Population Control to Combat Climate Change?
This new consortium of climate change theorists and population controllers sees itself as the pioneering vanguard of a 'new advocacy and public health movement'.
PrintFRONT ROYAL, Va. (Population Research Institute) - The opening sentence of a recent Lancet article paints a grim picture. (Anthony Costello et al, “Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change,” The Lancet 373: 1693–733. May 16, 2009)
The normally staid British medical journal reports on a new health threat that “will affect most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk.”
Billions, no less! If “billions of lives” are at risk--given that there are less than 7 billion of us on the planet--that must mean that half of us are in danger of dying.
But from what? An airborne version of HIV/AIDS? A new, more virulent strain of Avian Flu? A deadly biological weapon that has somehow escaped from the lab?
If you guessed any of the above, you would be wrong. The authors, as it turns out, are not talking about some new pandemic at all. Rather the risk to our very lives comes from … a possible rise in the earth’s average surface temperature of 2 degrees centigrade by the year 2100.
Don’t you dare laugh.
The authors of “Managing the health effects of climate change,” take themselves very, very seriously.
In fact, they go on to solemnly inform us that the health dangers of climate change will be even more severe at high latitudes, with the potential for 4-5 degrees centigrade rises in northern Canada, Greenland, and Siberia.
I, for one, am not alarmed by the thought that a little warmth might come to these frozen northlands. Neither, I am fairly certain, will their scattered residents object to a break from the bone-chilling cold--if such a rise in temperatures should truly come to pass.
I have my doubts on this score, however, and not just because of the crazed behavior of so many global warming fanatics. There are so many variables involved, and our evidence is so sketchy, that any conclusion about the effect of human activities upon the earth’s climate is not only premature, it is also likely to be wrong.
I mean, we can’t even predict, with any accuracy, what the weather will be like two weeks out. Now we are supposed to be able to calculate what the climate will be like a century from now? Are you kidding me?
The authors actually admit they are essentially clueless. Read the following passage carefully: The “policy response to the public health implications of climate change will have to be formulated in conditions of uncertainty, which will exist about the scale and timing of the effects, as well as their nature, location, and intensity.” (p. 1694)
This ignorance doesn’t stop them from proposing vast increases in government expenditures and powerful new international institutions to “mitigate” and “adapt to” global climate change, however. Nor does it stop them from arguing for a vast expansion of population control schemes to “combat climate change.”
Indeed, this new consortium of climate change theorists and population controllers sees itself as the pioneering vanguard of a “new advocacy and public health movement” which is “needed urgently” to help humanity “adapt to the effects of climate change on health.”
But even if we do see a slight rise in global temperatures over the next century—and I believe that on this question the jury is still out--diverting vast resources to address the potential health problems that this might cause is a misuse of resources.
The article’s subtitle claims “climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.” But this is simply not true.
Everyone reading the Lancet article will be dead in a hundred years, and I guarantee that they will not die from “climate change.” Rather, they will die from infectious diseases, from cancers, from heart attacks, from strokes, and so on.
These are the real health threats of our age. These are the threats to our lives and wellbeing that should command our attention and our resources, not some vague, unpredictable and indirect health consequences of supposed “global warming.”
By distracting us from more immediate threats to our health, by delaying the discovery of cures for illnesses that cost tens of millions of lives each year, these people are killing us.
But that is, after all, what they want.
-----
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits.
The normally staid British medical journal reports on a new health threat that “will affect most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk.”
Billions, no less! If “billions of lives” are at risk--given that there are less than 7 billion of us on the planet--that must mean that half of us are in danger of dying.
But from what? An airborne version of HIV/AIDS? A new, more virulent strain of Avian Flu? A deadly biological weapon that has somehow escaped from the lab?
If you guessed any of the above, you would be wrong. The authors, as it turns out, are not talking about some new pandemic at all. Rather the risk to our very lives comes from … a possible rise in the earth’s average surface temperature of 2 degrees centigrade by the year 2100.
Don’t you dare laugh.
The authors of “Managing the health effects of climate change,” take themselves very, very seriously.
In fact, they go on to solemnly inform us that the health dangers of climate change will be even more severe at high latitudes, with the potential for 4-5 degrees centigrade rises in northern Canada, Greenland, and Siberia.
I, for one, am not alarmed by the thought that a little warmth might come to these frozen northlands. Neither, I am fairly certain, will their scattered residents object to a break from the bone-chilling cold--if such a rise in temperatures should truly come to pass.
I have my doubts on this score, however, and not just because of the crazed behavior of so many global warming fanatics. There are so many variables involved, and our evidence is so sketchy, that any conclusion about the effect of human activities upon the earth’s climate is not only premature, it is also likely to be wrong.
I mean, we can’t even predict, with any accuracy, what the weather will be like two weeks out. Now we are supposed to be able to calculate what the climate will be like a century from now? Are you kidding me?
The authors actually admit they are essentially clueless. Read the following passage carefully: The “policy response to the public health implications of climate change will have to be formulated in conditions of uncertainty, which will exist about the scale and timing of the effects, as well as their nature, location, and intensity.” (p. 1694)
This ignorance doesn’t stop them from proposing vast increases in government expenditures and powerful new international institutions to “mitigate” and “adapt to” global climate change, however. Nor does it stop them from arguing for a vast expansion of population control schemes to “combat climate change.”
Indeed, this new consortium of climate change theorists and population controllers sees itself as the pioneering vanguard of a “new advocacy and public health movement” which is “needed urgently” to help humanity “adapt to the effects of climate change on health.”
But even if we do see a slight rise in global temperatures over the next century—and I believe that on this question the jury is still out--diverting vast resources to address the potential health problems that this might cause is a misuse of resources.
The article’s subtitle claims “climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.” But this is simply not true.
Everyone reading the Lancet article will be dead in a hundred years, and I guarantee that they will not die from “climate change.” Rather, they will die from infectious diseases, from cancers, from heart attacks, from strokes, and so on.
These are the real health threats of our age. These are the threats to our lives and wellbeing that should command our attention and our resources, not some vague, unpredictable and indirect health consequences of supposed “global warming.”
By distracting us from more immediate threats to our health, by delaying the discovery of cures for illnesses that cost tens of millions of lives each year, these people are killing us.
But that is, after all, what they want.
-----
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits.
- - -
PRI is a 501(c)(3) educational organization. We work to reverse the trends brought about by the myth of overpopulation. Our growing, global network of pro-life groups spans over 30 countries. To date, we have successfully eliminated $790 million in U.S. tax dollars to International Planned Parenthood, UNFPA, and other anti-life aboritionists while redirecting much of this to family friendly programs like Child Survival.See our current project.
Donate now to directly affect the lives and well-being of mothers and children around the world.
Keywords:
NEWSLETTERS »
Rate This Article
1 - 7 of 7 Comments
Leave a Comment
More Politics & Policy News
- President has no intention of paying money back to Bain Capital for campaign contributions
- Congressman Chris Smith Welcomes Chen Guangcheng to Freedom
- Romney not receiving the majority of Latino votes
- General Colin Powell declines to endorse Obama
- President Obama calls for 'New Alliance' to ensure food, nutrition for Africa
- Eye of the Tiger - The rise of Mitt Romney
- 22 states along with D.C. backing Montana legal battle
- Romney: Stimulus dollars were 'bridge to nowhere'
- Romney picks up steam against Obama
Featured News
- The Happy Priest Reflects on Pentecost and the Holy Spirit
- Pope Benedict's butler arrested in 'Vatileaks' scandal
- Free news unsustainable, Buffet says of newspaper purchases
- New details emerge in Etan Patz case
- What Happened to Those Pentecostal Catholics? We Need a new Pentecost!
- Pentecost and The Gift of The Spirit: Be Transformed, Recreated, and Elevated Into Eternal Life
- Memorial Day: Honor Those Who Defend Us with Their Lives, Tell the Truth
- Dragon captured hundreds of miles above Earth
- Dr. Denton Weiss on Death and Dying: Pride and Fear or Love and Faith?
Latest Videos »
Newsletter Sign Up »
Daily Readings »
Reading 1, Acts 2:1-11
When Pentecost day came round, they had all met together, when suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a violent ... Read all
Responsorial Psalm, Psalms 104:1, 24, 29-30, 31, 34
Bless Yahweh, my soul, Yahweh, my God, how great you are! Clothed in majesty and splendour, Read all
Gospel, John 20:19-23
In the evening of that same day, the first day of the week, the doors were closed in the room where the disciples ... Read all
Reading 2, First Corinthians 12:3-7, 12-13
Because of that, I want to make it quite clear to you that no one who says 'A curse on Jesus' can be speaking in the ... Read all
Most Popular »
Featured Book
True Story of Noah's Ark
One of the most stunning, unique and captivating books on the account of the Ark and the global Flood of Noah's day ever ... Featured Product
Rosaries, Rosary Bracelets & ...
Rosary bracelets with crystals, stones, wood, glass. View our selection of Rosary bracelets, Rosaries, and Rosary Rings. These ... 
Dirty money from Mexican narcotics flow on
Five things your child needs to do this summer
Romney's connection to firm valid points, he says
Teens will have hard time finding summer work
Space capsule captured by robotic arm in space
Confessed killer may appear in court shortly
Rebels soldiers in 2008 massacre elude justice
Kirtland spill may be twice as bad as Exxon Valdez
Some fear drones may be made lethal again
Big dreams undercut by unemployment
France, Germany clashing over Eurobonds
Quick-thinking boy saves his friend from choking
Luggage check at airport reveals gruesome surprise
Conservationists decry denuding of wildlife
OK, I skimmed thru the Lancet article mentioned here. It seems there are 2 issues in this post about it. Issue one has to do with "Is anthropogenic global warming happening and does it pose serious risk of harm?" Issue two is, "What should we do about it?"
God is Truth, and scientific truths, tho provisional and based on the best evidence and theory to date (and thus changeable) deserve our respect and attention -- especially if that scientific finding says we are killing and harming people now and well into the future (those billions who would be killed by us living today will be those of many generations for up to 100,000 years, as we are nearly on the brink of tipping into a very massive warming/death scenario -- that's how they figure "billions"). There is also the possibility that we could tip the world into irreversible death and destruction of all life on earth if we persist in burning all fossil fuels, including tar sands and oil shale (see esp. p. 24 of http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf ).
It is against God to use issue 2 ("what should we do about it") to decide whether or not issue 1 ("is it happening") is true. In fact prudence requires that we consider that AGW is happening and work to mitigate it, as the U.S. Bishops have told us, even if Exxon and Koch Industries are funding a bunch of denialist orgs.
Once we have done the right thing, the moral thing, in accepting that AGW is happening and could be very dangerous indeed, then we can get busy and mitigate it. I would suggest focusing our energies on implementing and promoting our own measures, rather than a heel-dragging, obstructionist posture, allowing the harm to fester, or allowing others to take the reins in solving it.
OK, we don't want in any way to interfere with child-birth issues, either offering women natural contraception (the rhythm method) and certainly not abortion (the article, however, does suggest abortions can be reduced by helping poor women in Africa have some contraception -- so shouldn't we as Catholics be out their trying to teach the rhythm method).
These issues, however, are all pertaining to issue 2 and do not determine the validity of issue 1, that AGW is happening, which is extremely well established now.
I would hope that by God's grace we can all do the needful and reduce our greenhouse gases at the least thru measures that save us money, or don't cost.
You don't really want to live in a much hotter place than a globally warmed world, and for all eternity no less. And you don't really want to drag a lot of others to that hell-hole by your dissuasions from doing good (or reducing bad, as in this case).
I would suggest doing all those things to reduce your greenhouse gases that don't cost (long run) or actually save you money without lowering living standards through energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy -- that can be done to 50 or 60% reductions. The soul you save by reducing your killing of people from global warming and its knock-on effects might be your own.
Be a bright shining sunbeam for Jesus, and you will draw souls up to heaven with you.
The real threat to our health is the elitist global warming/climate change hoax (climategate anyone?) advocates like Bill Gates who are hell bent on depopulation through Nazi-like modern day eugenics programs:
http://financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2010/0304.html
"First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent." - Bill Gates
Video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
Sorry Bill you said it, and you can't just spin it away.
Other quacks (AlGore) pushing this nonsense are set up to make billions:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/03/gore_still_hot_on_his_doomsday_rhetoric/
...and yet many of them all ready are and by the most nefarious means:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6a237570be4660439e371341ae8452d5.a41&show_article=1
It's becoming more and more evident that "Global Warming" is a scam driven by leftist politics, greedy scientists, and silent media. After studying this "science" for 12 months, I've concluded that the Earth is an incubator. It has maintained life-sustaining temperatures for eons and will continue to do so.
Although as an atmospheric scientist, I do not believe there scare scenarios put out by the believers, there are positive things associated with temperature increases. It is well established for example, that cold kills and warmth heals. Every study shows that the poor, vulnerable, and elderly, are subject to more trauma and death during cold excursions than warm excursions.
Amen to Mike's comment. God made the earth and said to Adam, "Fill it." Are we to believe that He made the universe for us to simply look at? We are dominated by a load of small-minded people holding us in bondage because they want to control all of the world. Humanity's destiny lies beyond. The sooner we all get praying to convert the hearts of the power-brokers, the sooner they'll actually start organising some real leadership for some real development.
this is the same ELITE propaganda that has been coming out since the 1970's. But now it is not fringe, it is fully empowered. Pope Paul VI was right about the birth control mentality...we don't need LESS, we need MORE of the best this planet has to offer - people!
and energy !! or we'll never be able to 'hatch' into space ! millions of nice planets out there, and incredible resources.
Look up !