Man vs. Nature?

In my latest piece at IC, I examine the inhuman agenda behind the fight against “climate change.”

Read it here!

11 Responses to Man vs. Nature?

  1. 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).

  2. […] is Selfishness and Sinful It is one of the oddest things to try to make Pope Benedict a figure to combat environmentalists. Of course, as with all things, he seeks balance. He […]

  3. Joe Hargrave says:

    What is it with you Voxers?

    All you do is whine about what ISN’T in an article, and then you make the absurd complaint that someone “forgot” to mention something.

    I didn’t forget a thing. I am trying to highlight a dimension of this debate that I don’t believe gets enough attention. It’s people like you who “forget” to mention all of the things I mentioned in your own uncritical paeans to environmentalism.

    How illogical and uncharitable can you get? I’m not going against the pope’s goals either. I mean, really? What is wrong with your brain?

  4. Jay Anderson says:

    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.

  5. Art Deco says:

    You forgot the inhuman agenda of those who repudiate climate change

    Educate me, Henry. What is my ‘inhuman’ agenda?

  6. Paul Zummo says:

    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.

  7. jonathanjones02 says:

    Good grief, how obtuse can one get in their projection? That’s embarrassing.

  8. Joe Hargrave says:

    Hey Karlson,

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

    Do you like fish sticks?

  9. Big Tex says:

    I do believe also that Joe also left out any mention of the world’s oldest beer discovered in a shipwreck in the Baltic Sea. I mean really, this stuff along with the champagne was stored at cold temperatures, and is now being subjected to the ravages of anthropogenic climate change, probably spoil. THAT is inhuman.

  10. Joe Hargrave says:

    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.

  11. GodsGadfly says:

    Why does questioning “climate change” make one selfish? I believe in conserving natural resources–conservationist conservatism–but I don’t believe the climate change rubbish.

%d bloggers like this: