Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Bad Weather Forecast.

One hears a lot from behind the bar in a Tavern. People talk. They have conversations, if not with a few or a lot of others then into their tankards. I let you, readers, into some of the things I hear.

One of the sidebar links is to Jo Nova, an intelligent, diligent and seeker-after- truth woman.  Truth about the Global-Warming scam. I often see her and her friends in here, showing those strange and almost disappearing things - FACTS.
""Because most journalists and politicians desperately want to believe the bureau knows best, they turn away from the truth and ignore the facts."" - Jennifer Marohasy.
She is never alone. She brings in many other clever people who are prepared to do the hard yards too. Many people listen with as much diligence as she displays. Her words are heard by many more than come to this Tavern. I do my bit in helping others hear.

You would think that the sort of questioning she displays - intelligent and factually based - would be emulated by the mainstream media. But that is not always the case, especially when we talk of Global Warming and the 'Evidence'.

Mainstream Media (the MSM) does not like the internet, a place where what the MSM publishes is 'controlled'. One main method of control is to hide important opinions behind a Pay Wall so that people do not speak about it in the bars. Unless, of course, someone gets hold of those opinions quickly.

Gary Scarrabelotti brought in something from the MSM - the Australian Newspaper - which is virtually inaccessible unless you pay up.  It was a piece by Jennifer Marohasy, a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. Jennifer has published a great deal about climate and especially as it affects Oz. She is a lady whom one does well to hear. 
Ideology heats up climate debate
For the true believer, it is too awful to even consider that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) could be exaggerating global warming by adjusting figures. 
This doesn’t mean, though, that it’s not true.
In fact, under prime minister Tony Abbott, a panel of eminent statisticians was formed to investigate these claims detailed in The Australian newspaper in August and September last year.
The panel did acknowledge in its first report that the bureau homogenised the temperature data: that it adjusted figures.  
The same report also concluded it was unclear whether these adjustments resulted in an overall increase or decrease in the warming trend.
No conclusions could be drawn because the panel did not work through a single example of homogenisation, not even for Rutherglen. 
Rutherglen, in north¬eastern Victoria, is an agricultural research station with a continuous minimum temperature record unaffected by equipment changes or documented site moves but where the BOM nevertheless adjusted the temperatures.
This had the effect of turning a temperature time series without a statistically significant trend into global warming of almost 2C a century.
According to media reports last week, a thorough investigation of the bureau’s methodology was prevented because of intervention by Environment Minister Greg Hunt.
Hunt was appointed by the new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who has wasted no time in placing people to follow his 'agenda', which is not favourable to questioning the GWScam. 
He apparently argued in cabinet that the credibility of the institution was paramount — that it was important the public had trust in the bureau’s data and forecasts, so the public knew to heed warnings of bushfires and ¬cyclones.
Hunt defends the bureau because it has a critical role to play in providing the community with reliable weather forecasts.
So, be clear here. The 'Institution' must remain credible (that is, believable) despite it lying like a Dicky Mint trim-sheet.  

Hello 'double-speak'.
This is indeed one of its core responsibilities. It would be better able to perform this function, however, if it used proper techniques for quality control of temperature data and the best available techniques for forecasting rainfall.
There has been no improvement in its seasonal rainfall forecasts for two decades because it uses general circulation models. These are primarily tools for demonstrating global warming, with dubious, if any, skill at actually forecasting weather or climate.
Consider, for example, the millennium drought and the flooding rains that followed in 2010.
Back in 2007 and 2008, David Jones, then and still the manager of climate monitoring and prediction at the Bureau of Meteorology, wrote that climate change was so rampant in Australia, “We don’t need meteorological data to see it”, and that the drought, caused by climate change, was a sign of the “hot and dry future” that we all collectively faced.
Then the drought broke, as usual in Australia, with flooding rains.
Yep, we don't need met data that deliberately lies to us and uses forecast methods that have little to do with forecasting real weather. 
But the bureau was incapable of forecasting an exceptionally wet summer because such an event was contrary to how senior management at the bureau perceived our climate future.

You must not contradict the 'Narrative. The real weather didn't get that memo.
So, despite warning signs evident in sea surface temperature patterns across the Pacific through 2010, Brisbane’s Wivenhoe dam, originally built for flood mitigation, was allowed to fill through the spring of 2010, and kept full in advance of the torrential rains in January 2011.
The resulting catastrophic flooding of Brisbane is now recognised as a “dam release flood”, and the subject of a class-action lawsuit by Brisbane residents against the Queensland government.
Indeed, despite an increasing investment in supercomputers, there is ample evidence 
ideology is trumping rational decision-making at the bureau 
on key issues that really matter, such as the prediction of drought and flood cycles. 
Because most journalists and politicians desperately want to believe the bureau knows best, they turn away from the truth and ignore the facts.
News Corp Australia journalist Anthony Sharwood got it completely wrong in his weekend article defending the bureau’s homogenisation of the temperature record. 
I tried to explain to him on the phone last Thursday how the bureau didn’t actually do what it said when it homogenised temperature time series for places such as Rutherglen.
Sharwood kept coming back to the issue of “motivations”. He kept asking me why on earth the bureau would want to mislead the Australian public.
I should have kept with the methodology, but I suggested he read what Jones had to say in the Climategate emails. Instead of considering the content of the emails that I mentioned, however, Sharwood wrote in his article that, “Climategate was blown out of proportion” and “independent investigations cleared the researchers of any form of wrongdoing”.
None so deaf as will not hear. You can take a climate-whore to the Gates of Knowledge but you cannot make him think. 
Nevertheless, the content of the Climategate emails includes quite a lot about homogenisation, and the scientists’ motivations. 
For example, there is an email thread in which Phil Jones (University of East Anglia) and Tom Wigley (University of Adelaide) discuss the need to get rid of a blip in global temperatures around 1940-44. Specifically, Wigley suggested they reduce ocean temperatures by an arbitrary 0.15C. 
These are exactly the types of arbitrary adjustments made throughout the historical temperature record for Australia: adjustments made independently of any of the purported acceptable reasons for making adjustments, including site moves and equipment changes.
Sharwood incorrectly wrote in his article: “Most weather stations have moved to cooler areas (ie, areas away from the urban heat island effect). So if scientists are trying to make the data reflect warmer temperatures, they’re even dumber than the sceptics think.”
In fact, many (not most) weather stations have moved from post offices to airports, which have hotter, not cooler, daytime temperatures.
Think of all that lovely concrete ! 
Furthermore, the urban heat island creeps into the official temperature record for Australia not because of site moves but because the record at places such as Cape Otway lighthouse is adjusted to make it similar to the record in built-up areas such as Melbourne, which clearly are affected by the urban heat island.
I know this sounds absurd. 
It is absurd, and it is also true. 
Indeed, a core problem with the methodology the bureau uses is its reliance on “comparative sites” to make adjustments to data at other places. I detail the Cape Otway lighthouse example in a recent paper published in the journal Atmospheric Research, volume 166.
It is so obvious that there is an urgent need for a proper, thorough and independent review of operations at the bureau. 
But it would appear our politicians and many mainstream media are set against the idea.
Evidently they are too conventional in their thinking to consider such an important Australian ¬institution could now be ruled by ideology.

Be not decieved.

Look for the facts.

And shout a round for Gary and Jennifer and Jo.


Sloan Ranger 'Gimmigrant' Refugees.

The talk for the past while has been about the hundreds of thousands of refugees. Not that I have mentioned them much here as this is an Anglophile place predominantly,  and Oz had (note the past tense) largely solved the problem of thousands of crying-poor invading our shores. 

But it cannot be ignored and some have been clamouring for getting a word in my ear. I am a patient Tavern Keeper.

I have practical and personal history sympathies for refugees.  Those that know a little of the man and my activities in the past know that I have been quite instrumental in bringing succour and relief to those in need. But sympathy and practical help need discernment.

As was illustrated by a particular gentleman who was a 'new' customer. One I had not seen before, that is.  He tells the tale of one particular gal with 'style, who made it to her destination. I will come to him and her in a moment.

But first let us get the measure of this vast problem that is affecting Europe. We stood watching an address on the big plasma TV by a Hungarian chappie; someone or other in their gummunt, bewailing the problem and telling us his view of what should be done.

And on his heel was a very pretty girl who had an unusual facility with Arabic who told of her own first hand experience being engulfed in refugees.

Let us give the floor to the 'Official' first: then get to her: then onto to the tale of the Gimmigrant girl. As the Parliamentary speech is not in English, one of my staff has translated it for you.

Quite heavy stuff, I think you will agree. Multiply it by a dozen Parliaments across Europe and Scandanavia. 

But now, a 'first-hand' account by a young woman. She is from the Ukraine and speaks in Ukranian, while a voice-over is in Hungarian. So you will hear two languages speaking over one another. Fortunately the sub-titles are in English so perhaps turn your speakers down and simply read along.
The 'quality' of the refugees flooding into Europe has attracted some questions. Such as , 'why all the men?' A very non-PC voice from the back of the bar said:
Watching European news broadcasts right now is like an insane demotic inversion of the Emperor's new clothes. "To a fool these thousands of fit young Muslim men appear well dressed and well fed. But a wise man such as Your Majesty can easily see that they are desperate starving refugees in rags." 
And so as the trains pull in to German railway stations to disgorge men who meet no known definition of "refugees" they are greeted on the platform by volunteers offering food and second-hand clothes. 
The cameras do their best to alight on a telegenic moppet or a covered woman, but, even when they do, you notice that they're surrounded by a sea of confident vigorous males - who, according to the UN, make up 75 per cent of the "refugees".
That would be an unusual demographic distortion in most emergency situations. If 75 per cent of the Titanic's survivors had been men who'd left their women and children back on the ship, there might have been a few disapproving comments. But not here. And why complain that the Syrian refugees aren't really "refugees"? 
After all, they're not Syrian either. 
Only one in five of the arriving migrants are Syrians fleeing the implosion of their country. But the vast majority of those marching across the Continent to the bountiful welfare states of the north-west are economic migrants lured by western weakness
'Reports' are difficult to verify in this age of superb communication. Everyone and his dog, particularly those in the large media organisation like the BBC, do have a growing and unenviable reputation for spin and plain bullshyte.  One has to be careful.

So it was with care that a gentleman in the Pin & Balloon Bar took out a very pointy lance to prick a BBC baloon for us. He partially answers the question of 'Why so many men'? Well perhaps the women are shopping en route.
The BBC and the Immaculate Refugee

There is a swathe of reporters from numerous media outlets currently “embedded” with the legions of Gimmegrants (sorry – “desperate refugees”) journeying to the promised land.

Few of their accounts have been more obsequious and uncritical  as those from the BBC. I recently encountered their depiction of one Nour Ammar and her tale of woe. It’s possibly the most surreal example of Metroluvvie propaganda I’ve yet seen concerning the “migrant crisis”.

Let us meet this poor, benighted individual, shall we?

*Enter stage left*

This is our protagonist, Nour:
As you can see, Nour is in a pensive mood, contemplating traveling “through nine countries to try and fulfill her dream of applying for asylum in Sweden“. Horrors.

Nour was in a dire situation I’m sure all readers can relate to:

“For two years in Istanbul, she enjoyed a comfortable life. 
Nour found work in a hair transplant salon, and later with Turkish state TV.  
She learnt Turkish, went horse-riding and dyed her hair blonde for the summer.”

We’ve all been there. The mid-life, or quarter-life crisis. You wonder what you’re doing with your life. You’re safe, relatively happy and have a comfortable lifestyle. Then someone comes along and tells you what you’re missing out on in the lifestyle of the “desperate refugee”.

So you decide to get away from it all and “make it to the Swedish city of Gothenburg”, where you remember your “brother lives with his young family.” 
(Nour might want to reconsider the whole dying her hair blonde thing in Sweden, though).

As a general rule immigration protocols tend to favour applicants who already have family members settled in the receiving nation. Naturally, this makes the whole process of legitimately requesting to live and work in the nation in question much easier. Not least because a relative can act as a sponsor. This is where the tale ends, because that would be the sensible…


“There, she would apply for political asylum….Nour planned to follow the increasingly familiar migrant trail from the Turkish coast to northern Europe.”

So hard up and desperate was Nour, that she put on her only pair of Jimmy Choo sandals and, one foot in front of the other and…

….booked a flight from Istanbul to Izmir on a Boeing 737

She then, miraculously, found $1,200 in her Harrods designer purse to pay a people smuggler to take her to the Greek island of Agathonisi.
By heck. This gal had someone watching over her. I am pretty sure though that it was not my Supplier. But, on the other hand...... objects lessons have to be found somewhere. 
The BBC appear to find it incredible that on her (and compatriots’) journey through Greece and into Macedonia, “hotels turned them away.” 
I find this incredible myself given that it is made clear throughout the article that Nour is not short of petty cash, including paying towards a taxi ride and bribing local police. 
I would  struggle to find a bed and breakfast in London that wouldn’t take hard cash for a few nights, never mind in south eastern Europe, where the youth unemployment rate is up to 55%+.

The BBC then spend some time detailing the fact that Nour and her fellow travelers were ill in transit. I hate to break it to BBC Metroluvvies who taxi everywhere, but this is quite common for us proles who use this thing called “public transport” and especially for long journeys.

Following this interval, we return to the urgent emoting. Nour is afraid apparently. No, not of her reserve of petty cash running out, silly. She’s afraid of being fingerprinted in Hungary. The BBC quote her saying “If we pass safe – that’s fantastic,….It would be a disaster to be fingerprinted.”

A “disaster”?

It would be a disaster for Nour’s Gap Yah, sorry – “desperate refugee flight” because it would mean being identified and possibly subject to the Dublin Convention. She would have to register for asylum in Hungary. 
This is unacceptable, obviously, because our Heroine is Asylum-Shopping and only Sweden will do, you philistines!

The BBC, in all their neutrality, make it clear what they think of the Dublin Convention:

“In theory, you have to stop and apply for asylum in the country which first registers you. This rule is not always enforced, but many refugees refuse to take the risk and do whatever they can to avoid being fingerprinted.”

Yes, what an awful “risk”. 
You’re so desperate to survive and escape certain death, everyone knows that being fingerprinted and asked to apply for asylum in the first safe country you enter is the most horrible thing that could happen to you.

But, not to fear! “Like a dream”, once within the Schengen area, Nour has no problem making her way to Gothenburg. As soon as she realised she’d entered Sweden, naturally “she sent a message to her mother on WhatsApp to tell her she had made it.”

Obviously it is important to let the family know on the iPhone. They’ll be desperate for those remittances once you’re settled in your new home. And of course, your heart will go out to anyone who is desperate enough flee abroad in order to support a distant family living in squalid circumstances like these:

Oops, sorry! Those aren’t poor Syrian refugees. Those are Romanian rural poor, who have never even seen an iPhone. But let’s pretend they don’t exist, and get back to our “desperate refugee” narrative for the middle class Syrian, Nour.

Nour has one last Herculean trial awaiting her. She has to apply in person for asylum in Sweden.
Not to worry, however. Her brother has supplied her with a script. The BBC doesn’t go into detail, but I’m sure it will have included mentioning persecution for political, or sexual preferences. The BBC helpfully leaves us with a final image, showing Nour attending a police station in Gothenberg to claim asylum.

You’ll be forgiven for thinking, as I did, she’s just finished a shop at Gucci, along with a visit to the hairdresser and personal stylist.

I’ve obviously been lied to all these years about what desperate people with nothing fleeing warzones and imminent death actually look like.
Not all is as it seems.

Fortunately she does not appear to be the sort to march down the street threatening to behead you. 


She might be ripe for becoming a Feminist though. 

But let the last (and slightly late) words go to Pat Condell. He showed up in the UK Room sounding a warning in his usual articulate manner. 
 My thanks to James Higham for bringing him in and wetting his whistle.


Sunday, September 27, 2015

Turnbull drops bull shyte

While the world's attention has been on the Pope and his catastrophic visit to the USA,  barely anyone noticed the new Oz Prime Minister making his first foray into greasing palms with my money (well, yours, more likely) and licking arses (and perhaps other bits of anatomy).

I barely know what gets into politicians who denounce half the population in order to suck up to the other half. And I am not talking of the left-right divide. 

That line from 'Ghostbusters', always spings to mind.... "Lenny, think of all those Registered Voters".

Well, paraphrased, but heck Oz is in the grips of a mass hysteria (very aptly called) and we are ruled over by Mr Dickless Turnbull who is the consumate 'ladies man'. Rich, smooth-talking et al.

Not all his fault, of course, as Abbott was in thrall to the wimmyn too and Dickless Turnbull simply took the next policy announcement Abbott had already lined up.

$100 MILLION for Wimmyn: 
$Sod-all for Men.

Barely a peep of protest in the press of course, swamped as we were by adulation pieces in print and on TV showing the superwoman de jour Rosemary Batty. 

What a batty woman she is too. And the lefty press was already seduced by the lefty now in charge of the righties.

But Miranda dropped in for a swift half as she travelled about ringing the leper bell.

Miranda Devine
Miranda Devine: 
If unsuitable women stopped having kids with feckless men, DV wouldn’t be such a problem
IT IS a grim portent that Malcolm Turnbull’s first policy announcement as Prime Minister was a $100 million gimmick blaming domestic violence on gender inequality.
“Women must be respected,” thundered Turnbull. “Disrespecting women is unacceptable.”
He has drunk the feminist Kool-Aid. 
What about the men's vote, Dickless? 

Already there are Liberals (that is, conservatives in oz-speak) turning in their membership registrations. 

Time, I think, for a concerted effort by Men to make it clear that they too will not support a gummunt that disrespects men. 
But, somehow, I don’t think Turnbull’s commanding the nation to respect women will stop endemic violence in dysfunctional remote indigenous communities and public housing estates.
Poverty is the cause of domestic violence, the desperate chaos of the underclass, played out in welfare dependency, mental illness, alcohol and drug abuse, especially psychosis-inducing ice.
Demonising men, and pouring taxpayer money into permanent meddling bureaucracies, will do nothing to alleviate domestic tragedy.
It just increases government’s role in our lives, and further disempowers vulnerable men.
Of course, Turnbull, a few days in the job, was simply announcing a plan that Tony Abbott and his chief of staff Peta Credlin had cooked up to try to improve his vote with women.
Beginning as a diversion from the knighthood fiasco of January, it involved Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, who has become the untouchable expert on domestic violence.
Batty was front and centre of last week’s announcement: “This is a gender issue … we need to respect and value women as equals.”
No one could fail to be moved by her tragedy, the loss of her only son, 11-year-old Luke, murdered by his father.
But how did the murder of a little boy by his mentally ill, drug-taking father become all about “respecting women”?
It is never noted that poor Rosie chose to marry (did she marry or simply co-habit? No-one speaks of it) such a man and chose to have him father her child. Of all the fine, upstanding, 'Nice' men she could have chosen, she went for what clearly turned out to be a 'bad boy'.  

Talk about a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Drug and alcohol abuse and mental illness are specific problems which properly targeted government policy might help alleviate. “Respecting women” is not.
The excitable minister for women Michaelia Cash stood alongside Turnbull and Batty, talking a lot of gobbledygook which shows only that she has a touching faith in bureaucracy, as in “an action item under the Second Action Plan of the National Action Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children.”
Clearly they do not take DV seriously. Such a laugh.
Honestly. That National Action Plan, anyway, is a hangover from Julia Gillard, another hotchpotch of bureaucracies which exist for reports and awards and meetings and conferences and which soak up millions of dollars while doing nothing to help people trapped in chaotic lives break the welfare cycle.
Worse, the underlying narrative is about disrespecting men.
Turnbull claimed: “one in four young men think it’s OK to slap a girl when you’ve been drinking”.
That just doesn’t pass the sniff test. 
Anyone with a passing acquaintance with young men knows it’s absurd.
Cash repeated the claim, based on statistics from market research company Hall & Partners Open Mind, which conducted an online survey last year, answered by 3000 teenagers, young adults and parents. Plus some focus groups.
The report is full of gross generalisations with no evidence. 
It’s not exactly peer-reviewed scientific research, yet it’s blithely parroted by the PM and his minister for women.
How does slandering young men encourage “respect for women”? That market research was commissioned by the taxpayer-funded domestic violence lobbying group “Our Watch”.
Our Watch is chaired by feminist former Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, curiously appointed by Abbott as Australia’s Ambassador for Women and Girls. She claims: “Violence against women does not discriminate, regardless of ethnicity, social status and geography.”
But the actual statistics show a different reality.
Violence against women does discriminate, starkly. It is concentrated in communities with a high indigenous population, in the Northern Territory, in impoverished rural towns, in the urban fringes where the underclass lives, where welfare has emasculated men, where unemployment is high and education poor, and where drug and alcohol abuse is rife. These are the obvious preconditions for violence.
If you want to break the cycle of violence...., 
end the welfare incentive for unsuitable women to keep having children to a string of feckless men.
Some facts, from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics: Domestic violence is worst in the small remote town of Bourke. With its high indigenous population, it has a rate of 4195.6 offences per 100,000 population (in fact, Bourke’s crime rate makes it more dangerous per capita than any country on earth).
Note that this is 4%.

Not 25%

And this is 'top of the league'. 
Second place goes to Walgett with a rate of 2,692, then Moree Plains (1824), Glenn Innes (1103.5), Coonamble, Lachlan, Broken Hill, Cobar, Bogan, Dubbo.
When you get to the welfare-centred outer suburbs of Sydney, you find Campbelltown has a domestic violence crime rate of 628.4 per 100,000, followed by Blacktown at 610.2, Penrith (588.4) and so on. 
You get the picture.
Compare those rates to the affluent areas of Sydney; Kuringai has the lowest domestic violence in NSW with 66.1 crimes per 100,000, followed by Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, Hornsby, Manly, Willoughby, and so on.
It’s clear. Welfare traps create the conditions for domestic violence.
That announcement last week wasn’t about helping people in Bourke and Campbelltown. 
It was about making the prime minister, whoever he is this week, win approval from feminists.
Thanks Miranda, m'dear. Have a drink. You will need one.

Or two.

Of good Grace.


No sooner had Miranda finished speaking and started to take a sip from her well-deserved glass of fine wine, than the trolls, verbal muggers, Emily's List wannabees and feminist thugs assailed her. They were shouting obceneties and outright lies through the Tavern windows and my Bouncer had to call in help from Mrs Bouncer.

Miranda fired back. Here's just a brief snippet and you can follow the rest via the link:
Campaigns such as Destroy the Joint’s Counting Women project insist on making domestic violence a gender issue. It claims 66 women are victims this year, with the implication these are all “intimate partner” homicides, perpetrated by males.
In fact, only about half of the homicides cited could be classified as having a male partner or ex-partner identified as the killer.
Some of the 66 victims were killed by women, by sisters, daughters, a female neighbour or, in one case, a female ex-lover of the victim’s husband, as well as by brothers, fathers, and sons.

I do wish it was as easy to get rid of 'Dickless' Turnbull as Ghostbusters showed. The quality of his affectionados tells us a lot.

By the way, he dresses so finely. Has anyone checked his underwear draw?

(And ladies, stop slapping your husband, boyfriend, small boy-child)


The Pope is Confusing, not Confucius. Time for serious but charitable critique.

After Frank had been fortified by a few pints in the Tavern the other day, following his speech to the US 'House', and getting an earful from some gentle customers in the Pin and Ballon bar, he went on to the United Nations.

It was fortunate that a few things were put straight ! Especially on the Tavern-Keeper's pet topic, Abortion.

The UN, as we all are well aware, seeks to reduce the world's population as a matter of priority , and bring in a One-World-Gummunt.

Well Pope Frank had a few frank words to say, which he had saved up from his US speech. You have to listen and look carefully though. And I, for one, was not entirely convinced.

Earlier we had a video of that speech, but this post contains the words of his UN speech.

Wade in, up to your chest. Let it all soak you. Then you may take it apart for yourselves before the 'Meeja' do it for you.

It is LONG post. 7500 words and fortunately few of them are mine. Be aware. Take your time. It is 'For the Record'.

As it is my pub, I take and use the 'power' to place a bit of emphasis here and there; highlighting. These are not all positives and some, indeed' are warnings, as they can cut several ways

Personally, I found too many lip-service references to UN objectives that I, as an Individual and a King, find objectionable. 

Below is the full text of Pope Francis’ address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, delivered September 25 in New York.
Mr President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you for your kind words.  Once again, following a tradition by which I feel honored, the Secretary General of the United Nations has invited the Pope to address this distinguished assembly of nations.  In my own name, and that of the entire Catholic community, I wish to express to you, Mr Ban Ki-moon, my heartfelt gratitude.   
I greet the Heads of State and Heads of Government present, as well as the ambassadors, diplomats and political and technical officials accompanying them, the personnel of the United Nations engaged in this 70th Session of the General Assembly, the personnel of the various programs and agencies of the United Nations family, and all those who, in one way or another, take part in this meeting.  Through you, I also greet the citizens of all the nations represented in this hall.  I thank you, each and all, for your efforts in the service of mankind.
This is the fifth time that a Pope has visited the United Nations.  I follow in the footsteps of my predecessors Paul VI, in1965, John Paul II, in 1979 and 1995, and my most recent predecessor, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in 2008.  All of them expressed their great esteem for the Organization, which they considered the appropriate juridical and political response to this present moment of history, marked by our technical ability to overcome distances and frontiers and, apparently, to overcome all natural limits to the exercise of power.  An essential response, inasmuch as technological power, in the hands of nationalistic or falsely universalist ideologies, is capable of perpetrating tremendous atrocities.  I can only reiterate the appreciation expressed by my predecessors, in reaffirming the importance which the Catholic Church attaches to this Institution and the hope which she places in its activities.
The United Nations is presently celebrating its seventieth anniversary.  The history of this organized community of states is one of important common achievements over a period of unusually fast-paced changes.  Without claiming to be exhaustive, we can mention the codification and development of international law, the establishment of international norms regarding human rights, advances in humanitarian law, the resolution of numerous conflicts, operations of peace-keeping and reconciliation, and any number of other accomplishments in every area of international activity and endeavour.  All these achievements are lights which help to dispel the darkness of the disorder caused by unrestrained ambitions and collective forms of selfishness.   
Certainly, many grave problems remain to be resolved, yet it is clear that, without all those interventions on the international level, mankind would not have been able to survive the unchecked use of its own possibilities.  Every one of these political, juridical and technical advances is a path towards attaining the ideal of human fraternity and a means for its greater realization.
For this reason I pay homage to all those men and women whose loyalty and self-sacrifice have benefitted humanity as a whole in these past seventy years.  In particular, I would recall today those who gave their lives for peace and reconciliation among peoples, from Dag Hammarskjöld to the many United Nations officials at every level who have been killed in the course of humanitarian missions, and missions of peace and reconciliation.
Beyond these achievements, the experience of the past seventy years has made it clear that reform and adaptation to the times is always necessary in the pursuit of the ultimate goal of granting all countries, without exception, a share in, and a genuine and equitable influence on, decision-making processes.  The need for greater equity is especially true in the case of those bodies with effective executive capability, such as the Security Council, the Financial Agencies and the groups or mechanisms specifically created to deal with economic crises.  This will help limit every kind of abuse or usury, especially where developing countries are concerned.  The International Financial Agencies are should care for the sustainable development of countries and should ensure that they are not subjected to oppressive lending systems which, far from promoting progress, subject people to mechanisms which generate greater poverty, exclusion and dependence. 
The work of the United Nations, according to the principles set forth in the Preamble and the first Articles of its founding Charter, can be seen as the development and promotion of the rule of law, based on the realization that justice is an essential condition for achieving the ideal of universal fraternity.  In this context, it is helpful to recall that the limitation of power is an idea implicit in the concept of law itself.  To give to each his own, to cite the classic definition of justice, means that no human individual or group can consider itself absolute, permitted to bypass the dignity and the rights of other individuals or their social groupings.  The effective distribution of power (political, economic, defense-related, technological, etc.) among a plurality of subjects, and the creation of a juridical system for regulating claims and interests, are one concrete way of limiting power.   
Yet today’s world presents us with many false rights and – at the same time – broad sectors which are vulnerable, victims of power badly exercised: for example, the natural environment and the vast ranks of the excluded.  These sectors are closely interconnected and made increasingly fragile by dominant political and economic relationships.  That is why their rights must be forcefully affirmed, by working to protect the environment and by putting an end to exclusion.
First, it must be stated that a true “right of the environment” does exist, for two reasons.  First, because we human beings are part of the environment.  We live in communion with it, since the environment itself entails ethical limits which human activity must acknowledge and respect.  Man, for all his remarkable gifts, which “are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology” (Laudato Si’, 81), is at the same time a part of these spheres.  He possesses a body shaped by physical, chemical and biological elements, and can only survive and develop if the ecological environment is favourable.  Any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity.  Second, because every creature, particularly a living creature, has an intrinsic value, in its existence, its life, its beauty and its interdependence with other creatures.  We Christians, together with the other monotheistic religions, believe that the universe is the fruit of a loving decision by the Creator, who permits man respectfully to use creation for the good of his fellow men and for the glory of the Creator; he is not authorized to abuse it, much less to destroy it.  In all religions, the environment is a fundamental good (cf. ibid.).
The misuse and destruction of the environment are also accompanied by a relentless process of exclusion.  In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged, either because they are differently abled (handicapped), or because they lack adequate information and technical expertise, or are incapable of decisive political action.  Economic and social exclusion is a complete denial of human fraternity and a grave offense against human rights and the environment.  The poorest are those who suffer most from such offenses, for three serious reasons: they are cast off by society, forced to live off what is discarded and suffer unjustly from the abuse of the environment.  They are part of today’s widespread and quietly growing “culture of waste”.
The dramatic reality this whole situation of exclusion and inequality, with its evident effects, has led me, in union with the entire Christian people and many others, to take stock of my grave responsibility in this regard and to speak out, together with all those who are seeking urgently-needed and effective solutions.  The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the World Summit, which opens today, is an important sign of hope.  I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.
Solemn commitments, however, are not enough, even though they are a necessary step toward solutions.  The classic definition of justice which I mentioned earlier contains as one of its essential elements a constant and perpetual will: Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius sum cuique tribuendi.  Our world demands of all government leaders a will which is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment and thus putting an end as quickly as possible to the phenomenon of social and economic exclusion, with its baneful consequences: human trafficking, the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and girls, slave labour, including prostitution, the drug and weapons trade, terrorism and international organized crime.  Such is the magnitude of these situations and their toll in innocent lives, that we must avoid every temptation to fall into a declarationist nominalism which would assuage our consciences.  We need to ensure that our institutions are truly effective in the struggle against all these scourges.
The number and complexity of the problems require that we possess technical instruments of verification.  But this involves two risks.  We can rest content with the bureaucratic exercise of drawing up long lists of good proposals – goals, objectives and statistical indicators – or we can think that a single theoretical and aprioristic solution will provide an answer to all the challenges.  It must never be forgotten that political and economic activity is only effective when it is understood as a prudential activity, guided by a perennial concept of justice and constantly conscious of the fact that, above and beyond our plans and programmes, we are dealing with real men and women who live, struggle and suffer, and are often forced to live in great poverty, deprived of all rights.
To enable these real men and women to escape from extreme poverty, we must allow them to be dignified agents of their own destiny.  Integral human development and the full exercise of human dignity cannot be imposed.  They must be built up and allowed to unfold for each individual, for every family, in communion with others, and in a right relationship with all those areas in which human social life develops – friends, communities, towns and cities, schools, businesses and unions, provinces, nations, etc. 
 This presupposes and requires the right to education – also for girls (excluded in certain places) – which is ensured first and foremost by respecting and reinforcing the primary right of the family to educate its children, as well as the right of churches and social groups to support and assist families in the education of their children.  Education conceived in this way is the basis for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for reclaiming the environment.
Is it? Really? 
At the same time, government leaders must do everything possible to ensure that all can have the minimum spiritual and material means needed to live in dignity and to create and support a family, which is the primary cell of any social development.  In practical terms, this absolute minimum has three names: lodging, labour, and land; and one spiritual name: spiritual freedom, which includes religious freedom, the right to education and other civil rights.
For all this, the simplest and best measure and indicator of the implementation of the new Agenda for development will be effective, practical and immediate access, on the part of all, to essential material and spiritual goods: housing, dignified and properly remunerated employment, adequate food and drinking water; religious freedom and, more generally, spiritual freedom and education.  These pillars of integral human development have a common foundation, which is the right to life and, more generally, what we could call the right to existence of human nature itself.
The ecological crisis, and the large-scale destruction of biodiversity, can threaten the very existence of the human species.  The baneful consequences of an irresponsible mismanagement of the global economy, guided only by ambition for wealth and power, must serve as a summons to a forthright reflection on man: “man is not only a freedom which he creates for himself. 
 Man does not create himself.   
He is spirit and will, but also nature” (BENEDICT XVI, Address to the Bundestag, 22 September 2011, cited in Laudato Si’, 6).  Creation is compromised “where we ourselves have the final word… The misuse of creation begins when we no longer recognize any instance above ourselves, when we see nothing else but ourselves” (ID. Address to the Clergy of the Diocese of Bolzano-Bressanone, 6 August 2008, cited ibid.).  Consequently, the defence of the environment and the fight against exclusion demand that we recognize a moral law written into human nature itself, one which includes the natural difference between man and woman (cf. Laudato Si’, 155), and absolute respect for life in all its stages and dimensions (cf. ibid., 123, 136).
Without the recognition of certain incontestable natural ethical limits and without the immediate implementation of those pillars of integral human development, the ideal of “saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war” (Charter of the United Nations, Preamble), and “promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” (ibid.), risks becoming an unattainable illusion, or, even worse, idle chatter which serves as a cover for all kinds of abuse and corruption, or for carrying out an ideological colonization by the imposition of anomalous models and lifestyles which are alien to people’s identity and, in the end, irresponsible.
War is the negation of all rights and a dramatic assault on the environment.  If we want true integral human development for all, we must work tirelessly to avoid war between nations and between peoples.
 To this end, there is a need to ensure the uncontested rule of law and tireless recourse to negotiation, mediation and arbitration, as proposed by the Charter of the United Nations, which constitutes truly a fundamental juridical norm.  The experience of these seventy years since the founding of the United Nations in general, and in particular the experience of these first fifteen years of the third millennium, reveal both the effectiveness of the full application of international norms and the ineffectiveness of their lack of enforcement.  When the Charter of the United Nations is respected and applied with transparency and sincerity, and without ulterior motives, as an obligatory reference point of justice and not as a means of masking spurious intentions, peaceful results will be obtained.  When, on the other hand, the norm is considered simply as an instrument to be used whenever it proves favourable, and to be avoided when it is not, a true Pandora’s box is opened, releasing uncontrollable forces which gravely harm defenseless populations, the cultural milieu and even the biological environment.
The Preamble and the first Article of the Charter of the United Nations set forth the foundations of the international juridical framework: peace, the pacific solution of disputes and the development of friendly relations between the nations.  Strongly opposed to such statements, and in practice denying them, is the constant tendency to the proliferation of arms, especially weapons of mass distraction,(?) such as nuclear weapons.  An ethics and a law based on the threat of mutual destruction – and possibly the destruction of all mankind – are self-contradictory and an affront to the entire framework of the United Nations, which would end up as “nations united by fear and distrust”.  There is urgent need to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, in full application of the non-proliferation Treaty, in letter and spirit, with the goal of a complete prohibition of these weapons.
The recent agreement reached on the nuclear question in a sensitive region of Asia and the Middle East is proof of the potential of political good will and of law, exercised with sincerity, patience and constancy.  I express my hope that this agreement will be lasting and efficacious, and bring forth the desired fruits with the cooperation of all the parties involved.
In this sense, hard evidence is not lacking of the negative effects of military and political interventions which are not coordinated between members of the international community.   
For this reason, while regretting to have to do so, I must renew my repeated appeals regarding to the painful situation of the entire Middle East, North Africa and other African countries, where Christians, together with other cultural or ethnic groups, and even members of the majority religion who have no desire to be caught up in hatred and folly, have been forced to witness the destruction of their places of worship, their cultural and religious heritage, their houses and property, and have faced the alternative either of fleeing or of paying for their adhesion to good and to peace by their own lives, or by enslavement.
These realities should serve as a grave summons to an examination of conscience on the part of those charged with the conduct of international affairs.  Not only in cases of religious or cultural persecution, but in every situation of conflict, as in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, South Sudan and the Great Lakes region, real human beings take precedence over partisan interests, however legitimate the latter may be.  In wars and conflicts there are individual persons, our brothers and sisters, men and women, young and old, boys and girls who weep, suffer and die.  Human beings who are easily discarded when our only response is to draw up lists of problems, strategies and disagreements.
As I wrote in my letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 9 August 2014, “the most basic understanding of human dignity compels the international community, particularly through the norms and mechanisms of international law, to do all that it can to stop and to prevent further systematic violence against ethnic and religious minorities” and to protect innocent peoples.
Along the same lines I would mention another kind of conflict which is not always so open, yet is silently killing millions of people.  Another kind of war experienced by many of our societies as a result of the narcotics trade.  A war which is taken for granted and poorly fought.  Drug trafficking is by its very nature accompanied by trafficking in persons, money laundering, the arms trade, child exploitation and other forms of corruption.  A corruption which has penetrated to different levels of social, political, military, artistic and religious life, and, in many cases, has given rise to a parallel structure which threatens the credibility of our institutions.
I began this speech recalling the visits of my predecessors.  I would hope that my words will be taken above all as a continuation of the final words of the address of Pope Paul VI; although spoken almost exactly fifty years ago, they remain ever timely.   “The hour has come when a pause, a moment of recollection, reflection, even of prayer, is absolutely needed so that we may think back over our common origin, our history, our common destiny.  The appeal to the moral conscience of man has never been as necessary as it is today… For the danger comes neither from progress nor from science; if these are used well, they can help to solve a great number of the serious problems besetting mankind (Address to the United Nations Organization, 4 October 1965).  Among other things, human genius, well applied, will surely help to meet the grave challenges of ecological deterioration and of exclusion.  As Paul VI said: “The real danger comes from man, who has at his disposal ever more powerful instruments that are as well fitted to bring about ruin as they are to achieve lofty conquests” (ibid.).
The common home of all men and women must continue to rise on the foundations of a right understanding of universal fraternity and respect for the sacredness of every human life, of every man and every woman, the poor, the elderly, children, the infirm, the unborn, the unemployed, the abandoned, those considered disposable because they are only considered as part of a statistic.  This common house of all men and women must also be built on the understanding of a certain sacredness of created nature.
Such understanding and respect call for a higher degree of wisdom, one which accepts transcendence, rejects the creation of an all-powerful élite, and recognizes that the full meaning of individual and collective life is found in selfless service to others and in the sage and respectful use of creation for the common good.  To repeat the words of Paul VI, “the edifice of modern civilization has to be built on spiritual principles, for they are the only ones capable not only of supporting it, but of shedding light on it” (ibid.).
El Gaucho Martín Fierro, a classic of literature in my native land, says: “Brothers should stand by each other, because this is the first law; keep a true bond between you always, at every time – because if you fight among yourselves, you’ll be devoured by those outside”.
The contemporary world, so apparently connected, is experiencing a growing and steady social fragmentation, which places at risk “the foundations of social life” and consequently leads to “battles over conflicting interests” (Laudato Si’, 229).
The present time invites us to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society, so as to bear fruit in significant and positive historical events (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 223).  We cannot permit ourselves to postpone “certain agendas” for the future.  The future demands of us critical and global decisions in the face of world-wide conflicts which increase the number of the excluded and those in need.
The praiseworthy international juridical framework of the United Nations Organization and of all its activities, like any other human endeavour, can be improved, yet it remains necessary; at the same time it can be the pledge of a secure and happy future for future generations.  And so it will, if the representatives of the States can set aside partisan and ideological interests, and sincerely strive to serve the common good.  I pray to Almighty God that this will be the case, and I assure you of my support and my prayers, and the support and prayers of all the faithful of the Catholic Church, that this Institution, all its member States, and each of its officials, will always render an effective service to mankind, a service respectful of diversity and capable of bringing out, for sake of the common good, the best in each people and in every individual
Upon all of you, and the peoples you represent, I invoke the blessing of the Most High, and all peace and prosperity.  Thank you.
Well, there it is in all it's clarity and use of buzz-words familiar to every modern politician and bureaucrat.  And, it has to be acknowledged, with words of deep spiritual content, when you can find them being slipped in.

But still no word of Christ.

Still no word of the fallen nature of the World and the need for Holy men and women.

Am I missing something here?

I am barely a 'Religious' man. I am a Warrior, a Knight, a Monk, a Hermit, a Psychomancer and a Tavern Keeper. A Father and a Son. He did not speak to me.

But then I am not a diplomat or a bureaucrat. I am not living in the first-class dining car on the Gravy Train.

I know it was a long piece, but bear with this post to consider a view put by  a Catholic man to his non-Catholic father.  He is critical of the Pope where I seek more knowledge and understanding. His points however are commonly held or sensed.

Both Catholic and non-Catholic seem confused by this Pope.

A Letter to My Protestant Father on Pope Francis 
After Pope Francis delivered his ecological speech before President Obama, you asked me to comment upon several subjects:
 - What do faithful Catholics think about Pope Francis?
 - How did we get to this point in the current crisis in the Catholic Church?
 - Why is God allowing this to happen? (This latter question wasn't asked for explicitly but I want to explain why God is allowing this to happen as that question naturally follows from the other two points)

On Criticism of the Pope
It is never a comfortable subject for Catholics to speak about the "nakedness of their father" (see Genesis 9:21). Like the two sons of Noah, any faithful Catholic would rather cover the shame of their father in silence. However, when a father (in this case the Holy Father, i.e. the Pope) becomes drunk and lays shamefully naked in front of the whole world and then presents his actions as in accord with good morals, then it becomes necessary for his sons, for the sake of souls, to charitably speak against what their father has done and to demonstrate that his actions are not in accord with good morals. 
In accord with the saints who have publicly rebuked previous Popes for their sinful actions, I believe it is necessary to respectfully speak against what the current Pope is doing. 
As a disclaimer, what I am about to say in no way means that I think Pope Francis is not the validly elected Pope. Nor should it be taken to mean that I do not believe every soul should be in communion with the Holy Father, for the sake of their salvation. In fact, I believe, as it is an infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic Church that it is necessary for all souls to be subject to the Roman pontiff, for the sake of their salvation. 
Lastly, I don't want to give the impression that I don't believe the Pope deserves the utmost respect for the office he holds.  As the spiritual father of all Christians, and earthly successor of Christ, he deserves the highest form of respect due to the office he holds, in the same way that Obama deserves respect for the office he holds (but definitely not for the wicked man that he is). 
What Do Faithful Catholics Think About Pope Francisl
Of course, I have no authority to speak on behalf of other Catholics, as I am merely a layman.
I am in the same bar. While I look out from my Tavern's wide windows and see Hillary's Village from horizon to horizon, I look to the Church and to God as a mere unschooled layman. 'Tis best to know one's limits. 

However, as a Catholic who is very well informed in regards to Catholic news and blogs, I can say that the Catholics who take the faith seriously are generally very concerned about the current pontificate. 
Some are concerned but try to put the best spin on what the Pope is doing, others are concerned but think that there must be some mistake in the translations of the words of the Pope or merely chose his words poorly in an "off the cuff" speech. 

These Catholics simply haven't come to terms with the idea that a Pope can be a material heretic or can do something harmful to the church.
Others are very concerned and are speaking publicly against what the Holy Father is doing. 

 I am in the last category and I have been very critical in regards to some aspects of this pontificate. 

Thus, my comments will be from this perspective, i.e., that it is morally certain the Holy Father is doing harm to souls and should be publicly contradicted, and even resisted when he asks Catholics to do something that is contrary to the faith, though he should be obeyed when he asks something in accord with the faith (e.g. if the Pope asked me to pray for the starving children in Africa then I will obey, but if he asks me to deny that the Virgin Mary is free from all stain of original sin, then I will resist).
Not to mention asking me, as a Catholic, to endorse 'sustainablity' goals of the UN's Agenda 21!  

Though it may come as a shock, I believe the current Pope is probably the worst Pope in the history of the church. Granted, the current Pope is not like some of the Popes in the Middle Ages who were, at times, sexually deviant and even blood thirsty men. Though the current Pope may be good in those aspects, his teachings and discipline of wayward clerics leaves much to be desired. 
I am not so sure, m'self. This is perhaps beyond the evidence as yet. 

Concerning the first aspect, this current Pope doesn't appear to have a very good theological formation, and this is even admitted by Fr. Lombardi, the current spokesman for the Holy Father. Thus, his homilies and writings aren't very theologically adept and sometimes appear to contain material heresy. 
In this regard, the current pontificate is reminiscent of Pope John XXII, who taught heresy in his homilies in regards to the beatific vision (fortunately, he was rebuked by various theologians and recanted before he died). Not only do his homilies and writings leave much to be desired, but he often focuses on very minor issues and neglects to speak about the "weightier matters of the law" (i.e. he often speaks about care for the planet, but rarely about the necessity to repent of sins and believe in Christ, or against abortion, sodomy, contraception, etc.) 
Pope Felix III once said "Not to oppose error, is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it." This seems to be one of the greatest problem with this pontificate so far. Additionally, the current Holy Father not only fails to discipline woefully deviant bishops and priests, but even promotes some of them to key positions in the Church. Some say that his advisors are simply misinforming him as to the nature of these bishops and priests, but it is morally certain in some grievous cases that he knows better.
At this point, I believe according to saints and theologians who have studied the issue of a harmful Pope, Pope Francis should be rebuked by the cardinals, or an imperfect ecumenical council for heresy and if he were to maintain heresy then he should be declared by them to have been deposed by God. Once this is done, they should elect a new Pope. However, for various reasons, this probably won't happen and this means we are most likely stuck with Pope Francis for the long haul.  
Harsh actions on the basis of slight evidence. 

I have no doubt that once sanity returns to the church and a good Pope is elected in the future, Pope Francis, if he continues in his current trajectory, will be anathematized, all of his acts will be reversed and he will be declared a heretic by a future Pope (this happened to Pope Honorius I merely for failing to squash the monothelite heresy, so it is not without precedent). This wouldn't touch the doctrine of papal infallibility as this is limited only to teachings made by the Pope on matters of faith and morals which expressly bind the universal church and is manifestly clear to be an infallible definition.
Pope Francis hasn't done anything to violate papal infallibility, but he has said things that appear to be material heresy. If he were rebuked by the said authorities mentioned above, and maintained heresy, then he would be automatically deposed by God and the said authorities would then have the duty to declare him deposed and elect a new Pope. 
How Did We Get to This Point in the Current Crisis in the Church?
Like any other crisis, the current crisis in the Catholic Church is multifaceted.
1. We know according to Pope Pius X that the Modernists (early 20th century heretics who denied all dogma but maintain orthodox language so they couldn't be easily identified as heretics) infiltrated the clergy. They were nearly impossible to spot since they maintained orthodox language and deliberately lied when they swore the Oath Against Modernism (e.g. they would say they believed in the dogma of the resurrection of Christ but they meant something completely different by those words than what Catholics have always meant by the resurrection of Christ). Thus, since the early 1900's we have had heretics in the clergy.
Eventually these heretics were elevated to important positions in the church and they, as well as others, managed to sabotage the documents of the Second Vatican Council (which took place from 1962 to 1965) by implementing ambiguous language into the documents, which could be interpreted in an orthodox or heretical fashion. 
Once the council was over they began to implement the reforms of the council according to a heretical interpretation of the documents, rather than according to an orthodox interpretation in accord with the traditional Catholic faith. Thus, they wrecked the liturgy, destroyed Catholic vocations to the clergy, eliminated anything in the church that was distinctly Catholic or offensive to non-Catholics and sabotaged anyone who maintained orthodoxy. 
2. We know that the Freemasons wrote a document called the Alta Vendita in the 19th century that laid out their plan to infiltrate the highest parts of the Catholic Church in order to radically change it from within. An extreme amount of evidence indicates this happened, with cardinals who were identified as masons, and maybe even some modern Popes. 
3. We also know in part of the 20th century that the homosexuals were deliberately placed in key positions, such as over seminaries, in order to reject all orthodox candidates for the priesthood and they deliberately selected only sexually deviant men for ordination (thus the pedophile scandal in the church).
4. Catechesis after the Second Vatican Council plummeted and most Catholics were either not taught the faith sufficiently, or were deliberately taught heresy.
5. The liturgy was deliberately protestantized (and feminized) by Archbishop Bugnini and his Consilium (a group of "experts" in liturgy and theology), who were placed over the reform of the Roman Liturgy after the Second Vatican Council. Bugnini deliberately eliminated anything that would indicate the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ and anything that would indicate Christ is literally present in the Eucharistic species (i.e. transubstantiation). 
He explicitly stated that he wanted to make the liturgy as acceptable to Protestants as possible. With the precept that the law of prayer is the law of belief (lex orandi, lex credendi), we know that this change in the liturgy influenced a lot of Catholics to abandon the Catholic faith and believe a more protestantized version of Christianity. 
The reform of the liturgy also attempted to desacralize the mass, which led to numerous Catholics no longer seeing the Mass as something sacred, but rather, as something common. As a result, many became disinterested in the Mass and by extension Catholicism (after all, if the liturgy is just as common as what I do in my private prayer life, why go to Mass?) This has led to many in the church who identify themselves as Catholics but are really protestant at heart, or nominally Catholic at best. 
6. The post-conciliar church (wrongly) began to avoid any kind of message that would offend the world, in order to enter into "dialogue" with the world. This led to compromising basic elements of the Catholic faith and to a neutered message that doesn't challenge anyone to repentance. 

Hence the reason Pope Francis was silent in his speech before President Obama about abortion and sodomy.
7. In 1968, Pope Paul VI released his encyclical Humanae Vitae, which explicitly condemned the use of artificial contraception and demonstrated that this is a definitive teaching of the Ordinary and Universal magisterium of the Church (i.e. it cannot be contradicted or overturned at a later time and is necessary to be believed in order to be saved).  
Liberal bishops and theologians thumbed their nose at this and told the people in the church that it was okay to dissent from this teaching and still be a good Catholic. Many "Catholics" were already practicing artificial contraception at this time and chose to believe the dissenting bishops and theologians who tickled their ears, rather than the Pope who told them this is a grave sin.  This, as previously stated, led to the majority of Catholics thinking that it is okay to dissent from the definitive teachings of the Church and the Pope and remain a good Catholic.
8. A false sense of "mercy" began to be promoted in the church ever since the opening speech of Pope John XXIII at the Second Vatican Council. The clergy began to see "mercy" as in opposition to exhortation or even excommunication and this led to a distorted view of "love", "mercy" and also to the lack of disciplining heretics in the church.
9. A dichotomy between doctrine and practice was introduced into the post-conciliar church, which says it is acceptable to teach one thing while doing something that completely contradicts that teaching in practice. This is especially being promoted by the "Kapserites", led by Cardinal Walter Kasper, and next month at the Ordinary Synod on the Family (I call it the synod against the family), this dichotomy may lead to a major schism in the church. 
10. A false understanding of ecumenism pervaded the church after the Second Vatican Council. This mentality is practically universalistic and led to neglecting the preaching of conversion to Christ and His Catholic Church.  It was replaced by the preaching of endless "dialogue" with other faiths and essentially leads to the "I'm okay, you're okay" mentality so pervasive today.
11. Also a false understanding of religious liberty was introduced into the post-conciliar church and this effectively weakened the temporal power of the Pope and also enabled people, including Catholics, to think it is okay to believe whatever they want in the name of "religious liberty".
12. The theology of the insane heretic Teilhard de Chardin has become popular in certain quarters of the church as of late. He basically taught that everything, including humans, animals and inanimate objects are all evolving to the "omega point", which is Christ. This view is a form of universalism that sees everything as moving towards God and results in universal redemption. Part of this theology has infected the teachings of the current pontiff (e.g. this can be seen in the recent papal encyclical Laudato Si) and results in what I call the "vegetable gospel", the message currently being preached by Pope Francis. The view that everything is going to be redeemed in the end leads to a neglect of the real Gospel of repentance and faith and to the promotion of temporal ecological matters that have recently been made front and center by the current pontiff.
To be fair and just to Teilhard, he did not appear to me to even suggest that everything would be redeemed or join with Christ in the Pleroma. He was far from Insane. Far from a Heretic. 

But a 'defence' is perhaps a subject for another post.

13. We know according to a vision Pope Leo XIII, of blessed memory, received after Mass that Satan was given permission by God, for 100 years, to wreck the Catholic Church. We are currently seeing the consequences of that.
14. We also know according to Sister Lucia, one of the seers at Fatima, that Satan specifically decided to attack "consecrated souls" (i.e. clergy and religious) in order to ruin the souls under their care. We are currently seeing this taking place.
It is very clear, as I have said before, that the central and highest organs of the Body of Christ are under severe attack. A spiritual scourging of the Church to match the physical scourging that Our Lord suffered personally. 

15. Most of the clergy have very poor theological training and know more about business administration than Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
16. The orthodox clergy, as a whole, are too afraid to speak the truth and to discipline those under their care.
17. Karl Rahner's mentality of discontinuity with anything before the Second Vatican Council (i.e. the view that basically says a new church has been created since the Second Vatican Council and dismisses anything pre-conciliar) permeates in many quarters of the church.
All of this, and more, paved the way for someone like Pope Francis to be elevated to the Papacy.  Pope Francis is the product of some of these problems, and he even seems to maintain some of these errors (especially #'s 5, 6, 8-11). Additionally, all of what is happening was prophesied to occur by Catholic prophets of old, so it doesn't come as a surprise for the theologically adept Catholic.   
For these reasons, the city of God (i.e. the Catholic Church) lies desolate and is like a widow who was once queen among the provinces (Lamentations 1:1). For these reasons, "All her gateways are desolate, her priests groan, her young women grieve, and she is in bitter anguish" and "Her foes have become her masters" (Lamentations 1:4-5). Because Catholics have sinned greatly, pagan nations entered her sanctuary (Lamentations 1:10), her enemies and foes entered her gates (Lamentations 4:12) and "All the splendor has departed from Daughter Zion" (Lamentations 1:6).
Why is God Allowing This to Happen?
There is a teaching in the Catholic Church, going back to Sacred Scripture, and highlighted in the works of St. Augustine, that the Catholic Church relives the life of Christ (i.e. what is done to the head of the body is also done to the body itself). Before the Church can share in the joy of His resurrection, it has to share in His sufferings, especially His crucifixion. 
As we know Christ was betrayed by Judas, an Apostle and this is why the Church too is currently being betrayed by a successor of the Apostles (i.e. Pope Francis and other bishops like him). Our Lord was publicly humiliated and spat upon, and likewise the Catholic Church is being publicly humiliated by having a negligent Pope and devious bishops/priests. The Lord was rejected by the covenant people, and in the same way the Catholic Church is being rejected by many of the new "covenant people" (i.e. nominal and liberal Catholics). The Lord was beaten and then crucified by the Romans and the Jewish authorities, and likewise the Catholic Church is currently experiencing this long, agonizing destruction of the Catholic Church at the hands of evil men inside and outside the church. 
However, just as the Church shares in the sufferings of Christ, she too will share in his resurrection and glorification. Then, when the Church rises from the apparent death that she is currently undergoing, all the nations will know she is divinely established by God.
Much more can be said here, but I hope for now this will suffice to answer what do faithful Catholics think about Pope Francis, how did we get to this point in the current crisis in the Catholic Church and why is God allow this to happen. 

There is much more there than simple criticism of the UN Speech, and I hope, food for thought on this Sunday afternoon.

A Big Meal needs many pints of Grace to wash it down and digest.

Get thee to the Eucharest and Confession, well before Extreme Unction is needed.

Be At Peace.