Saucer people in association with the RAND corporation in collusion with the lizard men with the help of the reverse vampires.
Etcetera.
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 …
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 09:26 GMT Adam Foxton
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?
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 10:18 GMT DrXym
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.
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 15:25 GMT admiraljkb
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"...
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 17:09 GMT DrXym
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.
-
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 09:28 GMT g e
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.
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 10:06 GMT Wombling_Free
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.
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 09:34 GMT Tim Roberts 1
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.
-
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 16:47 GMT Ken Hagan
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.
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 18:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
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.
-
Wednesday 21st March 2012 07:32 GMT Michael Dunn
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?)
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 10:03 GMT Wombling_Free
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...
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 10:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
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.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 10:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
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.
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 14:55 GMT dwieske
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
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 14:56 GMT 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).
-
Tuesday 20th March 2012 15:05 GMT dj-master-tune-out
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.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
