Fines for 73 climate change activists protesting proposed power station

The Muswellbrook Local Court today was crammed with activists. In the largest single court appearance for an Australian climate protest 73 people faced trespass charges for a mass civil disobedience protest on December 5, 2010. They were each fined $250 by the court.

"The magistrate delivered the lowest possible fine within this charge after hearing about the outstanding character of the defendants and their genuine concern about the impacts of climate change on their communities," said Naomi Hogan, Newcastle resident.

The protest in December was part of a climate camp highlighting the proposed new Bayswater B coal-fired power station and its carbon emissions contributing to global warming and climate change.

130 people occupied a rail line to the existing Bayswater coal fired power station with 73 arrested and charged with trespass. The arrestees include business people, social workers, teachers, school students, government workers, retired coal miners, 88 year old Kokoda veteran Bill Ryan and many people from the Hunter Valley area.

"I stand by my actions today," said Bill. Ryan "If the Bayswater expansion goes ahead as planned it will double its carbon pollution. Climate change is an urgent issue and I need to ensure that there is a liveable planet for my grandchildren."

The lawyer, Sue Higginson, conveyed the peaceful nature of the protest and how people were motivated by their very real concerns about climate change, Australia's expanding coal industry and the negative impacts of coal in the Hunter Valley.




It's not these 73 climate protesters that should have been in court, but many of the 70 or so climate "scientists" that have so misled these people. Whilst the science against man-made warming causing the apparent increase in 20th century temperature remains unproven, we do know that these "scientists" have been flouting the law on freedom of information requests, we do know that global temperatures have been stable since satellites monitoring removed their freedom to "upjust" the data, and we do know that they have been intentionally perverting the peer review process and "hiding the decline" in various other ways. We also now know, that the so called "scientific inquiry" into climategate by Lord Oxburgh told blatant lies: it did not examine the key "scientific" papers at the heart of the FOI requests that triggered climategate and Lord Oxburgh tried to cover up this biased assessment of the "science" by asserting that the papers were chosen by the Royal Society. Moreover it didn't examine the wider propaganda campaign by the CRU such as the statement by the CRU in March 2001 when we learnt from the UK independent that:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. (

The UK has just experience three successive severe winters with snow bringing much of the country to a standstill and ministers resigning as a result. How could any real investigation into the "science" miss the fact that their predictions are wrong ... 2001 they predicted warming since when it has actually cooled and they predicted snow-free winters since when we had some of the worst winters in a century.

They were each fined $250 by the court.

The magistrate clearly made a mistake in fining everyone exactly the same amount. What about ability to pay? What about the good character for people with no prior convictions?

There should be mass appeals against sentence.

This Climategate stuff is a no-brainer. If there was evidence in those leaks that they were paid by the CIA or had blatantly lied about the purpose of spy satellites as in Cablegate, there would be something to charge, but scientists working with public data failing to take into account the possibility that the law of cause and effect could be frail when it comes to pollution? Such claims almost make me feel sorry for judges which have no nerves left for real moral challenges because they are busy with petty feuds... well... polluting the courts.