believe when it comes to what actually happened at this press conference.