When Dr Goebbels Advises The Pope

The soon-to-be-released encyclical about the environment – no doubt, the biggest collection of rubbish ever published by a Pope – will be presented by three men. One of them if Prof. John Schellnhuber, a well-known climate Nazi.

professor Schnellnhuber should, I think, be posed a simple questions: seen that no one believes that his own fantasy-targets about emission reduction will be reached, where does he think the global population should stabilise to avoid planetary food wars, and how does he think the target should be achieved?

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. 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? You see: prof Schellnhuber has no doubt at all that a massive global warming is going to happen. He calls nebulous fantasies “physical realities”, as if they were, erm, real! So, in the fantasy world of Mr Schellnhuber – a world, as you will understand, much appreciated by the Evil Clown – a massive adjustment will have to happen anyway: not down to one Billion humans if the worst case scenario does not become reality, but somewhere between the nine Billion projected for 2050 (and the much higher number projected for 2070-2100) and that number.

So, what does the man propose to do to avoid food wars and worldwide tragedies on a lesser, and sustainable, scale than the ones in the 1 Billion scenario? What exactly?

I tell you once again: abortion. Abortion on a scale probably not even Dr Goebbels would have considered human, at least considering the untold number of Aryans it would involve. And please do not hide behind the contraception finger. In England there are in the region of 180,000 abortions a year, and contraception is available in a way that would be almost inconceivably costly to actuate in poor countries. This, of course, leaving behind for a moment the Catholic stance on contraception, in which neither the Pope nor Prof. Schellnhuber (by the by: a Catholic, that one?) are interested.

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

Poppycock. The man may be deluded, but he is not retarded. He knows that his fantasy objectives will not be reached. Never ever. He complains about that very openly, when he says that Western democracies refuse to take his own apocalyptic fantasies (which he calls “physical reality”, so he has no doubt at all they will come to pass) into account in their own planning and legislating activity. Madmen can be very lucid.

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.

This man, my friends, has played such an important role in the writign of the encyclical, that he will be one of only three relators, and the only layman. An utterly unbelievable Pope has allowed a papal encyclical to be substantially shaped by a man who considers his own fantasies “physical realities”. It beggars belief.

A man can be, at the same time, evil and astonishingly incompetent. If you think of people like Chavez, for example, it is obvious that in these men a strong ideological hate goes hand in hand with an exceptional degree of economic stupidity, and inability to look three inches beyond their nose.

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.

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.

To such a scale, that it is reasonable to say that even Dr Goebbels would have been terrified.

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.

By the fruits you will know the tree, by their advisers you will know the leaders.

“Satellite and balloon measurements show there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. Some land surface measurements can be induced, after much statistical “correction,” to show a modest warming. Either way, whatever has happened to the climate these past two decades has not been major. The models that generate climate predictions are terrible. For decades, the models have predicted high temperature increases. The reality has been very different: temperatures have been (more or less) flat. The models are not just bad, they are lousy (look at this picture and judge for yourself). Not only that, but every scientist used to know that when a model made such rotten predictions, the theory on which the model relies must be false.” (Leaked Laudato LamentedCrisis Magazine ^ | June 17, 2015 | WILLIAM M. BRIGGS)

To declare that men can control weather changes is the epitome of arrogance, even for a Pope. The Sun, and in first instance God are responsible for weather changes.

Pope Francis is more radical and dangerous than Obama. As soon as he took power he rescued from the trash bin of History the Marxist liberation theology after was proscribed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Francis called the most radical of its leaders, Leonardo Boff, who was silenced by H.H. Pope John Paul II, as one of his adviser for his encyclical that tries to give moral support to the global warming hoax, but instead Francis destroys his credibility and demeans the respect for the Catholic Church.

By the fruits you will know the tree, by their advisers you will know the leaders.

To declare that men can control weather changes is the epitome of arrogance, even for a Pope. The Sun, and in first instance God are responsible for weather changes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.