The Return Of The Survey & Flat-Earthers.
By Special Request for Allan and Ngati Porou Friends
The Greatest Story Never Told
Breaking News of Interest
Watch the Video:
The Survey - Completed
Before I start the processing of the data in this latest and final survey on the question of Climate Change as it relates to the Greater Wellington Region, I can reveal that a total of 63 residents of this community participated in this final survey, one less than the two surveys carried out in February this year ...
So, in the meantime, to allow me time to produce my usual high quality pie-charts and stuff ( after I have found my color pencils and my sharpener) ...I would like, as a special thank you to make ...
A Special Dedication to all my supporters who offered me their kind words of support and encouragement, so very necessary for me to complete this self-imposed assignment ... and without which I would have long given up!
"On My Own" - But I had some great company along the way, didn't I? 8-) -from Les Miserables (composed by Claude - Michel Schonberg, 1980)
Specially for the Aspiring young Ukulele player. Please don't throw it all away - UKE ON
"Sweet Caroline" - music and tabs available from
What's in your beer and your food? - foodbabe.com
Note: You may be interested that thanks to the Foodbabe (Vani) I decided to do a little investigating myself, since I occasionally enjoy a glass or two of Tui beer, a good kiwi beer and all, and gave them a call on their 0800 number. In response to my query whether they used caramel color in my favorite beer, and after referring them to the foodbabe.com website, they e-mailed me shortly afterwards and informed me they do indeed use caramel in their Tui range of beers, but it was of a modified safe form ( yeah, right ! ) I thanked the spokesperson representative for the information, and assured them I would now be looking for an alternative beer, unless they removed the caramel and simply used roasted barley for color ... and I would be keeping them up to date in my quest to find a safe beer.
Our Caramel Is Safe - Yeah, Right!
Lion Nathan was next, and in reply to my request about Speights ( because I thought I would support the Mainland this time) they informed me they too use caramel in their Speights beer, but not in their Steinlager Pure or Classic beers. or the Mac's range, or Stella Artois and Beck's beers .... so it looks like it may be back to Mac's for me....but then I forgot to ask about the ingredients in their beers 8-(
Also rang up Watties and DYC Vinegar - they all use caramel in their products, but was informed DYC do not use it in their Apple Cider Vinegar, and Watties do not use it in their Tomato Sauce, but in their Barbeque Sauce.
And today, Monday 23 March, 2015 gave Sanitarium another call on their 0800 number and finally got through, and asked why they were using caramel III color in their Marmite, being that I was a Marmite lover on my toast for many years. I mentioned the www. foodbabe.com website and the dangers associated with using it in our food and drink. The usual story ... it's been approved, with no health risks by Government and food regulating authorities ... gives the Marmite its dark color.
I informed that I had switched back to honey on my toast, and unless they removed it, Marmite was a thing of the past.
[Caramel I II III is a known carcinogen - as studies in mice and rats (!) have shown ...ref foodbabe.com ]
READ THE LABELS - print is usually too small - on purpose?_________________________________________
Back To The Survey - Update
In this 3rd and final survey I decided to lay my cards on the table, and call the 'spade what it actually is ... a spade,' introduced the two questions I had chosen for the survey, with the statement that ... "Climate Change is normal, has been going on at least ever since mankind first appeared on the earth, we've always adapted, and as one person commented, outside the survey, 'it's been around ever since the dinosaurs, roamed the earth.' "
With that introduction, first question posed was:
Q. 1. Do you think the GWRC (Greater Wellington Regional Council) should be worrying us about a problem that does not exist, since as I stated Climate Change is normal, (notwithstanding that the GWRC having already adopted their Climate Change Strategy Plan - in draft form, and still inviting our comments on their plan, submissions of which close on the 10th April, 2015,) and which, no doubt will be costing us, as ratepayers, on achieving virtually nothing?
Results for Question 1:
Number of Individuals surveyed = 63
YES ................. 6
NO .................. 48
NOT SURE ...... 9
Q.2. An article appeared in the Hutt News, January 7, 2015, stating that the GWRC had agreed to adopt a climate change policy at its meeting last month ... spokeswomen Judith Aitken was quoted as saying, "If we stand for nothing , we fall for everything." The article concluded with Judith Aitken saying that the reality of climate change science had increasingly become accepted and absorbed by the community at large.
"The opportunity for flat-earth protests to be taken seriously is now significantly reduced."
* * * * * *
Do you consider Judith Aitken's remark, calling anyone who disagrees with the GWRC's climate agenda, (and after they have invited your opinion) that is someone who believes climate change is normal, a flat-earther ("flat-earth protests"), unprofessional and inappropriate?
Result for Question Two:
YES ................... 58
NO .................... 5
TOTAL ............ 63
Pie Charts to follow with concluding remarks ....
Not long now .... but in the meantime, in case you've all forgotten what one looks like, and to keep your hand in ...
UPDATE: I have completed all the sums ( percentages, angles, whatever, but colored pencils need to be sharpened still ) necessary to construct these two fine pieces of artwork and science, to be posted sometime today (Sunday 22 February, 2015) [I should mention that I don't possess a compass, protractor, etc., and have found by trial and error that a few simple paper folds and a dinner plate seem to do just as well, in case you were wondering how on earth I produce such masterpieces... 8-)]
Update: If I stopped posting all these plurry updates I probably could have colored in half a dozen pie-charts by now.... and had time to make a rhubarb pie for my dinner tonite ... Mmmm rhubarb pie .... 8-(
Sunday Family Amusements on a Rainy day
Since it's such a wet rainy type of Sunday, I thought you might all like to help me do this pie-chart thing, and if I give you all the raw data, all you will need is some colored pencils, and we can have a fun competition seeing who can come up with the most original pie-chart that is representative of the data supplied...while having fun in an educative fun sort of way....
Yes ...... 6/63 (9.52%) [ 9.52 x 3.6 = ? deg] (34.27 deg) is correct answer ... did you get that right?)
No ....... 48/63 (76.19%) [ 76.19 x 3.6 = deg] (274.28 deg)
Not Sure .... 9/63 (14.29%) [14.29 x 3.6 = deg] (51.44 deg)
That is all meant to add up to 360 degrees of a circle 8-) if it doesn't come close , let me know.... you will need all those angles to complete your very own pie-chart and you can color it in any way you like....
Yes .... 58/63 (92.06%) [92.06 x 3.6 = 331.42 deg]
No ..... 5/63 (7.94%) [7.94 x 3.6 = 28.58 deg]
Question 1 - Climate Change Is Normal
Question 2. Judith Aitken's Flat-Earth Protests
Now, since you are all probably too busy looking for your colored pencils to color in your own special pie-charts, and haven't had time to check what's happening to the weather, I have downloaded the latest forecast for you all to save you all that hassle...
"Rainy Days and Mondays" - Carpenters (close enough)
Survey Review - But first By Special Request
Drone Flyover of Avonside Red-Zoned Christchurch - Then and Now
Filmed on Mar 21, 2015 in the remains of Avonside, Christchurch. It was an amazing flight. I tried to keep it as simple as possible to let the footage do the talking.
The map in the bottom left throughout the video is satellite photographs obtained from Google Earth Pro. It gives a wee bit of context as to what used to be on the ground beneath the drone.
It's incredible how peaceful and quite the place is.
Society literally packed up and left. Very few houses remain. [my emphasis]
The clusters of long buildings had signs on the fences signalling asbestos removal.
The roads leading off Avonside Drive were cordoned off, but of course, that's no barrier for a drone.
The drone used is a DJl Phantom 2 Vision + I flew no higher than 80m during the shoot, and no occupied property was flown directly over the top of.
Post production was done on Sony Vegas Pro 13.
Credit goes to Cold Play for the music. Their song "Fix You" is what you hear in this video.
Thanks for watching. Like and subscribe for more. - Jimmy Ryan
The Climate Change Survey Review
GWRC- NIWA - N.Z. MET SERVICE -IPCC - U.N. - AGENDA 21 - SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT- SMART GROWTH - WORLD GOVERNANCE -ETC
That's a mouthful ... but just a gentle reminder to bring those things up after I have said a few words about the survey ... but in the meantime, an important video which is not necessarily in the order I intended, which relates to matters outlined in the above heading ... I now present it in case I forget to as we move through it all ... then the preview!
[without realizing it, I have inadvertently addressed the headline in reverse! The Climate Change Treaty in Paris this year, (December 2015) is drawn to our attention in this important video]
Lord Monckton interviewed by Alex Jones on the Global Warming Con - July, 2014
I'm going to start out by quoting from Judith Aitken's press release Upper Hutt Leader, 7 January, 2015, in which she said the reality of climate change science had increasingly become accepted and absorbed by the community at large. And then she goes on to state that those who oppose the GWRC plans are flat-earthers ...
"The opportunity for flat-earth protests to be taken seriously is now significantly reduced."
Well, Judith, that's not what I found on the ground, as I sampled a population in the GWR . I conducted three suveys in Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt, on the 23/24 February, 2015, 27 February, 2015 and 17-20 March, 2015 , the results of which are documented on this blog.
In spite of your claim that the community at large ( you haven't given us any idea of the size population you arrived at your conclusion, unless it was the 85 respondents to your first submission request in 2014, which is hardly a fair sample to make such a sweeping claim, is it not, given that the population of the Wellington Region must be something like 400,000 - hardly the 'community at large'?) had become increasingly accepted of the reality of climate change.
Well, that is not what I found, using a similar sample ( n =64 ), I found in the very first survey, when asked "Should We Protect The Wellington Region from Climate Change?"
I got a whopping 97% YES, the remainder NOT SURE or NO.
* * * * * * *
The second survey, in answer to the question, "Do You Know What The Impacts Are Of Climate Change On This Region?" told a different story, with the level of confidence in their knowledge of the topic dropping drastically, with ...
YES 40.62%, NO 20.31%, and NOT SURE 39.06%.
Indicating that the 'increasingly accepted and absorbed' on the matter of climate change was not evident in this population, and certainly clashes with your 'accepted by the community at large' claim ...
* * * * * *
In the final survey, briefly outlining the fact that climate change was normal with accompanying graphs and diagrams, to back the claim, and that there was no need for the GWRC to be worrying us about a non-existent problem, which in any case would undoubtedly cost us all as ratepayers etc., to achieve virtually nothing.
I asked the question: "Do You Think The GWRC Should Be Worrying us About a Problem (Climate Change) That Does Not exist and Will End Up Costing Us (Ratepayers) To Achieve Virtually Nothing?"
NOT SURE 14.29%
What a huge swing, when you actually tell people the truth!
Note: at least between 6 and 8 people required no proof on my behalf that climate change was normal ...(about 12% of my sample of n=63 in the survey.) They simply knew it apparently based on common sense, sadly evident today...
The first survey was based around what the GWRC were "telling" the public at large that somehow Climate Change was a problem, something to worry us about..."How Do We protect the region from the Impacts Of Climate Change?" ... was the headline we were being getting fed!
On an unsuspecting and basically ignorant public on such matters of climate and climate change, let alone the weather, the results of my first survey could hardly be called surprising ... and my second and third survey tell the real story about 'widespread acceptance of your "Climate Change"Plans!
I asked a second Question in the third survey, and it was this: JUDITH AITKEN (GWRC) HAS DISMISSED THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THE GWRC'S PLAN ON CLIMATE CHANGE, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THEY ARE INVITING COMMENTS FROM RATEPAYERS OF THIS REGION ON THEIR PLAN.
SHE HAS LABELLED THOSE WHO OPPOSE THEIR PLANS AS FLAT-EARTHERS ("FLAT-EARTH PROTESTS") - Jan &, 2015 UPPER HUTT LEADER.
DO YOU CONSIDER JUDITH AITKEN'S REMARKS TO BE UNPROFESSIONAL AND INAPPROPRIATE? [sorry, about the CAPS ...tried to change to lower case , but BLOGGER being difficult again ... so I am leaving 'well alone' .... bit like the 'Climate' ... 8-)]
YES 92.06% ( Unprofessional and Inappropriate)
NO 7.94% ( she's allowed to say what she wants, as one respondent said 'cause she's a politician!')
Indeed, a politician, and not a woman presenting the real science of climate change, rather, instead ignoring the facts presented to her [submissions].... so why, the question begs, is she fronting up as the spokeswomen for GWRC CCSP????
Perhaps she is taking a leaf out of the past disgraced and recently dropped 'like a hot potato' on criminal charges, U.N. IPCC Chairman Railway Engineer , Pachauri, and who had to admit around 2012 that there had been no global warming for 17 years... "it's a tragedy... indeed"
Guest post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Following my statement at the Doha climate conference last December that there had been no global warming for 16 years, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC’s climate “science” panel, has been compelled to admit there has been no global warming for 17 years.
The Hadley Centre/CRU records show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4), and the RSS satellite dataset shows no warming for 23 years (h/t to Werner Brozek for determining these values).
Engineer Pachauri said warming would have to endure for “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend. However, the world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality.
The Australian reports: Dr Pachauri … said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.
“In a wide-ranging interview on topics that included this year’s record northern summer Arctic ice growth, the US shale-gas revolution, the collapse of renewable energy subsidies across Europe and the faltering European carbon market, Dr Pachauri said no issues should be off-limits for public discussion.
“In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.
“‘People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,’ Dr Pachauri said.
“He said there was ‘no doubt about it’ that it was good for controversial issues to be ‘thrashed out in the public arena’.
“Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.
“Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”
Given that the IPCC spends a great deal more thought on getting the propaganda spin right than on doing climate science, one should be healthily suspicious of what Engineer Pachauri is up to.
Inferentially, the bureaucrats have decided they can no longer pretend I was wrong to say there has been no global warming for 16 years. This one cannot be squeezed back into the bottle. So they have decided to focus on n years without warming so that, as soon as an uptick in temperature brings the period without warming to an end, they can neatly overlook the fact that what really matters is the growing, and now acutely embarrassing, discrepancy between predicted and observed long-term warming rates.
At some point – probably quite soon – an el Niño will come along, and global temperature will rise again. Therefore, it would be prudent for us to concentrate not only on the absence of warming for n years, but also on the growing discrepancy between the longer-run warming rate predicted by the IPCC and the rate that has actually occurred over the past 60 years or so.
Since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to little more than 1 Celsius degree per century. Yet the IPCC’s central projection is for almost three times that rate over the present century. We should keep the focus on this fundamental and enduring discrepancy, which will outlast a temporary interruption of the long period without global warming that the mainstream media once went to such lengths to conceal.
What this means is that the UN’s attempt to ban me from future annual climate gabfests for telling delegates at Doha that there had been no global warming for 16 years will fail, because soon there will be no more annual climate gabfests to ban me from.
And since he has no idea about the climate ...oh, well what's 'good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander '... and Watts the latest on Railway Engineer, Pachauri ? Oh, Oh ... not looking too flash, eh, he doesn't look a happy chappie does he now.... too much lying ... not good for you, pi korry!
And if that's not a portent of what's to come in this in this continually 'spiralling down' account of one of the biggest fraud perpetrated in the name of "science' on a largely ignorant an gullible public, I don't know what is .... actually there is a bigger fraud ... now running for just on 58 years, and counting!
Pachauri’s withdrawal from public life continues
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has today accepted Rajendra Pachauri’s resignation from the Prime Minister’s climate change council.
According to the Indian Express;
“R K Pachauri, who has been accused of sexual harassment, has resigned from the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change as well, a government statement today said.
“The Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has accepted the resignation of R K Pachauri from the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change,” said the one line statement.
The Council decides on broad policy guidelines on climate change, and is headed by the Prime Minister.”
The BBC reports that an Indian court has granted Pachauri bail, while police investigate claims of sexual harassment against the beleaguered former head of the IPCC.
“An Indian court has granted interim bail to former UN climate change panel head Rajendra Pachauri, who is facing charges of sexual harassment.
The court order bans him from leaving India or entering his office while police investigate the allegations.
A female researcher has accused him of sending her inappropriate calls, emails and texts and physically molesting her.
Mr Pachauri, who resigned from his post on Tuesday, denies the accusations. He is currently in hospital.
His lawyers say he is receiving treatment for a heart condition.”
We obviously wish Pachauri a speedy recovery from his heart condition. Perhaps a withdrawal from public life is for the best, the last few years, as head of the IPCC, have obviously been very difficult for Pachauri. Once the police investigation and court case is over, Pachauri may have the personal space he needs, to pursue other interests, such as his interest in writing pornographic fiction.
Need I say more? And this is all from a part of her "community at large" who now appear to be not so enthusiastic about the GWRC claims on climate change and the spokeswoman fronting up for them!
Before we start at that beginning ... (actually I think I have sort of started somewhere in there) ... how about time for a quiet interlude, since "We Have Only Just Begun?":
* * * * * * *
Let's Start At The Very Beginning (of the headline) - A Very Good Place To Start! [And that would have to be NIWA and NZ Met Service next on my shopping list .... 8-) ]
2. NIWA & N.Z. Met Service - 'Bending the Data/Fraud'
But First Some Essential Background Reading/Viewing Behind The Scene For Those Who Have Not Been Keeping Up, And Unfamiliar With The Politics Behind Climate Science
Alex Jones Talks With Lord Christopher Monckton On Climategate 1/5
2/5 Climategate - Alex Jones/Lord Christopher Monckton
3/5 Climategate continues ...
4/5 Climategate continues ...
5/5 Climategate continues ...
But NIWA and N.Z. Met Service wouldn't risk tarnishing their Image By Fiddling with the Raw data and Misrepresenting the Science, now....would They? Don't Bet on It !
NZ average temperatures, 1853-2008, per NIWA
Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute (CRU) is alleged to have done.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition today issued this paper saying that a graph published by the New Zealand National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is not only wrong but is the result of painstaking and unjustified adjustment of raw temperature data covering the period from 1853 through 2008, Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room announced today.
At issue is a claim by NIWA that the average temperature over New Zealand declined from 1853 to 1909 and then began to rise, and has been rising ever since, at an average rate of +0.92 degree (Celsius) per century.
However, unlike the case with the CRU, NIWA's raw data remain readily available, at least to climate scientists. Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, and his colleagues requested and obtained the data used to produce the NIWA graph. Using these data, they produced a graph of their own. Their graph, shown here, displays no such decline from 1853 to 1909 and consequently no such steep increase from 1909 through 2008 as that shown on the NIWA graph. Instead, according to the CSC, the linear trend is a negligibly gentle +0.06 degree per century since 1853.
N.Z. unadjusted temperatures, 1853-2008, CSC
Treadgold's group alleges that the NIWA graph was produced, not from the raw data that NIWA supplied, but rather from temperature readings that had been adjusted. The CSC scientists were able to obtain the adjusted dataset from an un-named associate of Dr. M. James Salinger, formerly of NIWA and, before that, of CRU. Comparison of the two datasets shows significant upward adjustments of the post-1909 data and equally significant downward adjustments of the pre-1909 data, thus producing a downtrend and then an uptrend, instead of the nearly flat trend that Treadgold's group found.
Climatic Research Unit (Photo courtesy CRU)
Ian Wishart of The Briefing Room, and also of Investigate magazine, asked Dr. David Wratt, the chief climatologist at NIWA, for comment. Wratt said only that NIWA would issue a press release later that day; none has been forthcoming at the time of this writing.
The CSC scientists, in their paper, conclude that the New Zealand government is relying on an untenable conclusion from the data at hand, and now openly question the need for any cap-and-trade system such as that which Treadgold and his colleagues presume will be under consideration in Copenhagen beginning next Tuesday.
UPDATE: The Climate Change Examiner reports today that NIWA has now issued this press release in answer to their critics, and also supplied this link to further information as to the placement of their weather stations and why, they said, the numbers required adjustment.
NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.
Exactly how the CSC has "misled" the public or their colleagues is far from clear from the NIWA statement. NIWA are now claiming that some of the weather stations were moved, and thus the adjustments become necessary to account for such movement. This begs the question of why the stations had to be moved to begin with, why they were moved to different elevations, and why NIWA did not simply reconfigure their indices to make sure that tney always based their average on the same mix of weather stations at various elevations as existed before the movement of any given site or sites.
More On NIWA's Climate Chief Wratt - Watt's In A Name RAT? "CSC Really Really "PISSES ME OFF!"
- See more at: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html#sthash.9QQAcJsB.dpuf
The profiteers of doom are at it again
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
When climate scientists unfairly give only one side of the story, as Professor Wratt et al. did
earlier this week (Opinion, Dominion Post, February 10), taxpayers should keep a tight grip
on their wallets.
The Professor starts out by saying the world is 0.9 Kelvin warmer than in the late 19th
century. What he does not say is that in absolute terms this represents an increase of just
Next, we are told that “last year – 2014 – was the warmest year globally since comprehensive
records began in about 1880”. Actually, the global instrumental temperature record began in
1850, but let that pass. The HadCRUT record, kept since that year, shows 1998 as warmer
than 2010, with warm spikes in 2002 and 2011 also above anything in 2014.
The RSS and UAH satellite datasets also do not show 2014 as the warmest year on the
record. Only two of the five global reference datasets – GISS and NCDC – show 2014 as the
And, as the director of GISS admitted, his record showed only a 38% probability that 2014
was the warmest, and even then only by a hundredth of a degree.
Notwithstanding record rises in CO2 concentration, the RSS satellites show no warming
since the end of 1996, and all other datasets are within statistical shouting distance of that.
Professor Wratt calls this 18-year-long absence of global warming a “short-term wiggle”.
Let us go back a full quarter of a century to the first multi-thousand-page Holy Book in the
Pentateuch of the UN’s climate panel. The druids then stated their “substantial confidence”
that the computer models had captured the principal features of global climate.
Well, they hadn’t. On all five global temperature datasets, the rate of global warming in the
25 years since 1990 has been half of the central business-as-usual estimate which the IPCC
had so confidently but misguidedly predicted, even though CO2 concentration has risen
faster than the IPCC’s then prediction. As Professor Feynman used to say, “If it disagrees
with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Next, Professor Wratt talks of “Arctic sea ice melting”. Though he also mentions Antarctica,
he fails to mention that sea ice there has been on a strong uptrend since satellite monitoring
began 35 years ago, and that as recently as September last year the extent of global sea ice
was greater for the time of year than ever before.
The Professor may like to read Doran et al. (2004), on the damage done by extreme cold in
some Antarctic glens. Warmer is better. Yet he says Arctic ecosystems are being “affected”.
Take polar bears. The Professor says there is no peer-reviewed evidence for an increase in
their numbers. Let him read Peacock et al. (2013), for instance, which finds polar bears have
increased to carrying capacity in the Davis Strait.
Then, inevitably, sea level. Professor Wratt says, “The average rate of sea-level rise during
the past century has been larger than the average during the past 2000 years.” But that type
of comparison of a short period with a long one (where short periods of sharp rise and fall
are averaged out) is statistical malpractice.
Is the rate of sea-level rise over the past century greater than in any previous century? That is
the right question, but the Professor did not ask it. So I asked it. Grinsted et al. (2009)
showed that between 950 and 1050 AD, as the medieval climate optimum took hold, the rate
of sea-level rise was no less great than in the past century. Not many SUVs about in those
Interestingly, Grinsted also showed that sea level was higher than today by 20 cm in the
mediaeval climate optimum (or warm period, for warmer is better than colder), and lower
than today by 20 cm during the little ice age about 300 years ago. Sea level does not change
much in modern conditions, and, according to Professor Niklas Mörner in a 2011 paper, it
may not be rising at all at present.
And why should it? One of the best-kept secrets in the climate debate is that the 3600
automated bathythermograph floats of the ARGO project, which measure the temperature of
the upper 2000 m of the extrapolar ocean and report the results by satellite, show warming
over their 11-year record at a rate equivalent to just 0.2 Kelvin (or Celsius degrees) per
century. The Professor is careful to tell us the oceans are warming, but he is just as careful
not to reveal just how little it is warming.
It is only by warming the ocean that we can cause sea level to rise. But after up to 18 years
without any global warming, and up to 26 years without any statistically significant warming,
the Professor’s statements about low-lying small islands being at risk from rising seas, and
about “heat-induced mass coral bleaching” are unfounded.
Coral islands actually grow as sea level grows. It is no mere coincidence that thousands of
coral atolls worldwide are exactly at or just above sea level. They have grown that way
because sea level has risen by 130 m in the past 11,700 years. That is well over a metre a
century, compared with just 0.2 metres in the 20th century.
The corals have simply grown to match. Besides, the satellite records from ENVISAT showed
sea level rising from 2004-2012 at a rate of 3 cm per century.
The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites actually showed sea level falling from 2003-
2009, so the data had to be adjusted to create a large enough sea-level rise to keep the panic
As for coral bleaching, indeed it did occur during the natural Great el Nino of 1998, which
transiently but sharply warmed the oceans. However, coral stratigraphy has shown that in
the two previous great el Ninos over the past 300 years the corals bleached too, and those
episodes too were nothing to do with us.
What about ocean “acidification”? The Professor mentions it, of course, but fails to mention
that it cannot happen. For the oceans are overwhelmingly buffered by the alkaline rock
basins in which they lie. For that reason, the oceans are pronouncedly alkaline themselves
and – under anything like today’s conditions – must remain so.
Besides, the corals have survived for 550 million years. They even survived the last genuine
acidification of the oceans, 55 million years ago. After all, many reefs are directly in the
firing-line of river estuaries, where floods can bring millions of gallons of rainwater into the
oceans and straight on to the reefs.
Rainwater is truly acid, at a pH of 5.4 (7 being neutral). The oceans are alkaline, at a mean
pH of 7.9. Yet the corals do not curl up and die when rainwater hits them. They thrive.
Besides, there is no global network of pH measurements, and no standard equipment for
making the measurements. All we have are a few random transects by research vessels, and a
few local data series.
But should we expect ocean “acidification” to be happening? No. Despite almost 300 years of
industrialization, with all the benefits that has brought to Man, one of the biggest secrets in
the climate debate is that, to the nearest tenth of one per cent, there is no CO2 in the air at
Besides, if the oceans were warming as rapidly as the Professor imagines, the warmer water
would outgas CO2, partly balancing such tiny changes in pH as might otherwise have
Next, we are told that “Glaciers have continued to shrink long-term almost worldwide”. In
fact, there are more than 160,000 glaciers worldwide. Most of them have never been visited
or measured by Man.
Some glaciers have shrunk, revealing forests, mountain passes and even an entire silver mine
underneath, showing that they had been far less extensive than today in the Middle Ages.
But in Antarctica, where there has been little or no warming according to the UN’s climate
panel, there is no reason to suppose that most glaciers are receding.
Then the Professor says a “substantial contribution” to global warming since 1950 must have
come from greenhouse gases because he cannot think of any other explanation. That is the
shop-soiled Aristotelian fallacy of the argument from ignorance. It has no place in the
writings of any true scientist.
Just look at the increase in solar activity from the Grand Minimum of 1545-1715 to the near-
Grand Maximum of 1925-1975, peaking in 1960. Allow for the massive thermal inertia of the
oceans (one reason why one need not fear rapid climate change), and the record increase in
solar activity over the past 300 years is quite enough, on its own, to explain all the trivial
warming of around 0.6-0.7 K that we have seen since 1950. I’d expect some contribution
from Man now and in future, but, on balance, not a lot.
Next, the Professor reveals he has not kept current with the paleoclimate literature. He says
that for the Northern Hemisphere the past 30 years were the warmest such period in the past
However, the evidence from proxy reconstructions, rather than from people playing with
failed computer models, is near-unanimous in finding the medieval warm period real, global,
and almost everywhere warmer than the present. I can provide some 450 scientific papers
establishing this fact not by modelling but by measurement.
The Professor then shows ignorance of the learned journals of agricultural science. He says
that climate change “risks severe yield decreases” in wheat, rice and maize. Yet tests at
agricultural stations have shown that yield increases of 20-40% are to be expected in these
staple crops owing to what is known as CO2 fertilization.
For CO2 is plant food, and its atmospheric concentration at present is close to the lowest in
the long-term record.
Finally, the Professor says, “Changes have been observed in many extreme weather events”.
Yet the UN’s climate panel says otherwise. It reports no changes in the frequency, intensity
or duration of floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, extra-tropical
storms or tornadoes. Deaths owing to extreme weather are close to an all-time low, having
fallen dramatically over the past half-century.
As is traditional among true-believers in Thermageddon, the Professor ends on an
apocalyptic note almost entirely absent in the reviewed literature on climate change. I was a
co-author of Legates et al. (2013), which found that of 11,944 papers on climate and related
matters published in the 21 years 1991-2011 just 64, or 0.5%, even went so far as to state that
most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade.
Very few of even these papers said global warming would be dangerous. The notion that it
may be dangerous, therefore, is almost entirely political, and has very few explicit
endorsements anywhere in the reviewed papers published in the learned journals of science.
It is precisely because too many “scientists” have been too selective with their facts and have
preferred models to data that the climate scare is still running. The day of reckoning is at
Already the entire board of the CSIRO in Australia has been sacked, at least in part because
the institution, like so many, prostituted science for profit.
As the profiteers of doom continue to be proven wrong by events, more heads will roll. And
good riddance. They have flung science back into the Dark Ages.
* * * * * *
'Best Scientific Knowledge' (GWRC) - Yeah, Right!
Blog by Georgina Griffiths - N.Z. Met Service
[In which she claims 2014 Warmest on Record ... and 14 of the 15 hottest years have occurred this century! ( looks like N.Z. Met Service are in on it also ... 'collecting the data the old fashion way, fudging the numbers to hide the decay')]
* * * * * * *
Each year on 23rd March, National Weather Services around the globe celebrate World Meteorological Day. This marks the establishment of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on this day in 1950. WMO is the global co-ordinating agency for meteorological and hydrological activities, formed because weather simply doesn’t limit itself to national boundaries. World Meteorological Day is an occasion to commemorate the work that national meteorological and hydrological agencies undertake 24 hours a day, 365 days per year – work that produces weather forecasts and warnings to help keep our communities safe. The recent passage of Cyclone Pam near Vanuatu and past New Zealand are timely reminders of these efforts.
Collecting weather data …
The routine collection of weather data is one part of MetService’s international responsibilities under the Global Observing System (GOS). Worldwide, weather agencies take observations of pressure, temperature, wind and rainfall around the clock. Data come from ships, buoys, weather balloons and land-based weather stations, and are transmitted via the WMO Global Telecommunication System (GTS). This is a world-wide stream of data used as input into global weather forecast models. The better we can “start off” (initialise) the global computer models as to the current state of the atmosphere, the better the future state will be predicted – and the more accurate the weather forecast will be for your place.
In New Zealand alone, hundreds of weather stations from Stewart Island to Cape Reinga tell us how wet, warm, or windy it is every hour, as well as measuring pressure and humidity. Weather balloons are released twice daily at several locations around the country. Recently, MetService has collaborated with the U.K. MetOffice to enable kiwis to share their local weather data on the ‘Your Weather’ section of metservice.com via the ‘Weather Observation Website’ (WOW) system.
… for climate knowledge, too
This year, the theme for World Meteorological Day is ‘climate knowledge for climate action.’ This is a timely focus. Globally, 2014 was the warmest year on record and fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have occurred this century. But how do we know this? That’s right – we looked back at historical weather data.
Think of climate as the sum of all the weather. If you smooth out all of the edges looking at things longer-term (from a climate perspective), it is possible to more clearly understand what is going on. Climate patterns such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation and the Southern Annular Mode are more ‘visible’ this way, including their effect on New Zealand wind, rain and temperature.
‘Reanalysis data’ is a very important tool for scientists trying to unlock the physical mechanisms behind our climate – trying to understand why we had a wet month, a warm year, or an active Cyclone season. Reanalysis datasets input historical weather data from around the globe into the same climate model, and extend it back over time. The relationships found in the past can help us forecast the future – this is the basis of seasonal climate predictions. For example, El Nino springs tend to be very cold in New Zealand, due to frequent southerly airstreams over the country. When we know an El Nino spring is coming, and in the absence of other major climate factors, the odds are that we’re in for an unusually cold spring.
There are many examples of when historical weather data helps put things into climatic context. For example, people have asked, “is Cyclone Pam the worst Tropical Cyclone to hit the South Pacific?”. The answer relies on good data being available. Since Cyclone Zoe (2002) and Cyclone Pam (2015) both reached an estimated minimum central pressure of 890hPa, it looks like a tie. And although satellites provide a relatively short record, their data can also help answer questions about Tropical Cyclone frequency. No increase in Tropical Cyclone numbers has been observed in the South Pacific over the last few decades since reliable satellite data have been available.
MetService also contributes to international climate activities directly. MetService CEO Peter Lennox is New Zealand’s Permanent Representative to the World Meteorological Organization. In addition, MetService has supported several major climate initiatives in New Zealand recently.
MetService and NIWA have collaborated to achieve official Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Reference Upper Air Network status for the NIWA atmospheric research station at Lauder in Central Otago.
This is only the fourth upper-air site to be certified in the world, and the first in the southern hemisphere. Well-calibrated atmospheric observations are crucial to documenting climate and climate change. The standard network of upper-air meteorological observations, and also weather satellites, provide good coverage – but high-quality observations are needed against which these standard observations can be calibrated. The pairing of Lauder observations and Met Service’s Invercargill radiosonde data will achieve the necessary calibration.
And NASA’s super pressure balloon is awaiting lift off at Wanaka, being delayed due to adverse winds associated with Cyclone Pam. Designed to drift eastwards at an altitude of 110,000 feet (‘near space’), NASA expects the super pressure balloon to circumnavigate across South America and then South Africa, on its potentially record-breaking flight.
Depending on the stratospheric wind speeds, the balloon should circumnavigate the earth every one to three weeks. The flight goal is to exceed the current super-balloon flight record of 54 days, and to maintain a constant float altitude. If the balloon test is validated, this opens the door for relatively inexpensive atmospheric research. You can track the balloon here.
THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR M4GW
Hide The Decline
Hide The Decline II! - NIWA/N.Z. MET SERVICE
Fraud is a Crime
So, According to Georgina Griffiths 2014 was the 'warmest year on record globally.' ... Really?
But, Georgina, how could you be so unaware of the fact that there are many scientists out there, who simply do not agree with you, and who know that science is not based upon consensus, and cannot be said to be settled, as you climate alarmists keep trying to tell us?
Let me introduce you to one, and then let you decide whether you are still prepared to stick to your story in the face of the following report?
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record ... but we're only 38% sure we were right
- Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record
- But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error
- Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all
Data: Gavin Schmidt, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, admits there's a margin of error
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.
The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.
Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.
* * * * * *
WAS 2014 THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD?
NO, IT WASN'T ...
by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley I January 20, 2015
Nature trumpets "2014 was the hottest year on record," citing the Japan Meteorological Agency, the World Meteorological Organization and NOAA.
However, NOAA and several other principal terrestrial temperature datasets - which are anyway subject to measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties and have been repeatedly revised in a questionable fashion over the past year to show ever greater warming rates - have not yet reported their December 2014 values.
The two satellite datasets - RSS and UAH - have both reported. Figure 1 shows the mean of the monthly anomalies on the two datasets since the beginning of the record in January 1979.
It is at once apparent from the graph that 2014 was not "the warmest year on record." Several previous years had been warmer, including the El Nino years 1998 and 2010. In fact, some 70% of the years since the last Ice Age were warmer than today.
Figure 1 also shows that the rate of global warming since 1979 is the equivalent of just 1.3 Celsius degres per century - hardly anything to worry about.
Since 1990, the year when the IPCC first predicted how temperatures would evolve in the short to medium term, the measured rate of global warming - this time taken as the mean of all five principle global-temperature datasets - has been just under half of the warming the IPCC had predicted with "substantial confidence" that year (Fig.2)
According to the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming - at all - for 18 years 3 months, notwithstanding ever-more-rapid increase in CO2 concentration (fig. 3). The Nature article incorrectly state4s that the hiatus in global warming "began around 1998" - in fact, it began in 1996.
The Nature article also says "High temperatures in California in 2014 helped drive widespread drought there." However, Hao et al. (2014) show a decline in the global land area under drought over the past 30 years (fig. 4)
The Nature article continues: "The warmth in 2014 is also notable for another reason: the absence of El Nino." Here, too, Nature has it wrong. Weak but definite El Nino conditions prevailed in the last six months of 2014. One might more plausibly argue, therefore, that the absence of record temperatures in 2014 was startling given the El Nino conditions, the ever-rising CO2 concentration, and the exaggerated predictions of the "consensus" climate models.
Nature admits, grudgingly, that there has been a "slowdown" in global warming over the past decade and a half, from the 1950-2012 average of 0.12 C deg/decade to 0.05 C deg/decade. However, Nature incorrectly attributes the "slowdown" to the notion that "the warming temperatures have been collecting in the bases of oceans instead."
This notion, advanced by a small group of climate scientists each taking it in turn to be the lead author, so that the idea seems to be (but is not) widespread in the literature, can be verified in the simplest manner.
Though the 3500 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the oceans measure ocean temperature change directly, before publication the temperature change is converted into ocean heat content change in Joules, making the change seem larger.
Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change is highly revealing. It shows how little change has really been measured.
The increase in ocean heat content over the 94 ARGO months September 2005 to June 2013 was ................
10 x 10 (to the power of 22) J = 100 ZJ = 100,000 XJ (Fig. 5). Sounds big and alarming.
Figure 5. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, from NODC Ocean Climate Laboratory; http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5?3M HEAT CONTENT.
There are 0.65 Xm (cu m) in the upper 2000 m of the oceans. Each cubic meter of ocean water weighs 1.033 tonnes. To raise 1 tonne by 1 kelvin requires 4 MJ of heat energy. Thus, to raise 0.65 X cubic meters x 1.033 tonnes per cubic meter = 0.67145 Xte of upper-ocean water by 4 MJ per tonne requires 2,685,800 XJ. Then the 100,000 XJ of ocean heat content increase in the past 94 months represents a total ocean warming 0.037233 K, equivalent to less that 0.0475 K per decade.
Accordingly, even on the quite extreme NODC ocean heat content record (Fig. 5), the change in mean ocean temperature in the upper 2000 m in recent decades has been less that 0.05 K per decade - which is precisely the change in air temperature that nature will concede has occurred in the past decade and a half. Therefore, there is no need to look any deeper than the upper or "mixed" 2000 m of the ocean. The abyssal layer - which has scarcely been measured - is in any event mostly very cold - often as little as 4 Celsius degrees.
The ARGO bathythermographs show much less warming than NOAA would like us to believe. Each buoy has to measure 300,000 cu. km of ocean - the equivalent of taking a single temperature and salinity measurement in the whole of Lake Superior less than once a year and expecting the results to be reliable.
The truth - not that any of this will ever be explained in Nature - is that we do not have a sufficiently-resolved record to know whether the ocean is warming at all: but the simplest guide to whether the ocean is warming is to study whether the air ( 1000 times less dense than the ocean) is warming. If the air is not warming, as it has not warmed for at least a decade, then the ocean is not warming either.
The Nature article says that the warming of 0.05 Celsius degrees in 2014 "should chasten climate science sceptics who have used the past decade's temperatures to deny that climate change is happening." On the contrary, those who have repeatedly tampered with the terrestrial temperature record and have relied chiefly on the tampered results for their assertion that 2014 was the"the warmest year on record" should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
But they won't be. Their strategy is now clear: cut worldwide CO2 emissions even though this is plainly unnecessary, and then - when temperature fails to rise as predicted - assert that the absence of global warming that would have happened in any event is attributed to emission cuts. On this daft basis, the world's governments make policy at taxpayers' expense.
FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS
Georgina Griffiths ( N.Z. MetService Blogger), according to Lord Christopher Monckton, 'you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself,' and I entirely concur with his conclusion.
And that could be equally said of the rest of the perpetrators and promoters of this fraud, notably Judith Aitken (GWRC), NIWA, U.N. IPCC, the U.N. AGENDA 21 PLAN, and all their 'hanger-ons,' the latter of which I will shortly be exposing as we head down that 'rabbit-hole.'
If We Had Some Global Warming
What Some People Think About Climate Change
And What Other People Are Thinking ...
October 23, 2014
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.
In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: “The ocean is not rising significantly.
“The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.
“Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).
“I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”
JOHN COLEMAN - THE WEATHER CHANNEL
Climate Change Models-Lord Christopher Monckton/Willie Soon/David Legates/Matt Briggs
New Study: new climate change model finds IPCC model predictions too hot [January, 2015. Vol 60 No.1 Science Bulletin]
Here is a report on a new study on global warming, from Phys.org.
A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.
The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 °C. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletinpredicts no more than 1 °C warming instead – and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.
The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.
When the paper’s four authors first tested the finished model’s global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex “general-circulation” models:
Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN’s climate panel predicted with “substantial confidence” that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since.
[…]The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4° C per century, is about half the IPCC’s central prediction in 1990.
[…]The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon. Those errors caused the over-predictions on which concern about Man’s influence on the climate was needlessly built.
So what are the specific errors in the IPCC model?
Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following –
The assumption that “temperature feedbacks” would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.
The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC’s false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.
Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower feedback estimate from the IPCC. They still predict 3.3 °C of warming per CO2 doubling, when on this ground alone they should only be predicting 2.2 °C – about half from direct warming and half from amplifying feedbacks.
Though the complex models say there is 0.6 °C manmade warming “in the pipeline” even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases, the simple model – confirmed by almost two decades without any significant global warming – shows there is no committed but unrealized manmade warming still to come. There is no scientific justification for the IPCC’s extreme RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that predicts up to 12 °C global warming as a result of our industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.
Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 °C but 1 °C or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 °C warming would result.
Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said: “Our work suggests that Man’s influence on climate may have been much overstated. The role of the Sun has been undervalued. Our model helps to present a more balanced view.”
I think it’s a credit to the scientific enterprise that they grilled this paper with peer-review, and then allowed it to stand, even though if it becomes widely-known and accepted, it will dry up their grant money. They rely on a crisis in order to obtain research money, and what this new, simpler model shows is that there is no crisis. It’s bad for the scientists’ wallets, but good for science as a whole. Respect++.
How do we protect the region from the
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE?
Greater Wellington Regional Council wants
your views on our draft climate change strategy
WE"D LIKE TO KNOW
WHAT YOU THINK.
Have Your Say-Draft Climate Strategy
What do you think ?
1. Do you support the draft Strategy's vision? "Greater Wellington regional council strengthens he long-term resilience of the Wellington region through climate change action and awareness?
No! Definitely not now, and never in the future.
2. Do you support the draft Strategy's mitigation objective (Objective 1) ? "Greater Wellington demonstrates a commitment to reducing GHG emissions across all its areas of influence including its own operations, helping to create the conditions for a smart, innovative, low carbon region economy."
Absolutely not! Your crazy plan to reduce GHG emissions (which are caused by mans' activities, like breathing, use of motor cars, burning fossil fuels, operating coal plants and normal everyday activity) suggests only one thing - reduction in population and limiting peoples' choice of travel, heating and location - which all equates to one thing ... and that being - Communism! Besides, GHG emission have very little impact on climate, and the main component , being CO2 has been shown to have little relationship to atmospheric temperature, both in the past and the present ... see www.catholic2007.blogspot.co.nz
3. Do you support the drafts Strategy adaption objective? (Ojective 2.)
"Risks from climate change-related impacts are managed and resilience is increased through consistent adaption planning based on best scientific knowledge?"
You are begging the question here, by assuming that there are 'risks' from climate change when the real science , not your fudged 'best science,' shows that climate change is normal and thus does not present a 'risk,' and which is simply scare-mongering on the GWRC's part, using fiddled incorrect data supplied by the Communist U.N. IPCC, using outmoded Climate models or as we say overheated or hot-running models ...ref Monckton et al... "Why models run hot: from an irreducibly simple climate model" www.catholic2007.blogspot.co.nz
2014 was not the warmest on record ... so much for your "based on best scientific knowledge" courtesy of the Communist U.N.'s IPCC fraudulent data... Yeah, Right (Tui ad)
No, I do not support drafts SAO ( O 2.)
Objective 3. would, be improved if you showed good will, by telling the truth for a change , stop using Communist brain-washing techniques to reinforce the lie on an unwitting and basically ignorant public, on matters of science and politics, examining the evidence presented on my blog, and then present it to the public at large. www.catholic2007.blogspot.co.nz
5. Do you support the twelve policy's outlined in the draft strategy?
No, but then I actually gave up trying to find them ... after all the whole thing GWRC CCSP is all part of the Communist U.N.'s plan for World Governance, using the environment and climate change as a useful tool to achieve their goal, not through national governments, but through local bodies (ICLEI) where the Government can say "you people chose it, not us!" Very cunning!
6. We have identifies 47 actions that we propose to take in the region over the next three years. Do you agree with the actions identified in the strategy? Is anything missing?
NO. Since there is no requirement for any action regarding the climate apart from a little common sense, why would I?
Yes, there is definitely something missing, and that is a good dose of honesty, good-will and common sense, but one can hardly expect that from an elected body carrying out, knowingly or unknowingly the AGENDA 21 Communist Plan for their long planned for World Government, and you lot are helping to bring it about.
7. Do you have any other comments on any aspect of the draft Climate Change Strategy?
I suggest after you have studied very seriously, the above mentioned blog, you take your draft plan, tear it up into minuscule pieces and quietly dispose of it in the trash can, where I have little doubt my earlier submission was consigned, and concentrate on more urgent projects like removing the fluoride poison you keep dumping into our drinking water, when it is of no benefit at all, and quite to the contrary, harmful to the health of the citizens of the GWR!
Note: Should you so choose to ignore this submission and repeat the process of disposal of same, you will no doubt be pleased to learn that a copy may be obtained ( in color) of the said submission from www.catholic2007.blogspot.co.nz
try 'here' catholic2007.blogspot.co.nz here
World Government And The Hidden Agenda of Climate Change - Now Revealed
United Nations Admits Climate Change Is About Undoing Capitalism
The primary objective behind environmental activism related to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), aka “climate change,” is apparently not climatological, but rather is economic. The revelation came not from “global-warming deniers,” but from the United Nations’ own Christiana Figueres, who serves as the Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.
At a press conference in Brussels last month, the UN climate chief delineated the objectives of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations. She revealed: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
She continued: “That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
Capitalism has been the primary economic model of the west since the industrial revolution. Therefore, the only logical conclusion, based on her stated objective, is the eradication of capitalism and free market economics, to be replaced with a model based on monetary redistribution. This we know by the redistribution calculations being developed by the UN’s IPCC for developed nations to pay “reparations” and “carbon offsets” to poorer countries based on carbon dioxide emissions.
While Figueres may have unintentionally disclosed the primary objective of the AGW alarmist movement within the UN, others are much less veiled. Naomi Klein, a self-defined “feminist-socialist,” environmental activist, and author of the book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate,” is explicit in her denunciation of capitalism as the source of global warming. Her interview this week with Germany’s Der Spiegel underscored her denunciation of capitalism as the source of all evil in the world, including global warming. “The economic system that we have created has also created global warming. We can’t change the physical reality, so we must change the political reality.” Such a conclusion is easy to accept if the AGW alarmist premise is embraced blindly, sans scientific validation.
Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, explicitly affirmed the economic objective. He said a few years ago: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection…One must say clearly that we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
A leftist global think-tank alluded to this a few years ago. The Club of Rome proclaimed: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
One of the luxuries of basing a movement’s argument on quasi-science, including heavily doctored reports and “data,” is that bogeymen can be made of almost anything. And in the case of the AGW alarmists, it’s man, and capitalism. Once mankind is identified as the culprit behind climatic changes, his every activity can be justifiably regulated, controlled, and taxed. And once taxed, an omnipotent government that idyllically “cares” for the collective can redistribute it. And as Figueres and Klein evidence, it can provide the irrational justification for changing the global economic system.
Coups, revolutions, and violent upheavals have worked only marginally to eradicate capitalism and replace it with socialistic economic models, all of which have failed, or are in the process of doing so. It would appear that the entrenched prevalent ideology of the UN has found a new way to fundamentally transform the world with the visage of Marx.
Considering the ultimate goal of the UN’s climate panels is to eradicate capitalism, it’s refreshing when a scientist who shares their ideology questions the quasi-scientific premises upon which the plan is based. Fritz Vaherenholt is a socialist, and the founder of Germany’s environmental movement. He was a reviewer of the IPCC reports and, while initially was supportive of them, found a host of scientific errors that proved to him the conclusions were defined before the scientific method was even attempted.
Vaherenholt’s recent book, “The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won’t Happen, charges the UN’s IPCC with “gross incompetence and dishonesty… especially regarding fear-mongering exaggeration of human CO2 emission influences.” He expressed how stunned he was by the large number of scientific and computer-modeling errors he was finding in IPCC reports. He voiced his disapprobation in an interview with the German news publication Bild: “… IPCC decision-makers are fighting tooth and nail against accepting the roles of the oceans, sun, and soot. Accordingly, IPCC models are completely out of whack. The facts and data need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results.”
But that’s precisely what has happened. The ideological plenipotentiaries in the UN, intent on implementing Marxist ideology, started with an objective, identified a human activity they could foment fear over, draw in like-minded “scientists” as apologists to “validate” their predetermined “consensus,” and fundamentally transform the global economy as an end result. It’s a brilliant strategy that has superbly garnered the support of virtually every left-leaning organization, media outlet, journalist, and academic across the country.
But the key to it all was reclassifying the atmospheric gas that facilitates photosynthesis and makes the world lush and green, and the gas emitted by mammals when we exhale, as a pollutant and a causal force in destroying the world. That’s a simple premise to accept when so much of the populace is either too acquiescent, uninformed, or ideologically aligned with the intended goal, to view it objectively.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
Agenda 21's Global Death Plan For Humanity
AGENDA 21 - SMART METERS AND ICLEI OUT
This is Your Agenda 21 MEGACITIES FUTURE
Lord Christopher Monckton: Run Agenda 21 Out Of Your Town
Under Agenda 21 People will live only in the Black Marked areas
THE REAL STORY BEHIND THE UNITED NATIONS - COMMUNISM
10. In January of 1933, the Jewish Chronicle of London boasted that, "More than one third of all the Jews in Russia have become Soviet Officials." And two months later the Jewish B'nai B'rith Magazine of New York applauded conditions in the Soviet Union with the statement, "Under the new regime (Bolshevism) it is at last possible to be a real Jew."
* * * * *
11. In 1935-36, the Communist government's ambassadors to the following capitals were all Jews: Paris, London, Madrid, Istanbul, Athens, Brussels, Vienna, Tokyo, Oslo, Montevideo, Stockholm, Helsinki, Berlin, Riga and Prague.
* * * * *
12. The Jew, Bela Kun (real name, Cohen) led the Communist revolution in Hungary in the spring of 1919. He murdered twenty thousand Hungarians and crucified sixty-seven Catholic priests. Said Bishop Prohaszka, veteran of the Communist domination in Hungary, "We proclaim to the world that we cannot endure the indefinite Jewish usurpation, and we shall get rid of it."
* * * * *
13. In the February 4, 1937 issue of G.K.'s Weekly, the noted Catholic historian, Hilaire Belloc, wrote, "As for anyone who does not know that the present revolutionary Bolshevist movement in Russia is Jewish, I can only say that he must be a man who is taken in by the suppressions of our deplorable Press."
* * * * *
14. The most recent admitted-editor of the American Communist paper, the Daily Worker, is the Jew, John Gates (real name, Israel Ragenstreif).
* * * * *
15. With even more readers than the Daily Worker is the Morgen Freiheit of New York City, a Communist paper printed entirely in Yiddish.
* * * * *
16. In the Spanish civil war of the mid-thirties, the anti-Franco "Loyalists" were organized and directed by Communist Jews, under the leadership of Moses Rosenberg and Bela Kun. An editorial printed in the Morgen Freiheit states quite clearly that, "The war that is fought today in Spain is wider than the Spanish territory. It is of life and death significance for the Jews of the world."
* * * * *
17. The New York Jew, Alexander Bittelman, said in his book, The Jewish People Face the Post-War World, published in 1945, "If not for the Red Army, there would be no Jews in Europe today, nor in Palestine, nor in Africa, and in the United States the length of our existence would be counted in days .... The Soviet Union has saved the Jewish people."
* * * * *
18. Every time our government uncovers a nest of subversive Communists, the majority of those apprehended are invariably Jews. Examples: Eleven Communists, who formed what was called the "American Politburo," were arrested in the much-publicized "Eugene Dennis Case"; six of these eleven were Jews. Later taken into custody was the twenty-one man organization which had been formed to replace the previously arrested eleven. Of these twenty-one Communists, fourteen were Jews.
* * * * *
19. Of the famous "Hollywood Ten," who were convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to explain their Communist connections, nine were Jews. Additional Hollywood Jews who have been cited as Communist-sympathizers include: Charlie Chaplin (real name, Thonstein), Edward G. Robinson (real name, Rosenberg), Melvyn Douglas (real name, Hesselberg), Douglas Fairbanks (real name, Ullman), Judy Holiday (real name, Tuvim), Danny Kaye (real name, Kaminsky).
* * * * *
20. The supreme leader of the Communist party in the United States (the boss behind Earl Browder, Eugene Dennis, etc.) was the Jew, Gerhardt Eisler. Chief assistant to Eisler was the Jew, J. Peters (real name, Goldherger).
* * * * *
21. Since World War II, eleven Communists have been convicted of espionage activities in the United States. Ten of these were Jews.
* * * * *
22. The Report of the Canadian Royal Commission on Communist activities, in 1946, read, in part, "It is significant that a number of documents from the Russian Embassy specifically note 'Jew' or 'Jewess' in entries on their relevant Canadian agents or prospective agents, showing that the Russian Fifth Column leaders attach particular significance to this matter."
* * * * *
23. A raid by Federal agents on the Pittsburgh Jewish Cultural Centre in July of 1953 revealed that the place was the Communist training headquarters for western Pennsylvania. And in April of this year, another such raid uncovered the fact that the Miami Jewish Cultural Centre was actually a front for the distribution of Communist propaganda.
* * * * *
24. The Jews can always be counted on to oppose any curbs or restrictions which are directed against Communists or Communism. Example: When the present Jewish Senator from New York, Herbert Lehman, was Governor of the State, a bill was passed resoundingly by the legislature prohibiting any Communist to hold office in the State government. This was not hypothetical legislation. The bill was aimed at known Communists then holding high positions in New York State. When the bill arrived at Governor Lehman's desk, he promptly vetoed it.
* * * * *
25. Similarly, the Jews will always attack any man who shows himself to be a true and determined enemy of Communists. This is done not only by individual Jews, but with equal dependability by the powerful Jewish organizations, whose attacks on anti-Communism are always by way of saving the public from "Hysteria!" or "Witch hunts!"
Occasionally, when a man has been particularly effective in fighting Communists, the Jews will even label him as "anti-Semitic" - thereby revealing the Communist-Jewish tie-up which for so many years it has been their policy to keep well hidden. Example: Recently, when forty-two employees at Fort Monmouth were fired as loyalty risks, and thirty-eight of the forty-two turned out to be Jews, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League screamed, "Anti-Semitism! out; at the American Army in general and at the responsible officer in particular.
* * * * *
The foregoing twenty-five items are but a sampling of the irrefutable case against the Jews. But in one final matter we must caution our readers.
Though the Jews are behind Communism, they are not committed to it. The cause to which they are essentially bound is not pro-Communism. It is, rather, anti-Christianity. Communism is merely their weapon of the moment.
Therefore, it is possible that Jews will be seen opposing Communism.
Should this happen, it may be that such opposition is only a diversional move, calculated to throw the Gentiles off the track. It may be, however, that the Jews will have found that Communism has lost its effectiveness, and they are dropping it in favour of some new, more useful tool. In that event, Communism would decline into being just another political, economic movement, an abandoned child obliged to fend for itself.
As long as Communism remains an international menace, however, totally unexplainable by political or economic standards, an insidious, rapacious enemy, more terrible to the Church even than to the state, then we may be sure that the Jews are still behind the Communist movement.
[The Point - edited under Fr. Leonard Feeney MICM November, 1954]
We have just establish who is behind Communism, but how does this relate to the U.N. (United Nations) as we investigate further the origins, and purpose of the U.N.?
The U.N. Or "World Government By The Jews?" - Good Friday, 3 April, 2015
Of the 1,800 executives employed at United Nations headquarters in New York City, over 1,200 are Jews.
In its current report in the American Jewish Yearbook, the American Jewish Committee labels opposition to the United Nations as anti-semitism.
David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of the State of Israel, told American newsmen in an interview in 1948, "The United Nations ideal is a Jewish ideal."
Every day there is new evidence that the American people are waking up to the fact that World Communism is a movement fostered and run by Jews. But, even more urgent for Americans to know, and much les publicized, is the fact that the Jews are likewise the promoters of the United Nations.
Whatever the apparent differences between these two Jewish projects, the U.N. and Communism (and the differences are only apparent), one similarity is overwhelmingly evident. Both the U.N. and Communism are means to the establishment of a central and absolute world control - which control is precisely what the Jews want.
For twenty centuries the Jewish nation has toiled to destroy in the world the Kingship of Jesus Christ. And to seal this destruction, the Jews have plotted a world Jewish empire, dominating all the nations of the earth, so that the message of Christ the King will be forever stifled.
To this silencing of Christian apostles, all Jews are urged in their prime source of religious counsel, the Talmud. And, concerning this Jewish determination, Saint Paul warns in his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Chapter 2: "The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved."
In order to make the U.N. work for their purpose, the Jews knew from the start that the United States of America would be a chief obstacle. America's traditional wariness of foreign entanglements (which accounted for the failure of the old League of Nations) would have to be eliminated. And there was a deeper reason for concentrating on America.
When the smoke of World War II cleared away, the Jews rejoiced to see how much they had accomplished in their ancient battle against Christ and His Church. In all of the leading nations of the earth, the Catholic faith had been tragically devitalized, or had disappeared entirely. In only one of the strong nations of the world was there any chance that the Faith might take hold of the people.
America, with its 50,000 Catholic priests, its 150,000 nuns, and its abundance of Catholic churches and schools, needed only the spark of a few zealous apostles to be set ablaze with Catholic belief. If the U.N. Jews were to bring America into line, they would have to work quickly. And they did.
Selling The U.S. the U.N.
One of the surest ways of getting the U.S. into the U.N. was to get the U.N. into America. The Jews realized that it would be difficult for America suddenly to pull out of the U.N. once the organization was firmly established on the banks of New York's East River.
And quite as effectively, the Jews prepared the way for the U.N.'s "one world" idea by a long and concentrated indoctrination of the American people with purposeful Jewish slogans. Through all public media, Americans were told that everyone ought to be like everyone else, that nationality, race, and religion have no real significance and should be set side for the sake of achieving what the Jews called "Brotherhood."
Thus, it happened that when the U.N. came into being, the American people were quite prepared to accept an organization that was nation-less, race-less, and creed-less. And the Jews turned their publicizing energies to an all0out, pro-U.N. campaign. Professor Mortimer Adler, noted Jewish intellectual, voiced the official Jewish line when he said, "We must do everything we can to abolish the United States. The only answer to the threat of atomic war is world government." (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Oct. 23, 1945).
Propaganda for the U.N. was an openly Jewish enterprise, and every Jew, whether officially attached to the U.N. or not, was on call to lend his propagandizing talents. A member of the American Jewish Committee was given by UNESCO the express job of developing a "nation-wide educational program" for promoting U.N. aims and principles. And supervising all phases of the effort to win America to the U.N. was the Jew, Benjamin Cohen, head of the United Nations Department of Public Information.
The ultimate appeal in all this Jewish propaganda was that the U.N. and only the U.N., could guarantee peace to America. War-weary Americans, even those who were unmoved by the Jews' earlier "Brotherhood" slogans, turned eagerly to the U.N. trusting it was, as advertised, an organization "determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."
After nine years of the U.N. peace-promotion, however, during which billions of American dollars have been spent in arming the world, and tens of thousands of American boys have been wounded and killed on foreign battlefields, the American people are coming to realize that they have been the victim of a colossal deceit.
The true nature of this deceit is yet to be grasped by most Americans. For the U.N. is not, as might be supposed, a peace movement which failed. The U.N. is a sinister design for governing the day-to-day activities of the peoples of all nations.
The U.N. is a world revolution.
Peacefully, without firing a shot, the U.N. is now poised to accomplish the ancient Talmudic purposes of the Jewish nation: the crushing of the Catholic Church and the establishment of a central Jewish world control. Although the real intent of the U.N. has been most deliberately hidden, Americans are becoming daily more alerted to this intent and to the peril which threatens their country.
Even more urgent, however, is the necessity that American Catholics be made aware of all that will befall their Church, if only the U.N. plot is successful. To its readers, therefore, the Point offers a summary of what the U.N. intends for them - as Americans and, more intimately, as Catholics.
The U.N. Versus Americans
The only way for the U.N. to conduct a bloodless revolution in America is to get the American Government to consent, somehow, to its own destruction. By taking advantage of a vulnerable clause in our Constitution, the Jews have found a way of obtaining such consent, through the instrumentality of U.N. Covenants. These are ordinances which would inflict upon America a whole new way of life, and which are proposed to our country under the guise of treaties.
The American Constitution contains the express provision that any treaty which is ratified by the United States Senate becomes a part of the internal law of the country. Indeed, it becomes, in effect, superior to the Constitution itself - so that rights guaranteed to Americans by their Constitution could be taken away from them by properly ratified treaties. And for a treaty to be ratified and become law of the land, not even a quorum of voting Senators is necessary.
All that is required is that two-thirds of the Senators present in the Senate Chamber, at any given time, vote in its favour. On June 13, 1952, for example, three treaties were ratified with only two Senators present in the Senate.
Thus, if a U.N. Covenant-treaty were introduced on a quiet summer afternoon, when only three members were present in the Senate, it would require the assenting vote of only two of the senators to impose upon the American people some major portion of the Jews' unbloody revolution.
Here are some representative examples of what will happen if the U.N. Covenant-treaties - many of which are now pending before the U.S. senate - should be ratified.
1. The Bill of Rights in our American Constitution will be supplanted by the U.N. Covenant of Human Rights. This means that our present unqualified guarantees of free speech, press, and assembly will be, according to the terms of the Covenant, "subject to certain penalties, liabilities, and restrictions."
2. Judges in American courts will be forced to make their decisions in conformity with U.N. -dictated principles. A preview of this came in the recent Fuji case, when a California court overrode a state law on the grounds that it seemed to conflict with the United Nations Charter.
3. American citizens will be obliged to obey laws imposed upon them by the U.N. and, for violating these laws, will be liable to trial by international courts. By way of preparing the people for this situation, certain internationalists in our government have lately arranged that American troops stationed in foreign countries should be subject both to the laws of those countries and to legal prosecution in their courts.
4. All American gold resources will be taken over by a central monetary control. The U.N. has already demonstrated how generous it can be with the money of American taxpayers. Under the auspices of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Association, U.S. currency plates, plus supplies of Treasury Department ink and paper, were handed over to the Russians, with no control over the amount of American-backed money which they could print. This project was the brain-child of the Treasury Department Jews, Harry Dexter White and Harold Glasser, and received the quiet blessing of Jewish UNRRA head, Herbert Lehman.
5. American soldiers will be part of an international military pool. They will be obliged to fight under the leadership of U. N. Generals, against whatever enemy the U.N. may designate, even if that enemy be the U.S.A.
6. The U.N. will reserve the right, under its "full employment" program, to tell a man what job he must work at, what wages he must be receive, and in what part of what country he must find employment.
7. Under the U.N.'s World Health program, there will be mandatory, standardized Government care for everyone suffering from "any morbid condition, whatever its cause , from birth to death." This program of socialized medicine further provides for mass inoculations, the killing of incurables, and a system for "planned populations," which will mean birth control in some areas, and baby-bonuses in others.
8. The U.N. will establish a universal and compulsory system of education designed to safeguard and perpetuate its own regime. By provision of the U.N. Charter, education shall "promote understanding ... and further the activities of the United Nations." Illustrative of what tone this mental regimentation will take was the announcement that the U.N.'s official history of the world was to be entrusted to the celebrated atheist, Julian Huxley.
Thus, by American adoption of U.N. Covenant-treaties, American citizens will become citizens of the world, and the Jews will have triumphed in their bloodless revolution.
The U.N. Versus Catholics
Just as the U.N. will require that America be stripped of her individuality and sovereignty, and permitted to keep only those political and cultural features which she might have in common with Communists and Zulus, so also will the U.N. demand that the Catholic Church be purged of her singular and intransigent doctrines and allowed only those basic expressions of religion which she might appear to share with Mohammedans and Holy Rollers. For, in the coming revolution, the religious effect of the U.N. Covenant-treaties will be to enforce, as rigid law, those "Brotherhood" slogans which the Jews have so widely propagated in our country.
No longer will the Jews merely suggest that "It makes no difference what a man believes." They will insist that this is so, and establish proper penalties for any Catholic priest who, convinced that what a man believes makes all the difference in the world, is determined to convert his fellow Americans to the Catholic Faith.
"One religion is as good as another" will cease to be a glib, billboard sentiment. It will become a stern, inflexible law. To administer this law, the Jews will have to suppress our parochial schools, not only because they teach that the Catholic Church is the only true one, but because by their very existence, they proclaim that the religion of a catholic child is something so precious and unique that it justifies his being guarded and set apart from other children.
And for the legal enforcement of the Jews' "tolerance" slogans, U.N. Covenant-treaties make clear provisions that no religious utterances, ceremonies, or symbols shall discriminate against, or cause "mental harm" to, members of other religious groups. Already the Jews have indicated what they mean by this. Abundantly they have protested that Crucifixes, new testaments, and public mentions of Jesus Christ are incitements to ant-Semitism and slights to the Jewish community.
Here are two recent, frightening examples of how far the "one world" Jews intend to go:
1. They have filed an international protest against traditional, catholic Passion Play of Oberammergau, charging that it "leads to anti-Semitism."
2. They have succeeded in removing the white crosses which marked the graves of American war dead in the National Memorial Cemetery in Hawaii. Our Defence Department explained that this removal of Christian symbols was "a trend of the times."
The Jews' bloodless revolution is imminent. They are about to do away with our nation and our Faith. And yet, to stay the onslaught, we need only alerted American Catholics, re-determined to convert their country to the cause of Christ the King, Who, in patient majesty, is waiting in the tabernacles of catholic Churches all across our land.
Now that we have established that the U.N. is a Communist organization with wholesale backing and brain-child of the Jews in their effort to establish their One World Government, it should now come as no surprise that organizations associated with, supporting and promoting the plans of the U.N. are, by that association, (whether they are 'card carrying' Communists or not), Communists, since they are accomplices of the 'enemies of all mankinds', efforts to take away our freedom, our sovereignty and our God-given New Zealand way of life ... using the 'environment' and 'climate change' as an excuse for that end ... the first among those organizations we include the GWRC, New Zealand Met Service, NIWA, and all those who support the U.N.'s agenda of those organizations .... they are all guilty of treason, which is a punishable offence!
Persons or groups who support the U.N.'s diabolical plans, knowingly of unknowingly, cannot be excused ... 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'!
Guess Who Is Coming To Dinner! - Being Frank here
I have already alluded to the IPPC Conference in Paris later this year, and it is one we need to be keeping a close eye on, and which we certainly will be covering as we head closer to December, the date they have chosen, to implement, hopefully ( they think) their New World Order ( One World Government).
Eric Worrall writes:Reuters reports that the upcoming COP21 Paris climate conference, widely hyped by greens and politicians to be the conference which will achieve the great international climate breakthrough, is already in trouble – that the USA is one of the few countries which could be bothered to submit their climate action plan homework by the agreed deadline.According to Reuters;
“… emitters such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, Canada and Australia say they are waiting until closer to a Paris summit in December, meant to agree a global deal.
“It’s not the ideal situation,” said Niklas Hoehne, founding partner of the New Climate Institute in Germany which tracks submissions, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).In 2013, the United Nations invited INDCs by March 31, 2015, from governments “ready to do so” – the early, informal deadline was meant to give time to compare pledges and toughen weak ones.
Late submissions complicate the Paris summit because it will be far harder to judge late I”NDCs.“The earlier the better,” said Jake Schmidt, of the U.S. National Resources Defense Council. “It allows people to look at each others’ targets and judge whether or not they pass muster.
The White House official noted that both the United States and China already outlined plans last year, saying: “That adds up to a fantastic running start.”