In a post from yesterday – “Trafigura Sideshow: Different Sides” I commented about the two sides of opinion: those who wrote positively about Trafigura and those who wrote negatively. I described each side as being unbalanced.
Dr Busch was none too pleased and he left a very long comment which I believe is worth repeating here.
Firstly, you can read Dr Busch’s response and below that I’ll append my words from yesterday. I do intend to respond more fully but my intentions don’t always see the light of day.
Dr Busch’s Comment – in green. Where he quotes me in blue
I find it quite patronising for you to say “he has not written one sentence which was, in any way, critical of Trafigura or its actions. I would expect a balanced correspondent to have found at least one.“
The simple answer to your assertion is that everything I have written is not only the truth but a truth that has been backed up by professional testimony of experts in court under oath and validated by the decisions of competent and experienced judges.
When you compare this with the fantasies, self-promotion and lies of the great Green international circle jerk of self-indulgent ‘commentators’ it is difficult to know how a ‘balanced view’ might be achieved.
Greenpeace and its ilk are plain wrong and every impartial court and legal proceeding has proved this to be the case. Where on earth do you expect to find a ’balanced view’ between truth and fiction?
Equally you appear to be casting doubts on the accuracy of my comment on the DACA report. You say “According to Dr Busch the full finding has not been made public but he appears to know more than is in the public domain. Does he? And how could he?”
How did the Dutch News and the other journals get their information to make their comments if the judgement hasn’t been published? The answer is simple, the DACA leaked its report to the local authorities (where an election is underway) and to journalists. I received my information from the same sources as Dutch News but I reported what the DACA actually said and not what they didn’t say.
Keeping track of Trafigura is not what I do and, other than a few pieces on my website some years ago, I haven’t written about it. In the course of my consulting work I frequently come in contact with this Green Hysteria where incompetent and under-educated ‘activists’ cause real harm to corporations and society by promoting an agenda which has only a marginal attachment to reality. They act as both judge and jury without any responsibility for assessing the truth of the matter or ceasing their actions when the truth is proven.
I understand that these people are relatively powerless and inconsequential ciphers in the real world of politics and economics and get some self-esteem by preening themselves in the glow their lies create. At some point this posturing should end.
So, if I am not balanced between truth and fiction, reality and self-delusion, impotence and responsibility I apologise; but I don’t really mean it.
What Dr Busch Responded to
On the one hand was Dr Busch, whom I have posted about previously, who left this comment.
“Typical Green media coverage. Everything that Greenpeace alleged in its complaint was found to be a gross exaggeration or a lie that was confounded by already settled legal issues.
The only complaint the DACA raised against Trafigura was that it hadn't explained fully its social and humanitarian programs in West Africa; including sponsoring local football teams, charities and environmental remediation.
Perhaps Trafigura will explain this more fully in response to this media distortion. Other than that the DACA found that the Greenpeace complaint was pure bollocks. What a shambles.”
I have to say that this is not untypical of Dr Busch’s responses to the Trafigura affair. As far as I can recall he has not written one sentence which was, in any way, critical of Trafigura or its actions. I would expect a balanced correspondent to have found at least one. I will, of course, correct this if I am wrong.
I’d better check my writings!
According to Dr Busch the full finding has not been made public but he appears to know more than is in the public domain.
Does he? And how could he?
Or is he extrapolating, exaggerating from the little information there is?
Was “Everything that Greenpeace alleged in its complaint …found to be a gross exaggeration or a lie …”?
Was the one point which was found against Trafigura only because “it hadn't explained fully its social and humanitarian programs in West Africa; including sponsoring local football teams, charities and environmental remediation.”