The hoax of the man-made Global Warming is being imposed on the world by many methods, both subtle and blatant. Proponents of the Global Green Agenda have embarked on a programme of mass deception, while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The Gaian cult that has permeated the United Nations is using the hysteria of Global Warming to impose draconian control measures on society and centralise world power.
“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.“
– Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth
With the continual bombardment of ‘climate doom’ stories today, it is hard to imagine a time when global warming was not a ‘top priority’ on the social, political and economic agenda. Everything from floods in England to poverty in the Third World is now being blamed on global warming. However, it is a relatively new phenomenon, barely discussed until 20 years ago, and established as a significant policy issue only in the past 15 or so years.
Usually a scientific theory takes many decades to become established, and only after the most rigorous testing under many different scenarios, does it achieve ‘scientific consensus’. However, when it comes to Global Warming its proponents claim that there is no argument or debate to be had. Their current crusade is to turn Global Warming into something that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with ‘environmental sustainability’. Al Gore often says “Climate change is a moral issue.” In other words it is all about you, and your destructive behaviour.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confidently announced ‘the science is settled’ on man-made Global Warming. Their most recent set of reports declares that “the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change.”
However, the science is not settled. Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.” Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports are appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials. Dr Richard Lindzen, who is a genuine climate expert, resigned from the IPCC process after his contributions were completely rewritten by the panel.
“It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda.” – MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.
Czech President Klaus stated “It is not fair to refer to the UN panel as a group of scientists. The IPCC is not a scientific institution. It’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavour. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists, and UN bureaucrats, who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”
Asserting ‘the science is settled’ ignores the debate that still rages, and the constant shrieking by alarmists like Al Gore reveals that Global Warming is being used to push a hidden agenda. They are not really interested in the science at all. Even their much vaunted consensus is a myth. The Global Warming Petition Project has been signed by more than 31,000 American scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs. Signers include world renowned physicists such as Prof. Edward Teller and Prof. Freeman Dyson. Nearly 4,000 signers are scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Proclaiming that “climate change is real” is a nonsensical statement and ignores the Earth’s continual natural warming and cooling cycles. Vikings settled in Greenland and raised crops and cattle 1000 years ago, while Britons grew grapes in England. Four hundred years later, Greenland froze and the Vikings starved. Europe was gripped in a Little Ice Age. The Thames froze all the way up to London. Another surge in temperatures saw widespread global droughts in the mid-1600s. Temperatures plunged again around 1700’s. The globe warmed in 1800-1940, cooled for the next 35 years, then warmed again. The 1940-1975 cooling period occurred despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about Global Cooling, and the threat of a new ice age.
Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations. Scientists have discovered that the sun not only has a regular 11 year cycle of sunspot activity. They have now discovered a significant 200 year cycle. Sunspot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parallel temperature changes on the Earth. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising very fast. The increase in solar radiation prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises.
Other recent studies, published in Nature and other leading journals, conclude that the sun’s radiant heat and solar radiation levels affect planetary warming and cloud formation more strongly than acknowledged by Global Warming alarmists. After all, why would natural forces that caused the climate to change in past centuries suddenly stop now? And how does man-made Global Warming explain why every planet in our solar system appears to be simultaneously warming up? Does this not suggest that Global Warming is a natural cycle as a result of the dynamic nature of the sun?
In the proposed legislation, according to the nzherald.co.nz:
- There will be a national registry of all guns.
- All gun ownership and all gun sales will be tracked.
- There will be a 5 year limit to a gun license, which will have to be renewed to continue ownership.
- A gun license will be required to purchase gun parts and accessories
- A separate license will be required for shooting clubs
- Rules for gun dealers to obtain a license will be tightened.
- A dealers license will be required for more activities than currently.
- The law accedes to the United Nations protocols on firearms and ammunition controls
- There will be more offences and higher penalties than at present
- There will be changes to allow fees to be changed, as part of regulations, to cover the cost of these new laws
In New Zealand, the far-left government has decided a national gun registry is necessary. They have been unsuccessful in confiscating (with payment) most of the previously legally owned semi-automatic rifles in the country. There has been massive civil disobedience among New Zealand gun owners.
The party line of the leftist government is there is no right to own guns in New Zealand. They cannot be entirely sure of that, because part of the new gun control scheme is to place into law the premise that there is no legal right to arms for New Zealanders. From npr.org:
New Zealand’s government is planning to create a registry of all guns in the country and stiffen penalties on illegal gun sales and modifications. The move comes six months after a gunman killed 51 people at mosques in Christchurch.
“Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right,” New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Friday. “That means we need to do all we can to ensure that only honest, law-abiding citizens are able to obtain firearms licenses and use firearms.”
The majority of crimes that involve guns, she added, were committed by people who didn’t have a license and who used guns that were either sold illegally or stolen
A New Zealand Academic, Alexander Gillespie, made the claim there is no right to gun ownership in New Zealand From pri.org:
Are there any privacy concerns about this gun registry?
There was near-universal agreement for the buyback scheme but once we have the registry that two main political parties are splitting right down the middle, the concern is partly about privacy, and partly around it not being necessary. You must remember we don’t have a right to own firearms. We have a privilege to own firearms.
“For New Zealanders, Agenda 21 means the complete destruction of a way of life that most people see as positive.”
Agenda 21 and the Draft NZ Biodiversity Strategy
By Barbara McKenzie
The current New Zealand government has produced a raft of measures to implement the United Nations Agenda 21, including the draft Biodiversity Strategy, the Zero Carbon Bill, the Oil and Exploration Bill, and the One Billion Trees Fund.
In 1992 Agenda 21 was adopted in Rio de Janeiro at the UN Earth Summit Conference on Environment and Development. It is defined by the United Nations as a ‘comprehensive plan for action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, governments and major groups in every area in which humans impact the environment.’ New Zealand is signatory to this (ostensibly non-binding) international treaty with over 100 other countries.
‘The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.’ (William Jasper, Your Hometown and the United Nations Agenda 21)
Agenda 21 is the culmination and ultimate expression of a number of UN Conferences and UN-drafted pacts and declarations to do with the place of humanity in the environment, and the management of humanity overall. Almost all of these have been signed by New Zealand. They are dominated by two assumed, overriding and non-negotiable values – debate of the first never arises, and of the second is never permitted:
- The precedence of ‘biodiversity’ over all other rights, even of human life;
- The non-negotiability of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.
The United Nations vision includes the following priorities:
- High-density (forced) urbanisation
- Reduction or elimination of private property rights
- Reduction of population
or in brief: Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson
The American Wildlands Project
The American Wildlands Project, (now calling itself the Wildlands Network) is an implementation of UN policies on biodiversity and human habitat. It proposes to set up to one-half of America into core wilderness reserves and interconnecting corridors, all surrounded by interconnecting buffer zones. No human activity would be permitted in the core reserves and corridors, and only highly regulated activity would be permitted in the buffer zones. Human settlement would be in high density cities. The purpose of the corridors is to allow large animals like bison to roam free, including migration across the continent.
Ratification of the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity was defeated in the US Senate, when the concept of the Wildlands Project formed the bsis for the convention. A number of American states have taken steps to ban Agenda 21 and the local body network ICLEI, specifically set up to ensure implementation of Agenda 21 (most cities in New Zealand belong to ICLEI).
The principles of Agenda 21 and the Wildlands Project are being enacted by Local Bodies and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). People are jailed and/or heavily fined for interfering with the slightest trickle of water on their property; small towns are startled to find high-rise, high density developments out of all keeping approved; farmers and other rural dwellers are being forced off their land through taxation or zoning. Powers of eminent domain have been extended to allow councils to agree with developers to confiscate private land, in order to build pack and stack subdivisions, also used to take land for projects such as bike paths.
‘Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.’ Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
Note: the term Agenda 21 is no longer used by the UN and governments, because of the negative connotations it has acquired. Instead they talk of sustainability and resilience: the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals are in fact Agenda 21 goals.
New Zealand has had a policy of preserving native forest, and protecting native fauna, and generally caring for the environment, independent of the United Nation. About 30% of New Zealand is forested, on public or private land – this is far more than most industrialised countries. National parks also include large tracts of non-forested land which are protected from development. Cities have extensive reserves. Many suburban sections in hilly towns like Wellington, even modest ones, have small tracts of native bush.
New Zealanders have a very close physical connection with nature and the outdoors, perhaps through pursuits like tramping, skiing, beach activities; for many people this connection is largely through time spent in their own backyards. Most New Zealanders live in houses of one or two stories with a garden, usually consisting of lawns, flowers, shrubs.
The effect of the implementation of Agenda 21 on lifestyle will be far more dramatic in New Zealand than in Turkey, for example, where even quite small towns consist of apartment buildings. It will also entail the loss of the eco-system provided by the suburban and small-town lifestyle.
For New Zealanders, Agenda 21 means the complete destruction of a way of life that most people see as positive.
Alan Jones and Peta Credlin expose the lies being promoted by the by the IPCC. Former IPCC Chair for the Sea Level committee Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner opens up too Alan Jones and completely spills the beans on how the world is being lied to by the UN and the climate change activists. Solar activity is currently the key contributor to any climate variation. Copyright © Jones & Co, SkyNews, 2GB
Amazing Polly shares her insights on not so smart cities, a bit like the dumb meters they try to foist on us.
Published on Jun 27, 2019
From 2015… nevertheless beware
AFRICANGLOBE – About 500,000 Kenyan women may never bear children after being injected with a contaminated tetanus vaccine last year, the Kenyan Catholic Church claims in its final report on the controversial vaccination drive.
Their report cites tests by a joint committee of experts which found that 30 percent of vials from the October vaccination campaign were laced with an anti-pregnancy hormone.
The committee was mandated by Parliament last year when the Church opposed the plans to vaccinate 2.3 million child-bearing women against tetanus.
Yesterday, head of catholic health commission Rev Paul Kariuki said the ministry has pulled out of the committee.
“Thirty percent of the vials collected during the tetanus vaccination campaign sponsored and funded by WHO and Unicef contained HCG,” says the report, which has been produced only by the church-seconded experts.
HCG is the hormone that can be embedded in vaccines to trigger early miscarriage in women.
Rev Kariuki said three of the nine vials tested from last year’s vaccination campaign were confirmed to contain very high levels of the Beta HCG hormone.
“The beta quantity of Beta HCG is highly significant ranging from 24-37.5 per cent,” says Rev Kariuki.
By Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD
The concept of a one-world government is not new. Winston Churchill said, “The creation of an authoritative world order is the ultimate aim toward which we must strive,”i and Charles De Gaulle was convinced that “Nations must unite in a world government or perish.”ii
Just like the religious unity movement, the world government movement has the underlying purpose of increasing the power of the Papacy. Historian and author Bill Hughes explains:
The Jesuits failed in their attempts to have a world governing body following World War One. They accomplished their sinister goal after World War Two. Following the war, the weary, aching world was conditioned to accept an international government, and the United Nations was born. Since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, this so-called ‘peace-keeping’ body has failed miserably in keeping peace around the world. Why? Because keeping peace is not their purpose, even though they continue to claim that it is. There are presently some 83 different wars around the world. However, it has certainly been instrumental in suppressing liberty loving people. Katanga and Rhodesia are just two examples of nations crushed by U. N. forces. The United Nations has worked tirelessly to restore the temporal power of the papacy — its purpose from the beginning (emphasis added).iii
We can see the signs of this world government strategy that is both political and spiritual:
Modern Humanism, a movement that promotes equality, human rights, and the opinion that “No deity can save us, we must save ourselves,”iv says this in its 1973 Manifesto II:
We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community…we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.v
Both public and secret organizations are leading the way toward global government. These organizations include the following:
Thanks to Martin at uncensored.co.nz for this link. In depth info on the Agenda … now 2030, formerly Agenda 21. It isn’t conspiracy people. A UN document you can read for yourself. Get Ian Wishart’s book Totalitaria, well worth the read. EWR
By Ian Wishart
By Ian Wishart, author of “Totalitaria”
It’s one of the most under-reported stories of the year, but it is also one of the biggest stories of the year.
In the last week of September, Pope Francis will meet President Obama and then step onto the dais of the UN General Assembly to make a keynote speech on the future of the world.
The event marks three very special occasions. The first is the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations itself in 1945. The second is the 50th anniversary of the first Pope to address the UN, back on the organisation’s 20th anniversary in 1965. During that visit, Pope Paul VI pledged the loyalty of the Catholic Church to the agenda of the United Nations – effectively making the Church the UN’s servant on Earth.
This time around, one of the most populist popes in modern history is expected to stay on that road as he takes part in the third special occasion – the unveiling of Agenda 2030.
If you’ve heard of Agenda 21, think bigger. Agenda 21 has already been put in place by most local councils in the western world, including New Zealand. If your local officials talk in terms of “smart communities”, “smart growth” or “sustainability” they are using Agenda 21 phrases. Many large corporations across the world have also adopted Agenda 21 principles.
But Agenda 2030 goes even further. Seventeen core goals are being rolled out with full implementation of those goals being set down for 2030 – just 15 years away. To speed up implementation, UN member states – including New Zealand – have been asked to ratify those goals in advance, says the UN website:
“The United Nations General Assembly today approved a resolution sending the draft ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ to Member States for adoption later this month, bringing the international community “to the cusp of decisions that can help realize the… dream of a world of peace and dignity for all,” according to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “Today is the start of a new era. We have travelled a long way together to reach this turning point,” declared Mr. Ban.”
“With world leaders expected to adopt the text at a 25-27 September summit in New York, the UN chief said Agenda 2030 aims high, seeking to put people at the centre of development; foster human well-being, prosperity, peace and justice on a healthy planet and pursue respect for the human rights of all people and gender equality. “It speaks to all people in all countries, and calls for action from everyone everywhere.”
Bill Gates: We Need A One World Government
Billionaire Bill Gates called for “a kind of global government” last month, arguing that the creation of such a system would be needed to combat major issues such as “climate change.”
In a recent interview with the German publication Süddeutsche Zeitung, Bill Gates made some disturbing comments in favor of world government.
Not only did Gates advocate global government, but he also spoke favorably of the UN and NATO, completely overlooking that they are a major force of oppression in the world.
NATO can’t even hold a meeting without thousands of people gathering in the streets to protest their actions. Someone as heavily involved in world affairs as Bill Gates should know all about this.
During the interview last month, Gates said,
Take the UN, it has been created especially for the security in the world. We are ready for war, because we have taken every precaution. We have NATO, we have divisions, jeeps, trained people. But what is with epidemics? How many doctors do we have as much planes, tents, what scientists? If there were such a thing as a world government, we would be better prepared. (emphasis added)
Not long ago this subject was considered a total conspiracy theory, but now one of the richest people in the world is openly suggesting that this is a good idea.
Governments are generally a pretty bad idea; even when they are small they can still do a tremendous amount of damage. So when a government rules the entire planet, there is no telling what type of atrocities it will be capable of.
Aside from his founding of computing giant Microsoft, a corporation which has worked hand in hand with the NSA to eviscerate privacy, Gates’ role in the destruction of health worldwide is made obvious by the companies he invests in.
A breakdown of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s 2012 tax return by Mother Jones reveals billions in funding to corporations such as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Other groups receiving major cash include private prison company the GEO Group Inc., military contractor Dyncorp, a major player in human trafficking, and nearly every top oil company.
A major focus of the Gates Foundation has also been invested in vaccination campaigns, although Western media has completely ignored major ethical issues brought up by medical experts in countries such as India, where more than 47,500 children were paralyzed shortly after one of Gates’ campaigns.
Just last year, India’s Supreme Court began investigating Gates involvement in a vaccine trial that resulted in the deaths of several young girls.
Everything from gun control, Common Core and geoengineering, the practice of spraying toxic particles into the stratosphere to block the sun’s rays, has received millions in funding from Gates.
Gates has also taken heat for investing millions into biotech giant Monsanto, a corporation currently flooding foreign countries with genetically engineered crops.
In reality, the call for global government by Gates and other wealthy elitists has nothing to do with lifting up impoverished nations. Such a government would instead guarantee global surveillance, global wealth inequality and a world run by the exact corrupt interests currently consolidating wealth and power worldwide.