“On 24 April 2007, the Manado court [in North Sulawesi, Indonesia] handed down a decisive, unambiguous verdict clearing my Dad [Richard Ness] of all charges and declared that Buyat Bay was never polluted, the fish are safe for human consumption and the people are fine.
Now let’s rewind almost two years back to 27 April 2005. This day the Overseas Press Club (OPC) awarded New York Times reporter Jane Perlez the prestigious Whitman Bassow Award, which recognizes “Best reporting in any medium on international environmental issues”.
The OPC panel of judges awarded Jane Perlez this honor because her reporting “detailed evidence in the village of Buyat Bay of skin tumors, rashes, breathing difficulties, and headaches.” But most noticeably, it is the claim that it wasn’t “until the Times series appeared [that] the Indonesian government and the mining company had turned a deaf ear to the problem” and that it was Jane Perlez’s series of articles that “forced the government to take legal action against Newmont”.
Read the rest of this blog post and watch the video of the presentation here: http://www.richardness.org/blog/revisitingtheoverseaspressclubaward.php
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen
At the outset let me say that I completely accept the Indonesian court’s verdict and that there is no case to answer. I am personally happy for Richard Ness and his family.
However a quick Google around the net – an example http://www.nodirtygold.org/newmont_agm.cfm
illustrates that Newmont have a somewhat controversial international reputation.
Now I don’t know the intimate details of other world-wide claims but if there is some substance perhaps there is a knee-jerk reaction to generalise and jump on band-wagons. Certainly the doctor who reported the “alleged poisoning” has put Richard Ness in a position he should never have been in. However how easy would it have been to initially uncritically accept this opinion.
Might be difficult for you to comment but what is a summary position of Newmont’s global environmental record ?
Luke,
A quick ‘google around the net’, including the site you have provided a link to, will falsely suggest that Buyat Bay is polluted.
I wonder when you, and Gavin, are going to realize that most environmental NGOs fabricate stories?
So it is impossible to do a quick ‘summary position’ – because it takes time to get to the bottom of ‘each story’.
Whilst Luke accepts the finding by the Indonesian Court that Ness is innocent a quick google …finds him guilty of allegations by opinions of persons unknown
This is the old police tactic of “verballing”, ‘we always knew he was a crook so lets fit him with a crime.’
Unionists use the same technique, the secondary boycott.
Its unlawful.
Jen – assumed you may have done some extensive research on Newmont given your high interest in this issue and may have had a view. i.e. is Indonesia a one-off or is there a general unfair global beat up on Newmont?
So we seem to have unrest with Newmont in South America and Romania.
Jen – I’m sure that IPA would never engage in any astroturfing operations and that all your positions are most thoroughly researched.
Rog – I have done nothing of the sort that you have stated/implied. Are you seriously deranged. Read what I’ve said again – there were no “but’s”. So stop making up nonsense.
I’m talking about Newmont’s “reputation” in places other than in Indonesia that may cause reporters to be trigger happy. I’m simply saying there seems to be some level of agitation about the company’s operations in places other than Indonesia on the Internet – so I’m naturally curious about it’s operations elsewhere. I think it’s totally relevant.
I say again – I totally accept the Indonesian’s court’s decision, there are no pollution issues as demonstrated by the scientific evidence, that Richard Ness has no case to answer, and that he has been shabbily treated.
Anyway back to researching Newmont’s other non-Indonesian global operations I guess.
Excellent news that Richard Ness has been able to prove his innocence.
>I wonder when you, and Gavin, are going to realize that most environmental NGOs fabricate stories?
Jennifer Luke had a valid question. It is not just ‘most environmental NGOs’ that fabricate stories, and if you had any ounce of fairness you would know this and see that many other organisations, such as industries, have been accused of the same. I’d like to know what Newmont’s reputation is like elsewhere and whether we are getting a balanced picture. As soon as you get critical of someone posting an innocent comment like Luke, and lay the boot into environmental NGOs at the slightest opportunity, I have to wonder. Obviously, I am very happy and relieved for Richard Ness and his family.
“However” = “but”
Jennifer: Since you insist with another stab at my position on things in general with “I wonder when you (Luke), and Gavin, are going to realize that most environmental NGOs fabricate stories”.
Lets say again I had considerable background in mining, ore processing, metals recovery, tailings and waste dumping, also a little knowledge of recent practical environment remedies such as bans on ocean dumping to support my previous comments whatever they were.
Monitoring major industry effluents was part of my job in various high tech processes. I bet these johnnycomelately NGO’s hardly knew the half of it all because all the big companies got pretty good at routines and spills.
Everything gets based on long term averages. Buyat Bay is probably no exception still with plenty to fish round at depth despite the best efforts of Richard Ness & Co. It’s a pity but the mining practice below and above ground everywhere was never a lab science.
Ask the survivors at Beaconsfield
Travis, Luke,
The campaign against the proposed Romanian gold mine was exposed in detail in the documentary ‘Mine Your Own Business’ (… the campaign against Gabriel Resources is now also against Newmont as they are buying into the venture).
What’s most incredible about the fabrication of stories by environmental NGOs is perhaps not so much that they try it on … but that experienced journalists like Jane Perlez support this misguided campaigning and then win awards for the same.
… read the blog post by Eric.
Journalists winning awards for environmental journalism based on inaccurate, biased and unfair reporting is nothing new. What would be new is if the judges of these prizes would act to remove the prize once and independent umpire has proven the story to be unworthy of the prize.
The ABC Four Corners, Lords of the Forests program is still the winner of the Peter Hunt Prize in Environmental Journalism despite adverse findings by the ABC’s own Independent Complaints Review Panel and the Australian Communication and Media Authority.
This program on Tasmania’s forest management was riddled with errors , bias and unfair treatment of the State’s forest workers and their businesses. The Journalist Ticky Fullerton is still employed by the ABC, that on its web site states “In August 2004, Ticky won the Australian Government Peter Hunt Eureka Prize for “Environmental Journalism”.”
Four Corners claims “Its consistently high standards of journalism and film-making have earned international recognition and an array of Walkleys, Logies and other national awards.”
According to the ACMA report so too do reports that breach the ABC own code of practice.
By keeping this award the ABC undermines its own credibility as a leader in Current Affairs reporting.
Jen Marohasy says: “I wonder when you, and Gavin, are going to realize that most environmental NGOs fabricate stories?”
But you likewise play deceptive games. For example you were decpetive when you said the WWF was pushing for a total ban, without exceptions, on the use of DDT in the lead up to the Stockholm negotiations. See here for WWFs actual position in thge lead up to the Stockholm Convention. http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/toxics/problems/our_chemical_world/ddt/index.cfm
Here is another example of your deceptive practices: http://allocasuarina.blogspot.com/2007/05/marohasy-gets-it-wrong-again-once-again.html
Steve,
Not sure what point you are trying to make? The information at the links your provide indicate that I was correct re. WWF and their position on DDT, and what is the story with methane and trees?
And do you agree many environmental NGOs fabricate stories?
And what about the Murray River … how are salinity levels?
Interesting to note that apparently there is not a single mining corporation internationally that meets the requirements to be included in any of the ethical investments portfolios available in the UK.
(BBC RADIO 4)
If even the money markets cannot greenwash mining corporations….
How about we expand the sentence to “And do you agree many environmental NGOs, corporations, lobbyists and think tanks fabricate stories?”
Too cheeky but true ? OK. Back on salinity.
Very interesting new paper.
Defining the climatic signal in stream salinity trends using the
Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and its rate of change
V. H. McNeil1 and M. E. Cox2
1Resource Sciences and Knowledge, Department of Natural Resources and Water, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
2School of Natural Resource Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Received: 27 March 2006 – Published in Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.: 3 May 2007
Abstract. The impact of landuse on stream salinity is
currently difficult to separate from the effect of climate,
as the decadal scale climatic cycles in groundwater and
stream hydrology have similar wavelengths to the landuse
pattern. These hydrological cycles determine the stream
salinity through accumulation or release of salt in the landscape.
Widespread patterns apparent in stream salinity are
discussed, and a link is demonstrated between stream salinity,
groundwater levels and global climatic indicators. The
Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) has previously been
investigated as a contributory climatic indicator for hydrological
and related time series in the Southern Hemisphere.
This study presents an approach which explores the rate of
change in the IPO, in addition to its value, to define an indicator
for the climate component of ambient shallow groundwater
levels and corresponding stream salinity. Composite time
series of groundwater level and stream salinity are compiled
using an extensive but irregular database covering a wide geographical
area. These are modelled with respect to the IPO
and its rate of change to derive control time series. A example
is given of how a stream salinity trend changes when the
decadal climatic influence is removed.
I wonder what the Murray’s detrended time series looks like. Sigh. Pity it’s just an old Qld paper.
Lamna, suggest you stop using your computer … it’s a product of mining. 🙂
Hi Jen,
Mine is secondhand… stops it going into landfill. :o)
Jen says: “And do you agree many environmental NGOs fabricate stories?”
Of course I do. The Institute of Public Affairs is a great example of an NGO that fabricates environmental stories 🙂
I don’t believe everything WWF and Greenpeace say, for example on whaling or nuclear issues. Are they fabricating, ie lying, or being hysterical about something they truly believe? Mostly the latter I suspect.
So we have Steve Munn, and Mel, now declaring themselves to be one and the same.
More accusations against me — or is there someone else at the IPA he is referring to — but no evidence to suggest I have ever done anything except expose the truth.
And I’m still confused by Mel/Steve Munn’s understanding of the relationship between trees and methane?
Dont worry about proving/disproving Munns accusations Jennifer, he is barking mad.
Interesting responses to the claim that NGOs lie. Nobody’s denying it–they’re trying to justify NGO lies!
That solves that one!
Woof to Rog and ROTFL to Schillsberry.
>Interesting responses to the claim that NGOs lie. Nobody’s denying it–they’re trying to justify NGO lies!
And those who falsely accuse don’t admit mistakes Schiller. Seek to modify your own behaviour Schiller before demanding that others do, or get off your self-constructed pedestal.
Travis,
Why, sir, you are exactly correct! NGOs, who are notoriously fond of telling lies, such as making false accusations, would of course never admit to them. And if pressed, activists would certainly not call the lies “mistakes.” The activists would, and of course do, as seen above, simply point out that others tell lies, and say: that makes it OK for us to lie, too.
Travis, I thank you for being so generously frank. You might be corrigible after all!
Sure am glad that’s settled!
Schiller, your attempt at humour was lame. Your larger attempt at dodging any form of responsibility to posting deliberate lies in order to discredit people and make yourself appear somehow knowledgeable and morally correct shows the true extent of your sleaze and integrity. People like you who can’t admit to mistakes, and pass the blame onto others are the lowest of the low. Your 07:25 post again proves you attribute words and ideas to people which are simply not there to begin with and twist what others write into an argument only a waste of space could construct. You are pathetic.
Travis,
If I were attempting humor, I would begin with a phrase something like, “Did you hear the one about…” and continue from there.
Interesting that you accuse me of posting deliberate lies without mentioning anything of substance. Yet another activist lying trick: accuse with no basis in fact.
I don’t know what to do with your claim that I have both sleaze and integrity. It doesn’t make sense to me, but I’m gaining the impression that activists equate the two.
It’s apparent that you ascribe to some notion of “sleaze and integrity,” so–
–hooray! Another issue solved.
We’re making real headway here. Thanks, Travis.
Schiller you are totally aware of what I am referring to – misrepresenting what I said on two posts in less than 24 hours. Even Jennifer commented on it. You have been accused by others of the same crime against them, and continue to commit them. I have waited patiently for an acknowledgement of wrong-doing, an apology, but you seem incapable of recognising when you do wrong.
Your continual referral to me as an activist is another example of how ill-informed and juvenile you really are.
Travis,
I am unaware of any instance in which I said you were an activist. Further, I am unaware of any instance in which Jennifer “commented on” a supposed claim of mine that alleged you are an activist.
Being as diligent as you are, you will of course render citations which prove your assertions.
Since I have not engaged in wrong-doing, your patience in waiting for an apology for misdeeds–which you utterly fail to identify–might prove to some your utmost virtue in that regard.
Until I see otherwise, however, I will regard your patience as pretense, and as proof of the vice of sloth.
With respect to other readers, apologies and please ignore the following. For the benefit of Schiller:
Your 09:14 post and previous likened what I wrote to that of what activitists believe. You have implied that my behaviour is similar to activists’ and that I hold the same values. You have done that here and on other occasions. I am not going back through the archives to highlight other examples. I am not lazy, but rather have other things- far more pleasant- to do than remind myself of your poor behaviour.
However, here is where I recently drew attention to some of your lies and deception:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002024.html
And this was in response to :
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001984.html#comments
and
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001985.html#comments
I am drawing attention to these because you are a serial offender when it comes to pushing your agenda and making false accusations.
Please do not continue to equate my beliefs and values with whatever idea you have of an activist, and as has been suggested before, read what others write and understand it before twisting it around into something totally unrelated or opposing.
The vice of sloth pales into insignificance against the vice of your pride.
Travis,
I have reviewed the links you supplied which purport to show that I am a “serial offender” who makes “false accusations” and promulgates “lies and deception.”
It is beyond question that you are quite able to levy strongly-worded charges against others, but it is equally clear that you are unable to substantiate them.
I quite enjoy your accusation that I commit the sin of pride, but shooting fish in a barrel doesn’t count for much.
You’ve just proven I didn’t need to go to all that trouble after all with the links Schiller. Thanks. You constantly amaze with your ability to demonstrate foolishness (amongst other things) without anyone even corresponding with you. Thanks again!
Travis, Travis.
I thought you would get it by now. Luke is quite clever at hiding his agenda behind a smog of citations–accompanied by quotes–but you are not.
You are simply far too candid in your writing to suit the political position you appear to espouse. To make you angry, all I need to do is clarify what you say. Usually, even less than that is useful–to merely point out a few lucid passages from your heated prose suffices.
You actually are corrigible, Travis. All you have to do is realize that not liking one thing does not require attacking something else.
It’s simple, and you will discover that the world makes more sense when you deal with this.
You are doing an amazing job there Schiller! I actually thought it was you who would get it by now, but obviously not. Angry? No way. I have been in hysterics at your so-called ‘all I need to do is clarify what you say’! Dills like you are few and far between Schiller, but when you come across one, you have to hang on to it coz he is great for a laugh!!! Please, keep ’em coming!!!
Travis,
Since you insist that I engage in humor, I have a good one for you.
“Scientists at the University of Helsinki claim they have solved the mystery of global warming.
“A team of forensic diabologists led by the Rev. Dr. Zoltan Fahrenheit found startling evidence that the gradual rise in temperatures around the globe is caused not by holes in the ozone layer or defoliation of the rain forests, but rather by increased activity in Hell.
“Using a cutting-edge procedure called thermodemonalysis, Dr. Fahrenheit concluded that the incremental temperature climb that has alarmed scientists throughout the world is caused by heat-generating phenomena that can be traced directly to Hades.”
-John Breneman, “Global warming caused by increased activity in Hell,” Humor Gazette, January 27, 2005,
http://www.humorgazette.com/blog/item/65/
Now that is funny!