I don't know if the author has noticed it has been a tiny bit warm lately. Perhaps we should burn less coal and save the forests.

Ah, the irony.

A completely over-the-top, almost hysterical reaction to a fairly silly stunt.

Think for a moment of an alternative scenario. The journalist receives the "press release", and either a) recognizes it instantly for the fraud that it is, or b) makes a single, simple, fact-checking phone call. The story - because journalists need stories just as much as obscure activists need the oxygen of publicity to feed their ego - would then be nothing more than a ten-centimeter filler at the bottom of page seven.

But for the panic that exists in the mainstream media in their fight for relevance in the age of instant news and dissemination-by-social-media, this would be a non-story.

Unfortunately, it has set the tut-tutters into an orgy of self-righteous finger-wagging, using half-truths and exaggeration as their only weapons.

"The fall in share price effectively wiped about $314 million from the value of Whitehaven, a significant blow for many shareholders with a stake in the company."

Ummm... Ms Novak, when requoted after the exchange-enforced trading halt, the shares returned to within two cents of their pre-hoax price. There is no evidence that any pensioners suffered, only the clients of a couple of stockbrokers who, like the journalists, failed in their due diligence. If fingers are to be pointed and wagged, surely these reptiles should be first up against the wall for failing in their duty of care to their clients.

And what about the smarties who picked up the shares at a discount, benefitting their own set of little old ladies and their pensions? What should be our reaction to them? Should they be excoriated for taking advantage of an obvious howler, or praised for being smart enough to spot an opportunity that justified their obscene salaries?

They are after all two sides of exactly the same coin.

Personally, I blame the journalists. In their panic not to be outdone in the news stakes, they knee-jerked an unchecked "fact" into the media. Surely, in the sober light of day, it is they who should be pilloried, not an insignificant little fellow with a God-complex?

The author of this rant is a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. This is a right wing, corporate funded think tank. It has a history of denying the science of climate change and other environmental issues. A full report on them, with links, can be found here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs

The fossil fuel industry and its lobbyists are making the world uninhabitable. They have deliberately stopped action on decarbonising the economy for decades as it would interfere with their profits. As James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies said to the US congress in 2008:

''CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.''

Let's put the right people in the dock - CEOs.

I wonder if Moylan or her associates bought shares when they bottomed?Now that would be fraud.

Well lillian, James Hansen LOL. Google "James Hansen fraud".

Atman,

This is much more interesting:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

That's right Pericles, blame those conned by the fraud. The poser was good enough to even take calls (leaving a contact number on the press release) to verify the fraud. Why didn't he 'fess up at that point as he still would have left his mark and gotten his point over. Do you check every banknote in your wallet against forgery?

The last time I looked carbon was the base of our economy, with alternatives making inroads as they become more viable. Greens expecting the mining, selling and usage of coal to be made illegal have awhile to wait yet.

Coal right now is a necessary evil and everyone knows it, except the bright eyed lillian who equates coal with tobacco and asbestos in their negative health effects, implying coal company CEO's are somehow holding back vital information from the public. All the info on AGW is public knowledge and governments are doing something about it, as are people individually.

What Moylan did can not simply be dismissed as a harmless prank as some would have it. He must pay a price, not only because he did wreckless damage, but because the integrity of our financial institutions must be defended from others who may attack it, as ASIC has done on other occasions. Any argument that deflects from Moylen's wrong-doing is fine, but it is only deflection. He broke the law with intent and must accept a consequence.

"When people with extreme mindsets cannot win an intellectual argument in the first instance, they tend to resort in exasperation by throwing their own bodies against their perceived grievances"

This remind me of the action of the young people who threw themselves in front of President Johnson's car in Sydney. Their "percieved grievance", was the war in Vietnam. A "grievance" was shared by an overwhelming majority of Australians and by the world.

The issue that motivated Johathan Moylan is another one that threatens our world. It is not "an extreme mindset" of an individual.
The Institute of Public Affairs has to produce a better argument to refute the wealth of science backed by the damage that exptreme climate change is causing doing to our planet. Or perhaps they haven't got one.

To call instead for extreme punitive measures to silence protest will not work just as "ride over the bastards" did work on that past occaision.

Gun Boat

Tis is not a case of killing in self-defense. Moylan broke a reasonable law and did damage to people. He had legal protest options but chose an illegal one, case closed.

Throwing one's self in front of a gov't car, self-immoliation, etc are other options. They have their own consequences and so do Moylan's.

Moylan tried the old press release scam to get some coverage of his anti-coal stance. Some media outlets fell for the scam. This is something a fair few people from many different political persuasions have tried. And it is funny when media outlets fall for it. I took four issues from this amusing incident

1. The media, in general, needs to check sources a little better. No serious banking reporter would have fallen for the false heading and telephone number gag as they would know the person in ANZ to ring and discuss. The timing might have been the issue here as many journalists are on holiday and less experienced staff are probably manning the desks.
2. It reinforced to me that the Carbon Tax is about redistribution of money to Labor supporters and not really about reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - or they would ban coal mines and coal fired power stations.
3. I do wonder if the large and speedy fall in price is related to computerized trading.
4. The media will cover anything during the funny season.

"Companies should take a more willing stand against environmental NGOs and other extremist groups" what like the IPA.

Take a moment or two to think it through, Luciferase.

>>That's right Pericles, blame those conned by the fraud. The poser was good enough to even take calls (leaving a contact number on the press release) to verify the fraud.<<

The office number for the ANZ Media Relations Adviser, Joanne McCulloch, was correct. So any journalist ringing this number would have been told straight away that the press release was not issued by the Bank. Her email details were also correct.

The only other two numbers provided were mobile numbers, and any journalist who in 2013 doesn't understand the inherent risks of relying on a mobile phone contact should be fired forthwith.

The email address for Toby Kent was also suspicious, being "anzcorporate" rather than the simple "anz". A minute's research - no more - would have uncovered the fact that the address was created on 4th January by... Jonathan Moylan.

http://dig.whois.com.au/whois.php?dom=anzcorporate.com&secondary=1

This simple act of fact-checking, available to anyone, would also have uncovered the information that the mobile number on the "press release" that was supposed to belong to Toby Kent, was the number given by Moylan when setting up the anzcorporate address.

If this is the quality of journalism in this country, then they have no more credibility than the random bloggers who announce the death of a movie star

http://www.take40.com/news/16565/jeff-goldblum-harrison-ford-deaths-a-hoax

Admittedly, it is easier to understand how Richard Wilkins can be fooled by gossip-as-news, rather than a real journalist, but that's beside the point.

Incidentally, apart from the fact that no Bank in its right mind would issue a release announcing withdrawal of funding - for anybody - any journalist worth the name must know that these announcements must - repeat must - be issued through the Stock Exchange. It's the law.

Of course, Pericles, and Lilian, it is the fault of everyone but the miserable, twisted miscreant who carried out the criminal act.

I am surprised that you did not mention Tony Abbott. Come to think of it, John Howard is to blame for our healthy mining industry which thrived under his able administration.

Gun Boat, coal is a source of cheap energy, essential to our civilisation. It releases a beneficial trace element into the atmosphere, CO2, which increases crop yields.

Moylan, being a green, wishes to sabotage civilisation. This is an extreme and dangerous mindset. Removal of his freedom for a while would be beneficial to the community, and to him, if he is not beyond help.

A good article. It has certainly stirred up the haters of humanity, who seek to justify the unjustifiable.

What seems to have been overlooked altogether is incontestable proof that the Greens in general, and the climate mafia in particular, are prepared to commit fraud and deception on a grand scale to further their twisted perversions. More telling is the now amply demonstrated fact that, upon being exposed, there is no shortage of anonymous blog trolls who are willing to further incriminate themselves and their cause by rationalising that deception.

The only reasonable conclusion to draw from this evidence is that fraud and deception is such a standard operating procedure for these ethically challenged freakshows that they no longer even bother to hide it.

Speaking of fraud and deception on a grand mega scale why not check out the book Global Spin The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism by Sharon Beder, or the book The Captive State by George Monbiot.

Which is to say that most of the (dis)-information about the intentions and activities of mining companies in the world (not just Australia) that we read about is based on "press" releases supplied by the various agents of the global spn machine, of which the author of this essay is a notable foot-soldier.

This reference provides an over-view of the Global Spin machine note the name ALEC in big letters on the top right hand side.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q3/beder.html

The author correctly draws parallels between the Moylan ANZ hoax and the behaviour of 'forest activists' who have been targetting timber industry shareholders, banks, capital investors, and consumers with devastating social and environmental consequences.

Although both types of activism are based on deceit, anti-forestry campaigns have not involved fraudulent impersonation as such, but gross misrepresentations of activities to create errant public perceptions such that, for example, Tasmania will lose all its forests unless logging ceases.

Unfortunately, activists are legally permitted to trash the reputations of natural resource use companies by a loophole in the relevant trade practices Act, which gives an exemption for campaigns focussed on environmental protection.

The problem is that there is no test to determine whether such environmental campaigns are valid or just exist in the minds of ideologues with narrow agendas who ignore critical concepts such as proportional scale and extent, or unintended consequences that may actually worsen environmental outcomes.

This is somewhat similar to the concept described by 'Green' rhetoric which says it is OK to break the law if it is for the public good..... that is, the public good as defined by the blinkered activist..... the real public good is usually somewhat different.

If Moylan and other 'green' activists continue to be allowed to justify illegal activities because they are supposedly 'in-the-public-interest', one wonders where this will lead. For example, Victoria's mountain cattlemen clearly think that alpine grazing is in the public interest because it reduces bushfire risk,.... so presumably there is now no reason why they can't just take their cattle up there whenever they want.

Well, fair's fair. Have you heard that the Greens plan to forcibly billet asylum seekers with suburban families? Have you heard that...?

No, it's no use. Nobody could possibly attribute to the Greens dafter and more catastrophic policies than they already have.

OLO, the last refuge of the climate change deniers, they just don't get it, it's not politics or economics, it's science.

I'm with Pericles. A jolly good stunt. It's time to rethink our priorities and decide what sort of a world we want to live in before it is too late... Except it's already too late to stop warming below a 2 degree rise. Surely no one really wants to live in poisonous air, as in China due to all that Australian coal they're burning they? Or am i silly to think that?

Here's an interesting analysis:

http://castancentre.com/2013/01/14/the-whitehaven-hoax-ratbag-act-or-legitimate-protest/

Yep, those self funded retirees, who have a mixed fund portfolio over which they have little or no daily control of their savings, who live on a fixed income, are no burden to the Australian taxpayer and who lost thousands through this 'harmless stunt', will really think this little turd is a real hero.

The Greens really have no moral compass.

Climate change has nothing to do with this: show me one single peer reviewed study that says that fraud is no longer a crime as long as you have good intentions. Can't find any? Gee what a surprise.

Moylan's 'just cause' defence won't stand up in court. He did the crime and he should pay the fine (assuming he's found guilty which seems kind of a no-brainer).

Cheers,

Tony

Oh dear, Julie dear, have you been watching Dirty Business to see who the frauds really are?

How can OO publish this crap by the coal industry supported IPA anyway?

Don't they get enough platforms already to spew out their nonsense.

Unlike the mining industry all the members of the Greens and other environmental groups in Australia are Australians.

Who is this ridiculous woman to support foreign destructo industry above the rights of Australian citizens not to be polluted out of existence.

Wow, Poirot.

>>Here's an interesting analysis...<<

1700 words of constant hand movement. On the one hand this... on the other hand...

All to reach a simple conclusion, one that I fully agree with:

>>Overreactions by States to non violent actions create injustice, and turn just laws into unjust ones<<

Or, as Alexander Pope so eloquently put it 1735, "Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?"

If ASIC, ANZ and Whitehaven have a modicum of common sense, they will simply keep their heads down until it blows over, which shouldn't be too long.

But, to ensure that he doesn't get the impression that he has escaped scot-free, the police might be persuaded that instead of prosecution, they could instead simply make Mr Moylan sweat for a while - e.g. by retaining his laptop "for further examination". A scrutiny that might or might not turn up a little light pornography, or perhaps a list of email contacts who, they solemly inform Mr Moylan, "may or may not be contacted as a part of our investigations".

That will ensure that he not only thinks twice about breaking the law in future, but that his friends - those that are left after the interviews - are also highly likely to dissuade him from doing so.

Still going with "the conned are the guilty", Pericles? Sheesh, give it up, I want you to defend me next time I get a speeding fine.

In Sara Joseph's analysis (Poirot's reference) she talks of the "vindictive capacity of the State". The state is no more vindictive towards Moylan than it was towards me when I last got a speeding fine. I made a bad choice that didn't hurt anybody, while Moylan did.

Joseph's "analysis" is a recipe for anarchy. Isn't the fact that Moylan's act was unlawful a reason he did it, gaining full publicity? Shouldn't a price be paid given that he intentionally broke a reasonable law that was legislated by a democratic parliament?

The price of not punishing Moylan is to undermine the law and does not pass on the matter to a court to decide for future reference by others considering hoaxing. IMO, the public will generally not see him as a victim anymore than it sees me as one when I receive a speeding fine (although I believed I was speeding for the greater good of humanity, Your Honour :)

For a good deconstruction of this hoax (not a fraud--the hoaxer gained no monetary benefit) read todays Crikey. Just how poor is the oversight of real fraud by the ASX and regulatory agencies !! Virtually non existent. But they will hang this guy for what was a momentary blip on the money radar affecting day traders mostly. One rule for the powerless and scot free for the powerful inside traders. This article is pretty much what you would expect from the IPA. SteveofRobbo

Moylan should be charged at the very least under sections 1041 (e) and (f) of the Corporations Act:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/

In my opinion Moylan is a spoiled prat who lacks utility and assauges his ego in the typical green manner by sanctimoniously alligning with the great scam of AGW. He has enjoyed every accoutrement this great society has to offer and like all parasites and hypocrites spits in the face of the hard working citizens.

Of course every green will praise him; like all good children of gaia they consider themselves above the mundane constraints of laws and regulations; may they scream and wail long and hard when the lights go out.

Having said that the coal companies are complete and utter b.....ds.

It might sound mean but I am hoping for the impossible, some custodial sentence. So the authorities can hopefully get a handle on this fellow.

It is always concerning where an educated intelligent young man from a comfortable background chooses a mindless act of sabotage through belief that there is other way he can influence public policy.

Members of the Australian Senate should be responsible and first do no harm. They should be the very last people in the world to encourage any young man in the view that he is voiceless and powerless and to be noticed he must commit a crime that could have a serious impact on his fellow humans.

What about the prospect of copy cats? What method might they choose knowing that they will bask personally in the media publicity? Notoriety. Instant celebrity.

Are we all so completely wrapped up in the sideshow that is the media presentation of politics that we do not care that so,me young people have become convinced that the only solution is to take the law into their own hands?

Yes, I know that the Greens are tarts for cheap headlines, but even they should be aware when they are part of the problem and making it worse.

Apologies, my first sentence above missed the qualifying clause 'if found guilty'.

I really do hope that the twits defending this bloke have superannuation schemes.

As super schemes are big investors in the mining industry, wouldn't it be neat, if their super schemes dropped a few million on the scam he pulled?

"I really do hope that the twits defending this bloke have superannuation schemes"

The Greens Senators need not worry. They have taxpayer funded superannuation. Lee Rhiannon gets two big dips: one from NSW and the other from federal Parliament.

That this was some sort of harmless prank and that only rich people got hurt is how various NGO’s regularly pass off their immoral and illegal acts that cause real harm to ordinary people.
The mining industry can be brushed aside (according to them) because they are big and rich and foreign owned. Any retirees are acceptable collateral damage.
The forestry industry and the lives of forestry workers are expendible (according to them). Are they too big and rich? The damage done would indicate not.
The livestock and farming industries have been tagged as big and rich in the past. They too come under NGO attack with unsubstantiated claims for which they cannot be prosecuted and family farmers are forced to the wall.
These so-called “pranks” will ensure that we are eventually broke and hungry.
Throw the book at all the self-styled “high moral grounders” causing severe financial and emotional distress to hard working Australians.
It is the NGO’s who are big and rich and foreign. They prey on poor and defenceless industries. Marilyn Shepherd is seriously deluded or playing cutsie games if she is claiming that environmental groups in Australia are Australian.
Throw the book at them whenever they step outside the law, ensure that they must obey the same laws as the rest of us and make sure they get custodial sentences for fraud.

Don't misquote me, Luciferase.

>>Still going with "the conned are the guilty", Pericles?<<

Moylan, on his own admission, is guilty of perpetrating the fraud.

My point, though, is that it is the journalists and day-traders who are to blame for the furore that surrounds Moylan's act.

No little old ladies were harmed by it, only a handful of players who are, by definition, gamblers. Yet the headlines screamed stuff like "Hoaxer Jonathan Moylan cost Nathan Tinkler $180 million" (news.com.au), which would only be true if Tinkler had sold exactly at the bottom of the share price dip. Which, apparently, he didn't. Then there was "Fake press release wipes $314 million off Whitehaven" (Australian Miner), which was true only for the shortest amount of time. The price recovered to within $0.02c of its opening price, by the closing bell.

If you want a neat sidebar to Moylan's action, take a look at this.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/chinese-miner-looks-set-to-grab-tinklers-share-of-whitehaven-coal-20130114-2cpo5.html

The net result of Moylan's petty stunt could be the sale of the mine to overseas interests.

That will no doubt bring him great pleasure.

>>The price of not punishing Moylan is to undermine the law and does not pass on the matter to a court to decide for future reference by others considering hoaxing.<<

The only damage was to pride, and the reputations of a few players in the media, and in the broking fraternity.

De minimis non curat lex.

>>I want you to defend me next time I get a speeding fine.<<

Your speeding, on the other hand, was potentially physically and fiscally dangerous to other road users. So you can look for someone less ethical to represent you on that one, I'm afraid.

All deflection, Pericles, and blithe assumptions about the effect of the hoax on people.

I still want you to represent me. You deflect and stretch the limits of mitigation better than many of lawyers for the accused I have observed. You make it sound almost as if Moylan has done a public service in exposing a sleepy media and those money-grubbing gambling day traders, as if this was the intent of his behaviour. Meanwhile Milne et al take care of the left flank by justifying his law-breaking as a public good, averting global warming, as if we are not already on that path. One day it may be viable to outlaw coal mining, but not yet.

Good grief, Pericles, Moylan purposefully broke the law to bring maximum publicity to his naive contribution to forcing change upon a world already on the road to change. Give him the punishment he sought and deserves by charging him and letting the court decide what the punishment should be.

Your suggestions amounting to slapping him with a wet lettuce leaf is no great dissuader to others, IMO.

__________

It was a clear day on an endless stretch of highway, Your Honour, without an intersection for miles, and I could see to the horizon. That little hidden camera clocked me at 11 kilometres over the limit. In my mind was the idea that if I shortened my journey time, I'd emit less CO2, and so do my bit to save humanity from global warming. I see now I was wrong and expect to be punished accordingly. I had other, legal options at my disposal to help make a difference.

Close, Luciferase.

>>You make it sound almost as if Moylan has done a public service in exposing a sleepy media and those money-grubbing gambling day traders, as if this was the intent of his behaviour.<<

I disagree that it was his intention to demonstrate the stupidity of the media and the venality of day-traders. I don't think he had thought it through that far, or that he is even smart enough to think at that level of detail. But that is certainly what he achieved.

>>Moylan purposefully broke the law to bring maximum publicity to his naive contribution to forcing change upon a world already on the road to change. Give him the punishment he sought and deserves by charging him and letting the court decide what the punishment should be.<<

Yep, he broke the law. But to give him the satisfaction of continuing his publicity-seeking crusade by actually taking him to court, with the attendant blaze of attention he would get from the gullible media, would in my opinion be counter-productive. It might give the grumpy "hang-em-high" brigade something to gloat about over their gin'n'tonics, but will only create a minor martyrdom cult for Moylan, and land him on the gravy-train lecture circuit for decades. That is not what I would describe as punishment.

I stand by my proposal, that he should be slowly roasted. As a deterrent to recidivism, and to discourage copycat nerds, I believe it would be far more effective.

And, being invisible to the general public, would provide the additional satisfaction of causing more old buffers to choke into their gin.

"That is not what I would describe as punishment." Well, that would depend on how long he was jailed before being released to the speaking circuit. Presumably a hat would be passed around to cover any fine.

Not only do I want you as my defense lawyer, Pericles, I want you as my sentencing judge!

Moylan's hoax has merely exposed the fraud of modern extreme capitalism. He did no harm to the operations of the company, just briefly affected its share price. The people who gamble on the market were the only ones affected - no-one who holds shares for the purposes of investing in the company and its product would have been affected unless they were silly enough to sell without making any inquiries. Day traders are just gamblers - some would won, some would have lost.

It's interesting though isn't it ? An estimated MILLION people die a year from coal particulate pollution... and no one's being charged for that "crime" ? Every time you put the kettle on to boil a cuppa... perhaps you should be issued with a summons ? You know, be prepared to pay the full price for your actions... and lets not get into AGW.

A funny world we live in, and not funny ha ha !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry

"In 2008 the World Health Organization (WHO) and other organizations calculated that coal particulates pollution cause approximately one million deaths annually across the world"

On the subject of coal consumption, we can't go past Beijing's experience this week.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80152

A related story - incredible!

http://www.care2.com/causes/chinas-smog-so-bad-a-huge-fire-burns-unnoticed-for-3-hours.html