Keyes: Pope’s Climate Views Cause Genocide

Alan Keyes, always with a hair trigger on his ridiculous hyperbole gun, is quite unpleased with Pope Francis over his recent encyclical about the need to arrest global warming. He loads his usual bullshit bullet in the gun’s chamber and fires away with “this is going to cause genocide!”

We are called to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to our care. About this there is no doubt. That it is we, rather than God, who are responsible for pervasive and massive changes in the condition of our little corner of the universe is, to say the least, an assertion freighted with controversy. That’s especially true given the fact that the issue of man-made climate change is being exploited as an excuse to advance a totalitarian agenda for the use or abuse of government power throughout the world. The massively life-destroying human catastrophes of the 20th century prove beyond doubt that it is an agenda fraught with evil consequence for the moral, spiritual and material life of the human race.

The “Richter Scale” that indicates the size of the 20th century’s government-centered catastrophes must be calibrated to measure scores of millions of murders perpetrated by governments or in wars that were the consequence of the totalitarian ambitions of the people in control of them. If the facts of humanity’s responsibility for global climate change were incontrovertibly established by dint of the most scrupulously conducted and verified scientific observation and analysis imaginable, the last century’s appalling record of government power abuse would caution against any policies that might spawn more such government-centered hurricanes of fear, oppression and mass murder.

But the facts have not been thus established. In fact much that has come to light supports the view that scientific data were purposely skewed to support a conclusion contrary to fact. But this would be that the human race stands falsely, or at least very dubiously, accused of a great crime, for which the pope is now standing with others to demand the harsh punishment of what amounts to perpetual imprisonment in a global penal colony under the totalitarian control of a government with unprecedented global powers.

More than that, John Schnellnhuber, one of the academics reportedly chosen by the Vatican to explain the pope’s recently released encyclical, has “previously said the planet is overpopulated by at least 6 billion people. Ted Turner, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller and Bill Gates have envisaged similarly drastic goals for planned depopulation, along with the abuse of “vaccines” targeting vulnerable populations to achieve it. So the agenda Pope Francis seems willing to promote, at the risk of slandering humanity, encompasses punitive action near unto genocide against the human race. Those left will amount to the elitist few and the people needed to cater to their whims.

Last I heard, the intent to commit genocide is in one of the things prohibited by “Thou shalt not murder.” Another of the Ten Commandment proclaims “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” But if the climate change allegations against humanity are unproven, the whole push for totalitarian government remediation of the allegedly terrible damage we are inflicting on God’s creation is a slander against the human race, a sin against humanity being committed as a pretext for the rape of human life, human conscience and God-endowed human liberty. This looks awfully like a crime against humanity, perpetrated by way of unproven allegations and outright lies in order to subject the earth to a regime of government that demands that people live by lies.

That link about Bill Gates and company is rather amusing to read. It actually claims that Gates is pushing greater vaccinations in the developing world as a means of depopulating those countries. Vaccines, of course, save lives, so it’s hard to see any possible connection there. But the kind of people Alan Keyes hangs out with and cites have never had much of a connection to reality.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • D. C. Sessions

    And, to be serious for just a moment, let us consider that “genocide” is not a bad term for the incredible number of deaths resulting from pushing climates in many part of the world to the point where wet-bulb temperatures exceeding 37C occur for more than a day.

    Or, of course, the “defensive” actions by the populations of more favored regions to keep out refugees desperately fleeing those lethal (not hyperbole, people, look it up) conditions, famine, flooding, etc.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ D. C. Sessions : Yes indeed. The genocide is by those Deniers and delayers including so much of the Republican and tea parties (& “our” Abbott inOz & harperincabnda andmong others) who have delayed action and made who knows how many thousand or million casualties of Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (almost?) inevitable.

  • D. C. Sessions

    StevoR, I have lived most of my life in a region where summer temps routinely exceed 45 degrees. Which is only survivable because the wet-bulb (“dew point”) temperature rarely reaches 20. Some place like New Orleans, on the other hand, regularly gets up to the high 30s with the wet-bulb not far behind. The only thing that kept people there from dying was night-time cooling, but working outdoors during the day in the Delta country could, and often did, kill.

    Well, the details vary but it looks like those kinds of temperatures are headed for half of the world’s subtropics at least part of the time due to a combination of higher base temperatures and greater variations. Not impossible to survive in rich countries that can provide air conditioning (except, of course, for the very young, old, poor, or those who have to work outdoors.) But the number of people in the world who can afford air conditioning is, shall we say, not remotely close to being the majority.

  • StevoR

    PS. Kinda off topic,sorry, but could someone please ask PZ Myers if he’s ever actually read Kim Stanley Robinson’s ‘Mars’ trilogy or properly listened to those who talk about terraforming? I wish I could do so myself but because I fucked up there years ago, (mea culpa) I’m not allowed to “speak” on Pharyngula. If I could change that now I would and I would love another chance now I’m a bit older and wiser.

    (Yes, PZ Myers & Pharyngulite “horde” if you are reading this, I do apologise and admit I got things wrong years ago there. I do ask for your mercy and a second chance, please.)

  • laurentweppe

    It actually claims that Gates is pushing greater vaccinations in the developing world as a means of depopulating those countries

    In a parallel universe where vaccines work like Microsoft’s anti-viruses, this accusation holds some merit.

    Fortunately, we don’t live in that universe.

  • StevoR

    Kim Stanley Robinson is actually a very left wing and progressive author who is very ecologically aware and a good bloke. No heroes? maybe, but, FWIW, I do think he’s one of the Left wing progressive “good guys here and his ideas and others aren’t as they’ve been sometimes portrayed. He also does link back a lot to Global Overheating as a disaster on Earth e.g. at the start of ‘Green Mars’ which features the collapse of West Antartican ice sheet / shelves and addresses it other novels including a whole series the ‘Science in the capital’ trilogy with an Al Gore-like hypothetical future POTUS plus a major character who is homeless by choice and helps a supporting cast of several other homeless groups.

    Also reckon y’all would prob’ly enjoy his novels ‘Kathmandu’ & Years of Rice & Salt – I sure did. The latter is particularly strange and features heroes of very different cultures to his – and my – own incl. Islamic ones. KS Robinson has certainly done his research on other group, cultures and ideas and and also, I think, written and expressed it sympathetically and well.

  • John Pieret

    If the facts of humanity’s responsibility for global climate change were incontrovertibly established by dint of the most scrupulously conducted and verified scientific observation and analysis imaginable,

    As we used to say at talk.origins, it has been ‘proved beyond any reasonable doubt,’ just not beyond any unreasonable doubt.

  • John Pieret

    StevoR:

    I read PZ’s piece and I don’t think it was an attack on Robinson per se, it is a (correct, I think) criticism of the notion that terra-forming Mars is some sort of solution for climate change here on Earth. Could it be a kind of “life boat” solution where a few hundreds or (at most) a few thousand humans could be sustained, without the huge, but shrinking, biodiversity of Earth, … maybe. But it is hard to see how humanity, in such a crisis, could muster the resources and will to pull it off. Nor do I see how terra-forming Mars could ‘teach us lessons’ on how to deal with climate change here on Earth. We already know what needs to be done … reduce greenhouse emissions! Trying extreme ‘solutions’ on the Earth … a world-wide “experiment” … is about on the ethical level of treating every one’s cancer with peach pit extract.

  • frankgturner

    @ John Pieter #7

    Don’t you get it though? Far right wing Republicans WANT it proved even beyond an unreasonable doubt. They WANT a hand to come out of the sky and the clouds to open up and a face come out of those clouds that looks like Charlton Heston with a white beard that speaks with a combination of the voices of James Earl Jones and John Cleese to tell them that we humans are responsible for climate change and that it is a great sin.

    .

    AronRa talked about how deniers and apologists will actually say at speeches that they give that if the observations of reality contradict their understanding of scripture them reality must be wrong. There was a program where a minister actually said that if the Bible told him that 2 + 2 = 5 that he would find a way to believe it.

    .

    The grip that some individuals have on reality extends only to their own hallucinations and self deceptions.

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    FrankgTurner,

    Even then, they’d say, God should stick to theology.

  • frankgturner

    @ Dr X

    Which is why I point out that they want proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Kermit Sansoo

    The ability of True Believers to deceive themselves is unlimited. Since their internal map of the world is a moral universe(1), there is nothing that they can witness which will shake their faith nor be inexplicable.(2)

    .

    (1) By “moral” I mean that things happen because the Abusive Sky Daddy treats us well if he is pleased, and treats us badly if he is angry. He gets angry when somebody, somewhere, disobeys him. His rules are arbitrary, but explicitly listed by various self-selected tribal moral authorities.

    (2) So when they finally agree that global warming is actually happening (some already are), they will blame it on us being insufficiently mean to the gays, or some such nonsense. And they will fight any attempts to deal with it in a compassionate or rational manner. If God wanted us to be compassionate or rational, He would have told us so.

  • Die Anyway

    Keyes hit on one idea that has concerned me. The USA-ian government got us into Iraq and Afghanistan through poor decision making and has bungled everything about those places ever since. GCC (or AGW) is a critical issue. Do we really want the bungling U.S. government to be in charge of tackling it? They don’t really have the best record. Yes, yes, I know… what other choice do we have? That’s what really concerns me.

  • llewelly

    StevoR :

    … could someone please ask PZ Myers if he’s ever actually read Kim Stanley Robinson’s ‘Mars’ trilogy or properly listened to those who talk about terraforming?

    Someone brings up Robinson’s Mars trilogy every time there is a thread about Mars on that blog, and he has positively reviewed other stuff by Robinson in the past, so, probably he knows about it, but doesn’t think it’s relevant.

    And it’s not relevant. The technologies Robinson’s Mars assumes would require 100s of billions, more likely trillions of dollars and many decades to develop. If the Stern review back in 2007 was right about the cost of addressing global warming, at that point it’s less expensive to address global warming. And judging from this talk back in March, Kim Stanley Robinson agrees.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ llewelly & #8. John Pieret : Okay, fair enough thanks – especially for those links above.