Does being against population control disprove global warming?

What I have found is that most global warming denialists are so because of global warming’s ramifications regarding what it might mean for some feared or hated policy, or how it reflects back on self — for those who still have Ego on their inner altar & have not pushed aside Ego to install Jesus on that inner altar.

It almost seems that the policy & self/subjective ramifications disprove in their minds that global warming is real or poses dangerous risks.

For some Catholics that might mean that a policy ramification of population control  disproves GW.  That’s the sense I got out of the article, “Population Control to Combat Climate Change?” from its tirade against global warming science and its denial of how global warming is expected to harm people and life on earth.   The article was written as a response to an article in Lancet (British medical journal), “Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change.”

Here is my response:

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, though 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

 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 there 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.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: