Ever read an article based on a “Scientific” Report and be unable to find out even which report it is? or Six Reasons why you should worry about Climate Change

Six Reasons You Should Worry About Climate Change

I came across the above article in the New Zealand Herald of Monday May 2.

I am interested in this subject, especially the Sea Level Rise aspect.

This is because my Local Government is currently is  starting to put pressure on 18,000 private properties which are believed (by the Local Government) to be “in danger of inundation in 100 years time” .

This action is based upon a report commissioned by my City Council which assures us that there will probably/most likely be a 1000mm sea level rise within that 100 years.

I have studied this report as well as a few others produced by the same agency. In all there are three or more reports upon which the Christchurch (NZ) City Council is using to justify their actions.

In New Zealand, each property title has a document called a “Land Information Memorandum” attached to it. This gives details of any possible hazards and town planning obligations etc. that apply to this particular title. This is essential and generally helpful reading for anyone wishing to purchase that particular property.

An brief overview of the Councils intention reads something like this :-

Initially the council wants to put an entry in the memorandums of the above mentioned 18,000 properties siting that inundation, (depending on the zone of the particular property) will happen within 50 years or 100 years.  More ominously the Council also aims to designate “Inundation Zones” on the district plan, the intention being to allow them to control development within these areas.

Most importantly,  before any significant improvements to any property in this inundation zone are allowed,  they will demand – what is known as a “Resource Consent”.

(A resource Consent is a process which both examines in depth, allows comments or objections from any persons throughout New Zealand – does not have to be a neighbor – and because of the likely requirements for expert reports and hearing/court costs etc. is also very expensive to obtain)

I should know, I spent $200,000 and a lot of my time to try to get approval for a perfectly reasonable and GREEN project and after a number of hearings and court appearances, I failed.

The Council has also stated that any resource consent on this matter will be unlikely to be approved

Most citizens of my city now easily recognize that this will not only restrict the living of the affected property owners but is the first step to start “legally” clearing residents out of these areas.

There is no doubt that, should the council have its way, there will be at least, a profound drop in property values in these areas, which in itself will cause people with large mortgages hardship and for obvious reasons probably force their exit and break them financially.

It is also thought that insurance may be impossible to attain.

Although because of a backlash and protests by the residents of the area involved, the Council has withdrawn the process for the time being. However some groups are now organizing to try and fight this heavy handedness.May these groups keep the pressure up because it is apparent that the Council is not giving up on this action but more biding its time for the best opportunity.

My research showed that key documents that the Council is relying on here can only be described as extremely shoddy and alarmist in their compilation.

First of all the current sea level rise, according to well researched academic studies, shows that  currently THE SEA RISES 1.7mm per year, which it has been since records began and NO ACCELERATION HAS YET BEEN DETECTED!

Although some of the above mentioned  reports which the Council is using as “Authority”, ( which I found generally poorly referenced as to where their information came from), actually reference these same academic studies above, they have not seem fit to mention the important little fact, that there is no empirical evidence showing acceleration of sea level rise, is stated in their text.

Therefore I was and am still intrigued about where the “facts” came from for this news paper article

Hence I wrote three times to the paper requesting the source of their article and especially this “New Report”  mentioned in the first sentence, of which one can read in the next paragraph,  was published by the Royal Society of New Zealand.

First of all, a paragraph of the newspaper Article.

why we should worry about climate change

With a historic global climate agreement about to be signed in New York, a new report has laid bare how New Zealand will be affected by climate change.
The report, published by the Royal Society of New Zealand, has found that climate change, already underway, will almost certainly accelerate this century unless drastic action is taken to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases.
Changes expected to impact New Zealand include at least 30cm and possibly more than one metre of sea-level rise this century.
The report finds it likely that the sea level rise around New Zealand will exceed the global average, which will cause coastal erosion and flooding, especially when combined with storm surges.
“Many New Zealanders live on the coast and two-thirds of us live in flood-prone areas so we are vulnerable to these projected changes,” said Professor James Renwick, chair of the expert panel who wrote the report.
Even small changes in average conditions can be associated with large changes in the frequency of extreme events, he said.
The report highlights six major effects we can expect to see.
1. It will threaten our coastlines

• It is very likely that the rate of sea level rise around New Zealand will exceed the historical rate and exceed the global average – at least another 30cm is virtually guaranteed this century but the rise could exceed 1m.
• With a 30cm rise in sea level, the current one-in-100 year extreme sea level event would be expected to occur once every year or so in many coastal regions.
*Rising sea levels mean rising coastal water tables, leading to semi-permanent or permanent inundation of low-lying areas, and the potential for salt water to get into freshwater systems.
• The implications for coastal populations will vary widely, depending on the shape of the coast, the distribution of buildings and structures at risk and their vulnerability, and the differentiated make-up of communities themselves. *However, the recent report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment indicates that thousands of households in many towns and cities will be affected.
• These communities will need to plan for and adapt to change and some will need to decide whether to “hold the line” or relocate in response to known risks or actual climate change impacts.
2. It will bring more floods

etc.  etc.

Full article is here:   six reasons you should worry about climat change NZ Herald

So here is my polite letter to the editor

“The New Zealand Herald

Dear Sir,

I am interested in the sources of the many unsupported facts and omissions in your article

“Six reasons you should worry about climate change”.

For instance you mention “A new report” then later we find it is “ published by the Royal Society of New Zealand”.

Then later we read “Changes expected to impact New Zealand include at least 30cm and possibly more than one metre of sea-level rise this century

I find these statements puzzling because in one of the Royal Society of New Zealand’s recent publications, and I cite:- RSNZ, 2010

“Sea levels have risen throughout the Twentieth Century

“Tidal records from many sites around the globe provide clear evidence that sea levels have risen over the last century by an average of 1.7 mm/yr (± 0.5 mm/yr).6 Over the period of satellite observation, altimetry and tidal records confirm that the rate has increased, as shown in Figure 1. The rise over the past fifteen years has been 3.3 mm/yr (± 0.4 mm/yr).7

Accounting for land movement, comparable rises are seen in the tidal records for Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin, and Lyttelton where annual records cover most of last century. The rise around New Zealand has been close to the global trend. However, evidence of an accelerating rate has not yet been seen in the New Zealand tidal record.”

(Figure 1. Refers to a graph of observations and predictions. The observations source is not given)

Other sources such as J. Hannah

School of Surveying, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand in 2004 published the following;

“This new analysis supports at least two other conclusions.

Firstly, it continues to indicate that in New Zealand, at least, there has been neither a significant change in the rate of sea level rise nor any detectable acceleration”

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03307, doi:10.1029/2003GL019166, 2004

RSNZ2010 also contains some speculative statements such as you cite in your article, but the actual truth is that;

According to all the sources I can find, there is no acceleration of sea level rise yet detected in NZ waters – and unless an acceleration, which obviously is a necessary condition in order to attain 300mm of sea level rise during the next century, is empirically detected, any prediction of sea level rising is simply pure speculation.

I would also venture suggest that if you are basing your article on a similar report to RSNZ 2010 the quality of your reporting is not in the least enhancing the reputation of your organization.


According to these sources, the sea level change in New Zealand shores is recorded as being a constant 1.7mm per annum since recording began.

In order to cause 300mm per century it needs to double and to attain 1000mm per century it needs to multiply by more than a factor of five!

The catch is that this acceleration has not yet started.

However, I am very interested in this “New Report” and I trust that you can direct me to this publication so I can assess it for myself.

I have not mentioned any of the later statements in your article which are presumably also based on this report, but it is difficult to give then credence unless there is some empirical break through which can suddenly validate these claims. Therefore I am very keen to study these.

At the moment, for instance, we know that the climate is still cooler than that attained by the Medieval Warm Period, and other historically recorded warmings. The fact we are still cooler than the Medieval Warm Period, for instance is validated by the archaeological recovery of “Garten Unter Sandet” which is a Viking farm in Greenland which was excavated from permafrost a few years ago. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22551.pdf

Another example is http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/ which discusses early artifacts left during medieval, roman and stone ages that are being discovered emerging from the ice and snow. It appears that this area has been used a short cut between North Italy and the Bernese upper country for a number of periods in early history.

Looking forward to reading your “New Report

Faithfully Yours ….”

 I sent the above email three times and only got an automated reply each time, saying that I would be contacted within three working days.

Of course I have not been contacted.

Well with no help from the newspaper, I did eventually find what must be the report in question.

Climate Change Implications for New Zealand

My apologies to the readers who tried the above link and ended up facing a log in screen.  It appears that the Royal Society didnt really want too many people to read their paper.

However I have found that I had archived the report on my own disk so here it is:-


It is a rehash of the report I mention above (RSNZ, 2010) and uses some of the same wording.

For instance

“Tidal records from many sites around the globe provide clear evidence that sea levels have risen over the last century by an average of 1.7 mm/yr (± 0.5 mm/yr).6 Over the period of satellite observation, altimetry and tidal records confirm that the rate has increased, as shown in Figure 1. The rise over the past fifteen years has been 3.3 mm/yr (± 0.4 mm/yr).7″

appears but the paragraph :-

Accounting for land movement, comparable rises are seen in the tidal records for Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin, and Lyttelton where annual records cover most of last century. The rise around New Zealand has been close to the global trend. However, evidence of an accelerating rate has not yet been seen in the New Zealand tidal record.”

is absent:-  No claim that acceleration has been detected, no mention of the current data at all.

Even worse, I cannot find any  scientific references refering to sea level rise in this article, (except Bell and Hannah part of which was quoted above), (via (RSNZ, 2010), but omitting the last key phrase.

Hannah also reiterates the above at GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03307, doi:10.1029/2003GL019166, 2004

There continues to be no evidence of any
acceleration in relative sea levels over the record

This “report” is therefore demonstrably not an authorative report, it is not a scientific report – it appears to be a summary of scare mongering rumour and should be treated as much.

An academic would describe any report, even one  with what is purported to contain life changing information for normal people, but without proper references as “fiction”

This is not even close to the standard of work worthy of an organisation that calls themselves “The Royal Society of New Zealand”

Even if we can believe such speculative predictions which the NZ Herald is thrusting on the public, sea level rise will never be a tsunami, and there will be plenty of time to enact suitable measures if and when an actual acceleration in sea level rise is detected.

We the people of Christchurch and especially the 18,000 property holders being bullied by the local government deserve better than this!

Posted in Communism, ICLEI, Social Engineering, Uncategorized, United Nations Connection | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 23 Comments

UN Headquarters and USD$1.2 Billion upgrade (And Rising)


It appears that the United Nations building has been undergoing an expensive renovation and update – complete with cost over runs.

There seems to be conflicting reports as to the total cost of this project. The title figure comes from Wikipedia.

Below they discuss large figures needed to complete the job.

All World tax payers money of course.

See https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/concerns-over-un-hq-coast-overuns-2016.pdf

UN building on East River

The UN Headquarters next to the East River New York.


Check it out for yourself!



Surprised there are no docks or jetties planned for the first floor? Maybe they intend to rely on aircraft landing and departing from the roof.



PS: How much sea level acceleration is actually going on?

Fact. Sea level rise caused by the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory can never be a tsunami.  Therefore to attain the catastrophic heights we see predicted we would expect to see an ACCELERATION in the sea level rise record.

How much acceleration has been detected to date?

When you next read or hear of a catastrophic sea level rise projection try working out the acceleration of sea level rise that is needed to meet the prediction

Check out this site  http://www.sealevel.info/papers.html


Posted in 350.ORG, Big Oil, Communism, ICLEI, PEAK OIL, Powerful Lobbyists AGW, Social Engineering, Uncategorized, United Nations Connection | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

The Rockefellers, who they fund – From their web site

Well I visited the Rockefeller Brother’s website http://www.rbf.org and used their search engine to get an idea of who and how much they funded.

The results were impressive to say the least.

Click to access grants-search-_-rockefeller-brothers-fund-greenpeace.pdf

Click to access grants-search-results-sustainable-projects.pdf

Click to access cross-programatic-initiative-energy.pdf

Click to access grants-search-results-democratic-practice.pdf

Of course Greenpeace is on the list and so is the Sierra Club, but there are so many more including a number of Universities.
Ever wonder why academic publications on Global Warming are so popular and why the many that are so bad get published at all?

The search engine is very easy to use and gives reasonably comprehensive results.

It seems that the Rockefellers have a poor record when it come to choosing who they fund.

Check this out:Rockefeller Funded German Eugenics in 1920’s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL8UOD1gVFE
Check the video at 54 mins and 12 secs.

NB: It has come to my notice that this video has been removed or blocked for some areas.

However there are many videos and sites which cover this. 

Please try googling as below

After I watched the above video I googled “Rockefeller Eugenics” and
found a large number of hits.  Such as:




Now who was it who said :-
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”




Posted in 350.ORG, Big Oil, Christchurch City Rebuild, Christchurch Earthquake, Communism, ICLEI, PEAK OIL, Powerful Lobbyists AGW, Social Engineering, United Nations Connection | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

That Dreaded Fossil Fuel supporting Deniers and Skeptics!

Why are we always accused of being minions of Big Oil when we speak up using facts, against the religious people who push the Anthropogenic Global Warming and Extreme Sustainability line, acting just like the sheep do in Orwell’s book “Animal Farm”?

Unfortunately for me, I have never received any offer from anyone let alone any fuel organisation, but then I am only a small fish it seems.

However I did, with only a little digging, find this information about one of the most dangerous lobbiests in the world who made his initial fortune by having an almost complete monopoly on fossil fuel in the United States until his company was broken up by the introduction of the Sherman Act, which I know a little about because I studied it as an undergraduate.

I am of course talking about the Rockefeller family.

Here are some facts which I looked up recently. The Rockefellers are a bit sneaky and tend to show their allegiances with discretion and one has to chase them a bit. However this is what I found.

Simply a fraction of where they are involved I suspect.

The Rockefeller family are supporters of the following and I give the web address so you can look for yourself. However they tend to use slightly different names and often support organisations via another organisation. If you follow the financial trail, of which most “non profit” organisations are usually required to display by the law of their origin, very often the Rockefellers appear.

Here are some examples of what I have found.

1 United Nations http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/partners/organizations/rockefeller-brothers-fund.html

2. ICLEI http://www.iclei.org/en/climate-roadmap/advocacy/global-lg-events/worldmayorssummit/high-level-dialogue-on-financing-local-climate-action.html

3. Resilience  http://www.100resilientcities.org/ http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/RESILIENCE-Resilient-Cities-Acceleration-Initiative.pdf

4 Oceanwatch Sailing via http://www.conservation.org

Click to access CI_FY14_AnnualReport.pdf

5 IUCN  http://www.iucn.org via 6. WWF http://www.iucn.org/about/union/donors/companies/

Are Rockefellers involved with the WWF? A little tricky to trace but http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_international_corporate_partnerships_report_2014.pdf

Which mention 7 IMD as one of its major supporters. Lets check there.

Click to access WHO_EIP_IMD_99.1.pdf

IMD seems to be an arm of the WHO.
Who is a supporter of W.H.O. then? And why does the WHO support the WWF?
http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/en/ search for “rockefeller”
http://www.who.int/en/ search for “rockefeller”

Of course someone else has already catalogued this:

Oops, I almost forgot to include this beneficiary of the Rockerfellers.


Click to access 350-funded-by-rbf.pdf

Here is a little history.
It seems that no matter where you go in the “green” or “sustainability” world you trip over the Rockefellers .

Exactly who has Big Oil on their side then?

And believe me, the Rockefellers are not the sort of people who give out money without thinking of whats in it for them!

Actually fossil fuel energy organisations love green, sustainability and AGW.

These “philosophies” ( If they are worthy of the name) will actually benefit oil companies and the like. I don’t mean the miner at the bottom of the heap but those who control it.

Here is why.

Greens bleat out “Don’t use oil it is about to run out and it is heating up the planet.

Oil companies interpret that as “Fossil fuel will always be needed but restrict the supply? Great, can do – We know that will make the price sky rocket, so we can produce less oil, get a huge price and still make as much or more money as before but with fewer expenses! A businessman’s dream!

Read more about the Rockefellers here.


This blog is generally quite reliable as I have verified many of the things said here from other sources.

Lets have a mass expose’ of the Rockefeller involvement with AGW and Agenda 21 issues.

Please comment when you come across the Rockefellers funding something Green, Sustainable or connected to the United Nations or related,

Thank you for reading

Roger 18/6/15

Posted in 350.ORG, Big Oil, Communism, ICLEI, PEAK OIL, Powerful Lobbyists AGW, Social Engineering, United Nations Connection | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

A Quick Essay on New Zealand Today

How would you describe New Zealand if you have lived here for some time?

New Zealand, the land of my birth and my home,  is a wonderful country, but why do we have third world problems here. Why are our crime statistics and suicide rates so high?

Here is a quick essay on how I see it.  I hope other Kiwi’s living here or abroad will comment on how they see things.

What will happen if we do have a Labour/Green coalition after the next election this December?

Is it really important, as I heard on the news today (13/3/2014) that parents should be discouraged from driving their children to school? This was from the Green co-leader, the aim being to decrease congestion on the roads and presumably to aid in preserving the planet.

I know why my daughter was always driven to school. Could it have been a string of terrible criminal offences on children early in those years that affected parents confidence in their children’s safety?

Our economy on paper looks in reasonable shapehttp://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-debt-to-gdpwith a debt gdp ratio of 35.9% last year which I believe is better than the US right now which I understand is about 73%.

However, putting this in context, NZ is naturally a very wealthy country with a fertile soil, benign climate, abundant natural resources and an educated skilled populace. We should be the most wealthy country in the world. However poverty statistics are basically 3rd world with, for example, 20% of children in poverty according to the OECD.http://www.3news.co.nz/OECD-One-in-five-Kiwi-kids-lives-in-poverty/tabid/423/articleID/250874/Default.aspx .

Housing is expensive to purchase-build-rent mainly because of socialist national and local government policies on land zoning and minimum standards for new housing. I needn’t talk about the cost of housing too much as its in the media just about every day. And it is true, it is very difficult to make that jump from renting to home ownership nowadays.

Gerry Brownlee once wrote to me explaining that his aim as Minister of Housing was to improve the housing stock in New Zealand.  Well having myself lived in a few un-insulated homes in Christchurch, made even less tenable by the banning of wood or coal burning open fires and and coal ranges,(where there is so much inexpensive spare heat, that one is always trying to get rid of it), he does have a point. However the problem is in his method. Specifying continually higher specs for new homes, (and I know a lot about that), and having to only use electricity, (which is likely to fail when you need it most like it did last week), or approved heaters with special fuels is simply not only putting the price of purchasing a home out of reach for many, but is causing people to freeze through the winter because the cost of heating, combined with the continually rising rents, is too high.

The truth is, that Mr Brownlee’s policy can only lead to increasing homelessness for people at the bottom of the ladder. A good housing stock can only be attained by allowing people to become more wealthy and letting them build adequate houses themselves.  How can Mr Brownlee allow people to become more wealthy? Well fewer and much less tax of course. As I mention below, according to Friedman, according to my training and very likely according to Reserve Bank and Treasury advice to the government, substantial tax reduction not only will cause the employed to get more wealthy, the unemployed will get substantially fewer as well and even those who remain on the benefit will pay less tax. (Benefits are taxed in New Zealand).

I remember Helen Clark, (a previous Labour Prime Minister), during a televised debate before an election, very clearly denigrating advice from the government advisers, calling it bumpkin or hogwash or some such name. (One must remember that a degree in Political Science will only help you get elected, there is precious little studied in that faculty that will help you actually run a country in a way that benefits its citizens).

The government here obviously then is overly large with intrusion into almost every walk of private life and effectively most people receive some relief from the taxpayer in some form or another. In my case, like many, I also have private health insurance because the government system is good on A&E but poor on routine non emergency but essential treatment. So for instance if you need a hip operation, you will most likely need to wait until it is an emergency.

I have observed personally on a number of occasions that our government and its agencies are prepared to exceed their statutory powers thus even the rule of law is being bent. (“Personally” means I had a number of disputes with public servants who could not follow their own statutes or sat in on court cases where the government or officials were involved.)

Taxes are correspondingly high and of course – for instance – there is no rebate for having your own health insurance or using private schools.

What is most concerning is our continual slide to the political left. Even our ‘conservative’ government at present uses minimum wages, ETS and refuses to tackle the key causes of the over expensive housing such as removing city zoning and green type resource planning bureaucracy etc.
The power of local governments has also been increased under the previous labour government, making building consent a drawn out expensive nightmare. A real conservative government would have reversed this ASAP but not our ‘conservative’ government

Agenda 21 is of course rife in our legislation, local government and education. (I take it you have read my blog on this.)

Ironically, our current PM was in my university economics class, but he and his party appear to be definitely chasing the vote rather than anything else.

There is therefore little to stop UN Agenda 21 objectives in NZ.  If you wonder what I am talking about here, I thoroughly recommend that you get a copy of Ian Wishart’s book ‘Totalitaria” and have a good read. Of course you could also read the previous posts in this blog and also understand what I am on about.

In my experience, even educated people here believe that government can print money at will and are ignorant that it is really only their own money/resources. Worse still, they do not realise that at best, only a small portion will ever be spent on their account.
It is important that when you read of a government project, such as the new Stadium intended for the CBD of Christchurch, (Yup its in the plan with a price tag of about NZ$1 Billion as I recall), try to remember who is actually paying for it.

For the information of all the readers, the government, although it is physically simple to do, cannot print or create money without causing inflation and is actually constrained in this by the Reserve Bank Act. In fact, the Government has no money to spend except what it collects from us or what it has salted away in “public assets” (using our money of course) into enities such as Energy companies and the like. Consequently, the new stadium in Christchurch, (and this is simply a prominent example), being unlikely in the extreme to be able to pay for itself in hireage and gate receipts,  will simply be paid for by you and me out of our taxes in perpetuity.
I suspect that if the citizens who “approved” the plan, may have thought twice if the cost of the stadium was expressed in a dollar amount or percentage of their personal taxes.

In fact probably every day you will read of groups or individuals lobbying the government for some sort of “improvement” – using tax payers money of course where a local fund raiser from affected people would often be the most sensible thing to do.

Considering that we all pay close to 50% of our earnings to support our government(roughly 30% income tax, 15% GST), just imagine how a major cut in taxation would enable people to look after themselves.
According to the economist Milton Friedman, whose policies have benefited NZ in a number of ways and I have the utmost respect for, people “at the bottom of the ladder”, would not only be able to look after themselves, but have money left over – and- the economy would be far more buoyant without the risk of inflation.

What would be even more beneficial, seeing as how the government is always moaning that Kiwi’s don’t save enough, would be to STOP TAXING SAVINGS. A very simple solution. Kiwi Saver takes a small step towards this with a government gift to get you going, but after that you pay tax as usual while your money is locked away for you.
I used to be on a superannuation scheme where my employer matched my contributions dollar for dollar. Yup you guessed it, my dollar from my salary was taxed and the dollar from my employer was taxed as well. I think I got about 65 cents instead.

Unfortunately we are very fertile ground for green initiatives which are of course touted by the government as being ‘free’ or ‘inexpensive’, which they would not be if the tax payer subsidy was disclosed. Of course this unfortunately intensifies negatively the effect I describe in the above paragraph.

So there you have it. How a beautiful wealthy country can be ruined by its own citizens with covert help from its unprincipled government.

I know we are not the only country in the world with these problems, but NZ always prides itself in being a world leader, ignoring how futile any effect must be from such a small country.

Maybe we just need to change our direction in becoming a world leader. A smaller, less expensive government, (take a look at how Switzerland does it) and a lot less tax.

Why we could even be the wealthiest country in the world, eclipsing our neighbors across the ditch, no starving children, everyone with a fair chance to find a house that meets their needs.

I think its OK to be wealthy, but some people are embarrassed about it. Well maybe thats where our problem really lies.

Posted in Communism, Social Engineering | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Are we experiencing a communist infiltration sponsored by the United Nations?

New Zealand has United Nations Agenda 21 inserted into key legislation such as the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act.

Here is a page from the Ministry for the Environment Website. Read it carefully!www_mfe_govt_nz_laws_meas

These look horrifyingly green to me, but they only border on communism.

You must check out this exam script exemplar  from the NCEA course “Education in Sustainability” Exemplar 3 2008 exam else you will miss the point of this blog! Remember that this examination candidate was between 16 and 17 years old. Behind him or her are teachers, heads of department, headmasters, curriculum creators, government officials, Minister of Education and  ultimately the Prime Minister himself. All responsible for the repugnant things this candidate is regurgitating and eventually going through life thinking what he or she has “learned” at school is and reasonable.

I found these on the governments NZQA website. http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/assessment/view-detailed.do?standardNumber=90812

What is perhaps more shocking are the examiner’s comments which are in red over each page.

This is only one of a number in a similar vein.

Yes- The base authorities for the course “Education in Sustainability” are Agenda 21 and the Brundtland Report!

If this is not an attempt to breed little communists at high school and send them out into the community armed with very little understanding of the consequences of what they have learned, then will someone enlighten me as to what it is.

Conversely, if you have any civic responsibility, perhaps you should email the Prime Minister and the Minister of Education ask for an explanation.

Please feel welcome to comment.

What do you think of the views expressed in this exam paper and more important, the views of his instructor. Here is the link again (Exemplar 3 2008 exam)

Roger 13/03/13

Of course in this short post I have only dealt briefly with education.

Please check my post on the property rights issues that we are having in Christchurch New Zealand because of Agenda 21 measures.  https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2012/11/29/hello-world/

Roger 30/09/13

PS. Found this blog which illustrates how the UN is moving into mathematics. I have read a few papers on this subject but never seen examples like this before.


Just check the arithmetic homework that your kids bring home. If you are suspicious about anything that your children are being taught, put it in front of the Principal or head teacher for an explanation. Remember that this is happening wherever the UN can get a foot hold. We are not immune in New Zealand.

Good luck!

Roger 28/04/14

This is a reply to a comment left for me on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/17/europe-struggling-to-decide-whether-climate-is-still-a-priority/.

I think it is a very relevant reply to anyone who thinks that the UN is a benign organization that aims to bring peace and tranquility to the world.

A better description after doing some deep reading would be “The UN is a non benign organization whose aim is to bring order throughout the world by means of a despotic program of imposing extreme socialism, on normal people through the imposition of a collective society”.

Comment starts here.

Agenda 21 is indeed a series of goals. I hope you are happy with all of these goals.

I personally find them very alarming as should we all, assuming that do not have global communist leanings!

For example here is an official UN paper which describes and enlarges on some of those goals.

Click to access unitednations-conference-on-human-settlements_habitat1.pdf

The UN always looks and sounds quite reasonable until you start to read more carefully.

If you don’t want to read too deeply, just turn to Section D “Land” on the above publication.
The red emphasis is mine.

FYI – There is such a body as the Localizing Agenda 21 Programme:

” Habitat is the task manager in the UN system for the human settlements chapter of Agenda 21, adopted by the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. To reinforce the process of localization, the programme offers multi-layered support to selected medium-sized cities. ”

Click to access booklet8.pdf


Posted in Christchurch City Rebuild, Christchurch Earthquake, Communism, Social Engineering | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 70 Comments

Secure property rights are FUNDAMENTAL to personal freedom and democracy.

 People of Christchurch!

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”   Thomas Jefferson

Welcome to my blog,

I believe I have found the reason why such incredible powers have been used in the so called “rebuild” of Christchurch. My reasoning is based on what is found on the Christchurch City Council’s website and the associated documents which are used or referred to by the council.

Please follow the links I provide, which will, step by step, reveal what the people we elected are up to.

There is no doubt the explanation for the actions of our government is outrageous, but the things you will read are more than mere coincidence.

Lets review some of the more obvious things that have happened. If you are a citizen of Christchurch, you will know all these things anyway.

Red zoning in the suburbs.

We have seen whole suburbs “red Zoned” which means that these will be compulsorily taken over by the government (with negotiation with insurance companies) and at 2008 valuations.

Stop Press. This is an update about events that are happening as I write.

First of all a number of these red zoners have applied for a Judicial Review of the above mentioned Red Zone process.  The government for some reason has linked the taking of the red zone land with whether the owners are insured or not. This has left over 200 red zoners who find the government offer unsatisfactory because

1. Their property though uninsured, is either undamaged or quite repairable.

2. The government has offered them 50% of the land value only. This means they will get less than 20% of the original value of the property

3. Their property is not damaged or only slightly, so why should they have to move out at all?

The learned judge stated, among other things,

1. The government acted outside its powers in creating and enforcing the red zone.

2. The property owners  be properly compensated using legal means.

3. Made a declaration that the decision to create the red zone announced on 23 June 2011 did not lawfully affect the property rights of the property owner applicants in the proceeding CIV-2013-409-000843 (the ‘Outcasts’).

Here is the judgement.

Click to access judgement-on-20130826-fowler-developments-ltd-v-ce-cera-and-quake-outcasts-v-min-for-cer-and-o.pdf

Of course the government has appealed and this appeal is happening about now.

Watch this space!!

21/04/15 The appeal was largely upheld but the Government took it to the High Court where the case was upheld on a split decision. Not much relief for the complainants though because the Court has declined to suggest compensation – (instead simply instructing the government to reconsider this point) – but what is upheld is that the government did not act within it’s powers! Can it be that the Government is so set on pleasing the United Nations that it will break it’s own laws to that end?
Here is the judgement. https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/sc-5-2014-quake-outcasts-and-sc-8-2014-fowler-developments-ltd-v-minister-for-canterbury-earthquake-recovery-and-anor-civil-judgment-4.pdf

Because the Christchurch City Council and the central government, has raised the standard of building required, (ranging from a minimum seismic proof foundation, double glazing and even the distance from the oven to the opposite bench etc), it is therefore impossible to actually replace your house with the insurance and purchase payouts anyway (if one’s payout ever comes).

It seems from some reports that an average retired couple with no hope of raising a further mortgage, may be several hundred thousand dollars short of replacing their previous lifestyle. But regardless of whether the house is still liveable, the occupants must move out.

Some “Red Zones” include entirely undamaged houses where the red zoning is justified by there being a “Rock Fall hazard”, in spite of the fact that in many cases no actual rocks have fallen on or nearby during any of the earthquakes. The citizens therefore appear to be being locked out of their houses for no discernable reason.

In other red zone suburbs, the reason is given is that the council will be unable to provide services to that area. However the citizens still must leave, and the opportunity of any attempt for these citizens to organise their own utilities has never been on the agenda.

The same excuse has been used in limiting new housing developments where some developers feel that installing blue water waste systems for new houses is a perfectly acceptable and “environmentally friendly” solution. This would remove the burden on the council which admittedly is stretched in supplying reticulation to western suburbs and would hasten the supply of much needed buildable land. Unfortunately this is not acceptable by the bureaucracy.

Please note that these red zones generally follow the river boundaries and although the damage in many areas is devastating, they most certainly  include  a significant number of undamaged and/or repairable properties.

Not moving is not an option – if you elect to stay in a red zoned property utilities will be cut off and your property will be effectively confiscated anyway.


Well the above link has been changed, although if you are interested it does serve to enable one to look around the correct government web area.

Fortunately I copied the information so I can give you a link from my own library. This booklet can still be found at the above site but you will need to search for it.

In particular look at Page 10 “What will happen to my property if I decide that  I do not want to accept the Crown’s offer”

Purchase offer supporting information for Residential Red Zone (March 2013) – residential-red-zone-purchase-offer-supporting-information-booklet-20130327

Further Info


Red zoning in the CBD

A list of facts.

Demolition of buildings behind a cordon with little or no consultation with the building owners and their tenants with no chance to recover business and personal property (Although some cases were documented where the demolition people stripped the building and on sold everything of value).

“Red stickering” of buildings meaning no one– including the owner could enter with no provision for the owners to recover property. Only after contracted protest after weeks and months later were essential business files and plant able to be recovered.

The building owners and tenants were  therefore prohibited from guarding their property. Therefore apart from the inevitable theft, there was consequential and preventable damage from weather, flooding and after shocks.

The creation of an impenetrateable bureaucracy where for instance, a demolition plan was demanded from the building owner within a short period of time, but even if that plan was presented, the bureaucracy carried out the demolition anyway, not only trying to contract the liability of any accidental damages to life and other property to the buildings owner, but also charging a “management fee”.

The bureaucracy acted so slowly in any case that most small business owners went out of business, not only because they could not even recover the cash from their till (which was typically consequently rifled by persons unknown) but their customers were locked outside the zone as well. The time between the earthquake and the recovery of essential business property bankrupted these businesses and as tenancies therefore lapsed, after more than two years, the building owners are facing financial ruin as well. Especially as enough time has now passed for typical business interruption insurances to have run their course. Yet even accepting that all the streets were too dangerous for the public (which they weren’t), it would have been simple for the bureaucracy, once all life and limb was accounted for, to actively assist these businesses instead of locking them out AND thereby helping restore the associated employment and jobs these businesses bring to the city.

Another branch of the bureaucracy has been given the responsibility to “manage” the Christchurch “rebuild” but through the conferred monopoly (all repair work must go through this agent), has leveraged the price of builders labour to such a low level that many builders simply cannot find work. And the “agent” takes a commission on all repair/building activities.

The central and local government does not pressure insurance companies to make timely payouts. As a consequence, few private rebuilds are occurring. Many payouts are estimated as being years away.

Compulsory purchase imposed after property prices had fallen sufficiently.http://ccdu.govt.nz/faq/land-acquisition

Government intends to resell property back to the private sector after plan is implemented. In any other context this would be construed as speculation by the government using private property and tax payers money!



In fact, from the very first earthquake, the authorities (Mainly the CCC) appeared to be deliberately allowing businesses to die


This is strange because any reasonable person can see that in a disaster, after the initial immediate safety of everyone has been attended to, business are the next thing which must be preserved. Simply put: If a job is lost we have a family of refugees and dependants. If  jobs are preserved, we have a population who can look after themselves, attend to their housing and other disaster needs without too much if any official help

Why completely demolish our old city including perfectly good and functional privately owned properties in order to build a different new city?

This is the sort of thing we criticize third world countries about. It doesn’t happen in good old “democratic and free” New Zealand does it?


Finally we have imposed on us a “Plan” for the new Christchurch CBD which bears no resemblance to the Christchurch we all know and love.

Here it is.

https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/christchurch-central-recovery-plan1.pdf (I have updated this link as the Council obviously is ashamed of it or can’t afford the server space on their website. Luckily I took a copy at the time)

 Not only that but there are a good number of ultra expensive items whose cost will need to be met by the rate payers of Christchurch, the tax payers of New Zealand and our children and grand children.

The Canterbury earthquakes have provided an unprecedented opportunity to rethink, revitalise and renew central Christchurch”   Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. P 3.

Actually we are not witnessing a “rebuilding” of Christchurch –

We are witnessing the building of a new city where the city of Christchurch once stood

– created at our expense.

Make no mistake! We and future generations are being mortgaged to pay for all this.

“Unprecedented opportunity”? For whom?

 Are the CCC and the government crazy or have they at least lost the plot?

There is no doubt that this authoritarian approach has slowed the recovery from the earth quakes. Government energy directed to making sure insurance companies are meeting their obligations in a full and timely manner would definitely be better than the bureaucracy we have now!

But Gerry Brownlee, His Worship and others are not the clowns they appear to be,

there is another agenda which is at work here.

Take a read of this link from the Christchurch City Council website!


This link has been removed from the government website but  here is an excerpt:


Christchurch City Council Sustainability Policy

1. Introduction

Sustainability is a word that is used often, yet means different things to different people. This Sustainability Policy seeks to clarify what the City Council means by the term sustainability. This will enable Council policies and strategies to adopt a consistent point of reference for the term and for the related concepts and principles to be incorporated with more consistency into Council activities and decision making.

2. Policy Aim

The Sustainability Policy is one of the high-level Policy Frameworks that have been designed to help guideCouncil activity.

This Policy aims to embed sustainability into our Council and community. To help make sustainability “the way we do things around here”.”

At the heart of a democratic society is the responsibility for community leaders to make decisions on behalf of, and in the best interests of, present and future generations.”

(Well I think they have got that one wrong, Aren’t community leaders supposed to serve the community, not make decisions for the community? Isn’t that the difference between democracy and totalitarianism?)


To be sustainable, Council recognises that our society must be Efficient, Cyclic, Solar, Safe and Social.” Solar = “Renewable powered and carbon neutral society”

The extraction or harvest, processing, distribution, use and reuse of goods and services is powered from renewable sources and our society is carbon neutral (emissions are first reduced, then offset).”

There it is in black and white. The Christchurch City Council is committed to making Christchurch a “Carbon Neutral” city!

This is the “unprecedented opportunity” given to the Christchurch City Council and the Global Warming proponents in government by our disasterous earthquakes!

Not only are they persuing  an unadvertised/hidden agenda but they are also taking advantage of cantabrians many of whom are facing their darkest days and years.

Oh and please note the use of this phrase: ”

Scientific uncertainty is not used as an excuse for preventing harm.”

Well that gives them a fairly blank card to do what they like dosn’t it?

Except for the mention of carbon, this policy is actually a summary of Agenda 21,  a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. Global Warming caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions (thats the meaning of “emissions” in the councils policy) was not invented in 1992.

Read this carefully

In this policy, the Christchurch City Council does not mean financially sustainable, they mean that they are going to make sure that Christchurch is going to be in the forefront to do its part in saving the planet from “carbon dioxide poisoning” or “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

If you are not familiar with the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, a highly biased account can be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming, This Wikipedia account is biased because it treats the theory as fact when in reality there is no actual empirical proof and neither is there any truth to the claim that there is “scientific consensus”. (if you want to read a realistic commentary on the subject try http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com)

Some may think the council’s efforts to “save” the planet is a good thing, some may be ignorant on the subject, others see carbon dioxide induced global warming as the biggest crock in history.

But no matter what you believe, and regardless whether Anthropogenic Global Warming is real or not, the theory through Council and Government policies I have shown is affecting us right now. 

In our pockets because

WE and our children and future generations are paying for this in taxes and rates


in our life style and opportunities because

Christchurch is our city and it is being changed into another city.

Their agenda is not to restore Christchurch into the vibrant city it once was that we all knew and loved but to create this futile Carbon dioxide neutral city !

I say futile because even if the  theory of carbon dioxide heating the earth was fact, New  Zealand produces only 0.11% of the world industrial carbon dioxide. Therefore if New Zealand was removed from the earth, global warming would not be significantly affected in any way.

 The Christchurch City Council aided and abetted by our government sees the Christchurch earthquakes as an “unprecedented opportunity” to make Christchurch into the worlds first absolutely Agenda21 complying Carbon Neutral Eco City.

This link no longer exists. The UN seems to change its website frequently


However this link gives us similar information.


If you wish to view the original script, here it is


Like all UN documents, at first read it looks reasonable, however on closer examination one begins to realise all the doors it opens. There are also a host of ancillary papers etc. published by the UN and its subsidiaries which detail particular objectives in more detail.

Agenda 21 of which NZ is a signatory, states among other things that governments should “Transfer land”  and make laws to protect river margins, make cities sustainable and pollution free and move populations into these cities so cars are unnecessary and suburbs can be returned to their natural state. Populations should be crammed into small eco compartments in the cities and even population control is mentioned.

Did you know that Christchurch City is a member of Local Governments For Sustainability?


Clause7Attachment[1]  Check clause 5.7

which is the way Agenda21 is implemented through the back door by advising and funding local “initiatives”.

It is not a coincidence that the Christchurch Recovery Plan ticks all the boxes for a Agenda 21 complying city.

The United Nations Agenda 21 and other agreements have already entered our legislation!

Check out this page from the NZ Ministry of Environment website!


Here is a typical link which describes the effect of Agenda 21 and ICLIE on their city.

Watch the videos and search for other opinions.


United Nation documents are designed to look reasonable. It is only after careful interpretation and examples of implementation that one gains an idea of the insidiousness of the organisation.

No wonder the CBD of Christchurch is being compulsorily “purchased”.

Were you consulted when by the Christchurch City Council or government about any of these things?  Definitely not, but we and our children are the ones who are and will be paying for it.

Worst of all, our democracy and freedom is in more danger than we realise.

The UNITED NATIONS is not the government of New Zealand!

Lets keep it that way.

Lets be careful who we elect into Government and Local office.

At election time grill each candidate about Agenda 21 and ICLEI.

What ever your political leaning, lets keep New Zealand sovereign and democratic.



This blog is intended to promote discussion on the future of Christchurch.

If you have a fact or something that should be included here, please comment and I will most likely include it.

If you think some of the things in here are not fact, I would like to hear from you too.

If you think Bob Parker’s “Eco City” is a  good idea and you are ready to help pay for it – please  comment and tell us all why.

If you have a relevant article send me the link and I will include it here.

Finally, let me quote Pericles from 430 BC:- ” Just because you do not take an interest in politics it does not mean that politics will not take an interest in you.”

Our only way out of all this is to make sure we are all informed about the issues of today, We as a nation need to not blindly vote at elections but need to understand these issues and vote according to the policies. Be very dubious about election bribes, because a policy that offers to create or support something can only be done using your tax money. Make sure that policy spends your/our money wisely.

I will be updating this blog regularly, we have barely scraped the subject here.

Finally another quote.  George Bernard Shaw:

A government which robs Peter (Those working and paying taxes) in order to pay Paul( those for one reason or other do not work) can always depend on the support of Paul.




Oh and if you have any actual doubt about all these asertions and still do not believe that we are being taken for a terrible financial and undemocratic slide over  a few United Nations agreements and a shonky Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory :- try reading the Christhurch Central Recovery Plan which I mentioned above but you didnt bother to stop and read


and check page 41: or click on the book mark “Ideas to reality” and read the following.


Over the long term, greater Christchurch has a unique opportunity to redevelop the city so that it is resilient to environmental, social and economic changes that may affect future generations.

Greater Christchurch can expect more droughts and floods and a rising sea level due to the changing climate. Energy costs will increase the demand for efficient energy and transport systems.

New technologies and competition for global resources and talent will reshape the way business is done.

More sustainable technologies and approaches can be part of the redevelopment of central Christchurch. It is possible to address the environmental impact of construction activities, building design and performance during the planning stages. This approach is more effective than retrofitting.” etc etc

You might ask a councellor where the measures are to guard against “floods and a rising sea level due to the changing climate.”  seeing as how Christchurch especially the CBD  is barely above the high tide mark.

Would also be educational to ask a councellor approximately how much are sea levels expected to rise should the ARCTIC ice melt completely.

If you know the answer to that, please comment. I know the answer down to the last millimetre so I can correct you if you get it wrong.

Congrats to the Greens, your policies are now enshrined in our legislation and we have a government who is prepared to trample over our property rights to carry them out.

Shame on you Greens for pretending to protest about this in Christchurch on Dec 10 2011. You must have been chuckling up your sleeves all the way to Cramner Square. No wonder you tried to shout down the Act Party representative!


Check out this article in the Christchurch Press.


Consistent with Agenda 21, our government is getting ready to concentrate citizens within the Christchurch CBD.  Did I mention that above on 29/11/12?  Yup just a few paragraphs read above and there you will see it. No I am not a soothsayer, the progression is quite clear when you study Agenda 21 a little.

Next we wait for population control and restrictions on farming. Goodby democratic NZ!

Posted in Christchurch City Rebuild, Christchurch Earthquake, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments