Feeds

back to article Oz billionaire says CIA backs Greenpeace

Australian Mining Magnate Clive Palmer has declared the CIA is behind a Greenpeace campaign that aims to slow the growth of Australia's export coal industry. Palmer was recently declared a Living National Treasure, alongside Kylie Minogue among others. Like others in his industry he is also firmly opposed to two new Australian …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Saucer people in association with the RAND corporation in collusion with the lizard men with the help of the reverse vampires.

Etcetera.

7
1
Anonymous Coward

Paranoia, does he look over his shoulder a lot or think monsters are living under his bed....

He's probably right though.

6
0
Silver badge

what are reverse vampires?

1
1
Bronze badge
Coat

Re: what are reverse vampires?

Ah...think they're called "Living National Treasures".

1
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Saying Greenpeace would have government backing on some things- not mental.

Saying the CIA would deliberately use underhanded techniques to achieve their aims- a given.

The USA funding undesireables to achieve their own aims... yeah, that'd never happen...

If he DID say it was aliens etc he'd be a nutcase. Saying Greenpeace was entirely funded by the CIA would be crazy. But that Greenpeace has received some funds to further an aim that supports the US Economy? It's not THAT outlandish, is it?

18
1
Silver badge

The problem with saying the CIA funds Greenpeace is there is no evidence either way to say they did or not. It's an unfounded and unprovable assertion.

One may as well say they slipped something into a mining magnate's coffee so he spouts some paranoid nonsense and damages his own credibility.

Or that they're damaging the Australian renewable industry by funding a magnate to spread false rumours to the contrary.

Both are equally unfounded and unprovable claims.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

> It's an unfounded and unprovable assertion.

Just like catastrophic AGW then.

8
11
Coat

If I learned anything from the excellent program Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister - "Never believe a rumour until it is denied". Since this has now officially been denied, it must be true?

Hell, there were a lot stranger cozying up activities occurring during the Cold War, so none of this would surprise me if it is true. Maybe I'm getting jaundiced when I read the article and went "Meh"...

1
0
Silver badge

Doesn't the CIA never confirm nor deny anything? That makes for a field day for paranoid people but it doesn't get someone closer to the truth.

Therefore the default should be whenever someone says "the CIA is funding X" is to ask for evidence. If it's just hearsay or somebody with their own motives or axe to grind then it may as well be discounted as not credible.

0
0
g e
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Assuming the accuracy of the 'facts' mentioned

It look pretty straightforward really.

Even if the guy's considered a nutbag by the Aussies, why would anyone not on the eco-payroll believe anything Greenpeace said these days anyway? They're mostly ecomilitants and self-serving enviroloons anyway.

At best it's tinfoil-hatter meets the Golden Children of Warmology, at worst it's true. It's also what the CIA do best, so if a conspiracy yarn it's a classic because all the components are, individually, true, only their acting as a whole in this context isn't verified.

Helicopter. Black one.

8
7

Re: Assuming the accuracy of the 'facts' mentioned

After all if the source of the money is suitably disguised Greenpeace might not even be aware its CIA money... The Russians managed the same trick often enough in cold war days, you'd like to think the CIA would be equally capable...

3
1
g e
Silver badge

Re: Assuming the accuracy of the 'facts' mentioned

Yeah but... 'generous support of the Rockefeller Family Fund'

Is a bit of a giveaway when it's common knowledge it's a CIA cashpoint :o)

Greenpeace would take money from Exxon if it furthered their cause.

3
3
Thumb Down

Re: Assuming the accuracy of the 'facts' mentioned

"ecomilitants"?

WTF?

SEA SHEPHERD are ecomilitants, and good on them!

Greenpeace are a corporation that makes money by being corporate hipster.

The most militant thing Greenpeace does is ambush you in the street with chuggers wearing koala costumes.

2
2
g e
Silver badge
Meh

Re: Assuming the accuracy of the 'facts' mentioned

Two words

Rainbow. Warrior.

Maybe they dressed like koalas for that, too.

3
3
Headmaster

Re: Assuming the accuracy of the 'facts' mentioned

"Greenpeace would take money from Exxon if it furthered their cause."

John D. Rockefeller started Standard Oil, which begat Esso, which became Exxon, so....

8
0
Thumb Down

Sorry ...

Clive Palmer is like the spoiled brat who isn't getting his own way. The football team? Well who gives a flying f**k anyway. The mining tax? Well I give a flying f**k because leeches like Palmer are ripping our resources out to the detriment of my grandchildren and great grandchildren. Unfortunately just because CP has money the weasles of the government will listen to him and his poxy mates and f**k Australia for their short term gain. Go and cry in the corner Clive - maybe Mummy will come over and give you a kiss.

9
1

Re: Sorry ...

Got to be said the Poms are a fine example there - get the North Sea Oil and gas out of the ocean as fast as you can, spend all the money on votes (Social Security) and then wonder why the economy is completely ****** when the oil starts running out...

1
3

Re: Sorry ...

Hey, I've known some nice weasels!

I think you mean maggots - fly larvae eating a rotting corpse is the perfect analogy for the Austfailian guvmunters.

1
1
Angel

On the plus side

he has the resources to build the world's biggest ever tin foil hat.

2
0
Silver badge

Doing Oz a favour

If I were Australian I would prefer to see what might become a very important natural resource stay in the ground for future use, rather than sold off for short-term gain. So i reckon if the CIA are up to something here, they're doing Australia a favour.

0
0
Gold badge

Re: Doing Oz a favour

There's a saying: the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones.

That coal is only an important natural resource as long as the technology of the day depends on burning it. If we ever switch over to a low carbon economy, the only use for coal (and oil) will be in the chemical industry, which has a vastly smaller appetite for the raw material. Supply will then exceed demand by several orders of magnitude and the price will fall by a similar amount.

There may be good reasons to keep coal in the ground, but conservation *of coal* isn't one of them.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: Doing Oz a favour

I take your point, but it does depend on the assumption that we have moved permanently away from a coal-burning technology. If we successfully move over to a low-carbon economy (and that still seems to be a big 'if') then I agree that coal won't be needed as fuel.

But it is still 'if', and I would say that any government that allows coal (and indeed any non-renewable resource) to be squandered purely for profit is not thinking very seriously of future possibilities.

1
1

Re: Doing Oz a favour

"But it is still 'if', and I would say that any government that allows coal (and indeed any non-renewable resource) to be squandered purely for profit is not thinking very seriously of future possibilities."

Sorry? Government not thinking seriously of future possibilities? Can any government ever see beyond the next election?

(O. K., there was one thinking of a thousand-year Reich, but elected?)

0
0
Mushroom

It was the time of the preacher....

He might have a point, I seem to recall Darius Jedburg claimed to have started Greenpeace (or it's fictional equivalent) when he worked for the Firm, before going somewhat freelance.

"Dallas? That's where we shoot our presidents!"

I guess when you live in a diamond encrusted mansion of 11,000sqm and have your own 737 to get you to work, and 'work' involves eating a lot and taking politicians out to lunch and claiming to run all Australian industry while employing about 70% foreign backpackers, then yeah, fiction must seem a lot like reality.

First against the wall when the revolution comes...

1
1
Mushroom

No Tinfoil Hat Required Whatsoever

USG does indeed fund DIE GRUENEN, a german eco-lefty party:

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,745943-2,00.html

{Use Google translate for details).

Also, Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister and DIE GRUENEN member is now also in the pay of Ms Albright, former state dept secretary.

Greenpeace did try to stop France from detonating nuclear bombs in the pacific and it is not tinfoily to suspect it was a USG attempt to sabotage France's nuclear program. Because France does not suck merkin milk as most others do. Which is by definiton evil.

I'll have some Freedom Fries.

6
4

This post has been deleted by its author

Joke

Re: No Tinfoil Hat Required Whatsoever

Bad joke warning

Yes, but didn't france blow-up the rainbow warrior in Auckland.

I beleive they used "frog-men" to plant the bomb.

0
0
Megaphone

Re: No Tinfoil Hat Required Whatsoever

Yes they did, after Greenpeace sniffed around their testing site with that boat. They also have plenty of nuclear reactors, while Germany has scared itself into removing them. Including a highly advanced Thorium Breeder (THTR300), which was world-leading in its technology sector.

I am sure BP, Shell and Exxon love Greenpeace.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: No Tinfoil Hat Required Whatsoever

"I beleive they used "frog-men" to plant the bomb."

the spawn of the lizard people. well that proves it then

1
1
Holmes

Backwards, perhaps?

Do the Rockefellers really do the bidding of the CIA and not the other way around?

0
1
Thumb Up

Yep no tinfoil required

Enough said,

so some reading buy some books etc.

I really "like" what the US Gov. and CIA been doing in South America the last 50 years to keep the south poor and US Corps rich in South America... one reason they tried to overthrow "crazy" Chaves (good Oliver Stone docummentory on Chaves)

0
1
Bronze badge
FAIL

build support for fuels other than coal

So, what is this magical mystery fuel that can supplant coal?

Oil? Gas?

Solar and wind aren't "store-able" to any great degree to make them useful, so please detail what exactly will replace coal..... the world wants to know.

3
0
Bronze badge
Megaphone

er...

"It's an unfounded and unprovable assertion..."

What? Like WMDs in Iraq? I don't think that stopped anyone acting on it, did it?

2
2
Black Helicopters

Somebody's been playing too much Illuminati...

Why doesn't he just have the Orbital Mind Control Lasers turn them into conservatives, then use his oil money to fund a takeover? It usually works for me.

That's not a black helicopter, it's a tentacled eye in a pyramid.

1
1

greenpeace =scum of the earth

fact is, the proganda and misinformation greenpeace spreads and the mass-manipulation tactis they use are on a level that would make Mr. Hitler proud...

To me, Greenpeace is nothing short of a criminal organisation, and I hope at some point they will be taken to court for the damage they and their propaganda cause... (eg the fact a lot of nuke plants are open for way to long has EVERYTHING to do with the blocking actions of GP and other pseudo-green scum organisations, as does the massive construction of fossil plants in germany)

Oh, and the only thing to displace fossil fuels will be Nuclear, more specifically the IFR reactor, with which we can produce carbon free power for CENTURIES just using the nuclear waste from or current plants.....I'm still waiting for the 1st anti-nuke person to give my a single solid argument....and also explain to me how they will solve the nuclear waste issue, and provide nuclear medicine without any nuclear technology

6
2

Re: greenpeace =scum of the earth

stating easily verifiable facts, albeit in a colorfull way doesn't sit wel with some readers here it seem....I guess it's not enjoyable when you find out your gifts to GP are being put to detrimental use....

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Ya, suure.

The CIA funding Greenpeace, I can believe. Doing so to hurt the Australian coal industry, I can believe. But Obama, DOE, and EPA are doing their damndest to hurt coal companies in America, so I doubt it's to help the US coal miners.

It's just a pack of ideologues trying to drag us back to the Stone Age (Idealized Version).

3
1

taxes..companies don't really pay any tax at all.

In reality COMPANIES, never pay taxes. They ALWAYS pass along the extra costs, to the consumer. To PEOPLE. People pay taxes. You're at the end of the line , with no-one to pass along the tax to. If you have a company that makes widgets, for instance, what ever tax, fee, "carbon tax" you decide to levy on that company that makes the widget, will be passed along to the person who eventually buys the widget. Basic economics. It doesn't matter whether the widget is oil, corn, wheat, iPhone, Android phone, tablet or iPad. Go ahead, decide that iPads should have a carbon tax on it. Apple mearly will charge MORE for the iPad. You think your are free because you don't buy iPads? You are wrong, because you do buy food, and the companies that produce food who buy those iPads will charge more for the food.

2
0
Gold badge
Facepalm

As conspiracy theories go....

.....that has no more or less to recommend it than the others.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

And in related news...

Australian Mining Magnate Clive Palmer was found drowned today off the coast of Australia near his luxury Yacht in an apparent boating accident....

3
0

Clive Palmer

For those who've not heard of him, think Baron Harkonnen without the style, wit, grace, charm and manners.

And a correction while I'm here: The Australian Broadcasting Commission became the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 1983.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.