Population Control to Combat Climate Change? - Catholic Online

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.

New crises always looming

No formal meetings this week, but I’m still buzzing from last week’s full council meeting where we decided by a margin of 10-3 not to sign up to a global warming statement.

Started with Clare Rodomske and Simon Cave from Chamber of Commerce preaching caution, I was ready to jump up and down for a good 20 minutes — but I didn’t need to.

As speaker after speaker rose to counsel commonsense, I sat and smiled — some days really do bolster your faith in the collective wisdom of ordinary people. I do quite like being on council — there may be some days when I wonder which planet some of my colleagues are on, but more often than not we do get a commonsense result.

Logic even more endangered

We think the Wildlife Service reasonably argued that grizzly bears could adapt to changes in pine-nut availability, considering that the blister rust fungus long ago caused a rapid mortality of whitebark pine trees. The grizzly bear population still managed to grow.