Radical Environmentalists using Aboriginal culture as a means to an end.

old man emu · January 17

This week a Federal Court judge dismissed an application by indigenous peoples of the Tiwi Islands the stop Santos (some think Satanos) from laying a pipeline on the seabed. One basis of their application was that two important spirits, the Rainbow Serpent and Crocodile Man, would be disturbed. Another was that prior to the end of the last Ice Age, the area was dry land inhabited by their ancestors and laying the pipeline would disturb cultural and burial sites.

In the second half of the 20th Century, it became reasonably common knowledge that the Ice Ages had locked up vast amounts of the Earth's seawater, causing the sea levels to fall and exposing the seabed for animal and plant use. The first inclination of this came from the finding of ancient paleolithic artifacts from the area between Britain and Europe.

Following hydrological surveys in many parts of the world, there has developed the understanding that these areas of Ice Age dry land exist along the ocean borders of all continents. In Australia, Aboriginal stores exist of the land being swallowed by the sea and people moving towards what is now dry land from "across the sea". Those stories confirm what recent research has shown to be true in relation to sea level rises.

But now that modern knowledge is being used by radical environmentalists to manipulate local indigenous peoples into modifying their "Dreamtime" cultural stories to suit the naysaying of the tree huggers. In a fine example of common sense, the Judge ripped into the legal team behind the application for what is basically skulduggery in the evidence it delivered.

Here's a comment by that bloke Bolt from Sky News. Since the official judgement has not been released, the information in the video is the best I can provide you to explain this terrible mischief making. Only watch for 3:45 because after that it all becomes typical Sky News anti-Albo stuff.

nomadpete · January 17

I am against the project, regardless of the court case.

Santos is spending close to 6 billion on the project. So I guess they expect to sell maybe 12 billion dollars worth of gas.

And none of this gas is for Australian use.

And how much did we sell the Gas to Santos for? Oh, we didn't sell it to them, we gave it to them.

And our government tells us how great it is to get this 'investment'.

Edited January 17 by nomadpete

facthunter · January 17

Santos "OWNED" the Morrisson government. Our Glasgow fiasco demonstrated that for ALL to see. Nev

old man emu · January 17

39 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I am against the project, regardless of the court case.

I have no objection to your opinion, and you will have noticed that I indicated an anti-Santos sentiment. Santos is not the target of my piece in relation to this court case. My beef is with the insidious way the environmentalists manipulated and twisted both recent "Western" knowledge and indigenous culture into a web of lies and deceit. Or that is what I am told has been done.

The question I would like answered, beyond reasonable doubt, is "Are the present day Tiwi people direct descendents of the humans of the last glacial maxima? The usual description of human establishment over the World after humans left Africa is that the first departees seem to have kept moving, forced along by the crowd behind them, like spectators leaving a football ground after a match. In my mind it makes it more likely that the indigenes of Tasmania are more likely to be the descendants of those humans who occupied the surface that now lies under the sea wet of the Tiwi Islands.

onetrack · January 17

The Indigenes block all development on a constant basis, because they've found heaps of left wing lawyers to assist them to stop their culture from being "downtrodden" by those developments.

As soon as their monetary compensation claims are addressed, the "cultural damage" problems seem to disappear.

Marty_d · January 17

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

Or that is what I am told has been done.

If you were told it by Sky "News" or Andrew Bolt, you've most likely been lied to.

octave · January 17

1 minute ago, Marty_d said:

If you were told it by Sky "News" or Andrew Bolt, you've most likely been lied to.

Normally I am happy to look at videos that present different points of view but once I see but once I see Andrew Bolt and Skynews mentioned I am not inclined to delve further. Murdoch will push any line to suit his purposes.

Jerry_Atrick · January 17

In this case, was it the Hih Court gave the judgement, and I hope they are not tainted by Murdoch. This phenomenon is not new.. Does anyone remember the "Secret Women's Business" from the Portland (Vic) area, I think in the 90s? The court found there was no basis for that claim and it was a sham.

However, why single out the Indigenous community as if they are the only ones that play this sort of culture war? Is it somehow worse than when someone else does it? Juat look at how the Abrhamic religious believes ove centuries have been contotrted to pursue agendas? As I said, this is not a new phenomenon at all.

old man emu · January 17

If you would like to read the whole 1300-odd paragraphs of teh judgement, here's the link

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0009#_Ref156228579

49 minutes ago, octave said:

once I see but once I see Andrew Bolt and Skynews mentioned I am not inclined to delve further.

That's not sensible. I'm not a fan of Bolt, nor ky New, but it's sometimes a case of "know thine enemy". You can't debate someone's ideas if you have nver heard them.

octave · January 17

19 minutes ago, old man emu said:

That's not sensible. I'm not a fan of Bolt, nor ky New, but it's sometimes a case of "know thine enemy". You can't debate someone's ideas if you have nver heard them.

I would argue about whether it is sensible or not. On this forum, I tend to make decisions about what I am willing to debate based on the evidence I know or on the information I am willing to research. I think I am on pretty safe ground suggesting that Bolt and Sky News have a particular agenda. I don't think many people here would dispute that. Of course, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. If environmentalists have exploited indigenous culture to stop an environmentally bad project then that is fine with me.

I would agree that knowing your enemy is useful. Climate change deniers ought to be reading peer-reviewed studies by reputable organizations such as

spacesailor · January 17

octave

It is a ' proven fact ' of history, that the cold ( Snowball ) Earth.

Was , warm before the meteor strike.

This " warming " is an adjustment to the Earth that existed before mankind .

And will be here After mankind .

spacesailor

octave · January 17

8 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

octave

It is a ' proven fact ' of history, that the cold ( Snowball ) Earth.

Was , warm before the meteor strike.

This " warming " is an adjustment to the Earth that existed before mankind .

And will be here After mankind .

spacesailor

I am happy to read any link to any reputable study.

pmccarthy · January 17

I'm sorry Octave, but your list is meaningless. A majority have no standing in climate science and some have no standing at all. Pakistan and Zimbabwe are not centres of scientific learning. Most of the web pages on the links are marketing pages for consulting services. Others presuppose imminent global warming and are addressing solutions, not assessing the scientific evidence for climate change. Follow the money.

nomadpete · January 17

46 minutes ago, octave said:

If environmentalists have exploited indigenous culture to stop an environmentally bad project then that is fine with me.

I excuse them for trying to stop the Gas field development. In my opinion the end in this case justifies the means.

octave · January 17

1 minute ago, pmccarthy said:

I'm sorry Octave, but your list is meaningless. A majority have no standing in climate science and some have no standing at all. Pakistan and Zimbabwe are not centres of scientific learning. Most of the web pages on the links are marketing pages for consulting services. Others presuppose imminent global warming and are addressing solutions, not assessing the scientific evidence for climate change. Follow the money.

Well then present to me peer-reviewed evidence

nomadpete · January 17

A general comment....

Unfortunately it takes radical environmentalists to counter the mainstream acceptance of wholesale environmental degradation.

spacesailor · January 17

QUORUM , & more All ' state the '' the Earth was warmer before the last ice age " .

Even ' Wikipedia ' has that same search result .

Also geologist state the Earth has ' lots ' of hot & cold periods.

spacesailor

old man emu · January 17

1 hour ago, octave said:

I think I am on pretty safe ground suggesting that Bolt and Sky News have a particular agenda. I don't think many people here would dispute that.

I wouldn't either. What I want you to take from my referencing Bolt is that what he broadcasts forms the starting point for the question one frames to debate. I agree that most often what he says, especially in politics, is contrary to my political beliefs, however, in the matter now under discussion, I suppose I can fairly say that I question the amounts of money the government is throwing at lawyers acting on behalf of zealots whose current position often mimics that of Luddites.

Take note that the application in this matter was made by one Simon Munkara, an Elder of a Tiwi Island clan. Does anyone know if Mr Munkara is so well educated and versed in Western law and civil litigation procedure that he could really have instigated thi application from his own learning and experience? To my mind he has simply been made use of by those Luddite zealot.

Thank you for the list of reputable organisations involved in climate studies. I accept that they are "horses for courses" in the area of climatology. But I ask you to come back to the current topic which tries to deal with the manipulation of, one might say, the naive (not missing the t in this case) to fulfil a goal of the cunning. To me it seems the zealots tried to buy Manhattan for $24 and a few bead necklaces by manipulating recent knowledge of geological history in cultural content from long ago.

octave · January 17

2 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Thank you for the list of reputable organisations involved in climate studies. I accept that they are "horses for courses" in the area of climatology. But I ask you to come back to the current topic which tries to deal with the manipulation of, one might say, the naive (not missing the t in this case) to fulfil a goal of the cunning.

I can't have an opinion on whether environmentalists have used indigenous people to make a case against the pipeline. What I am saying is that anything that reduces our carbon emissions is good, isn't it? The established science says we need to reduce our carbon emissions, don't we? If I am wrong about the established science then please provide links that prove otherwise.

old man emu · January 17

Just now, octave said:

I can't have an opinion on whether environmentalists have used indigenous people to make a case against the pipeline.

You can read the Judge's opinion. I posted the link to judgement.

1 minute ago, octave said:

What I am saying is

True, but off topic for this thread which is about lies and deceit.

octave · January 17

10 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Take note that the application in this matter was made by one Simon Munkara, an Elder of a Tiwi Island clan. Does anyone know if Mr Munkara is so well educated and versed in Western law and civil litigation procedure that he could really have instigated thi application from his own learning and experience?

I do not know what to make of this post. You are suggesting that this person is not qualified???? I don't know the answer to that but surely there is an answer and it, maybe discernable by an internet search. the fact that he is aboriginal is immaterial to most fair-minded people. You have asked the question whether Simon Munkura is qualified or not. I feel that you think that you can float the suggestion that he is not, fine but present evidence

octave · January 17

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I'm sorry Octave, but your list is meaningless. A majority have no standing in climate science and some have no standing at all. Pakistan and Zimbabwe are not centres of scientific learning. Most of the web pages on the links are marketing pages for consulting services. Others presuppose imminent global warming and are addressing solutions, not assessing the scientific evidence for climate change. Follow the money.

Are you saying that the majority of scientists believe climate change to be fiction? Please supply evidence. Look I could be wrong so I am happy to go to the CSIRO sight and recheck my assumptions. OK, so I did that https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/climate-change-qa/science Sp tell me why you think CSIRO is shit?>

pmccarthy · January 17

Here is one example. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
the National Snow and Ice Data Centre shows extent of arctic sea ice. Situation normal, no alarming trend. Click on any year to compare.

there is plenty of information out there contrary to the alarmist headlines.

octave · January 17

3 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Here is one example. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
the National Snow and Ice Data Centre shows extent of arctic sea ice. Situation normal, no alarming trend. Click on any year to compare.

there is plenty of information out there contrary to the alarmist headlines.

Is CSIRO wrong?

Jerry_Atrick · January 17

12 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Here is one example. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
the National Snow and Ice Data Centre shows extent of arctic sea ice. Situation normal, no alarming trend. Click on any year to compare.

there is plenty of information out there contrary to the alarmist headlines.

I am not exactly sure what that graoh is saying; The area of the ocean with at least 15% sea ice may be a measure, but how does it compare with the total ice in the region and how that has been changing?

This graph, from the same site(https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/), paints a slightly different picture:

The average monthly sea ice extent seems to be reducing; an at least 15% may not take into account thinning ice

Sign In

Radical Environmentalists using Aboriginal culture as a means to an end.

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

octave

nomadpete

Marty_d

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in