This blog site is devoted to the defence of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, by exposing the false and invalid Second Vatican Council as a non-Catholic heretical Council. We have zeroed in on the one piece of arsenal which most of us have overlooked and failed to employ over these past 40 years since the Vatican II sect was installed in Rome. The one weapon that strikes more terror into the enemies of the Church is the Bulla of Pope Pius II, Execrabilis, which he issued on February 15th, 1460.
About a years from now (November, 2018)...watch video
What sort of testing has been done to ensure its safety ?
As far as I am aware, not a lot, and the following news article should demonstrate this fairly well, and raises a serious question about its safety for both humans and wild life in general.
Did A 5G Experiment Test In The Hague, Netherlands, Prove Fatal To Birds In Trees?
However, birds were not the only wildlife seemingly affected.
[N]earby ducks that were swimming seemed to react
very oddly as well; they were simultaneously putting their heads
underwater to escape the radiation while others flew away, landing on
the street or in the canal. [1]
It appears a 5G mast was being tested to see what interferences could occur from
where RF radiation was tested with a peak frequency of 7.40 GHz,
as reported by one source, but still not confirmed.
The “test, [was] in connection
with the Dutch railway station, to see how large the range was and
whether no harmful equipment would occur on and around the station.” [1]
I have to wonder if any humans experienced ill effects, or if humans were questioned as part of the test.
It ought to be noted that one GHz (Gigahertz) is ONE BILLION oscillations of energy per second; now multiply that by 7.40 GHz. What do you get? No wonder the poor birds probably died from heart failure!
According to reports, the birds did not look emaciated or ill. So why did so many birds drop from the trees? Similar mass die offs
have happened in other places with fish and pollinators. The fact
there was a 5G test going on emphasizes another dynamic regarding
millimeter wave safety (5G)—ascertaining why the birds died; plus the
ABSOLUTE need for REAL scientific—not consensus science—testing, i.e., environmental impact studies, regarding 5G before it is rolled out anywhere in the world!
Results of other testing of 5G confirm alarming adverse reactions on wildlife and humans.
Cows on the Rampage
It is not only birds. Five Dutch dairy farmers in Stitswerd,
Groningen, witnessed a strange behaviour from their herds in January
2017. Several hundreds of cows from the 5 dairy farms allegedly started
running riot simultaneously without a clear cause. The cows bumped into
each other and the fences of their cowshed. To quote this article:
“… the farmers all have experienced these
panic attacks from their cows several times before, for the lasts few
months. However, these kinds of mysterious events only seem to occur
around the small town called Stitswerd… A veterinarian has been
consulted as well, but she couldn’t find an explanation…
“The most logical conclusion is that the
panic attacks are caused by the recent testing of 5G Wi-Fi in the North
of Groningen, exactly were Stitswerd is located! Groningen is the first
flat land region where they are testing 5G.”
Firemen in San Francisco
Firefighters from San Francisco reported experiencing an array of
unusual side effects after 5G equipment was installed in and around
their firehouses. To quote a neonnettle article:
“Symptoms reportedly included memory
problems and confusion. The firefighters say the symptoms only stopped
after they relocated to different fire stations without 5G devices
nearby. It’s not just the firefighters, either.
“In Gateshead, England, scientist Mark
Steele says that there’s been an uptick in reproductive issues and other
health problems since the city’s new wireless streetlights were
installed. Miscarriages, stillbirths, nosebleeds, and insomnia are among
the consequences he’s reportedly observed in the community. ‘We are
seeing babies dying in the womb as these transmitters are situated
outside people’s bedroom windows. It’s a humanitarian crisis,’ Steele contended.”
When I stand on my veranda and look out at the cell towers,
thankfully they are placed on apartments some blocks away. But as they
roll out 5G, small cell towers will be placed about every 300 meters
across the country — enveloping us in this new technology.
_______________________
5G Test Kills Birds
________________
And, Some Good News?
California: City Blocks 5G Cell Tower Implementation Over Major Health Concerns
As 5G technology begins to roll out across the country, it is being met
by a massive wave of resistance over concerns that it can cause health
problems.
One city in California—reacting to an overwhelming outpouring
of concern—has taken an extreme step and blocked the technology from
being implemented.
This week, the city of Mill Valley, CA, a wealthy city just north of San
Francisco, voted unanimously to effectively halt the installation of
new small cell towers which carry the 5G technology.
_______________
What About the New White LED Street Lighting?
Day one of the new LED lights in our street, not totally replaced, so you can compare the two light colors and glare- whitish lights of the LEDs Vs orange colored light of the sodium street lights.
________________________
And It's All Official
Street lights and LEDs
Courtenay Place is lit up with LED street lights
Installing LED street lights across Wellington
This year we are rolling out a city-wide installation of LED
(light-emitting diode) street lights. This project will cause minimal
disruption day to day as each light should only take 20-30 minutes to
replace and appropriate traffic management will be in place. The work
will be carried out in stages across the city which has been divided
into 20 areas for the installation.
The street lights are initially being installed at 50% brightness to
avoid glare on road surfaces. If you are concerned a street light is too
dim, you can get in touch with us on 04 499 4444 or email
info@wcc.govt.nz to get it adjusted.
The LED streetlights are expected to have lifetime 4 to 5 times longer than the old HID streetlights. They also use half as muchpower as the old street lights, making them much more cost and energy efficient.
The estimated cost of the full project is $17 million. The Council
will contribute $2.5 million from existing budgets and the remainder
will come from the New Zealand Transport Agency.
The changeover started in February and is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year.
_____________________
NZTA's introduction of blue LED lights raises number of concerns
3 Jul, 2018 12:08pm
6 minutes to read
ALAN (Artificial Light At Night) is in our houses and outside as city street and highway lighting. Photo / Getty Images
Let me to introduce you to ALAN. The acronym stands for Artificial
Light At Night, and there is growing concern that ALAN is bad for us
especially when it's a glary blue shine.
ALAN is in our houses and outside as city street and highway lighting.
It is light pollution and can have some very negative effects on people
and wildlife.
Unfortunately,
we could be making the ALAN problem worse through using the wrong type
of light bulbs with light emitting diodes (LEDs).
While LEDs use less energy than
most incandescent lamp types, cool white ones emit large amounts of blue
light. (Paradoxically, cool light has a high colour temperature as
measured in degrees Kelvin.)
Research points to blue light interfering with people's sleep patterns and that it can damage retinas above certain levels.
Blue light is enough of a worry that computer and smartphone vendors
such as Apple have introduced a special mode, Night Shift, that shifts
the LED displays on devices to warmer colour temperatures.
Astronomers who can no longer see the stars because in many parts of
the world night never falls are also up in arms over increased blue
light glare interference.
Don't go overboard with lighting up the globe at night and think about
the technology used to illuminate places is the common sense message
from the International Dark-Sky Association.
Sadly, that message is falling on deaf ears.
We won't be able to avoid LEDs which are are here to stay, Dr John Barentine, the director of conservation at IDA.
"The global lighting market has made its choice, and that choice is LED," Barentine said.
"What we need now is to encourage people to design and deploy LED technology properly", Barentine added.
They will be deployed everywhere too: the New Zealand Transport
Authority and local councils want cool temperature LED lamps to light up
highways and certain city streets.
This is to replace existing high and low pressure sodium lights which won't be available for much longer.
I asked NZTA why it wants to give us the roadside light blues by
switching over to cool white LEDs and Fergus Tate from the authority
kindly provided a detailed response.
First, NZTA acknowledges that blue light is an emerging area of concern
but Tate said the research is inconclusive, in its early stages and
there's no evidence that it is risky.
"The greatest risk is likely to come from interior lighting as the time
of exposure is longer, hence a trend toward 3500K ("warm white") for
interior LED sources," Tate said.
Barentine also said that he doesn't believe there is evidence that
outdoors ALAN from LEDs constitutes a health risk as exposure to it is
transient and the doses are relatively low.
However, we don't fully understand what effect low, sustained levels of
ALAN exposure has on humans, Barentine said. ALAN disrupts circadian
rhythms of living beings with potentially huge negative impact on people's long term health.
Blue moon?
If blue light is a worry, why does the NZTA specification for LED
luminaries say they should have a high colour temperature of 3900 to
4250 Kelvin or cool white? Warmer LEDs in the 3000K range emit a great
deal less blue light.
The answer centres on the colour of moonlight being pleasant to people.
"Neutral white 4000K LED light mimics moonlight and is generally well tolerated by the human eye," Tate said.
The LEDS are like moonlight argument is found in sales material from
vendors such as Phillips Lumens as well, but how true is it?
Barentine disputes that 4000K LEDs are like moonlight in colour, and
provided a spectral graph to show the difference between the two.
"The fact that moonlight has a correlated colour temperature of about
4000 Kelvins doesn't mean its light is anything at all like a white LED
with a CCT of 4000K," Barentine said.
LED lights bears no resemblance to any natural light on Earth, he
added. More to the point, the graphs show that 4000K LEDs emit a large
amount of blue light in the 350 to 500 nanometre spectrum - which
neither the sunlight reflected from the moon and filtered through the
Earth's atmosphere, or warm 2200K LEDs do.
Lee Mauger of the Martinborough Dark-Sky Association did some testing
during the last supermoon with a light meter. He pointed it to the moon,
and measured under a 4000K streetlight.
"The brightness under a streetlight was more than 100 times than that of a full 'supermoon'!" Mauger said.
On the other hand, cool white LEDs have much better colour rendition
than 2700K sodium lamps that "make people look like corpses", Barentine
said.
Does better colour
rendition make cool white LEDs safer then? Tate said that white light
from LEDs for instance is generally considered more safe than the yellow
light from high pressure sodium lamps.
Confusingly, that doesn't seem to apply to road lighting though.
"There is no evidence that white light is more or less safe than high
pressure sodium [lamps] at route lighting levels," Tate said.
Even though 4000K is NZTA's preferred colour temperature the authority is in fact OK with 3000K LEDs under some circumstances.
"In areas seeking Dark Skies certification to aid astro-tourism
activities, the NZ Transport Agency will support the installation of
3000K luminaires, Tate said.
Mauger and MDSA campaigned for 3000K lights on state highway 53, and won that battle.
Warmer LEDs aren't more expensive. Cool white LEDs used to be far cheaper far and easier to find than the warmer 3000K lights.
In 2018 that's no longer the case, Barentine said. Nor are 3000K LEDs any less efficient than their cooler cousins.
NZTA is conducting studies on road lighting, and our Royal Society will issue an advisory publication on the impact of blue light.
LEDs are supposed to have long, 20-30 year life spans (unless their
driving electronics give out earlier). Given the strong suggestion that
blue light LEDs are bad for us without offering any tangible benefits,
why not look to the future and go for warmer road lights instead?
___________________
What are the benefits and the downside of changing our street lighting?
The Benefits:
They claim they are cheaper in the long run by saving power, but at what cost the environment and humanity in general?
They also claim that less CO2 will be produced thus benefiting the climate - less CO2, less greenhouse gas to affect the climate change! Mmm ... well that one has been completely torpedoed by Lord Christopher Monckton's recent climate study, showing how climate scientists got it wrong in their conclusion about global warming/climate change with their flawed equation which ignored the sun!
By
Maham Abedi
National Online Journalist, Breaking News Global News
Updated:
April 4, 20183:32 pm
LED street lights can damage eyes and cause sleep problems, health officials warn
LED street lights are proven to be cheaper for cities, and more environmentally friendly, but health officials in Britain are warning that they also could have adverse health effects on travellers.
Public Health England warned this week
that the street lights can disrupt sleep, resulting in a “permanent jet
lag.” The blue colour of the lights can also result in damage to the
retina.
Health effects of LED lights
Ottawa-based
optometrist Dr. Kirsten North explained to Global News that the blue
light found in LED bulbs can damage retina cells and cause cataracts to
develop sooner. But she explained exactly how damaging LED street lights
are in particular has not been determined.
“It makes sense that some damage will happen,” North said.
Global News Hour at 6: Health warning about LED streetlights
WATCH: They were billed
as the more efficient and less expensive way to light the streets at
night. But as Ted Chernecki reports, a warning from the American Medical
Association is raising questions about cities converting to LED
streetlights.
The City of Surrey said it is reviewing its current plans to
replace all of its street lights with LED lights in the wake of recent
concerns raised by a prominent physicians association.
The LED
lights are being installed in cities all over B.C. but Surrey is leading
the way with plans to switch over its 28,000 lights within five years.
Surrey’s transportation manager Jaime Boan said switching to LEDs could
save the city around $1 million a year
However, in June, the American Medical Association warned the use of
high-intensity LED streetlights can negatively impact both sleep and
safety.
“Despite the energy efficiency benefits, some LED lights
are harmful when used as street lighting,” AMA board member Maya A. Babu
said in a statement.
“The new AMA guidance encourages proper
attention to optimal design and engineering features when converting to
LED lighting that minimize detrimental health and environmental
effects.”
According to the AMA, LED lighting gives off a large
amount of blue light that appears white to the naked eye but can impair
nighttime driving and possibly increase the risk of serious health
conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease and obesity.
Similar
concerns have been raised in the past even though most cities prefer
the energy-efficient LED lights over conventional lighting for the cost
and energy savings. LEDs are more energy efficient (by 50 per cent or
more) and only need to be replaced every 15 to 20 years versus every two
to five years for conventional lights.
The AMA also said the
negative impacts of high-density LED lighting are not limited to just
humans but also many species that need a dark environment like some
bird, insect, turtle and fish species.
The medical association
said it isn’t against LED street lights per se, but rather just wants to
warn about their intensity. It recommends lights should have a Kelvin
reading of less than 3,000 because anything higher can impair vision and
impair the human body’s ability to produce melatonin.
Surrey is
now reviewing its plans. Lights used in the pilot project in Newton are
in the 4,000-Kelvin range and the city said it hasn’t yet ordered the
bulk of the 28,000 lamps it will need to complete the program.
“We’ve
currently chosen the 4,000 Kelvin [light] and that’s because it’s
giving a lot better clarity and visibility of pedestrians and cars on
the road,” Boan said. “We think there’s a big safety benefit to that so
we need to evaluate better what are the potential impacts to residents
with going to the 4000-K.”
– With files from Ted Chernecki
________________
What you should be doing right now!
Contact Wellington City Council [see instructions below] and let them know you are not happy with their move to replace our warm sodium lights with white LEDs which emit damaging blue light.
Contact us
Contact the Council with a question, comment or complaint, or to report something that needs fixing.
Day One of the Campaign To Bring Wellingtonians Awareness of the dangers of both LEDs in Street lighting and 5G, using flyers [picture below], resulted in some 47 being handed out to citizens at both Queensgate Shopping Mall, Lower Hutt, and Pak 'n Sav, High St., Lower Hutt.
The humble flyer that starts the campaign in the fight to protect our health and well being from those who should be protecting us from any such abuse.
________________
Some Highly Recommended Articles From The Archives:
.... "Padre Pio told Father Amorth: ‘Satan has been introduced into the bosom
of the Church and he will within a very short time come to rule a false
Church.’ Amorth says that Padre Pio was ‘really tormented’ by one issue
that is ‘the great apostasy within the Church’.”
Global Warming, or as it is now called, Climate Change, since they finally realized there has been no warming of the atmosphere for more than 20 years, is a scam based on militant bogus science and is being used to keep the world's focus away from Agenda 21, a Communist U.N. action plan which aims to depopulate the nations, impose a world government and usher in a the return of Communism. - Lord Christopher Monckton, February 26, 2013
U.N. Agenda 21 - Communism 2.0
Communist
“Sustainable Development”
HOW IT ALL BEGAN
In 1992 at the “communist” United Nations Conference on the Environment
and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, co-chaired by former Soviet
Union PresidentMikhail Gorbachev and N.
M. Rothschild-Londonagent Canadian
billionaire Maurice Strong, the UN unveiled a radical environmental
philosophical agenda which “inverted”
the traditional values reflected in the Bible, Magna Carta and US Constitution
(which put man under God at the head of his creation and dominion i.e. a man’s
rights were to have superiority over
those of animals, fish, plants, trees and forests etc.).
At the Earth Summit in
Rio, an old pagan concept was introduced which “inverted” all of our existing, constitutional, democratic, personal
and property rights and values espoused by Christianity – and transferred them to the environment and the religion of
mother-earth Gaia worship. In this religion, a tree becomes more valuable than
a human being – A rare bird more
valuable than a hospital.
This United Nations program of action unveiled in Rio was called Agenda 21. It is 300 pages long and is
very complex. Primarily it is designed to be implemented with other radical UN
documents such as the Global Biodiversity Assessment (1100 pages), promoted by
the UN Conference on Human Settlements, Habitat II.
The first Habitat Conference
was held in 1974 and specifically identified private property ownership as a threat to the peace and equality of the
environment. It proposed to revolutionize the development of the land and
cities of each country under strict “Soviet-style” environmental guidelines,
called “Sustainable Development.”
The UN’s communist secret agenda through “environmentalism” and
“sustainable development” is very cunning and has deceived a lot of
well-meaning people. Most people genuinely want to protect the environment and
ensure that the earth’s resources are “sustainable” for future generations
there is no doubt. But the communist goal of “sustainable development” and
“environmentalism” has absolutelynothing to do with protecting the
environment or sustainability – it is all about abolition of property rights,
and ultimately, collectivization of housing and farms under corporate State
control.
Under this system, farmers’ and property owners’ rights would be
effectively extinguished and overridden by strict Environmental and Sustainable
Development resource consents and laws.Theywould be told where they
could farm, what “sustainable” land they could “develop,” (sustainable
development) what trees they could plant or cut down, what fertilizer if any
they could apply, and they would need “consents” and licenses for everything
under the sun. City dwellers would be in the same dire predicament, and have
their homes confiscated, or they’d be severely fined,if they cut down a heritage tree, washed
their car, boat or dishes using detergent, or used the privatized corporation’s
water when they shouldn’t, especially if they were nabbed under their friendly
“Neighborhood Watch Scheme,” which
scheme, coincidentally, was first
implemented in the Soviet Union. Socialism is very subtle.
The penalty for cutting a tree down without the appropriate government
consent would become worse than murder. Not only would you have to license your
dog, to own a dog you would have to be licensed too. Farmers would need to be
licensed to operate their collectivized farms, spray weeds, care for cattle and
drive their tractors under new Soviet-styled “health and safety” laws. All
tradesmen and professional workers would have to be accredited and licensed, as
would all Christian pastors and churches, and any other persons or institutions
that could be likely to criticize their Soviet bosses.
All potential young parents would need to have a license to have
children, and if there was any family genetic weakness of some sort in their
state-controlled doctor’s medical records, no license would be given. In the
end you would need a license or permit to take your boat on a lake, take your
kid fishing off a wharf, or travel between towns or cities – In other words – full-blown
Marxism.
The United Nations policy of “Sustainable Development” introduced in
1992 at the UNCED at Rio de Janeiro, and implementedthrough Habitat II and the UN World
Commission on Environment and Development – is taken directly from the USSR
Constitution, chapter 2, article 18, which reads:
“In
the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are
taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and
its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve
the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve
the human environment.”
National Party Prime Minister, Jim Bolger,
attended the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and signed on behalf of
New Zealand to commit the country to Agenda
21 and Sustainable Development.Labour Party Prime Minister Helen Clark
attended the follow-up summit in Johannesburg August 26 – September 4, 2002
aptly called the “World Summit for Sustainable Development,” where she attended
the head of state sessions. The summit has since been nicknamed “Rio+10 because
it marked the 10th anniversary of the first Earth Summit at Rio. NZ
Environment Minister Marion Hobbs led a 35-strong delegation to the giant
summit, and was one of five vice-presidents nominated by the UN to lead the
summit comprised of about 45,000 delegates.
Not only was N. M. Rothschild agent, Maurice Strong, Secretary-General
of the UN 1992 Rio Earth Summit, he personally worked with UN Secretary-General
Kofi Annan to appoint three of his own Earth Charter Commissioners to the
12-manadvisory panel of the
Johannesburg Summit.
A Very Important Video Linking Climate Change And Agenda 21
A brief summary from Lord Christopher Monckton's speech in Australia, February 23, 2013:
"One of the proposals in Agenda 21 is to take away all rights of property to nationalize effectively all properties.
An example of where this is already happening is Ulladula (sp.) council, where they are putting it in by stealth, unless someone stops it there. And what they are doing is this: They are doing overlays on the entire map of that Shire.
What this Council has done is a test bed for what is going to be rolled out right across Australia at local levels by stealth, unless somebody stops it, which marks out for all various areas which are bio diversity protection areas, and if your house is in one of theses areas - bad luck! If you want to build a house next door, or a shed, you can't!
What's worse, is that even if your house isn't in one of these ares, and the builder tries to build somewhere else in an area that is covered by one of those overlays which cover three quarters of the entire area of the Shire, then he can nominate other areas which will never be built on again, and your house and the ground you were going to build your granny flat ... you won't be able to do that, and the developers and local authority don't ever have to tell you!
They have taken away of our Property Rights! And if you look at the Property Register there is a restrictive covenant on your land.
There is a clear intention among the International Committee for Local Environmental Initiatives ( ICLEI), to which nearly all local authorities belong to implement this Agenda 21 program right across Australia.
Local Administration in South Australia are a Natural Resources Management Law going round saying to farmers, 'if you move a rock, we can fine you.' Agenda 21 is a real document ... The N.R.M.L. in South Australia are real documents. The restrictions on building near the coastline in Victoria, on the grounds that the sea level might rise and wipe them out. These are restrictions. It is already actually happening in Australia in the move of Agenda 21.
They're going to bring back Communism ... this is from the Vice-Chancello of ICLEI, to implement this supposedly voluntary U.N. program by compulsory laws.
Individual rights take a back seat to the collective, includes proerty rights - it's the old cry of Communism-it's back!
We can produce evidence of that- September 15, 2009 draft of the U.N. Copenhagen Climate Treaty. It failed thanks to Lord Christopher Monckton, in their plan to bring about their World Government, in which they would have control of everything!
The excuse or pretext used to bring in Agenda 21 is Climate Change!
____________________
And 'About That Militant Bogus Science,' Or 'The Error In Climatology' - Lord Christopher Monckton, June 24, 2018
______________
Lord Christopher Monckton:
"This is breaking news. After 7 years of study, my team of eminent doctors and professors of science have concluded that there has been a very large error buried in the climate models.
They forgot to take into account the fact that the sun is shining at a vital point in their calculations.
This is my team:
Top left' Matt Briggs, (Prof. of Statistics); Alex Henley ( Electricity Industry expert); David Legates (Prof. of Climatology); Michael Limberg (Control Theorist); James Morrisson (Environmental Consultant); Willie Soon (Award Winning Astro Physicist); John Whitfield (Control Theorist who built an electronic circuit to test our results, and was able to confirm that in all respects it was correct).
In addition we had Dr Dietrich Jeschke, Prof. of Applied Control
Theory and also Dr. Thomas Sheehan from MIT.
Now the origin of the error that we are going to expose is Dr. James Hansen, who was until recently the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, though under him it was mainly climate change studies; arrested because he was really an activist, rather than a scientist, in a paper in 1984.
So how much warming are we going to get if we double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which we may do in about 150 years from now?
So, James Hansen's paper is from 1984, so we are looking at a 34 year old error, which we are going to expose using only high school algebra, and I also want to make it very plain that we are going to be using mainstream science ...
The approach we are going to take is to look at three equilibrium temperatures. These are moments at which the temperature of the planet was stable.
The first of these is 1850, and in 1850 the temperature wasn't going to change for about another 60 years, as it remained more or less level, and we know this because it was in 1850 that we began measuring global temperatures for the first time, the Hadley Centre Data Set.
The second of the three equilibrium was in 2011 when in fact, there wasn't an equilibrium that actually existed, but it is a presumed equilibrium, and we make adjustments for the fact that not all of the warming that we caused between 1850 and 2011 may have come through in the actual temperature record.
We will be using mainstream science method for making that adjustment so that we bring the 2011 figure to a presumed equilibrium.
The third equation we are looking at is twice the present concentration of CO2. We are trying to work out how much warming there would be at that third equilibrium by studying the two previous equilibrium and the difference between them.
The notation we are using is standard scientific notation: T stands for temperature, eq is a subscript saying this is the equilibrium temperature. It tells you what kind of temperature we're talking about, and the 1, 2 or 3, tell you which of the equilibria we're looking at, and if there is no number in the subscript, that just means we're talking about equilibrium temperature in general.
Recapping: Equilibrium temperatureis final temperature after we have the climate settled down, allowing for not only the direct forced warming from adding CO2 or whatever to the atmosphere, but also after all temperature feedbacks have acted.
The temperature feedback is a knock-on warming caused by the fact that through CO2 or something else, we've caused the planet to warm, and the warming itself triggers further warming, and that is known as a temperature feedback.
The big uncertainty in the climate is to do with these temperature feedbacks.
At the moment official climatology predicts, but they're wrong on this, that the change in temperature (delta T) per doubling of CO2, a number between 2.1 and 4.7 Kelvin, per doubling of CO2 as the equilibrium warming after feedbacks have acted.
In order to determine the equilibrium warming, we first have to find what's called a reference warming, which is the amount ot warming that will happen before we take into account any feedbacks.
So, if you double the CO2 concentration and you don't take account of feedback happening, then the reference warming, as it's called, is between 0.95 and 1.15K, and that's an official climatological figure, and it's one which we are going to accept for the sake of argument.
Now the feedback factor, until now, has been the big unknown in climate study. When they say 'the science is settled,' the one thing that hasn't been settled is, 'how big this feedback factor is'.
So what is a feedback factor?
The feedback factor is simply the percentage of the equilibrium or final warming that is represented by the fact that feedbacks have acted, so you get the direct warming from, let us say, CO2, then you get the knock-on feedback warming, and f, the feedback factor is the percentage of the final warming, represented by the fact that feedbacks have acted.
Until now, the feedback factor, the uncertainty. In trying to work out how much that is, accounted for, 85% of the total uncertainty in working out how much global warming there will be, it is very important that we should, as climate scientists call it, constrain the value of the feedback factor so we can find out what global warming will really be.
Now, for this, we are going to use an equation, and you will see there are various terms in the equation, and this particular equation is the mainstream equation in control theory.
That applies to any dynamic system, and a dynamic system is a system which changes its state over time.
So. for instance, an electronic circuit if you switch it on and the current flows through it and comes out the other end has changed its state over the time it takes the current to get through. And so, that's a dynamic system, and likewise the climate, because you see the weather changing from day to day and the climate in the longer term.
That is a dynamic system, which changes over time, and if feedbacks act on a system that changes over time, this is the standard equation that control theory uses, but remarkably it is not used in climate science.
The climate is the only dynamical system moderated by feedbacks that does not use this equation, and we say that it should have used this equation, and because it didn't it made a huge mistake!
Now we are going to look at what are the terms in this equation.
T E is emission temperature, that's the input signal to the equation, and that's the Sunshine term, and you'll see it's actually put on the sun there.
That's the one that climate scientists left out, and then to the right of that, in white, you see the perturbation, which is delta T ref, that's the change in in reference temperature caused by, it might be naturally occurring greenhouse gases. It might be then a bit more, because we add greenhouse gases, and then you divide that by 1 - f (the feedback factor) at the bottom.
That gives you the output of the equation, the output signal in an electrical circuit if you like, or in climate, and that is T eq.
So that equation can also be simplified. We add together the two terms at the top (T E + deltaT ref), and call them T ref.
So T eq, the equilibrium temperature after all the feedbacks have been added, is the reference temperature divided by 1 - f.
So that is actually a very simple equation. It only has three terms in it.
You've got T eq on the left, which is what you are trying to calculate. You've got T ref, which includes within it the sunshine term, and then you've got f on the bottom.
1 - f is how you account for the feedback factor.
Now, this is a very complicated looking block diagram. This is what's used in electronics typically. You'll see on the left and on the right, the sunshine term is there and they balance out of course, and between that you've got, on the left, the various components in what's called reference sensitivity.
This is the sum of all the changes in reference temperature that might occur. They feed into the input node, which has a sigma on it, then they go along to the output node, labelled P2. Then some of of it goes back via what is called the feedback block at the bottom, and feeds back in through the loop to the input node and then that's added to the signal that's already come in, the input signal, and then that goes out and becomes the output signal at node P2.
The sunshine term is T E, the emission temperature. (We'll discuss this a little bit more later).
This is the Mainstream feedback loop. No mainstream question here because this is Climatology's variant of the system-gain equation, and here, what has happened, is the absolute quantities of T eq and T ref have disappeared and have been replaced by delta T eq and delta T ref. They are looking only at the changes.
Now, as we've seen, they say that the changes in temperature before feedback on doubling of CO2 is 1.05 Kelvin. So then we divide this by 1 - f, and that then gives you the equilibrium warming at the bottom, and from that here is the variant block diagram.
You'll see what's happening here. The term for sunshine has been left off. Now, funnily enough, this equation is still a true equation, and we'll show you why later, but it doesn't give you enough information to enable you to find out what the feedback factor actually is.
T E the sunshine term is absent.
Now, here is the feedback factor that they calculated and you'll see it's 1 - 1.05 divided by the equilibrium temperature change, 3.35, and that gives you 0.693, a very big feedback factor.
Remember that figure 0.693. That's what climatology says it is, but that's not mainstream science, and we are going to show you why.
Let's discuss a bit more on the sunshine term, the emission temperature. T E is calculated using the equation at the bottom of the screen, which is known as the fundamental equation of radiative transfer.
The amount of net radiation coming in per square meter of the earth's emitting surface, which is actually at the real surface before you put any greenhouse gases in there, is known as Q E. That's divided by a constant, called the Stefan Boltzmann constant, and then you take the fourth power and that gives you 243.3 K.
If you use today's sunshine, which is 1663 watts per sq. meter, and the albeido if there were no greenhouse gases, (the albeido is how much of that light is reflected harmlessly straight back into space) there would be a bit more ice around if there weren't any greenhouse gases, so the albeido is a bit higher there, than the 0.29 that we'd expect today, but this is an official value of albeido. So this is a mainstream calculation and now we look at the sum of the sunshine term and the warming from the natural non-condensing greenhouse gases.
Add those two together and you get the reference temperature before accounting of the feedback, and you see it's simply 243 plus 11, gives you about 254 K before we account for feedback.
Now, we account for feedback by dividing by 1 - f as you've seen before (the mainstream equation), and then we put numbers on it, and so we now get that the equilibrium temperature in 1850 was simply the surface temperature that that obtained that year, and we know that from the Data Set that was around at that time.
And it's 287.5 K, and you can see that equals the sunshine term 243.3K + 11.05 for the naturally occurring greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere at that time divided by 1 - f, and allows us to calculate what it is.
Climatology doesn't use this equation, so it can't calculate f, but we can, and here's how we do it:
We put f at the left hand side of the equation. We follow the usual rules for re-arranging terms in an equation and then put the numbers on, and you will see f is not 0.693 as they think, it's 0.116.
It's about 1/6 of what they are trying to tell us!
That makes a big difference to show warming we are going to get, so now we can complete the mainstream system-gain for the first equilibrium.
We are now looking at the second equilibrium time, not 1850, but 2011. We keep all the terms from the previous equation, but obviously, we add the man-made reference warming, (that's the warming before feedback-in yellow) and we also imagine that it's possible that the feedback factor might change over the last 150 years, so we allow a delta f added in.
We don't know what it is yet. We are going to calculate it. So once again we put in numbers to this, and the important thing to see here is we've now got 288.5 rather than 287.5K, on the left.
There's actually been only 3/4 of a K warming since 1850, but we can add another of 1/4 of a K to allow for that radiative imbalance.
I told you earlier where not all of the warming has yet come through into the atmosphere. So that goes up by, not 0.75K, but by 1.0K.
The sunshine term remains the same and so does the term for the greenhouse gases that were already there in 1850, 11.05K .(in white)
Now you will see that the sunshine term is very big.
The term for the greenhouse gases that were there before we were, is biggish, but look how small the directly forced warming caused by is to 2011, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),is only 0.7K!
See how small that is in relation to the sum of the previous two terms there - it's a tiny, tiny fraction and that's why the feedback factor is actually so much smaller than they had thought it was.
So now, once again we re-arrange the equation to get f on the left hand side plus delta f, of course, because we don't know what it is yet, and lo and behold, we find that f + delta f is also equal to 0.116 and that tells us that delta f is actually equal to zero; there's been no change in the feedback factor in all those years.
Why? Because the sun and the previous existing greenhouse gases dominate the equations.
This is something which because climatology has left these terms out of the equations, they didn't know this, so now that we've got that feedback factor of 0.116, we can take delta f out of the equation.
Now we can go on to compare the mainstream feedback factor that we have just found using the sunshine term (and it's only 0.116 compared with the 0.693 that we saw from official climatology.
So climatology's value of the feedback factor is 6X too big!
Now, if we convert that back to temperature, and this is the first time anyone has ever seen just how much warming we can expect from a doubling of CO2.
The correct figure is only 1.15K compared with the 3.35K central estimate that the official models have been telling us for the last 30 or 40 years.
This is a very big change indeed, because what it means is that there's not going to be enough global warming to do any harm at all.
The planet will get just a little bit warmer, but it will be well within the range of temperature we've been, over the last 800,000 years ( this figure is not in conformity with a young earth of approximately 6500 years. c.f Dr. Walt Brown's book, "In The Beginning."- but regardless , Lord Monckton's conclusion as far as the range of temperature goes, still stands), and there will be no climate crisis, because this warming will take merely 100-150 years to occur.
So basically, we have no longer any climate problem.
Now, what did climatology do wrong?
It used a different equation.
Here is the equation we used which has the term for the sunshine in it, T E.
There is the sun with the sunshine term on it in the equation. It has the term for the reference warming, which includes all the reference warming both natural and anthropogenic now.
It includes the feedback factor and that gives you the equilibrium temperature. That's the correct equation they should have used, and the equation we used.
Here is their variant, which as you see, uses the deltas rather than the absolute values and therefore they don't have the sunshine term in it, and that's why they think you get a much bigger feedback factor
Here you can see where they got their equation from, why their equation is a correct equation, but an insufficient one to give us the answer we need.
Here we set out in full the two equilibrium equations. The one on the top is for 2011, the next one is down, T eq1 is for 1850, and we subtract those two correct equations from each other, and what we are left with is an equation in the form of the equation that climatology has always used.
What this tells us, is that they have subtracted out the sun, because the term for the sunshine and the term for the naturally occurring greenhouse gases, that's T E for sunshine and delta T ref 1 for the naturally occurring greenhouse gases up to 1850, are terms common to both those equations.
If you subtract one equation from the other, those two terms disappear, so all the affect of the naturally occurring greenhouse gases disappear, and even, more importantly, the terms for the sunshine disappears, because it is subtracted out, and you can see all that, in your face!
And you look at the results of that subtraction, which is below the line and you see no sunshine term there, because they've left out the sunshine term and that's where they get their equation from.
It's quite important to establish that their equation is a correct equation, and this is the proof it is a correct equation, because they will try to say to us, indeed, some of the reviewers have already said to us, 'Oh, but you know our equation is correct!'
Yes, it is a correct equation, because otherwise it wouldn't come out from the subtraction that we show here if the two previous equations are correct, and you subtract one equation from the other, you will always end up with a correct equation, but it is not a useful equation because you've lost the term for the sunshine, and here you see that when we convert that to looking for what the feedback factor might be, you can see what is crossed out in the official equation down the bottom, and that is why their feedback factor cannot be calculated correctly.
In fact, if you use their equation, they get a feedback factor using the actual data between 1850 and and today of 0.3, which is less than half their published value of 0.693, roughly 0.7, and that suggests that they were simply guessing when they got their value of the feedback factor, because their own equation suggests that its going to be a lot lower than they think.
But because they've got no sunshine term they don't get the answer of 0.116 which is the correct answer.
Now, here you see a comparison between our correct answer for the feedback factor, 0.116, which means less than 12% of the final warming is caused by feedbacks, and you'll see that here.
If you use their equation you get a 0.3, which is quite a lot higher.
If you use the result from the computer model, their central estimate is actually 0.7, which is a very much too big and there are some silly papers around which make it 0.75 which is even bigger!
So you can see where it is they get their very big numbers for how much global warming we're going to get.
What we are going to do is to use the 0.116 and then put that in the correct equation and bingo!
The amount of warming we get out is 1.15K, and you'll see that's compared with a range of about 1.6K to 4.4K with a central estimate 3.35K that you get if you use their values of the feedback factor.
So, this is a major discovery! What this shows, simple though the analysis is, is that 40 years of climatology have been going off in completely the wrong direction!
They have imagined it was going to be a large amount of global warming, andin fact, there's only going to be a small, slow harmless and benficial amount of global warming.
What this means really, is that the scare is over!
Now, this is another complicated slide. This is the kind of thing that we mathematicians love to play with , and you'll see there are three lines that go up in a kind of curve, shooting off into infinity.
This is known as part of a rectangular hyperbola, and it is a curve of the equation they use to determine how much warming we will get, and, of course, once we know that the correct value of the feedback factor is 0.116, we can use their equation, and it will be a correct answer.
You'll see that is way down there at the left hand end of the screen.
You don't get very much change in temperature even if you quite a wide varying range of inputs. The temperature we get out is going to be very close to 1.15K per doubling of CO2 concentration.
Going further to the right and further upwards, you'll see that the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), is around 1.5K to 4.5K. Then you get some very silly results, where at the top with solid red arrows, and the three dotted arrows that simply tell you the values of the reference warming per doubling of CO2 that were used to generate these three curves. So that's all it shows.
It shows if you do the calculations correctly, the response of the climate to our warming is little, is what's called linear.
It's not going to change in the shape of a curve, as they think, because at the left hand of that curve, its very nearly a perfect straight line.
Now, here are the key equations:
This was discovered by Prof. Vashkerk (sp.), who is our Professor of Control Theory, and control theory is the area of mathematics that specializes in studying feedbacks.
This is the mathematics that Dr. Hansen had borrowed from control theory without quite understanding it, and you'll see the term in red at the bottom is dropped out of climatology's equation, and that is why their equation, though perfectly correct, doesn't allow for the sunshine.
We did some testing. Our theory works out when you actually build a circuit to test it.
What they got wrong!
They don't actually use that equation at all. They don't use any version of it.
We are only using that equation because it's a way of getting the answers the models are trying to get, by much, much simpler and much, much more reliable method than these huge models.
Now, what the models got wrong is that they imagined, and all the models show this, that if, and only if, man is the cause of global warming, then the rate of warming in the tropical mid troposphere, that's about 8-12 km up in the tropics, will be 2 to 3 times what it is of the tropical surface, and this gives you feature which I had the honor to name, and that is 'The Tropical Mid Troposphere Hotspot,' which ought to be caused by global warming caused by us ( mankind).
This comes from the IPCC and this is the picture. I could show you dozens I got from climate models all showing exactly this picture.
They all predict this because they think that water vapour feedback is a really big deal! We know that it isn't, because we've calculations where we don't have to look at what the values of the individual feedbacks are. We can just tell the overall feedback factor can't be anything like as big as theyb think it is.
Let us now, go to the year before this picture was published and here is the measurements done by drop-sondes and radiosondes at various parts in the atmosphere. This is the actual pattern of temperature covering much the same area, and not only is there not the hotspot that there was in the graph, but there's even a slightly cool spot just below that vital area in the tropical mid troposphere!
So there, if you like, is empirical confirmation (that means confirmation of our theory by actually going out and measuring stuff). And if you measure this, you'll see that the hotspot that has to be there, if you are going to predict anything like the amount of global warming they predict, it actually isn't there!
This is a very, very powerful confirmation from the real world, that the theoretical calculations, I have just shown, are in fact correct.
So the conclusions are very simple.
Our statistician, Prof. Briggs, has done a 'Monte Carlo' simulation, which involves running our equations 30,000 times, with slightly different random values in it within the ranges of plausibility for each of the values that contribute to that equation and you'll see what answers you get 30,000 times.
You get this characteristic bell-shaped curve, as mathematicians call a Gaussian distribution.
The two sigma lines, the vertical lines, are known as the 2 sigma confidence interval.
This means we are 95% sure that the temperature you should expect from doubling of CO2 after allowing for feedback sets, the equilibrium temperature will be central estimate 1.15 and a variance from from 1.1 to 1.25K when 95% certain that it's going to come in there, because 95% of all these monte Carlo runs, fell within that interval.
He also did for comparison, a distribution in blue there, using their equation and they got a much higher spread of possible temperatures, and it's much higher reading left to right than ours.
Ours will be below 1.5K and theirs is between 2.5 and 4.5K.
It's much more global warming than we are predicting, and is a much less certainty as to what that warming is. That's why it is so spread out, and we have a much taller spike because all our values are all piled up in that very narrow range, because using the sun and the pre-existing greenhouse gases in the equation, allows us to constrain the feedback factor to 0.116 and thereby to constrain the 2 sigma interval. In other words, the 95% confidence interval, which is roughly between 1.1 and 1.25K with the best estimate of 1.15K.
Now, already this release is causing panic!
We submitted this to a climate journal that ultimately rejected it because there were one or two things they said weren't quite right. They didn't argue us on the main conclusion, which is very important to notice, but in their panic in trying to find a way of stopping publishing this, they sent a copy, quite improperly (they said they didn't), but it nevertheless reached, by some means, perhaps by one of their reviewers acting without their knowledge. I don't know, but it reached the University of East Anglia, which has been a cheerleader for the more extreme view of global warming.
What these people did, was they called a meeting of the entire environmental sciences faculty at the University of East Anglia, and Professor David Richardson, Vice-Chancellor, had been shown a copy of this paper. ( He shouldn't have been. It was a gross breach of scientific protocol that the journal or the reviewers allowed it to go out like this), and he shouted at them,
"THIS IS A CATASTROPHE! If the general public ever get to hear of Monckton's paper, there will be HELL to pay!!"
They get hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to do with making global warming go away, every year. That funding is now at risk and they know it!
And this is going to be the reaction we get from most of the academic institutions, which are usually very far to the left.
They believe in this climate stuff, not because it's true, but because they want it to be true.
Professor Richardson denies this meeting took place, but we had an account of it from somebody who was actually there and heard him say what he said.
Now, their bottom line is that the predicted global warming that the climate models use, those huge computer models, is between 2.1 and 4.7 deg C.
The IPCC, is 1.5 to 4.5 Deg C, and look at little old us 1.05 deg C to 1.35 deg C, because that's the absolute maximum!
This is way beyond the 95% confidence. This is as far as we think we could possibly push the global temperature per doubling of CO2 and still remain credible, and even that is below the very lowest of the IPCC estimates, which is 1.5 deg C.
So this is really No problemo!
The conclusion we have come to has been reached entirely by methods in mainstream science, and that's not the same thing as mainstream climate science.
Mainstream climate science, you see in the upper two lots of forecasts, and is not consistent with mainstream science.
We are doing our best to get our paper published so that climatology can realize that it must adjust to using the correct equation which includes, what's called the input signal, that's the term for sunshine and for the naturally occurring greenhouse gases that were there in 1850, before we did anything to it.
They must do it properly, because at the moment the way they are doing it, we might use the same phrase Pope Innocent X used in the Treaty of Westphalia, which he kindly didn't like.
He said, 'It was Null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane and empty of meaning for all time!'
And so is mainstream climatology!
They got it wrong big time. So our conclusion is then, the planet doesn't need to be saved...the scare is really over, and there is no way that we can think of, and we've asked also people on the other side, 'Can you find a way of finding holes in the argument', and so far they have not been able to do so.
____________
Watch The Video:
______________________
Now, how does this all relate to what's been happening in Christchurch, New Zealand post 2010/2011 earthquakes?
This
New Zealand film has won four international environmental awards - but
here in NZ, TV channels refuse to play it. Why? Because if they did,
there would be outrage and riots over New Zealand's use of aerially
applied 1080 poison. See for yourself ..click HERE.
______________________
Ban 1080 Poisoning of New Zealand's Flora and Fauna, By Eco-Terrorists Department of Conservation, Bird & Forest and the N.Z. Government
________________
Communist ECan Environmentalism/Agenda 21 by Stealth
- September 25 2018
________________
Just to refresh your memories once again, here is what Agenda 21 is all about:
Agenda 21 is a two decade old grand plan for global 'Sustainable Development,' brought to you from the United Nations (U.N.) - which is a Communist organisation.
George H. W. Bush, and 177 other world leaders, agreed back in1992, and in 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order # 12858, creating a Presidential Council on Sustainable Development!
This effectively pushed the U.N. plan into America's large churning government machine, without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.
'Sustainable Development' sounds like a nice idea, right?
It sounds nice, until you scratch the surface and find that Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are really cloaked plans to impose the tenets of Social Justice/Socialism on the world.
___________
And how does all that apply to Environment Canterbury (ECan)?
Well, here's how it applies, and you can read their policy statement directly from their webpage:
Environment Canterbury is Canterbury's Regional Council.
We are responsible for facilitating Sustainable Development in the region. By managing the environment sustainably, air, regions economic, social and cultural well being can flourish.
That means you have good quality air and water, an efficient and accessible public transport system, efficient energy production resources, effective legislature around the use, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous substances and safe uuse of the region's harbours, and a coastal and safe environment which is preserved.
Oh well, there you have it, straight 'from the horses mouth,' so to speak.
ECan is part of the U.N. Communist grand plan, for global sustainable development known as Agenda 21!
And, it looks like Ecan has its finger in every pie in the region.
Alarm bells should be ringing by now, surely!
What happens in practice when you get an extreme leftist organisation, a local body like Communist ECan running things?
They actually, don't run things, in fact they run things down and destroy any sense of order and common sense in society, upsetting and frustrating the people in general with their unnecessary socialist rules and draconian, dictatorial laws intruding into people's lives.
Listed below are some of the things you can expect when you allow an organisation, like ECan ( Communism), to install itself in your community:
Environment Canterbury (ECan) has set aside $20 million for its
Healthier Homes Canterbury scheme over the next decade, with up to a
maximum of $3m per year.
The scheme, first flagged in
August, allows ratepayers to borrow $6000 at 5.9 per cent interest over
10 years to replace their out-of-date burner or insulate their home.
ECan deputy chairman Peter Scott said it was another tool in the toolbox, as the council looks to improve air quality
...
Air pollution has been issue for Timaru for a number of years. There
have been eight high pollution nights the town this year, which is under
half the amount of the previous year (17). The bulk of particulate
pollution is linked with poor home heating.
ECan estimates there are about 500 to 1000 burners over 15 years old
in Timaru, in addition to those which are now in the process of being
upgraded. These woodburners are only non-compliant if they are used, and
the households may well have switched to an alternative heat source,
such as a heat pump.
In Christchurch, about 30,000 homes either have no insulation or are
poorly insulated, 51,000 have mould or dampness problems and half of
residents surveyed in 2016 said they were too cold in their homes during
winter.
Comment:
What is it then? Loans to heat up people's homes during winter months and make them healthier places for people to live in, or is it about the environment, and concern about air quality? That is, the environment needs, according to Communist Ecan, to take precedence over people.
It has to be one or the other!
Isn't it far better for people to be able to use their older working condition woodburners and so have warmer drier healthier homes, at the expense of less than cleaner air that Ecan considers acceptable in their green environmental Agenda to control the masses, than to have people having to replace their older woodburners at the whim of this communist bureaucracy, using the inflated claim that air quality has been jeopardized using a small number of days/nights when it exceeds their standard, at what cost to those who so comply, and for those that cannot afford to do so? The latter cost for being forced or threatened to comply with the non-use of their older woodburners, is one which concerns their health, which far exceeds any 'ECan environmental harm' done by the use of this form of home heating.
Do we need to be reminded of the level this organization is prepared to stoop to enforce its draconian communist agenda, and take away your rights, including the right to maintain a warm healthy home over a lie?
Communism at work courtesy of ECan spying on its citizens
_______________
________________
A Selection of the many comments from Christchurch residents reacting strongly against this Communist U.N. agent (ECan) enforcing its draconian unjust laws under the Agenda 21 global plan!!!
________________
ECan spying on Christchurch citizens enforcing its unjust draconian Communist U.N. Agenda 21 laws
A
spokeswoman for the China-owned company said the shipment was a single
batch produced while the plant's bottling lines were being tested, and
is expected to go on sale in the coming weeks.
Chinese
consumers will soon be drinking water from an old wool scour in
industrial Christchurch, but they may be confused about where it comes
from.
"Cloud Ocean Estate" spring water will be drawn from the city's
aquifers in a factory where sheep wool was once chemically cleansed of
contaminants – but, as it's described in its packaging, it comes from a
"200m deep underground aquifer from renowned Caterbury [sic]".
Boxes featuring the misspelling were unloaded from trucks in large
numbers at the plant, which is gearing up to pump water. The site has a
rail siding, allowing large volumes of water to be moved en masse.
ALDEN WILLIAMS/STUFF
The former Kaputone wool scour where a water bottling plant has been established.
The plant's China-based owners, Cloud Ocean Water, received official
permission from Environment Canterbury (ECan) on Thursday to bottle the
water it is already allowed to extract, amounting to around 1.5 billion
litres per year.
There was community opposition to granting the bottling consent, primarily through a petition with about 70,000 signatures.
Lawyer Peter Richardson also challenged it, citing the effect of the cumulative impact on water levels.
In its decision, however, ECan said there was no reason under the
Resource Management Act not to grant the consent, as the water take had
been consented long ago and it cannot discriminate based on the planned
usage of water. The Resource Management Act is all part of Agenda 21, to place restrictions on any development a person might want to pursue legitimately.
And if that isn't enough they have misspelled 'Canterbury' as 'Caterbury'?!!___
So much for ECan managing Canterbury's resources sustainably ( whatever that means), like water, they are giving it away (for peanuts, incidently) to a Communist country, but that's what you can expect from this Communist organisation, Agenda 21, and they, ECan, are part and parcel of it!
_
A few relevant comments:
Chucktify
This is disgusting! Are they chlorinating the water that is been stolen from Cantabs?!! I honestly, can't believe that this is being allowed to happen all for money and greed. If noone can own the water how does anyone have the right to sell it. +4
Harakeke
Not only do the Chinese get to drink the water, it's a Chinese owned company. N.Z. gains absolutely nothing from this. Other than a few for the factory workers ( on minimum wages are they?) This fundamentally wrong for so many reasons. I can't belive it's been allowed to happen. +4
Andy24
CCC and ECan hang your heads in shame as there is very little support for you in the Canterbury region for selling off Canterbury's vital resource' Our water. Bring on the next local body election, now would be good.
Sandy clause
The national party actively went to China and promoted this to them, instead of promoting N.Z. for us. They have a lot to answer for.
Madmax
And if I read it right, Jenny Shipley is behind ECan and all this happening. Ex national govt for you ...
Not only do the
Chinese get to drink the water, it’s a Chinese owned company....NZ gains
absolutely nothing from this! Other than a few jobs for the factory
workers (on minimum wage are they)? This is fundamentally wrong for so
many reasons. I can’t believe it’s been allowed to happen
This is
disgusting!!! Are they chlorinating the water that is being stolen from
Cantabs?!. I honestly can't believe that this is being allowed to happen
all for money and greed. If no one can own the water then how does
anyone have the right to sell it.
chucktify .
This
is disgusting!!! Are they chlorinating the water that is being stolen
from Cantabs?!. I honestly can't believe that this is being allowed to
happen all for money and greed. If no one can own the water then how
does anyone have the right to sell it.
__________________
Communist ECan still pushing the Agenda 21 Climate Change Lie/Hoax with latest commenty by their commander in chief, Lowndes
In the last eight years ECan has imposed a raft of regulations, most
notably a reduction in nitrogen loss from farms. This would mitigate the
potential for irrigation to lead to greater intensification of
agriculture, Lowndes says.
"We now have so many limits on what nutrients can be emitted, by
dairy in particular, that it becomes harder and harder to intensify
further. We have put limits on everything.
"For this reason, I don't necessarily link irrigation with more pollution.
"I would hate to see more cows as a consequence of irrigation. To me
irrigation is an adaptation to climate change and a more efficient use
of water.
"We are all guilty of consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It's not just farmers."
Lowndes says he is concerned about climate change, with the east coast expected to get drier.
"We don't get the southerlies we used to. More of our weather is coming
from the west and the north. Westerly rain comes down the large braided
rivers like the Rangitata, Rakaia and Waimakariri and we can store it.
"In future, a lot of food growing areas around the world will suffer
from a lack of water. In Canterbury we are blessed by an abundance of
water if we can manage it properly."
Waterways in Canterbury are improving, a report showed. "We have been
looking for signs of success for a long time and we are starting to see
them.
"Selwyn-Waihora will be a red zone (a catchment where water quality outcomes are not being met) for a long time yet.
There have been 150 years of farming on the plains adjacent to
Christchurch and it will take a long time for all that nitrogen to wash
through the gravels. But we are beginning to get control on the point
source," Lowndes says.
[ Sorry, Mr Lowndes, please get up to speed and stop pushing the 'climate change' lie
_____________
U.N. COMMUNIST AGENDA 21 & THE C.C.C. (Christchurch City Council)
The only challenges Christchurch coastal residents face is their local body, the Christchurch City Council (C.C.C.) pushing its Communist U.N.'s Agenda 21 program on its citizens, using the environment, notably climate change, to hide the real agenda of Agenda 21, which is depopulation under a Communist world government,
_______________
And the scaremongering goes on and on .... in spit of the fact that all this climate change nonsense has just recently been scientifically debunked, thanks to Lord Christopher Monckton and his team of real scientists!
___________
Let us not forget about Green Environmentally Conscious Francis of 'who am I to judge' infamy, a.k.a. antipope Francis
From antipope francis' encyclical Laudato Si
Antipope Francis wants countries to do their part in controlling climate change
170: “Furthermore, since the effects of climate change will be felt for a long time to come, even if stringent measures are taken now,
some countries with scarce resources will require assistance in
adapting to the effects already being produced, which affect their
economies. In this context, there is a need for common and differentiated responsibilities. As the bishops of Bolivia have stated, ‘the countries
which have benefited from a high degree of industrialization, at the
cost of enormous emissions of greenhouse gases, have a greater responsibility for providing a solution to the problems they have caused'”.
In number 170, Francis promotes the myth of climate change. He says
countries have a common responsibility to take action against “climate
change”.
And here's another kook who hasn't bothered or simply ignored Lord Christopher Monckton's refutation of the climate change scam, and heaven help us if he ever got the chance to impose his silly ideas on the people in New Zealand!!
In Your Face - Communism U.N. Agenda 21 being rolled out by the C.C.C.
Remember those catch words ... such as "sustainable" and "smart growth" we warned you about, words that are sugar coated nice sounding PR terms, and are not actually what you think they stand for!
_____________
Conclusion:
We have, in this blog post, thanks to Lord Christopher Monckton, with his able team of scientists using mainstream science, and not the climate science equation, with all its shortcomings, shown that climate change threat, with its exaggerated temperature rise over the next 100 years or so, with a doubling of CO2, is never going to happen.
The polar bears will continue to flourish, the ice caps are not going to disappear, and the seas are not going to rise, anywhere they have said it will, in that time, so we don't have to be concerned about our baches on the beach, and building our homes close by the sea shore.
So, Christchurch City Council (C.C.C.) stop preventing the citizens of Christchurch enjoying their lives as they enjoy their coastal environment. Get rid of ECLEI and don't vote in any one who supports Communist U.N. Agenda 21.
Get rid of ECan, dispatch the money gobbling Regenerate Christchurch Plan, and simply get on and do what you are meant to do, that is fix up Christchurch and stop wasting ratepayers money!
Bottom Line is global warming is not a problem after all. Enjoy the sunshine climatologists forgot about!
MHFM: No question about it. The Vatican II Sect is
the end-times Counter Church. That's why this very clear fulfillment of
apocalyptic prophecy occurred on the 50th anniversary of the close of Vatican
II:
Although one should not need it (because the evidence is in front of
our eyes), what Padre Pio said (around 1960) that Satan would soon come
to rule a false Church (in reference to the Third Secret of Fatima) is a
total and striking confirmation of what we have covered concerning the
apocalyptic prophecies, the end-times Counter Church (the Whore of
Babylon), etc.
11/16/2017
_________________
_________________
Finally the Christchurch City Council Are Doing Something Positive For A Change! - 11 October, 2018. Maternity of The Blessed Virgin Mary
Christchurch City Council Rejects Water NZ
Great news: Reported in Stuff yesterday,
Christchurch city council has rejected Water NZ and is definitely
aiming to restore Christchurch's pure clean water without the use of
chlorine. It seems highly unlikely that Christchurch will ever be
fluoridated, unless the Government pushes through its Mandatory
Fluoridation Bill. (See Legislation for more information on the Bill).
Water NZ are an industry front group for companies such as Ixom that sell chlorination and fluoridation chemicals and Beca that
provide the engineering expertise for the installation of the required
equipment. Water NZ are lobbying to have the whole country chlorinated
and fluoridated.
____________
Communist Christchurch City Council - But We Forgot About That "Sculpture" in the Avon River!
OR
'When the Chickens (Birds) Come Home To Roost On A Piece Of Communist "Art'!__
The Green Environmental and Occultist Witch Promoter Antipope Francis
At the the Mass opening of the Synod for Youth that was held in Rome, October 6, 2018, Francis displayed the symbol of witchcraft, and it ended in a two hour crazy rock fest [below]
...with the approval of these so-called "bishops" and [probably a few "cardinals" to boot!]
___________________
Why Many "Catholics" are Worried and Confused at Francis' Continuing Unorthodox Antics ... Watch the following videos to find out why.
and ...
___________
also ...
_______________
and it keeps getting worse ...
________________
A Summary Of Lord Christopher Monckton's climate paper
Evil has infiltrated the Roman Catholic
Church. (And, it's not just the child molesters.)Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah
Turkson - an easily-manipulated Third World catholic - is teaming up with Hans
Joachim "John" Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
(PIK) - an atheist and Gaian cult leader - to convince Catholics that so-called
"global warming" (a.k.a. "climate change") is now official Catholic Doctrine.
Together, they convinced Pope Francis to ban
skeptical scientists from the 2015 UN Papal Summit on the redistribution of
wealth using climate policy. (Schellnhuber presented Pope Francis' encyclical on
the environment.)
The only remedy for the afflictions in the
Church is the excommunication of the perpetrators.
Kevin Burtyk
MHFM: Kevin, you need to look over more of the material.The evil is in the Vatican II Sect, not
in the Catholic Church. The Vatican II Sect, currently operating under the
apostate Antipope Francis, is not the Catholic Church.It is the prophesied end-times Counter
Church, as the material covers.
Francis is not a pope but an apostate antipope.Heretics cannot be valid popes.You need to get out of the New Mass (if you go there) and reject the
Vatican II Sect.We also recommend
that Catholics pray 15 decades of the Rosary each day and the Hail Mary
frequently.
_______________
Climate Change with Lord Monckton - 9th August,2018
_______________
U.N. IPCC/UNFCCC Panic Sets In - As We Have Some Fun!
A Final request from Lord Christopher Monckton at the conclusion of his video presentation on Climate Change addressed to Constitution Camp in the U.S. 9 August, 2018, on how everyone can help, after he reported that ..." I reported this error to the IPCC ( International Panel on Climate Change) in accordance with its error reporting protocol.
Their reply was NIL, there wasn't one! This was three weeks ago. They have not complied with their protocol. They obviously don't want to!
How Can You Help?
Write now to -
His Excellency Herr Martin Dahinden
Embassy of the Swiss Confederation
2900 Cathedral Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20008-3499
or e-mail was.information@eda.admin.ch
... and say the following-
"Your Excellency,
I want the IPCC investigated by the Swiss Police for Fraud and Corruption because they've been told that every one of their previous reports is incorrect, but the amount of global warming we are going to get is very small, and they have refused even to acknowledge the existence of this report under the terms of their own protocol on error correction, which requires them immediately to acknowledge all such reports."
Yours truly,
[name]
______
Likewise you can write or e-mail to -
Mr Adalah Mokssit,
Secretary of the IPCC and Mr Kerstin Stendahl, Deputy Secretary of the IPCC, and Ms Sophia Schlingemann, Legal Officer of the IPCC.
c/o World Meterological Organization
7bis Avenue de la Paix
C.P. 2300
CH-1211
Geneva 2, Switzeland
or e-mail amokssit@wmo.Int and kstendahl@wmo.Int and sschlingemann@wmo.Int and IPCC-Sec@wmo.Int
... write or e-mail these shady characters at IPCC, and say to them ...
Dear Mr Adalah Mokssit,
You have a duty to acknowledge Monckton's report on Climate Change, and we require you to do that duty. We have also reported you to the Swiss Ambassador .
Yours truly
[name]
Do the same for the other shady IPCC characters at the WMO.
_________
You can also report IPCC's corruption to the Swiss Police via the online format
https://fedpol.integrityplatform.org/
Let them know the Swiss are harbouring a bunch of crooks because they have realized that the game is up and their organization is no longer needed, and they are refusing to pull their head out of the sand and acknowledge the letter in accordance with their protocol.
[preferably use your name when you sign your e-mail]
_____________
Latest Statistics
_______________
An Informative and embarrassing movie for the IPCC and their supporters, but not for the rest of us!
According to the web, the absurd phrase "Judeo-Christian" is
a term that has been in use "since the 1950s" to promote "inter-religious
cooperation"…
When JP2 was calling the Jews "our elder brothers", he was
mocking the adherents of the Vatican 2 Sect and (to a certain extent) mocking
the Jews as well. The "Jews" today follow the leaders of the first apostasy
from Christ and His true faith (two thousand years ago). In this sense they
are truly the "elder brothers" of today's heretics and apostates… JP2… never,
ever called any of his Jewish "friends" to conversion but did all he could
(as his closest Jewish friend said) to make him feel even "more Jewish".
Antipope JP2 wasn't interested in the Jews' or anyone else's salvation.
He used the Jews, instead -- in numerous ways -- as important players in his
program of deceiving the world and of destroying the true Catholic faith in
millions of souls. Who but Satan could come up with such a program as
this…
Lee Ann
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate
Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes
and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans
but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will
go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels,
unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the
unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who
abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts,
almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia
produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has
given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless
he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
/arc-anglerfish-syd-prod-nzme.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MLHRPUCDNREGXP6ZKNACQSBQWA.jpg)
/arc-anglerfish-syd-prod-nzme.s3.amazonaws.com/public/C7ADH6N4W5AQXBTFKWVAG5RT6Q.jpg)
/803_Syn-3.gif)
