If You Want to Create a Totally False Panic About a Totally False Pandemic – Pick a Coronavirus.

Anonymous account sent to Julian Rose, here edited.  In full:  Insider Exposes COVID-19 Coronavirus Scam

‘Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus.  Not specifically for COVID-19.  There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus.  There are no reliable agencies or media outlets for reporting numbers of actual COVID-19 virus cases. […]  Every action and reaction to COVID-19 is based on totally flawed data and we simply can not make accurate assessments.

‘This is why you’re hearing that most people with COVID-19 are showing nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms.  That’s because most Coronavirus strains are nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms.  The few actual novel Coronavirus cases do have some worse respiratory responses, but still have a very promising recovery rate, especially for those without prior issues. […]

‘If you want to create a totally false panic about a totally false pandemic – pick a coronavirus. […]

‘There are hundreds of thousands of flu and pneumonia victims in hospitals throughout the world at any one time.  All you need to do is select the sickest of these in a single location – say Wuhan – administer PCR tests to them and claim anyone showing viral sequences similar to a coronavirus (which will inevitably be quite a few) is suffering from a ‘new’ disease.  Since you already selected the sickest flu cases a fairly high proportion of your sample will go on to die.

‘You can then say this ‘new’ virus has a CFR higher than the flu and use this to infuse more concern and do more tests which will of course produce more ‘cases’, which expands the testing, which produces yet more ‘cases’ and so on and so on.  Before long you have your ‘pandemic’, and all you have done is use a simple test kit trick to convert the worst flu and pneumonia cases into something new that doesn’t actually exist.

‘Now just run the same scam in other countries.  Making sure to keep the fear message running high so that people will feel panicky and less able to think critically.  Your only problem is going to be that – due to the fact there is no actual new deadly pathogen but just regular sick people, you are mislabeling your case numbers, and especially your deaths, are going to be way too low for a real new deadly virus pandemic.

‘But you can stop people pointing this out in several ways.

  1. You can claim this is just the beginning and more deaths are imminent. Use this as an excuse to quarantine everyone and then claim the quarantine prevented the expected millions of dead.
  2. You can tell people that ‘minimizing’ the dangers is irresponsible and bully them into not talking about numbers.
  3. You can talk crap about made up numbers hoping to blind people with pseudoscience.
  4. You can start testing well people (who, of course, will also likely have shreds of coronavirus DNA in them) and thus inflate your ‘case figures’ with ‘asymptomatic carriers’ (you will of course have to spin that to sound deadly even though any virologist knows the more symptom-less cases you have the less deadly is your pathogen).’

It’s worked a treat.

 

See also: COVID-19: Bill Gates Engineers a Global Crisis from Seasonal Flu

 

 

COVID-19: Bill Gates Engineers a Global Crisis from Seasonal Flu

With carefully planning, and a huge financial investment, Bill Gates has shut down the global economy and caused harm to countless people, by turning seasonal flu into a totally unjustified pandemic crisis.  The purpose of the engineered crisis is to crash the world’s economies, normalise authoritarianism  and further the elites’ goal of global government.

The COVID-19 beat-up

‘The Emperor has no clothes’ (Wolfgang Woburg)

Subsequent to the pronouncement of what has been described as a new, lethal and highly infectious coronavirus, COVID-19, a state of panic has been engineered by the corporate media.  Enormous pressure has been put on governments to ‘act’ – citizens have been begging for the draconian and economically disastrous measures which are been imposed.

Protests by scientists that the danger is exaggerated are ignored by media and politicians, who are being morally blackmailed into taking extreme measures.  Anyone who suggests that a targeted measure to safeguard those at risk from corona or any virus (as is usual practice) would be far preferable to locking down the country and thereby causing enormous damage to the economy and to people’s livelihood, well-being and rights, is promptly labelled cynical and callous.

Virologists, epidemiologists, pulmonologists and other scientists in  relevant fields have from the outset criticised the scare with regard to the efficacy of the test, the reliability of data, the level of danger presented by the virus, and the damage to the economy and society presented by the draconian measures, see, for example, 12 here and another 10 hereNew evidence emerging as time goes only confirms what these medical experts have been saying – that COVID-19 is no more than seasonal flu, not shown to be more dangerous than in other years.  Medical scientists have pointed out that figures for infection are a vast underestimate.

‘All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook’ (Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, specialist in microbiology, emeritus professor at  Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz)

The view of John Lee, emeritus professor of pathology, is that if we tracked any other seasonal virus in the same way, we would also see an exponential increase.

  • Much of the response to Covid-19 seems explained by the fact that we are watching this virus in a way that no virus has been watched before.’
  • ‘We have yet to see any statistical evidence for excess deaths, in any part of the world.’
  • ‘When drastic measures are introduced, they should be based on clear evidence. In the case of Covid-19, the evidence is not clear.’
  • ‘We have decided on policies of extraordinary magnitude without concrete evidence of excess harm already occurring, and without proper scrutiny of the science used to justify them.’

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, pulmonologist, has pointed out that the test protocol for coronavirus was fast-tracked by the World Health Organisation without the usual tests being run (it was given the stamp of approval in mid-January).

It seems that virologists contrived something sensational, which impressed the Chinese government. It became a political sensation completely exceeding the virological frame. Face recognition installed everywhere, ‘the clinical thermometer controlled the traffic on Chinese streets’.

COVID-19 – a Bill Gates Project

David Rockefeller’s environmentalism and ‘climate change’ narrative has the world believing that anthropogenic CO2 is about to destroy the planet, and this can only be diverted by huge sacrifice on the part of ordinary people.  Rockefeller’s project has now arguably been eclipsed by that of his colleague, Bill Gates, who has always held the medical portfolio of the Club of Rome.

The leadership role of Bill Gates in the coronavirus panic is unquestionable.

World Health Organisation

‘having sold its soul to Gates and other business donors, the WHO no longer represents the interests of patients’ (Dr Rath Foundation)

The World Health Organisation fast-tracked the first COVID-19 test protocol, and since then has played its part in creating hysteria over COVID-19.  The Gates Foundation is the biggest private donor to the WHO and the second biggest funder after the United States.  It has given over 2 billion to the WHO since the 1980s.  Other major private ‘partners’ of WHO are the Rockefeller Foundation and parmaceutical/vaccine companies such as GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Pasteur.  WHO and Gates Foundation, along with UNICEF and the World Bank, are ‘core partners’ in the vaccine alliance GAVI

Medical Research

The Gates Foundation funds a number of medical research institutes, all of which are actively promoting his plandemic.

The German Center for Infection (DZIF)

The initial test protocol approved by the WHO was developed at the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF) at the Charité University of Medicine in Berin. The DZIF partners a number of governments and NGOs, foremost amongst them the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in The Global Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Development Hub, located in Berlin under the roof of the DZIF.  The DZIF has also collaborated with Rockefeller University in New York.

Imperial College London

‘You are locked in your house right now because of some buffoon at Imperial College’, Mark Windows, World Government Declares War.

Epidemiological data which has influenced decision making in countries like the United Kingdom and New Zealand has been provided in a study by Imperial College London.  The College has claimed that deaths from COVID-19 could amount to over half a million in the United Kingdom and 2 million deaths in the United States.

While Bill Gates has suggested that Imperial College reporting is if anything too optimistic,  its projections have been widely criticised as unneccessarily alarmist – one analysis finds that the College has exaggerated the risk by 131 times.  Such criticism has not stopped governments imposing extraordinary measures on the back of Imperial College modelling.

The College is heavily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: the total amount by 2018 has been calculated as $184,872,226.99.  The Gates Foundation is the second biggest donor to Imperial College after the Wellcome Trust, whose donations amount to $400,322,589.00. The Wellcome Trust works closely with the Gates Foundation in a number of endeavours, such as the founding of CEPI, whose mission statement reads,  ‘The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation’s (CEPI’s) mission is to stimulate and accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks.’

Others include the Institut Pasteur , likewise supporting corona alarmism.  (This video investigates the Institut’s claim that France’s hospitals are full of people desperately ill from coronavirus.)

Coincidences

Event 201

In Oct 2019, six weeks before COVID-19 appeared, a Global Pandemic Exercise called Event 201 took place involving the Western Governments, agencies and key players including the US and Chinese CDC, which focused on a Coronavirus originating in pigs.

Event 201 was co-hosted by the Gates foundation, the World Economic Forum and John Hopkins University.  As Spiro Skouras has pointed out, news reports fabricated for this exercise are eerily similar to reports we are currently seeing with regard to the real pandemic.  Segment four of the five hour simulation talks of the suppression of misinformation, through draconian measures such as shutting down the internet.

The 7th Military Games and the Virus Drill

The Chinese Government simulated a coronavirus outbreak in a drill on September 18th 2019, 30 days before the Military Games, held in Wuhan. Thus this drill was held exactly 30 days before the key date of October 18th, 2019 – the same date when the Wuhan Military Games began and also the very same date when Event 201 (Big Pharma, Bill Gates, China’s CDC, America’s CDC, etc.) was held in the USA which was also simulating a ‘fictional’ scenario of how to handle a coronavirus epidemic. (Chinese Government Foreknowledge?  See also report from Hubei Daily, Google translation, original)

Given the role of China in these events, and in the COVID-19 outbreak itself, questions must be asked about how closely it has worked with Bill Gates in ‘managing’ the epidemic.  China has been accused of downplaying its mortality figures – it is possible that the opposite is the case.  Certainly it has taken the opportunity to crackdown on its citizens.

2015 Bill Gates predicts a deadly flu epidemic

In a TED talk of 2015, Bill Gates predicted that the next catastrophe was likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war – microbes, rather than missiles.  Some would say informed guess, an attempt to prepare people for a genuine epidemic – others would say a deliberate softening up, so that people were prepared and compliant when the designated epidemic was declared (as they have been).

Rockefeller Foundation Report Describing How to Use a Pandemic to Create Global Authoritarian Power

The Rockefeller Foundation published a report in 2010 described a scenario in which a pandemic could be used as an excuse to create a world of total government control and authoritarian leadership (pdf).

Outcomes

‘We don’t want to squash a flea with a sledgehammer and bring the house down.  (Simon Thornley, epidemiologist at Auckland University, Dominion Post 1 April 2020, speaking for himself at least.)
‘The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on world economy threatens the existence of countless people.’ (Dr Sucharit Bhakdi)

Shutdown of the economy:   The US has lost 10 million jobs in two weeks.  International tourism is at a standstill, with huge implications for everyone from airlines to hotels to souvenir sellers.  New Zealand’s two biggest earners are tourism and the agricultural sector – the shutdown comes just as the government has adopted the economically dubious strategy of replacing farming with forestry.

The personal cost: Lives will be wrecked due to the loss of jobs, and increased alcoholism and drug abuse.  In New Zealand, increased domestic abuse is likely.  The restrictions on activity will also impact on health – walking round the block is no substitute for hiking in the hills, long bikes rides, or playing sport.  In New Zealand those shopping for food are forced to wait for long periods in the cold outside supermarkets – these shoppers still include a worrying number of elderly people.

Implications for the tax payer:  The New Zealand government has announced a $12 billion support plan;  the US has announced a $2 trillion economic packageBailouts or buy-ins of the airline industry are expected.  Bank bail-outs are expected.

Implications for the small business model:  In the short term the impact will be greatest on small businesses.  Todd Horwitz of Bubba Trading said on RT’s Boombust (3 April) that, ‘The companies that survive will be stronger and will take on staff.  People just won’t be going back to those small businesses they were working for.’  Whether the small business model will bounce back as economies recover is questionable.

The Markets: The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) finished Monday 9 March with its worst loss since December 2008, with the Dow Jones declining by more than 2,000 points. The collapse was spurred by an anticipated economic downturn caused by the spreading COVID-19 coronavirus and its associated quarantines, travel restrictions and decreased trade. Corona-scare apologists say that the crash was coming anyway after a lengthy bull market,  aggravated by strangely coincidental oil war.  However it is hardly credible to claim that the crashing economy due to the lockdown would have no effect on the market at all.

The Police State

With neither a bang nor barely a whimper, barely one week ago New Zealand put being a long established and respected Parliamentary democracy on hold to become a virtual Police state in the ongoing fight against Covid-19 (Peter Dunne, former NZ Cabinet Minister) ‘Democracy On Hold

Measures taken have perforce impacted negatively on the rights and freedoms of citizens, in a way that could not have been predicted, and completely unknown in democratic societies.

‘We have settled into a life regime more restrictive than at any previous point in our history – including wartime.

‘We have no freedom of movement, limited access to essential goods and services, and our borders have been sealed; we are encouraged to snoop on our neighbours and report them if we believe they are breaking the rules, and to report businesses if we think they are price-gouging.’ (Peter Dunne)

Police in New Zealand and abroad have been heavy-handed in the administration of their new duties to enforce the lockdown.  People taking their dogs to deserted beaches in Wellington have been sent home by police.  In England, the police are sending out drones to harass people walking in national parks.  People have been harassed for reading on park benches.  One former British police officer called for the tasering and the use of rubber bullets on non-compliant citizens.

Both in UK and New Zealand there is uncertainty over the law, what the police are actually mandated to do under the law.

‘This is what a police state is like. It’s a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers’ wishes’ (Lord Sumption).

Even those who agree that COVID-19 is exceptionally dangerous have expressed concern about the level of police intrusion into people’s lives.

‘New Zealand – the “land of the long white cloud” – has evolved into a police state overnight amid the fallout of Covid-19, with people now being encouraged to dob in fellow Kiwis who flout lockdown rules.’ Darius Shahtahmasebi, ‘New Zealand becoming police state: Covid-19 lockdown to be taken seriously, but reporting neighbors & abuse of power goes too far’

The level of risk presented by the COVID-19 virus cannot possibly justify this assault on democracy and this level of harm to humanity.

Cui Bono

Financial Gain: Larger businesses – and especially the corporations – will ultimately benefit from both the failure of small businesses and the crashing of the market.

The principle goal, however, is to further the aims of the globalists, e.g.:

Compulsory Vaccination:  Bill Gates has called for vaccine certificates as a requirement for travel.

Digital ID:   The Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, GAVI, Microsoft, Accenture and Ideo-Org have formed a partnership called the ID2020 alliance, whose purpose is to introduce (by the end of 2020) a ‘digital ID’ . (Bill Gates is a strong proponent of microchipping the human race, e.g. for vaccines, and for contraception.)  Gates has just announced plans to launch human-implantable ‘quantum-dot tattoos’ to show vaccine status.

More money to the (corporate-owned) UN: UN chief Antonio Guterres has asked for 10% of the word’s annual income to fight the current corona virus.

Calls for global government: Former British politicians Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and of course Bill Gates himself, have all called for global government.

Normalising of totalitarianism:   The declaration of a state of emergency and the speedy abandoning of democratic and natural rights has been remarkable easy, as Peter Dunne said, with neither a bang nor barely a whimper.  The majority of citizens are so scared of catching cold that they do not even think to question either the dangers or the draconian measures.  If the populace is so compliant now, will they notice if rights and freedoms are not fully restored, or object if lockddowns become common practice?  Climate activist group and globalist tool Extinction Rebellion has pointed to the lockdowns as a suitable model to stop climate change.

Perhaps the most concerning, the cleverest, aspect of the epidemic scare is that it provides an excuse to shut down important avenues of dissent.  The corporate media is, of course, on side anyway, but parliaments have been prorogued, public meetings are banned, leafletting is hardly likely to be tolerated.  Anyone who tries to organise a public protest is likely to be detained.

With governments like that of New Zealand totally under the thumb of the United Nations (i.e. of the corporations), a compliant populace, and huge damage already inflicted on the world, Bill Gates’ engineered crisis is  resounding success.

 

See also:

Bill Gates’ Busy Busy World

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petition: Stop Wellington SNAs – Stop Agenda 21

Sign the petition that Wellington Regional Council rescind their illegal policy of creating Significant Natural Areas on private property.

‘Significant Natural Areas’ (SNAs) are an illegal policy vigorously promoted by Forest & Bird, and being implemented by local authorities in urban and rural parts of New Zealand.  The policy declares that any green areas on private land, regardless of cover – whether gorse, garden shrubbery, pine or scrub – can be declared as protected land with corresponding loss of property rights.

In a country with ample reserves and forest throughout the country, even in the major cities, SNAs aim to replace suburban gardens with areas for rewilding.  The assumption is that backyards, though enjoyed by birds, bugs, bees and humanity, old and young alike, have no intrinsic value to man or beast.

Local councils insist that SNAs are based on the Resource Management Act, specifically 6c, which says:

‘all persons exercising functions and powers under [this act …], shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: […](c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna’

Nothing in section 6 or anywhere in the RMA authorises the placing of protection orders on private suburban land. Indeed, the RMA makes it clear that human rights, welfare and happiness do have a value.

(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while— […] (c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

The SNAs are now to be given legitimacy by several legislative measures – the National Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NSIB), the Biodiversity Strategy, and the Urban Development Bill.  Taken together, these measures will drastically undermine private property rights.  The measures aim to:

  • Replace private land with areas for rewilding;
  • Enable the compulsory acquisition of private land for development (Urban Development Bill);
  • Place biodiversity as a paramount value, so that the most common native weed or animal in NZ has greater rights than humanity, always;
  • Restrict options for development and facilitate high-density living in New Zealand.

The policies do not derive from formalised NZ policy but are purely ideological.  They are based on the UN’s Agenda 21, now referred to as ‘sustainable development’, ‘smart growth’ etc.  Long established UN policies include the elimination of private land, urbanisation, open-ended rewilding, and depopulation.

Sign the Petition: https://www.change.org/p/greater-wellington-regional-council-rescind-the-policy-of-creating-significant-natural-areas-on-private-property

 

For more detail, see:

The Erosion of NZ Property Rights

Significant Natural Areas (SNAs): How NZ Cities Are Implementing Agenda 21 and the American Wildlands Project

 

 

 

The Erosion of NZ Property Rights

NZ has a tradition of encouraging home ownership, seen as a buffer against poverty and providing security and a high quality of life for families.

‘’When you dispossess people of their land, regardless of the colour of their skin, it drops those people into poverty’ (West Coast iwi)

Core values, our democracy and our sovereignty are now under threat as New Zealand politicians prefer to apply an ideology sponsored by the United Nations bureaucracy and associated interest groups rather than to be guided by the wishes, needs and values of New Zealanders.

There is a concerted move in New Zealand to:

  • Undermine private land ownership
  • Encourage or enforce high density living
  • Prioritise ‘rewilding’ over human welfare
  • Change our way of life for the worse

Almost 30% of sparsely-populated New Zealand is reserve Crown land.  This does not include the Te Urewera forest, formerly the North Island’s largest national park, or the many reserves managed by local authorities. A third of New Zealand is covered in forest, most of this native bush.  In addition there are scraps of bush on suburban sections, and large stands on farms, with more and more farmers planting to combat erosion. Over 40% of land is in pasture.  Home gardens are parks in themselves providing food and living space for birds, bugs and human beings – native fauna appreciate New Zealand gardens with their flowers and trees.

There is no indication that the majority of New Zealanders want a dramatic increase in reserve land at the expense of private property, or a change to policies on compulsory acquisition, which so far has been used only to enable major public works.

Government and local authorities are launching a full-frontal attack on long-established policy, private property rights and the New Zealand way of life.

  • Local authorities have instituted a policy of claiming rights over private property in the interest of biodiversity (Significant Natural Areas or SNAs).  Regional councils are falsely claiming authority from the RMA, and the policy is informed by sources which are not revealed.
  • The government has now introduced measures to legitimise SNAs and further facilitate control or acquisition of private land in the name of biodiversity, in the form of the proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity and the proposed Biodiversity Strategy.
  • The Urban Development Bill gives local authorities sweeping powers to enforce the acquisition of private urban land on behalf of developers.
  • The government has signed the UN Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration  whose manifest purpose is to facilitate unchecked migration. Mass immigration will justify high density urbanisation and the egregious provisions of the Urban Development Bill, and is likely to undermine the culture of home ownership.
  • The new measures introduced by government repeatedly flag a greater say by iwi on (non-Maori) private property, though without details.
  • Authorities are flagging zoning decisions to be made on ludicrous claims of dramatic sea rise.

New Zealand authorities, at both local and government level, are putting in place a series of measures that constitute a concerted attack on private property, and which taken together will ensure that nobody can feel secure in their own home.

There is an ideological commitment to restore as much of New Zealand as possible to its assumed original state, and to push human beings into as small a space as possible.  A number of serious philosophical issues arise with regard to these intentions:

  • Biodiversity is considered to trump human rights and human happiness, always.
  • Respect for the intrinsic value of private property is being undermined.
  • There has been no proper discussion about whether New Zealanders are on board with a dramatic reallocation of land use, or whether instead they support former policies of ongoing environmental improvements.
  • The public is being misled about both the legal framework for what is being done, and also the ultimate goals.
  • The contribution to biodiversity of private property in the form of home gardens and farmland, and the positive nature of past environmental policies are undervalued or distorted.

A feature of the process is its opacity: the Significant Natural Areas policies of local authorities, which established the precedent of taking control of private land for reserves, is NOT justified by the Reserve Management Act, as claimed by the Regional Councils.  The closest one gets to legal justification is the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (see below, ‘The Role of the United Nations’).

 Significant Natural Areas (SNAs)

‘Nobody owns property’ (Jill Day, former Deputy Mayor of Wellington, NZ)

The Significant Natural Area policies of local authorities claim authority from the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which requires councils to maintain and protect indigenous biodiversity.  The provisions of the act are being used to drive SNA designations on private property in both urban and rural areas.

Wellington City

Wellington’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, modelled on a directive from the Greater Wellington Regional Council and approved by the City Council in 2015, says:

To achieve our biodiversity goals, we will aim to protect the ecologically significant areas on both private and public land.

The SNAs are areas selected from aerial photography to form protected pockets of land,  ignoring  boundaries, with the intention of rewilding them, and with implications for private land rights.   There are over 160 land areas in Wellington city itself that meet the criteria, only about half of which are on Council land, and 1700 property owners are affected (from Council website Backyard Taonga).  A map of the designated areas can be seen here.

The intention of Wellington City Council is to create, not protect, rewilding areas at the expense of private property and building options.

The council has set out to create as many SNAs as possible regardless of quality, choosing any spaces between houses which add up to the the minimum size of 0.5 hectares, whether they be covered in gorse or scrub or pine or agapanthus or regenerating bush, camellia hedges, possibly even lawn and garden beds.

SNAs nicholson

It is abundantly clear that the SNA policy is designed not to protect significant natural areas, but to create them, in an urban area that already has substantial bush reserves.

One designated SNA in Khandallah consists of some back gardens and at least one  developed building site, where building has been delayed so it is now overgrown with  blackberry and other low-grade vegetation – no council reserve is involved.  Exotic garden shrubbery is also incorporated.  Discussion with affected owners has revealed other properties where plans to develop or subdivide are now in question.

SNA

The SNAs are intended to be open-ended:

We will restore these areas, create safe buffer zones around them and connect them together.

All areas are to have buffer zones, then, not just to function as such but to allow expansion, as the buffers themselves become part of the ‘significant biodiversity area’.  The corridors, too, could expand in the same manner.

One of the qualifying features for an SNA is that sites ’connect ecosystems or habitats for rare indigenous species‘ –  potentially every tree in Wellington. Protected native birds such as tuis, fantails and even wood pigeons are abundant in Wellington, liking both native and exotic vegetation, bush and gardens. There wouldn’t be a scrap of bush, in some areas hardly a tree, native or exotic, that doesn’t see a tui at some time. The American experience is that it only takes a single sighting of a protected bird or animal, even when it has clearly strayed from a nearby reserve, to halt all development (see ‘Agenda 21: a Plan to Take Your Land and Give it To Tortoises and Pagosa Skyrockets’).

The SNAs are to be offset by high-density human habitat.  In parallel with expanding protected areas Wellington City Council claims a shortage of land for housing.  The Council has a policy of Smart Growth, which translates as a ‘vibrant’, compact city, to be achieved by an ever-increasing number of apartment buildings, leading inevitably to the eventual destruction of our suburbs as we know them. Child-friendly cafes rather than backyards are portrayed as meeting the needs of the modern family.

As suburban gardens are progressively destroyed, and bushy banks bulldozed, native birds will be forced away from homes and into the SNAs, which will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

A further issue that needs clarification is that by coming under the RMA, there could be a requirement to consult iwi for those affected by the SNAs and wishing to even build a shed – this can entail further costs and frustration.

The West Coast

After a Department of Conservation appeal to the Environment Court in 2012, the West Coast Regional Council was ordered to add a further 215 schedule 2 wetlands to its Soil and Water Plan.  It is estimated about 5000ha of wetlands on private land are affected, with landowners required to pay for ecological assessments to see if the land qualifies for full protection under schedule 1.  The government is refusing to pay compensation.

West Coaster Tony Barrett has seen 70% of his 607-hectare block designated as an SNA.  Much of the land is now undeveloped, having a history of passing from its original bush-clad state, to being cleared, dug over and mined for gold, then left to gorse and scrub, which has provided host to regenerating bush.  The SNA designation means that Barrett or subsequent owners ‘would need resource management consent from the Department of Conservation to fell trees, run stock, convert to dairy and possibly to pick moss’   (DomPost, Wednesday, February 19, 2020).

There is an expectation that West Coast residents will be particularly hard hit when the government strengthens SNA provisions (see below, ‘Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity’).

Are SNAs legal?

SNAs represent an hitherto unseen assault on private property rights, which has not been discussed and approved by the public, and whose legality is questionable.  There is now a convention, promoted by councils and environmental agencies, that the SNAs are based on the RMA, that the Act requires that councils take control of private land to protect (and restore) biodiversity.  For example:

‘The Resource Management Act 1991 places obligations on local authorities to protect and maintain indigenous biodiversity on land in private tenure. However, how this should be done is not explicitly prescribed. Authorities are guided by a variety of means (e.g. ecological guidance and case law), and implement their responsibilities to varying degrees and with inconsistent success.’  (Advances in the identification and assessment of ecologically significant habitats in two areas of contrasting biodiversity loss in New Zealand)

Likewise email correspondence from both the GWRC and the environmental NGO Forest & Bird confirms that their SNA policies rely on the RMA.  ‘RMA Section 6(c) directs councils (under sections 30 and 31) to protect significant biodiversity within their jurisdictions’ (GWRC); ‘Section 6(c) of the RMA places a responsibility on Councils to protect “areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna” as a matter of “national importance” – these areas are usually referred to as “significant natural areas” (SNAs) in District Plans’ (Forest & Bird) .

SNA Policies are NOT based on the cited provisions of the RMA

Section 6 of the Resource Management Act, Matters of national importance states:

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and
powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection
of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following
matters of national importance:

(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant
habitats of indigenous fauna:

Not mentioned by either correspondent but affecting not only the West Coast but landowners in the Wellington Region is 6 (a):

(a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment
(including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and
their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision,
use, and development:

Section 5 of The Resource Management Act, Purpose and principles, states:

(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while

(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

There is nothing in the act which provides that ‘biodiversity’ should trump human rights and human welfare.  The RMA provides for the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and of significant habitats, while acknowledging the importance of  the social, economic, and cultural well-being of people and their communities.  The RMA makes it clear that while all efforts should be made to protect the environment, protect endangered species and preserve significant natural areas, the welfare of people and communities should come first.

The only reference to private land in the RMA is to to protect it with regard to heritage orders, eg:

189 (1A) (1A) However, a heritage protection authority that is a body corporate approved under section 188 must not give notice of a requirement for a heritage order in respect of any place or area of land that is private land.

No provision in the RMA authorises the claiming for rewilding of gorseland, building sites, agapanthus or rhododendron shrubbery on private land.

 The Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB)

The NZ inspiration for the GWRC’s Policy Statement appears to be the Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (2011), which has no legal effect: it was announced by the Minister for the Environment in early 2011, but ‘was not progressed due to a lack of stakeholder agreement on its content […]’

The statement recommended:

  • the retention of as many ‘elements’ as possible
  • the retention of existing vegetation, whether indigenous or not (but not including recognised pest plants), that provides habitat for indigenous species or seasonal food sources for indigenous species (i.e. every tree in Wellington)
  • buffer zones
  • corridors (‘ecological linkage’)
  • ways to address the problem of private property.

The proposal was developed by the Biodiversity Collaborative Group, an environmentalist lobby group whose core members are all non-government organisations.

That proposal may have been rejected, but now an updated version has been presented for consideration. The new  National Policy Statement for Biological Diversity is intended to legitimise and strengthen the SNA policies of local authorities, which have no authority under existing legislation.  Like the SNAs and the failed NPSIB of 2011, the revamped NPSIB seeks to establish a policy of ever-increasing protected areas as the expensive of private homes.

‘The proposed NPSIB provides direction to councils on their responsibilities for protecting and maintaining indigenous biodiversity under the RMA.

‘The primary objective of the proposed NPSIB is to maintain indigenous biodiversity (Part 1.7(2) and (3) and Part 2.1 Objective 1 of the proposed NPSIB). Maintaining indigenous biodiversity requires, at the least, no reduction in:
a. the size of populations of indigenous species
b. indigenous species occupancy across their natural range
c. the properties and function of ecosystems and habitats
d. the full range and extent of ecosystems and habitats
e. connectivity between, and buffering around, ecosystems
f. the resilience and adaptability of ecosystems.’

The objective, however, is not preservation of biodiversity but restoration as far as possible to what is assumed to be the original state.

‘Native forests once covered about 80 per cent of New Zealand’s land area. About 65 per cent of our original native forest has been removed […].  Reversing the decline of indigenous biodiversity in Aotearoa New Zealand is a long-term policy objective.’ (p.12)

Again, the proposal repeatedly insists on the legal right of authorities to encroach on private land; again, it claims authority from the RMA:

‘The RMA is the key piece of legislation for managing New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity outside public conservation land, including on private land’

Again, the  proposal cites no authority from within the RMA. ‘The RMA’s key provisions recognising biodiversity are outlined on the following page [14].’  These key provisions contain no reference to private land.

The Biodiversity Strategy

New Zealand’s Department of Conservation has produced a draft Biodiversity Strategy,  which is a national strategy applying the same principles as the regionally based SNAs, and very similar in scope to the NPSIB.  The strategy demands the ongoing expansion of reserved land and/or  land zoned for rewilding: this will be achieved by increased ‘tools’ (regulations)  to facilitate taking of private land or limiting the use of private land.

DOC’s vision for New Zealand by 2070

‘Our species, habitats and ecosystems (especially those that are currently rare
and threatened) are increasing, not declining, in number and extent, across
private as well as public land and in the sea’

Expansion of biodiversity areas – restoring biodiversity

The strategy aims to ‘restore biodiversity’ (p. 20), without defining what is meant by this goal decision.  At the extreme, of course, all human inhabitants would depart, leaving New Zealand to revert to the avian paradise it once was.  The Agenda 21 compromise is penning human beings in high-density cities, leaving most of the country zoned for ‘biodiversity’.

What is planned is ‘a complete network of biodiversity hubs across New Zealand […].  As with the SNAs, these will be connected by corridors: ‘Eco systems will be connected from the mountain tops to the ocean depths’.  The hubs will be protected by buffer zones to allow expansion.

The Strategy reiterates the need for the government to have access to private land:

Biodiversity is core to all decisions about land and water management, including on private land’ ‘private landowners […] are a crucial part of the system’; ‘Implement a consistent national approach to rates relief for covenanted and other protected private land’.

The end of suburbs and small towns as we know them

The draft emphasises the New Zealand love of ‘nature’: ‘Nature in Aotearoa is healthy, abundant, and thriving.  Current and future generations connect with nature, restore it and are restored by it.’ While there is a comprehensive list of outdoor activities such as sport and tramping, a notable omission is the home garden, though this provides the greatest access to nature for New Zealanders over their lifetime.  The words ‘garden’ and ‘suburb’ occur neither in the Biodiversity Strategy nor the Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity.  New Zealand is described in the Strategy as an urbanised society:

  New Zealand is one of the most urbanised countries in the world.  There is significant opportunity to restore nature in cities and integrate it into urban planning, which will, in turn, help reconnect urban dwellers with nature. P. 52

This falsely conveys an impression of a people living in high density cities like Singapore, nothing like New Zealand cities with their preponderance of single-use dwellings and private yards.

The language and goals of the draft Strategy echo those of the American Wildlands Project, which aims to turn 50% of the United States into reserve land largely off-limits for human beings, connected by corridors to allow bison to roam the continent, and with large buffer zones (exposure of the Wildlands Project led to the United States refusing to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity).

Department of Conservation Empire Building

Biodiversity should be ‘core to all decisions about land and water management’. To enforce this, and to facilitate taking or imposing restrictions on private land,  more powers need to be given to local and central government.  There are repeated references to the need for improved ‘legal and regulatory frameworks’ .

‘A mix of regulatory and non-regulatory tools should be used to achieve the best outcome, recognising that incentives, regulatory guidance and backstops are important elements of an effective response.’ (p. 29)

As a consequence the Department of Conservation will be involved in all decisions involving land and water use.

The Urban Development Bill

‘Objective of Bill is to better co-ordinate use of land, infrastructure, and public assets
to maximise public benefit from complex urban development projects’

In the past private property in New Zealand has only been seized for essential public works such as roading.  The Urban Development Bill gives the housing authority Kāinga Ora sweeping powers to force the acquisition of private property on behalf of developers.

‘Kāinga Ora will have land acquisition and transfer powers when undertaking any urban development […] The Bill has safeguards in place to ensure that the use of land acquisition powers strikes an appropriate balance between the need to meet urban development outcomes and the need to maintain certainty of property rights.’

Under this legislation, anyone with a home and garden is vulnerable and insecure.  In America, authorities can come to arrangements with developers, whereby property owners are forced to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project’s success is not guaranteed.  This will certainly happen in New Zealand if  government measures to undermine land rights are permitted to proceed.  See Kelo v. City of New London Ten Years Later

‘Climate Change’ and The Threat to Coastal Development Property Rights

‘Draconian policy […] is destroying coastal communities on the back of projections which are basically lies.‘ (Mark Windows, Sea Level Expert V Climate Lies Destroying Communities, 0:10)

The most reliable sea rise gauges world-wide indicate an average global rise of 1-2mm per annum, and not accelerating.  See, for example, Wismar, Germany data, that shows a long-term trend of 1.4mm with no acceleration; an analysis of the 225 tide stations more than 50 years old,  which gave an average of 1.4mm pa;  an analysis of the 212 tide gauges with 60 years of recorded data in 2014, of which the most common SLR was +1.25 mm/year in 37 tide gauges.  Members of the School of Surveying, Otago University, and GNS NZ  found  an average annual sea level rise of 0.9 mm over four main NZ centres, once subsidence is taken into account

Coastal property is now under threat of rezoning purely on the basis of extravagant claims of global sea-rise.  Dr David Kear, former Director-General of New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, noted that the Ohope Council declared a landwards inundation at Ohope Beach, contrary to local advice and the conclusions of their own consultants.  Kear concluded that councils seem to feel that (unknown) higher authorities insist that they must ignore evidence that supports accretion.

Despite all the factual evidence to the contrary, Wellington local authorities, as well as the corporate media, are projecting sea rise of several metres within a short time: according to one report, the Lower Hutt suburb of Petone could be swallowed up by sea rise in just 80 years.

In the United Kingdom, over 50 villages on the Welsh coast are facing their demise, not because of rising seas, but because of rezoning on the basis of alarmist claims.  Not untypical is ‘Some of Wales’ major coastal towns and cities could be underwater in the next 100 years, experts warn’; apparently sea rise ‘could be at least 6 metres’.  ‘Experts’ are a consortium of climate scientists and journalists called Climate Central, funded according to Sourcewatch by a number of impressive bodies such as Google, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, NASA, the Turner Foundation and certainly by the Rockefeller Foundation, founder of the global warming movment.  World-renowned sea level authority such as Nils Axel-Mörner has declared the claims to be completely unfounded, and some Welsh villages are suing the  UK government over their alarmism.

Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

The NZ Government is signatory to the UN’s Global Compact on Migration, designed in fact to facilitate migration.  The reasons for supporting or opposing the mass movement of people are complex.  It should be pointed out, however, that aside from the pressure on housing that is created by a large number of arrivals from overseas, their presence is likely to favour urbanisation and undermine the tradition of home ownership.

Maori Aspirations:

‘Many iwi, hapū and whānau have significant aspirations to play a greater role in managing biodiversity on public and private land’.  ‘[by 2020] Mana whenua feel that they can genuinely practice their role as kaitiaki [guardianship]’.  (Biodiversity Strategy)

In all the proposed legislation – the Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity, the Biodiversity Strategy, Urban Development Bill – the demand for an increasing role for iwi is reiterated time and again, but not explained.  It is unclear what the role of kaitiaki entails, whether the proposals flag Maori having a greater say over (non-Maori) private land usage, or its compulsory acquisition, or they are paving the way for the Treaty of Waitangi being amended to cover private land, as has been mooted recently.

The Role of the United Nations

The main focus of Agenda 21 is to take control of the land because once they do that, they can control any human activity (Lucille Femine, Agenda 21 Revealed)

The inspiration for the assault on private property comes not from a movement within New Zealand but from policies developed by the United Nations bureaucracy.  At present, the only legal authority for SNAs and the new policies regarding claiming private land for ‘biodiversity’ is the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity 1992.

The Convention on Biological Diversity

Signatory countries, regardless of their different circumstances, agree ‘as far as possible’ to:

(a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity;

[…]

(e) Promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas;
(f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of threatened species;

The Convention thus commits signatory countries to open-ended reversion of private land to its ‘original’ state.

As Michael Coffman (Agenda 21 Wildlands Project) points out, state control over private property has been central to every international treaty since the 1970sOne of the most explicit UN position statements on private land is contained in the Official Report of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements 1976, also known as Habitat 1:

Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies.

Agenda 21

Agenda 21 is a non-binding action plan which was presented for signature, along with the Convention on Biological Diversity, at the Rio Earth Summit 1992. The document Agenda 21 serves as the text for the UN’s Agenda 2030 and its ‘Sustainable Development Goals’.   Agenda 21 proposes the expansion of government control over all areas of life, on the basis of the two prongs of environmentalism promoted by the elite foundations, ie ‘biodiversity’ and ‘climate’.   Agenda 21 is closely linked to the elite globalist movement, is sponsored by the mega-corporations, and has been referred to variously as Marxist, fascist, totalitarian and Orwellian.

A number of local authority networking platforms have been founded and funded by Rockefeller and other elite foundations specifically for the purpose of promoting Agenda 21, including ICLEI and 100 Resilient Cities, the latter founded by David Rockefeller himself.  Because of the threat they present to private landowners, more than half of American states have introduced legislation to the implementation of policies or recommendations emanating from Agenda 21, ICLEI, or even the United Nations, with varying results.

See also: Agenda 21 and How it Plays Out, and Ryan Cristian, Agenda 2030 (aka New World Order) Decrypted, which includes an analysis of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

The Way Forward

The establishment of SNAs shows that decisions are already being implemented which are not based on New Zealand legislation and New Zealand values but are guided by undeclared forces.  Government measures now seeks to legitimise public control or purchase of private property, which will mean that nobody can feel secure in their own home.

It is clear that the only way to protect traditional private property rights is to pass specific legislation to that end, including amending (or repealing) the RMA.

Consideration should also be given to banning local authority networking platforms such as ICLEI, whose raison d’etre is the promotion of Agenda 21 and the undermining of what New Zealand sees as essential values.

At the very least, there should be proper debate in New Zealand over whether they accept policies that place all non-human nature above humanity, and whether they accept the scenario that native fauna should enjoy unlimited space and unlimited rights while those of human beings must be severely curtailed.

 

Agenda 21 and How It Plays Out

 

New Zealand is in the process of introducing a raft of measures to implement Agenda 21 by undermining traditional private property rights – these include legislation to enable the control or requisition of private land for the purposes of rewilding or for urban development.  Here is some background to Agenda 21 and a look at the American experience, particularly with regard to the way the concept of ‘biodiversity’ is used to negate property rights.

What is Agenda 21?

Agenda 21 is a non-binding UN-drafted agreement accepted by consensus by participants at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which calls on governments to intervene and regulate nearly every potential impact that human activity could have on the environment.  The report Agenda 21 is the core publication for the UN Division for Sustainable Development.

‘Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.’ (UN Sustainable Development Goals)

Or to put it another way:

‘The UN’s Agenda 21 outlines the globalist plan for a completely managed global society, all under the auspices of the UN.’  (video, NWO Depopulation Plans 5:44min)

Or:

It’s all happy, feely, smiling faces and rhetoric about “how we care”, when the truth is that Agenda 21 is a vicious, brutal, heartless strategy to impose a global Orwellian state and forcibly depopulate humanity. (Julian Websdale, Agenda 21: the Plan for a Global, Fascist Dictatorship) .

Major goals of Agenda 21 include:

  • the abolition of private property
  • the demise of rural living
  • exclusion of humans from ‘wild areas’
  • the abolition of single family homes
  • Government control of food supply
  • mandatory birth (population) control

See Daisy Luther, What Exactly Is Agenda 21? and North Country Farmer, Agenda 21 and Rural Depopulation.

Like all similar UN documents, Agenda 21 is full of positive values that nobody seriously disagrees with in principle, such as care of the environment and adequate housing for all.  Like similar documents, Agenda 21:

  1.  assumes the anthropogenic global warming narrative as a non-negotiable premise;
  2. assumes biodiversity as having a value that supersedes human rights;
  3. asks for greater roles for the United Nations and the corporate-owned NGOs.

The two planks of environmentalism, climate and biodiversity, are used to justify interference in the lives of people that can only be describes as totalitarian

Agenda 21 encapsulates and refines the policies of the UN bureaucracy as developed and flagged over several decades, such as those relating to private land ownership. According to the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements 1976 (Habitat 1), Official Report:

‘Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.’

Under the Vancouver Declaration, the section of the Official Report of Habitat 1 that was available for formal signature, states commit themselves to the following position:

‘Land is one of the fundamental elements in human settlements. Every State has the right to take the necessary steps to maintain under public control the use, possession, disposal and reservation of land. Every State has the right to plan and regulate use of land, which is one of its most important resources, in such a way that the growth of population centres both urban and rural are based on a comprehensive land use plan.’

In Agenda 21, this becomes:

‘15.5.i. Develop policies to encourage the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of biological and genetic resources on private lands

It is clear from the way Agenda 21 is being implemented that ‘encourage’ means compulsion through legislation, taxation and local authority zoning.

The United Nations view of private property is that the state has the right, and should be exercising this right, to take land for environmental reasons, in order to fulfill an environmental agenda.  This is in conflict with the culture of countries like New Zealand which assumes that:

  • universal private home ownership is the best way to achieve equal opportunity,  security and happiness for all, and thus
  • private property rights should only be interfered with for the purpose of essential public works, such as motorways

Agenda 21 was theoretically succeeded by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development but both ‘Agenda 2030’ and especially ‘Agenda 21’ have largely been abandoned by the United Nations and its proponents because of the negative connotations, and replaced with terms like ‘sustainability’ and ‘resilience’.  Thus while the EU produced a progress report in 1997 termed Agenda 21: the First 5 Years, it now refers to ‘Sustainable Development in the European Union.

Think Global, Act Local

‘In our urban era, cities are a driving force for global sustainable development’ (ICLEI)

A number of local body networking platforms have been established in order to promote Agenda 21. Their function is to ‘inform’ local authorities and turn them into activists for the globalist cause, by prioritising ‘climate’, ‘biodiversity’ and ‘sustainability”.  The most prominent is ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability): ‘a global network of more than 1,750 local and regional governments committed to sustainable urban development’ (including New Zealand’s major cities).  The ICLEI vision ‘orients [the path of urban and regional leaders] towards urban transformation and sets a course for delivering on the global sustainable development agenda’.

‘By committing to this vision, local and regional governments are leading the way towards a fossil fuel free era, stimulating the green economy through sustainable public procurement, developing urban low emission, climate-resilient, mobility-friendly development strategies – and more.’

ICLEI has just launched ‘Daring Cities2020: a radical action-oriented forum to showcase and empower urban leaders’ bold responses to the climate emergency’.

Other local body networks include David  Rockefeller’s 100 Resilient Cities, now replaced by the Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience CenterC40 Cities which aims to galvanise cities into ‘bold climate action’, and the new Cities with Nature.  (Most or all of the networks designed to promote Agenda 21 have been founded or funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.)

See also: Democrats Against Agenda 21: When They Say Local They Mean It which spells out the ICLEI goals and their implications.

The US Experience: Agenda 21 and the Wildlands Project

The Wildlands Project proposes that 50 % of American territory be wilderness reserves largely no-go for humans, surrounded by buffer areas and joined by wilderness corridors, with human beings largely confined to urban areas (smart cities).   Publicity of the scope of the project led to the US Senate failing to ratify the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

‘One hour before the U.S. Senate was to adopt the United Nations Treaty on Biodiversity, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) went to the floor with a 300-plus-page draft copy of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment and a 4 ́x6 ́ poster.

‘The poster showed the lower 48 states overlaid with hundreds of red islands representing wilderness areas interconnected by thousands of red ribbons called corridors, all surrounded by yellow buffer zones. Small green patches were “human occupation zones.” The agenda was so outrageous it would have been discounted, except that Sen. Hutchinson had the proof in her hands. The date was Sept. 29, 1994, and the agenda was called the Wildlands Project.’  (Coffman, How Private Property In America Is Being Abolished – The Wildlands Project)

Ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty may have failed, but the goals of Agenda 21 and the Wildlands Project are being implemented throughout the United States.  The result is the purchase or confiscation of, or other interference in, farms and other private land by the government,  state or local  authorities. See Agenda 21: Land Grab in Florida State and Beyond and Federal Government’s Land Grab Faces Growing Resistance, or:

‘A family in Colorado is being told they can’t use a motorized vehicle to get to their home in the mountains and when they prepared a legal case, their home was seized by the local government. Property owners in California are being told they can’t plant on their farms and all water, including ditches, is being put under the control of the EPA. [Environmental Protection Agency]. One Wyoming man can’t have a pond on his property because of the new rules.

‘Chickens are restricting land use in 11 western states—California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The Dusky Gopher Frog is being used as a reason to target private land owners in several southern states. Toads are consuming more and more land in Texas at the expense of private land owners. The open range is a government ATM when they let cattle graze at all.’

(S. Noble, Agenda 21, a Plan to Take Your Land and Give it to Tortoises and Pagosa Skyrockets).

Meanwhile, Back in Town

It is not just farmers and rural dwellings that are effected by Agenda 21 policies. The UN strategy for high density urbanisation and reduced property rights is playing out in towns and cities as well.

In 2005 the Supreme Court Kelo v. New London decision allowed a Connecticut town to seize private property not just for public use, but also for private development, thus paving the way for councils to do deals with developers at the expense of the property rights of homeowners.   (The Urban Development Bill currently before the New Zealand parliament is similarly designed to legalise the forced acquisition of private property for commercial development)

California lawmakers are taking steps to eliminate single-family zoning, by enabling all residential lots or properties in California to be legally converted into multiplexes.  It is inevitable that stand-alone dwellings in the state of California will ultimately be a thing of the past.

The Planning Department of Carroll County, Maryland, drafted a ‘smart growth’ plan which proposed what has been termed a ‘breathtaking reshuffling of land rights‘, and which clearly serves the UN agenda of using ‘biodiversity’ to eliminate single-family homes with gardens. The plan includes:

  • Down-zoning of agriculture land to prevent future subdivision by farmers;
  • Up-zoning of low-density residential land around small towns into higher density zoning to permit construction of hundreds or possibly thousands of inclusive housing units, including apartments and condominiums.    (Strzelczyk, Rothschild, UN Agenda 21: Coming to a Neighborhood Near You)

In New Zealand, the principles of the Wildlands Project are being implemented in major cities, in that city councils are claiming suburban property for ‘rewilding’, see Significant Natural Areas (SNAs): How NZ Cities Are Implementing Agenda 21 and the American Wildlands Project.

Moves to Ban Agenda 21 in America

Numerous American states have moved to ban activities based on Agenda 21, or ICLEI itself, or to delegitimise the UN as an authority, or to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (see e.g. More States and Counties Now Opposing Agenda 21 – August 30, 2012).  An early success was in Alabama, which passed a law:

‘The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to “Agenda 21″‘

And in order to confront the issue of networks such as ICLEI:

‘the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from any such entities, as defined in Agenda 21 documents.’

In 2015 a bill intended to nullify Agenda 21 was unsuccessfully introduced in Maine, being an Act:

Prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from recognizing the United Nations or any of its declarations as legal authority in this state’.

This map from a pro-Agenda 21 website shows that more than half of American states have tried to ban Agenda 21. Anti agenda21-map US

Petition to Stop Agenda 21

In 2017 a petition was organised in the US to:

  1. Abolish the State Department bureau which coordinates with the Agenda 21 ‘focal point’,
  2. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, and
  3. Prohibit all Federal agencies from carrying out activities intended to comply with Agenda 21 directives. (‘Sign Here To Stop Agenda 21’)

See also:

The Globalism of Climate: How Faux Environmental Concern Hides Desire to Rule the World – the history of Agenda 21, ‘global warming’ and ‘biodiversity’

@JWSpry, UN Agenda 21 Links – Many links relating to Agenda 21

Various (pessimistic) interpretations of the UN Sustainable Development Goals include: Ryan Cristian, Agenda 2030 (aka New World Order) Decrypted;  Frances Leader, Agenda 2030 – No Escape; Mike Adams, The United Nations 2030 Agenda decoded: It’s a Blueprint for the Global Enslavement of Humanity Under the Boot of Corporate Masters

 

The NZ Climate Change Curriculum is Cult Indoctrination and Child Abuse

‘”Education” continues its slide into indoctrination and brainwashing. The Cultural Marxist’s “long march through the institutions” is now substantially complete.’ (@JWSpry)

‘There’s a disturbing whiff of totalitarianism, in that this secular religion permits no dissent’ (Karl du Fresne, Dominion Post, January 23, 2020)

state-organised bullying of kids’ (David Seymour)

The New Zealand government has announced a new Climate Change Curriculum (available here) for children from 10 and above.  It is a callous, exploitative project whose undisguised aim is to frighten children to death (perhaps literally) in order to fulfil the government/UN climate agenda.

Let us be quite clear – the climate change curriculum has nothing to with science or education but is unashamedly evangelical.  The IPCC reports are Holy Writ, and to question any detail is heresy.  There is instruction on how to resist temptation from the devil, in the form of sceptics (heretics).   Donald Trump, the villain who pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Agreement, is of course the Devil Incarnate.  There are fast days with abstinence from certain foods. Greta Thunberg leads the Children’s Crusade.  If the children fail, there will be hell on earth, and they will live with the guilt forever – moral blackmail, guilt and blame play a prominent role in the climate cult.

There is no attempt to apply academic rigour at any point or to inspire critical thinking – the aim is to suppress critical thinking.  Children are brainwashed, cowed or bullied into becoming climate activists.  They are given no space to disagree with the facts as presented, to fail to respond emotionally as demanded, to refuse to take action as required. Such manipulation is child abuse.

The ‘Science’ (Section A)

The fundamental creed is, of course, that an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases, principally CO2, is causing the world to warm up, with various spin-off effects like scarily rising sea levels, droughts, hurricanes etc.

The science presented is at best selective.  It does not show the breakdown of gases in the atmosphere.  There is no attempt to put climate change into context, even by providing a graph of geological history.  Everything is taught as bald fact, with no room for debate, even where the claims are hotly disputed by reputable scientists around the world.  Instead the children are taught to swallow and regurgitate the mendacious mantra that ‘97% of climate experts agree’.

The IPCC is referred to repeatedly as an absolute authority, despite the heavy criticism that has been levelled at the organisation over the years, with number of contributors complaining that the findings of scientists are reversed by the final editors .  New Zealander Dr Vincent Gray, who contributed to all the early IPCC reports, described the IPCC in 2007 as too blinkered and corrupt to save (see also here and here ).

An analysis by Dr Jock Allison of flaws in the science presented, focusing on the so-called myth busters in Session 7, is included below as an Appendix.

How does it make you feel?

One of the strangest aspects of a supposedly scientific subject, where one would expect the application of  some objectivity, is the emphasis on and encouragement of emotional response.  This is introduced as early as lesson two  with ‘The Feelings Splash: How does this make us feel’.  The remaining lessons of Section A include segments entitled ‘Feelings Thermometer. Can we measure our feelings?’; ‘Understanding our feelings about Climate Change’; ‘Introducing “Psychological adaptation”: Wellbeing action – what can I do?” – all leading up to Lesson 7: ‘Empathy/Outrage + Action = ACTIVISM’.  (One doesn’t like to think of how a child who said, ‘I’m fine with it’ would be viewed.)

Emotional response is such an essential part of the programme that there is a separate 15 page teacher resource dedicated to the subject.  Having callously pressured and enticed children into experiencing overwhelming emotions by telling them what is in effect a pack of lies, the education authority kindly offers advice to teachers and in turn parents on how to deal with traumatised children:

‘It is normal for children and adults to feel worried, frustrated, angry and sad when learning about the issues around climate change. Parents and whanāu can help when they acknowledge and accept the range of emotional impacts that awareness of climate change brings.

‘Parents and whanāu can watch out for:
• Worsening anxiety or behaviors over time
• Withdrawal or avoidance
• Excessive reassurance seeking or limit testing
• Changes in sleep, appetite and weight
• Somatic symptoms such as tummy aches and headaches
• Anxiety or behaviors that are interfering with functioning or causing distress
• Any other change in your child that causes distress or interferes with their functioning’

There follows a long list of professional agencies that can advice parents or treat traumatised children.  And finally, parents are warned:

GET HELP

It goes without saying that, if the campaign has its intended result and children are driven to suicide by this programme, blame will be attributed to climate change, not to the wickedness of those who devised this programme.

Activism (Sections B and C)

The purpose of the curriculum is not to educate: it is to terrify the children, then prime them for activism.  The argument for an urgent need for activism is as follows:

  • Greenhouse gases, generated by human activities, such as CO2 and methane are warming the planet – to question this is impossible
  • The natural emotional reaction is grief, fear, despair, anger and of course guilt – failure to react thus is impossible
  • The responsible response is to take action – failure to act is impossible

Section B introduces the concepts of personal responsibility and activism:

Session 6: ‘Living with Climate Change: What can I do?’

This session starts by recapping the essentials of the situation as has been taught to the children, with a graph showing sensational, totally unrealistic scenarios by 2080-2100 if little or no action is taken to reduce emissions.

  • ‘Average temperature rise – 3.7 degrees celsius’. (Jock Allison, below, Point 6, shows that neither the satellite data nor NOAA’s Climate Reference Network indicate continued upward movement in temperature.)
  • ‘Global sea level rise – 0.63 metres’.  (Numerous data sets and studies, including an analysis of measurements from the world’s 225 best long-term coastal tide gauges indicate an average global sea level rise of 1-2mm per annum and not accelerating, which suggests an increase of 60-120mm by 2080, so nowhere near 630mm).
  • ‘Extreme weather – large increase’. (There is no justification for this claim whatsoever – there is convincing evidence that climate change is not leading to higher rates of weather-related damages worldwide, once you correct for increasing population and wealth. Even the 2018 IPCC report made this clear)

None of these predictions are any more likely to come to fruition than any of the past sensationalist predictions on the subject – see Jock Allison on failed predictions, below, Point 22.

Having been reminded of looming Armageddon, the children are now set for the next stage.  They can live their religion, by making changes to their own lives, on the basis of the science as they have been taught it.  They can do their bit to reduce emissions by using less electricity, shopping locally, driving less, planting trees, etc.

A most concerning element is the strong pressure on children to limit their meat and dairy intake, with no discussion of health implications, nor any relevant resources. Starting with meatless Mondays is suggested – it is very clear that it will be virtually impossible for a children to opt out if a school makes this policy. The programme is intended for children as young as 10 – ‘A dietary warning for people with developing bodies would be a prudent addition as well if teachers want to avoid lawsuits’ (Robin Grieve).

Greta Thunberg is introduced at this stage as an inspiration, presaging what is to come.

Go out into the world and spread the word (Session 7)

Essential tools: children are first reminded of the fallacious mantras that ‘most scientists’ agree (argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority) and that most of the population agrees (argumentum ad populum).

‘Empathy or Outrage + Action = ACTIVISM’

The discussion on activism covers climate activists that the children may have hear of, such as Greta Thunberg, Schools Strike4Climate, and David Attenborough, who has himself been blamed for the epidemic of eco-anxiety among young people.

How to deal with sceptics

While the climate cult insists that there is no significant opposition to its teachings, care has been taken to include in the curriculum a sizable section on dealing with heretics who question the IPCC gospels.

Children are given instruction to prepare them for dealing with hypothetical situations with those who are yet to be convinced, or ‘flat out deny the existence of climate change’ (nobody denies climate change, but no matter). Children are expected to rote-learn a set of dictums to be used to confront such situations and make conversions or silence unbelievers – role plays are set up to help them memorise the answers.

The suggested situations are often straw men, and the answers are either seriously disputed or out and out lies (one can only guess at the conflict that will arise between a child armed with these mantras and an educated parent). For a detailed analysis of the ‘myths’ and their supposed refutations, see Jock Allison, below.

Section C, ‘Time For Climate Action’ consciously sets out to turn children into activists for the climate cult.

Guilt

Children are obliged to commit as groups to ‘actions’. Suggested actions range from turning off lights to planning a campaign or a website. Children are encouraged to target their campaigns at everyone from parents to cabinet ministers.

Ironically, there is also a section on children’s basic rights, including those relating to wellbeing and education. Of course, as is the fashion, there is a suggestion of greater entitlement, also that adults are not taking action because they are selfish and uncaring of children and future generations (not because they have more sense).

The resource does not actually suggest civil disobedience, but it does feature prominently Greta Thunberg, who is closely aligned with the militant Extinction Rebellion.

XR

Greta Thunberg’s parents are supporters of the fascist organisation Antifa,  which has a policy of violence and intimidation of political opponents.

antifa better

In the name of  ‘climate’, young children are being encouraged to romanticise civil disobedience and even violence, which can lead to arrest, conviction and therefore a criminal record.

Conclusion

The manifest purpose of the Climate Change Curriculum is to create an army of youthful activists to lobby for the climate policies of the government and the United Nations.

Rather then teaching children scientific method, the programme consciously conditions them to accept a learning environment where they are effectively brainwashed, and where all dissent is discouraged.

The programme consciously sets out to undermine the psychological well being of young people, endangers their physical health by suggesting a serious dietary change and, via the role models presented to them, encourages them to neglect their education and to take actions that may lead to criminal conviction.

The Climate Change programme is not simply manipulation of the young in order to serve a political end – it is intentional, shameless child abuse.

 

 

Appendix

Comment on the Climate Change Curriculum from a scientific perspective, from Dr Jock Allison, ONZM, FNZIPIM, former Director of AgResearch Invermay 

The information has many glaring errors of fact. This document considers the 28 “Climate Myths” on Page 38 of the Resource material and the response implied to be the accurate situation based on science.

(The alleged “Myths” are shown in bold black type, versus “What the Science says”, according to the resource material, bold blue type, and then the actual situation as indicated by the real science, black italics.)

Most of the information stated as science based fact is alarmist and not indicated by the science. Much of the material (see Myth 27) illustrates a complete ignorance about climate change and simple atmospheric physics.

1. “Climate has changed before” : Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time : humans are now the dominant factor.

Humans are not the dominant factor, they have a very minor effect. If all the Paris 2015 commitments are kept through to 2100 the maximum effect on temperature could be 0.17 degrees C. See Myth 24.

2. “It is not bad” : Negative effects of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

This is nonsense. A comprehensive report prepared for MAF in 2008, indicated little effect on NZ’s agricultural production through to 2100. Further effects on health are overstated, and a warm planet is a lot healthier place to be than a cooling planet.

3. “There is no consensus” : 97% of scientists agree humans are causing global warming.

Again the warmist claims are not based on sound science, the so called consensus is simply warmist propaganda see “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming. There is no such thing as “consensus” in science and the so called consensus(s) don’t exist.

4. “Its Cooling” : On average 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade on record.

Climate records exist only from abut 1860, a mere speck of geological time. It is clear from many scientific references that the Medieval Warm Period (900 to 1300 AD) and the Roman Warm Period (2000 years ago) were both warmer …….. see figure

Jock Picture1

There is nothing unusual in the present weather and climate patterns from evidence over the past several thousand years.

5. “Animals and plants can adapt” : Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short term time scales.

Alarmist assumptions, there is no guarantee that the planet will continue to warm, in fact there is every indication that some cooling might be on the way.

6. “It hasn’t warmed since 1998” : Every part of the earth’s climate system has continued warming since 1998, with 2015 shattering temperature records.

This is a standard response using land based data. There are many variations of such a graph …

Jock Picture2

There is a significant effect of the errors due to poorly sited climate measurement stations in the land based climate records, i.e. the UHI effect (Urban Heat Island), and this is well illustrated in the difference between the land based record and the new Climate Reference Network (CRN) set up about 2004 by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in the US set up the CRN network where 120 new stations without any possible outside interference with the climate measurements were established throughout the USA. Early results are below (from The USCRN Revisited)……..

Jock Picture3

This doesn’t look like continued warming since 1998, in fact it seems to show natural variation with little warming. Not unsurprisingly NOAA in the USA continue to use the previous land-based records, as they fit the narrative of continued warming.

In addition the lower atmospheric record (Trophosphere) also doesn’t show continued upward movement in temperature thus the educational resource response information is incorrect.

Jock Picture4

Further, the climate models on which warming predictions are made overestimate warming by a factor of about 3 times.

Jock Picture5

7. “Its cold” : A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.

The suggestion that “its cold” is a climate myth is just silly.

8. “Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming” : Extreme weather events are being made more frequent and worse by climate change.

Again this is not the case, as exemplified in several reviews see review by New Zealand’s Professor (Engineering) Mike Kelly from Cambridge in the UK.

As the narrative has change from global warming, to climate change, now it has progressed to climate disruption / extreme weather, and we get virtually every weather event attributed to climate change. This is simply not the case. There is no strong scientific evidence that climate change caused by humans has effects on extreme weather as frequently claimed by Government scientists.

9. “Climate Scientists are in it for the Money” : Climate scientists could make more money in other careers, most notably working for the oil industry.

Again this comment is simply silly. Most climate scientists would be unsuitably qualified for employment in the oil industry. The so called myth above comes from the situation where …

  • Global warming mainly caused by humans is Government policy at least since 1992 when at the Rio earth Summit in Rio, Brazil 130 governments signed up to the UNFCCC (United Nations Foundation Convention on Climate Change) which included agreement with that assumption (human emissions are causing warming) in spite of the fact that there was no scientific proof of the contention. Subsequently many / most of the remaining world countries have signed.
  • Governments pay all of the education sector, primary, secondary and tertiary where many / most of the world’s climate scientists are employed,
  • Governments pay most of the research institutions and all of the research grants for research on climate change,
  • Government bureaucrats have the final say on the wording of “the Summary for Policy Makers” summaries for the IPCC reports. Many changes made by the bureaucrats pushing their political agendas, are not supported by the science!
  • Thus any scientists who has an alternative view about climate science in any of the Universities or Research & Development Institutions is usually ostracised and or loses his / her job and the remuneration that goes with it, Thus the “Climate scientists are in it for the money” Myth, relates to the fact that if scientists speak out against the ongoing scientific mantra, then it most likely will be career ending, and the financial consequences stop most. Such “freedom of speech” is not allowed in our universities.

10. “Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions” : The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance, humans add extra CO2 without removing any.

So what! one might say? The amount of CO2 from human activities is only 3-4% of all the CO2 which goes into the atmosphere each year, and the human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows. How this minor influence can be construed to be the driver of climate is mystifying indeed.

11. “Polar Bear Numbers are Increasing” : Polar Bears are in danger of extinction as well as many other species.

Again this is just silly, Polar Bear Numbers are higher than they have ever been since population number estimates have been attempted. The facts are that in the 1950s the numbers were down to about 5,000, and have been increasing since then, to a figure of 30,000 or more, no danger of extinction. See 10 Good Reasons Not to Worry About Polar Bears, from Dr Susan Crockford, evolutionary biologist and expert on polar bear evolution.

12. “CO2 limits will harm the Economy” : The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.

Again we have a glib definitive statement completely without justification. What would the primary school kids understand about “a cost on carbon”, very little I suggest. The statement in the document I assume is meant to say that imposed costs to achieve reductions in CO2 (not carbon) emissions will be small in comparison to the costs of damages re climate change if we don’t reduce emissions.

There are no reliable data concerning such a contention, we in fact have no idea whether there will be continued warming, and whether this will have real costs at all? All the contentions are based on “computer models” which thus far are predicting much higher warming than has been recorded over the past few decades. See Myth 6.

13. “It’s a Natural Cycle” : No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

This says “in our computer models, we can’t think of anything else that is causing warming, so it must be CO2”. This is completely unscientific? There is no fitting with any fingerprint of observed warming.

14. “Scientists can’t even predict the weather” : Weather and climate are different, climate predictions do not need weather detail.

Not sure where this myth came from? When the climate models are “running hot” (see Myth 6, then where dos the confidence about the predictions of future warming come from? How is it that the scientists are confident that the climate will simply keep on warming? There is no consideration in any of the scenarios of any cooling, which is quite possible in the future?

15. “CO2 limits will hurt the poor” : Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change.

Not sure where this contention comes from? Those who contribute the lowest levels of Greenhouse Gas emissions are certainly the least developed countries, many of which are being denied cheap energy (coal) to allow them to develop and improve their standard of living.

A good question for the school children could be “do you have the moral right to suggest that undeveloped countries be restricted in their development by reducing their own emissions”. Clearly the answer to this is no.

In fact under the Paris Agreement 2015, Developing Countries have the right to keep improving their standard of living until 2030 at least.

Also CO2 limits, and massive reductions touted as required to reduce warming will be politically unacceptable, and practically impossible. Consider ……

  • Undeveloped countries are responsible for 63% of the world’s emissions,
  • From 1990 to 2013, the world’s total emissions increased by 60%, not much indication of any commitment to reduce emissions there?
  • From 2017 and 2018 the world’s emissions increased by another 4%.
  • Under Paris 2015, China indicated emissions would double to 2030 +29.5%
  • Under Paris 2015, India indicated emissions would triple to 2030, +14%
  • It is assumed that by 2030, the other developed countries will increase emissions. + 10%
  • Total world emissions increase as undeveloped countries improve their standard of living, 5%, say 50%
  • Of the remaining 37% of world emissions (100% minus 63% see a) above), America (16%) has pulled out of the Paris Agreement.
  • This leaves the remaining developed countries reputedly trying to reduce emissions from the 23% of the world’s share that they have.
  • New Zealand has 0.17% of the world emissions, or about 1/135th of the 23%.
  • Conclusion: the actual world’s emissions will not reduce much by 2030 at least. It simply isn’t possible and the strenuous efforts being made under false pretences in New Zealand (CO2 is not the main driver of climate change) will have no effect other than making all New Zealanders poorer, especially the lower strata of society. This will be about $3,000 / household / annum or more than $1,000 / annum per individual in NZ’s population.

16. “Volcanos emit more CO2 than humans” : Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanos.Not sure how this is calculated, and whether undersea volcanos are included. Certainly the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 caused some earth cooling over the subsequent 2 or 3 years, 0.4 to 0.7 degrees C. Clearly volcanoes are unpredictable, not under human influence, but potentially of massive capability.

17. “Record snowfall disproves global warming” : Warming leads to increased evaporation and precipitation, which falls as increased snow in the winter.

Any record temperatures, precipitation via rain or snowfall at individual places on the globe, do not prove anything about the world’s climate.

18. CO2 limits will make little difference” – (presumably to climate?) : If every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions, we can achieve significant cuts on a global scale.

Can’t argue with this, BUT whether this will have any effect on climate is another matter. It is clear that water vapour is the main Greenhouse Gas, and that methane and nitrous oxide are of trivial importance, and CO2 not much above them  (see Allison and Sheahan, Greenhouse Gases: a More Realistic View (pdf), or a popular version from a farming newspaper, Water blamed as big planet warmer”).

Thus cutting emissions will have a negligible effect on the temperature. Humans are naive enough to think they can control the climate through manipulation of CO2 – they can’t control the climate and CO2 is not the main driver anyway. Huge negative impacts on the agricultural economy are not justified for no predictable outcome.

19. “Renewable energy is too expensive” : When you account for all the costs associated with burning coal and other fossil fuels, like air pollution and health effects, they are significantly more expensive than most renewable energy sources.

Not sure what this is about? If renewables wind and solar were so economically attractive then why after the technologies being available for the last 20 to 30 years, do they not have a greater share of world energy. Presently world energy use is still about 85% fossil fuels and renewables are very minor contributors ….

Jock Picture6

(From “The Energy emergency and the Space Option”)

Some reality is required as to what is possible re alternative fuels and the disadvantages of the high levels of renewables being integrated into national grids. Blackouts in South Australia is a good example of the unreliability of significant levels of wind and solar.

 Certainly discussion of alternative energy supplies is a relevant education topic, but that discussion should be based on reality, not green ideologies. A rapid shift away from fossil fuels is simply not practically or economically possible. Clearly the response here (blue typing above) is unrealistic.

20. “Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate” : Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

This is a very glib and inaccurate comment. Humans are pretty insignificant on the world scale. For examples in terms of total biomass volume, humans make up about half a cubic km – this in comparison with the 30 million cubic km of ice on earth.  The education comment above is based on the assumption that human CO2 drives climate change. There is no good scientific evidence for that. I.e. the climate models are nowhere near predicting the climate.

21. “It’s too hard” : Scientific studies have determined that current technology is enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous climate change.

 Again this is nonsense. It simply isn’t possible!! If there was the resolve to reduce emissions while we had the world agreement (we have had the world governments agreeing that emissions should be reduced since 1992, and yet since that time the total world emissions have increased by more than 60%. Simply there is no practical resolve or commitment to make the massive reductions possible.

 There is not the technology available as contended above, no technology available for Carbon Recapture & Storage which has no example of working on a large sale anywhere, no technology available for the reduction of methane etc.

 A good education discussion in schools would be the massive protests in Chile, France, Holland and Germany when Governments have tried to impose emissions reductions policies, for example here and here .   Politics is the art of the possible, already government policies are having to be modified on the basis of protests.

22. “It’s not urgent” : A large amount of warming is delayed, and if we don’t act now, we could pass tipping points.

What tipping points? There is no good scientific information which suggests that such tipping points exist. There have been many doomsday predictions made in the past few decades.  Al Gore has made many predictions re temperature rise and disappearing Arctic Ice, which haven’t happened, similarly Prince Charles has made many such predictions along with many other politicians and scientists. For a catalogue of failed predictions, see “50 Years of Failed Doomsday Eco-Pocalyptic Predictions: the So-Called Experts Are 0-50” .

Even the UN say that climate policy is not about climate ………” We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy” ……. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy, is environmental policy, it has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore” Dr Otttmar Endenhofer, IPCC Co Chair Working Group III, 2010.

23. “Climate is chaotic and can not be predicted” : Weather is chaotic but climate is driven by Earth’s energy imbalance, which is more predictable.

This is too complicated for discussion in schools, Climate is certainly chaotic and relatively unpredictable. This is why it can’t be modelled effectively.

24. “Adapting to global warming is cheaper than preventing it” : Preventing global warming is relatively cheap, while a “business as usual “ approach will cause accelerating climate change.

This is Green Policy hype with no scientific backing. We do not even know whether the earth is going to continue to warm (it is assumed so, without scientific evidence – computer models are not evidence). The amounts of money estimates to have any effect on climate are in trillions, with predicted very minor effects on climate. See Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100″ (peer-reviewed study).

Further adaptation allows action to be taken if, and when effects happen, eminently sensible when specifics of the future climate are unclear. Nothing will happen very fast so this is the strategy that should be adopted.

25. Renewable energy investment kills jobs” : Investment in renewable energy creates more jobs than investment in the fossil fuel industry.

There has been a lot written about renewable energy creating more “green jobs” –  Green Jobs  provides a good analysis. It is very clear that the science does not say that renewable energy investment creates more jobs. Green jobs in many countries have cost about 2 other real jobs per single green job.

26. “It’s only a few degrees” : A few degrees of global warming have a huge effect on ice sheets, sea levels and other aspects of climate.

Firstly I have never heard the so called climate myth above. However it isn’t clear there will be a continuing increase in temperature as predicted by the climate models, to the level of the target 1.5 or 2 degrees C temperature rise since the start of the industrial revolution. Certainly increasing temperature would have an effect on the ice sheets, sea level and other aspects of climate, but there is no certainty that these increases in temperature will materialise.

27. “Removing all of the CO2 would make little difference” : Removing CO2 from the air would cause most water in the air to rain out and cancel most of the greenhouse effect.

This comment just illustrates the complete ignorance about the climate and atmosphere that exists in those preparing this science material for schools. CO2 is plant food and through sunlight, water and CO2, plants create sugars

To suggest that removal of most of the CO2 (from the atmosphere) would cause most of the water in the air to rain out and cancel most of the Greenhouse Effect. This implies that most of the so called Greenhouse Effect isn’t required There are several significant problems with this hypothesis……..

  • Without Greenhouse Gases, the earth’s temperature would be about – 18 degrees C, and CO2 is recognised as the main GHG? So, removing most of the CO2 from the atmosphere would be far from ideal,
  •  It is nonsense to suggest that removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is even feasibly possible, and to further suggest that reducing CO2 levels will “cause most of the water in the air to rain out is complete fantasy”. Water vapour is the main GHG, so reducing the amount in the atmosphere (if that was even possible) would further reduce the amount of the warming blanket of atmospheric gases, thus effecting further cooling.
  •  Presently the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 410 parts per million (ppm), and plant growth will cease at about 150 ppm. For optimal plant growth 410 ppm is far from ideal. As the atmospheric CO2 has progressed from about 350 ppm to 410 ppm over 60 odd years there has been an increase in plant growth of about 15% world-wide, and there is no doubt that increasing atmospheric CO2 is greening the earth, surely a result that the Green party should applaud.
  • The earth is still in a CO2 drought with regard to optimal levels of CO2 for plant growth, and even doubling the atmospheric CO2 levels would be a huge advantage for food production, while being of little moment for the climate.

28 “Heatwaves have happened before” : Global warming is increasing the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves.

The statement “heatwaves have happened before” is not a climate myth, and as noted previously a warm climate is a lot healthier place to be than a cooling climate. Scientific information shows mortality risk attributable to cold is about 17 times higher than heat. See this from The Lancet, seen as the bible of medical technology publication. The much discussed consequences for human health from a warming climate illustrate in my opinion, simply the medical profession and academia tapping into the substantial financial resources available for climate related topics. 

Dame Anne Salmond’s Hit Piece on ‘Climate Deniers’ is a Monument to Ad Hominem

New Zealand’s Dominion Post published this week an attack on ‘climate deniers’ from Dame Anne Salmond, distinguished professor of Maori Studies and Anthropology at Auckland University, urging people to ‘Use Votes For Climate Action’ (on-line here).

The underlying premise is, of course, that the tiny portion of trace gases that is human generated (see graph at end) is warming the planet, and furthermore that actions by countries like New Zealand and Australia (with a combined contribution of about 1%) will avert the consequences of this warming, assumed to be universally negative in effect.

A seemingly essential strategy for proponents of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is to undermine opposition by, firstly, claiming that the scientific consensus supports the theory (the claim that 97% of scientists agree is still with us, despite having been soundly debunked) and secondly, insulting serious scientists by referring to them as ‘climate change deniers’, and even ‘climate deniers’.  Scientific debate  (‘giving a platform to deniers’) which might expose these fallacies is avoided at all costs.

The opinion piece from Anne Salmond is striking in its lack of restraint, blithely slandering the whole of the considerable scientific body who oppose the UN’s climate narrative.

Anne Salmond relies almost totally on fallacious argument, starting off with an appeal to authority, including her own, i.e. a 2010 letter from 255 fellows of the US National Academy of Sciences, among them herself – an historian, not a scientist.

Her main purpose, however, is to smear the opposition. Repeated use of the childish insult ‘climate denier’ is only one tactic – essentially the article is a monument to ad hominem.

‘As in 2010, these climate deniers seem driven by “special interests or dogma”. None of them has any scientific credibility, although they’re arrogant enough to expect their views on scientific matters to be taken seriously.

‘It appears that they are acting to protect their own political and economic interests, rather than the interests of the wider community, in seeking to thwart action to tackle climate change.’

These offensive claims are breathtaking in their dishonesty.  In New Zealand alone, many senior scientists have been questioning the UN-driven climate narrative from at least 2007 – a considerable number are included in a list of 1000 International Scientists who have made submissions to government and the United Nations to protest the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change.   As Owen Jennings wrote to the editor of the DomPost (16/01/2020):

‘She insults some highly respected NZ scientists and commentators like Professor Geoff Duffy, Dr Jock Allison, Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, Roger Dewhurst, Warwick Hughes, Dr Doug Edmeads, Dr Kesten Green, Dr Willem de Lange to name a few.  They have neither “special interest”, adherence to dogma or arrogance.  They do have compelling evidence that the small contribution humans make to warming temperatures is minimal, unlikely to increase significantly and not harmful.’

Other AGW sceptics, now deceased, have included emeritus professor and former Chief Meteorologist with the MetService, Augie Auer, the former Director-General of the DSIR, Dr David Kear, who described anthropogenic global warming as pseudo-science and a hoax, and Dr Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for many years with the IPCC, but who declared its claims to be ‘dangerous, unscientific nonsense’.

Another feature of the piece was the suggestion of culpability: it is, apparently, immoral to question the scientific basis for the IPCC position: ‘those who influence our patterns of behaviour in ways that accelerate climate change’. Anne Salmond was echoing the view presented more bluntly in the DomPost the previous day, that, ‘Australia is a climate-change denier’ and is guilty of the crime of ‘ecocide’.

The implications of the view that debate or dissent in science is immoral, that it should be punishable by law even, are quite disturbing.  Dr Jock Allison, ONZM (for services to science), former Director of AgResearch Invermay, has written scientific papers on, for example, the role of methane in climate, pointing out that methane is a tiny part of the earth’s atmosphere (0.00018 %), with a narrow bandwidth that falls within that of the far more significant H20, and is therefore negligible as a greenhouse gas.  Should Dr Allison be regarded as a criminal simply for doing what scientists do, because the facts he presents do not support a politically driven narrative?

Dame Anne’s prime example of culpability, ironically, relates to the fires raging in Australia.  Certainly climate is a factor – drought and fires are part of the Australian reality (see Bryan Leyland, Australia Has Had Forest Fires for Millions of Years).

In ‘Too Much Fuel Causes Extreme Bush Fires, Not Climate Change’,  Jo Nova points out:

Large wildfires can only occur when there is a combination, at the same time, of three things:

  • an ignition source,
  • severe fire weather and,
  • a large contiguous accumulation of fuel.

Remove any of these three and you cannot have a large wildfire (= megafire).

It is well known that big contributors to the fires are, on the one hand, the hundreds of arson cases (with almost 100 people arrested in Queensland alone) and on the other, the rejection by Green-dominated councils of proven practices of forest management, such as firebreaks and controlled burning, used effectively in Australia for thousands of years.

‘These fucking greenies and the government. Those fucking wombats who don’t want to burn shit off. Look at this. We’re going to lose all our fucking houses and properties because of you useless pieces of fucking garbage …’ (The Truth About Australia’s Bush Fires, video, 3:00)

(Cartoon from NZ Climate Science Coalition, Australian Bush Fires: Read What Henry Lawson Wrote in 1911 and Banjo Patterson in 1886)

Who is morally culpable, the scientist who studies the nature of methane, or the ideologically driven activist who enforce a policy which is sure to lead to disaster?   It is equally reprehensible to ignore those causes of the fire which are actually within human control, but instead exploit the disaster with a junk-science claim that a zero carbon policy by Australia might have stopped the drought.

Dame Anne Salmond’s opinion piece is a depressing reminder of how science and academia have been corrupted in this country and elsewhere.  It is devoid of academic rigour and judgement, and she has shown no compunction in slandering those whom she sees as political opponents, even when their only crime is to carry out their scientific mission.

See also:

Richard Treadgold, Anthropologist Becomes Arrogant Climate Activist

Scientists About the IPCC

Ed Berry, Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2

Composition of Earths Atmosphere (provided by Geoffrey Duffy, DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRSNZ, FIChemE, CEng, Professor Emeritus, Chemical Engineering, University of Auckland)

Duffy 1 SnipDuffy 2 Snip