Replies

“Do not ignore ze physical realities! Verstanden??!”

Muslims killing Muslims in the ME is making a dent...

The Pope has his very own Grima Wormtongue? Interesting.

How about we wait and actually read what is written? If it is as many have claimed, OK. However, until then, it is just speculation.

One of them if Prof. John Schellnhuber, a well-known climate Nazi.

Describing this man as well known is a stretch, e.g., I have not heard of him. The Nazi insult in general is overused; people who use it come across as trying to use emotions to stomp on a particular group of people or point of view.

You see, our Enviro-Goebbels is already on record with saying that around 4.5 degrees Celsius of increase in earth temperature would reduce the earth population to around 1 billion.

The claim that an increase of 4.5 degrees would reduce the population to 1 billion is a claim of cause and effect. It is not a statement that warrants calling someone a Nazi.

So, if we do not reach the 4, and do not manage to keep the Co2 emissions under control, what is the sustainable earth population at, say, a 2.5 degrees increase in say, anytime between 2070 and 2100? Four billion? Five? Perhaps, if we want to be generous, six? How many million, nay, billion babies will have to be aborted to make this happen?

I cannot tell if the author is claiming Schnellhuber is claiming we should abort babies. The first number 4 does not appear to be in reference to anything. It could be in reference to the 4.5, but this is not clear.

“But Mundabor! Mundabor! Prof Schellnhuber does not say we must abort billions! He says we must reduce emissions!”

By the author's own admission, Schnellhuber does not call for abortion and is hence reading into Schnellhuber's beliefs. He may very well believe in massive abortion, euthanasia and a number of other atrocities, but the author does not submit strong evidence or proof of this accusation.

Therefore, there can be only one way: reduce the humans now before they kill each other in 50 years’ time. This is the unavoidable conclusion of this environ-mania. This is the only way any thinking man starting from such sick premises can go on thinking in a coherently sick way. This is the only rational consequence of the environ-mania the Evil Clown is so aggressively promoting, out of his own hate for the West and desire of humble self-aggrandisement.

Again, the author submits no evidence but launches into a gut wrenching and emotional appeal.

Francis is such a one. He is evil, but he is also plain stupid in his inability to even think three steps further the path he is asking us to take. When one like Francis decides to write an encyclical about the environment, we can’t be surprised one like Prof Schellnhuber will be the one who shapes the most of its “scientific” part.Seeing as how the encyclical has not been released yet, I am uncertain as to how the author knows what path Francis is asking us to take.

The blind (religious leaders, and climate bogus scientists) lead the blind. They are so radical (Schellnhuber, because he is; Francis, because he is accomplice, and too stupid to understand he must not link his name to such nutcases) that their “effort” is condemned to failure and ridicule from day one. They do not care. Schnellhuber lives in his fantasy world, and have made a good living out of it. Francis will, like Chavez, push his own form of hatred, uncaring of consequences, for the short term popularity advantages it will give him among his clients (all but the Catholics) and his groupies.

Is the author actually accusing Pope Francis of hatred? I have seen no evidence of this accusation in the 2 years he has been Pope. If the author wanted to claim that the Pope was misguided in writing an encyclical on the environment, that is a different argument.

As for the criticism that Pope Francis is writing an encyclical on the environment, what is the objection? The Earth was created by God and we are responsible for it. In the US, an example of us taking care of the environment would be the US passing anti-litter laws. Does someone want to go back to the days when there was litter strewn all over the place or wish that a factory could just dump toxic waste into a river without consequences?

My own view of the Global Warming debate is that I doubt the claims made of whether the Earth is warming as it does not appear to me that the evidence has been reviewed by anyone who lacks an interest in continued money to research Global Warming. In addition there is way too much hypocrisy (I am thinking of Al Gore) on the side of those who want others to give up things to avoid global warming. I do, however, doubt there is a conspiracy and am inclined towards there is just a bias.

This diatribe is nothing less than an ad hominum attack. No evidence, no quotations, nothing but insult, emotional verbiage, and vitriol. 3 minutes I’ll never get back.