You forgot the inhuman agenda of those who repudiate climate change (it’s funny how you try to use the words of the Pope to go against the Pope’s own goals).

Yeah, Joe, I don’t really understand the objection to your post, which was nothing more than a warning not to be taken in by those in the climate change debate who are pushing population control as the “cure” to environmental ills. It is undeniable that there is a significant segment of those in the forefront of the climate change debate who want to curb population growth. As you note, this sentiment is gaining momentum at the climate conferences like the one just held in Copenhagen.

So, are the Voxers (I like that) saying the Malthusians are correct?

If, as the Voxers claim, you’re using the Pope’s words against his own goals in making your argument, does that mean the Pope wants us to have fewer children?

Again, I don’t get the objection.

Other things left out of Joe’s post:

- An analysis of how the extreme heat caused by global warming will impede northeastern NFL teams this upcoming season.

- The impacts of deforestation upon the tseste fly.

- His opinion on the upcoming Fall season on Fox.

Unless Joe addresses these issues and others of concern to me, he has proven himself to be nothing but anti-Earth neo-Catholic. And probably a gnostic Calvinist to boot.

Hey Karlson,

If you’re still reading this, I just want to ask you something.

Do you like fish sticks?

My response to Karlson at VN:

“Joe’s problem is the problem of over-simplification.”

Nonsense. The problem, as usual, is that you can’t simply appreciate a piece for what it is. Writing columns forces one to be simplistic – but I was not over-simplistic. That’s you subjective judgment, and it is wrong.

“He claims, on TAC, that he is just dealing with issues “normally neglected.” Does he think these issues are “neglected” by the normal IC crowd? Certainly not.”

And here is your prejudice against the “normal IC crowd.” I haven’t seen any articles at IC about this topic. And there are plenty of people who read Catholic websites who don’t know much about the anti-life arguments advanced by certain environmentalist organizations and individuals.

“And it is being used to reduce concern about environmentalism”

No it isn’t. That’s your hysterical conclusion.

“and to suggest the real concern about the environment is not the environment”

That’s not true. I fully acknowledge that the people calling for population control believe that it is in the interests of the environment!

“but to reduce the world’s population — which is in error”

Fallacy, Henry. These are not mutual exclusives. They want to reduce the world’s population to “save the environment.” I don’t attribute to them any other sinister motives. Frankly, I think that’s sinister enough.