Just back from a Vatican synod on the Amazon, San Diego Catholic Bishop Robert McElroy oversaw a climate-change seminar Wednesday with a top scientist in the field.
Veerabhadran Ramanathan laid out compelling evidence of manmade climate change – and why morality demands global warming be slowed.
But the distinguished professor of atmospheric and climate sciences at UCSD’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography didn’t address the political elephant in the room.
Later, McElroy did.
After the nearly 2-hour session of 160 clergy, religious and lay people at the diocesan Pastoral Center, the San Diego bishop suggested elected officials — apparently Republicans — must reverse their climate-change denial.
Asked which is more important to the church — the anti-abortion movement or the drive to blunt carbon dioxide pollution — McElroy said they’re both part of a single fight: “the defense of life. You can’t separate those two out.”
He acknowledged that America’s “political structures” separate the issues. He called such politics misshapen.
“They’re distorted,” he told Times of San Diego. “They say you can’t be for a holistic view of safeguarding life.”
So given the red-blue split over abortion and climate change, what can be done to unite efforts to stave off “crisis levels” of CO2 the Scripps scientist said could be 10 years away?
“We have to have our elected officials change,” McElroy said. “We have to change that structure so that people don’t have to choose, when they’re voting, between safeguarding the future of the planet and safeguarding the life of unborn children.”
The above comes from an Oct. 30 story by Ken Stone in the Times of San Diego.
The dirty little truth is that Democrats don’t believe their own scare tactics about global warming. If they did, they would be incentivizing nuclear power and hydroelectric power.
In California, they’ve only incentivized minor power sources such as solar and wind and mandating only liberal strategies.
In other words, Democrats and certain bishops have weaponized global warming to advance liberalism — not to actually solve a “crisis.”
I’m sorry Steve, but that is so not true. There have been lots of hydroelectric projects done throughout the years, including most importantly Hetch Hetchy itself. THere have been hundreds of smaller hydroelectric projects approved throughout the years. As to nuclear, you know perfectly well that there has never been a solution about how to store the spent nuclear rods – like ever. And the warm waters that flow into the rivers harm the fish and wildlife that live there.
“Minor” power sources like wind and solar are the best technology we currently have, and rival carbon fuels in cost. The sun is neither liberal nor conservative, climate and carbon are neigher liberal nor conservative, and claiming that our response to climate change is being “weaponized” to “advance liberalism” is just stringing together a bunch of scare words in a sentence, not a thoughtful response to an urgent crisis. I expected better from you, Steve.
Dear YFC,
My comments were written only within the context of the modern global warming debate and not about anything before then. My comments about California were specifically about AB32, the global warming law, and the regulations which it promulgated. Those regulations do not incentivize major energy sources such as hydro or nuclear energy but do incentivize minor sources such as wind and solar. I don’t know of any hydro or nuclear plants built since 2006 in California.
Wind and solar are good technologies, but they simply don’t make a noticeable dent replacing fossil fuels. Nuclear and hydroelectric do. Your comments about the storage of nuclear fuel and warming waters all have technical solutions. Some, such as warming waters, have simple solutions.
About the last sentence in my post, I admit to having fun using the term “weaponize.” Other than this, the Democrat politicians and their behavior with AB32 reveals the truth of the sentence.
Again, Steve, I’m not sure where you get your facts. More than a third of California’s energy currently comes from renewable sources: solar, hydroelectric, and wind. Solar is by fr the largest source of renewable energy, and it is growing at a very rapid rate.
You don’t hear about the growth of hydro because there is a limit to how many plants you can produce. There are only so many rivers and streams. Offshore hydro farms havent really taken off because they are expensive, not economically competitive, and subject to strict zoning requirements so as to not interfere with fishing and vehicular traffic.
Finally, only part of our strategy to combat climate change is to change the mix of energy sources: A very significant part of the plan is energy efficiency. Making cars far more efficient is something California is serious about, but Trump has actually gone to court to tell California it doesn’t have the right to regulate cars sold here. So much for states rights and the principle of subsidiarity.
YFC,
Regarding your comment that a third of California’s energy comes from sources such as hydro, solar, and wind, do you have a source that you can cite?
My original source for what I stated was the state’s energy board, but this federal look into California is more complete and up to date. You will see that the data are actually even more favorable to solar than I originally posted.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-5
And here is my original source: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/california-power-generation-and-power-sources
I would prefer we address consumerism by Catholics. We are using too many resources, and need to stop collecting and buying stuff. It’s an excellent time to start. Christmas is coming soon. Stop giving most other adults gifts. Maybe one item to your spouse. Give yourself to those you love. We do not need to buy most people anything. We should be sharing the message of God’s love and mercy. Give to a good Catholic organization or charity instead with collected family money. I understand we want our minor children to receive something from Santa. But we waste time shopping, decorating and buying stuff that is not helping anyone get to heaven. Please everyone start cutting back a little somewhere in your life. We as the Catholic Church should be leading the way, not following “the Jones”.
I’d prefer they spoke about Christ.
Absolutely I would wish Christ be first. He is the one we were to have given our lives to. But since Bishop Elroy spent a week or more focusing on Climate Change and not Christ, I thought I’d bring it back to our role when it comes to mother earth. I am tired of the idea of funding more government projects to study and regulate the planet and control the weather, when we in the West are mass shoppers and consumers. We absolutely need to focus on Christ first, and not be concerned what kind of car each other drives, the latest in whatever. Another example is the amount of talk on recycling which is important. But why really do we even buy plastic water bottles, more clothes, or electronics, etc? Satan has “us” so distracted We as Americans are clearly part of the problem. Yes we haven’t put Christ first or used Christ’s solutions.
Same old seamless garment nonsense.
After the nuclear power plant meltdowns and tragedies in Russia and Japan, who would want one anywhere near his home, or business. Please God save us from that.
Anne TE,
The use of nuclear power is like everything else in life. We learn from our mistakes to make things better. Soviet nuclear power never was safe. The incident in Japan is one of those live and learn scenarios.
Regardless, if the global warming alarmists are accurate, the risks of nuclear power are far less than those of climate change.
Climate Change is just a euphemism for socialism! Deep down it’s really a scheme to dumb down advanced nations to the level of nations who are not as advanced because their political systems work to keep their populations in a subservient state of existence. Where is the scientific proof for climate change? Why aren’t the proponents of this scam directing their ire at China and India, the 2 worst polluters on the planet? Bishop McElroy appears to have fallen for this faux theory hook, line and sinker vs seeking the proof and the truth.
Dear Lou: Here i the evidence for climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov
I PROMISE you that not only is climate change not a euphemism for socialism, but it represent the greatest capitalist opportunity for the US since the invention of the silicon semiconductor. But we are losing the race to the neo-capitalists in China.
One of Hillary’s best stories she toldwas how she and the President got China on board with the Helsinki agreement on climate change. They literally had to stalk them, but they did, and they signed on. Now, if you go to China, they are the biggerst producers of solar panels in the world. China produces THREE TIMES the amount of solar panels as the US does. It i such a threat to the US that Trump imposed a significant tarrif early on. Had WE had the capitalist-friendly policies in place to take advantage in the surge of solar demand, WE would be the number one producer of solar panels in the world.
That’s not socialism, my friend, that is capitalism pure and simple.
Sorry I meant the Paris Accords, not the Helsinki Agreement. My bad.
And here’s evidence that it’s a “hoax” and by the way, I hate to break this to you but the climate has been changing since the beginning of time!
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/the_hoax_of_climate_change.html
So Ronnie, I actually went to your crazy website. There isn’t a shred of data on it. All it is is a series of sentences saying this is a “hoax” and that person is a “liberal”, and blah blah blah. Yes climate changes all of the time, but climate change is happenning more rapidly than at any other time, it is happenning because we are pouring tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every hour, and carbon dioxide traps heat instead of allowing it to escapte into space. My link provided extensive data to back up the claims of climate scientists. Yours provided no data at all.
Climate has nothing to do with socialism, with being liberal or conservative, what form of government we should have, or any of that nonsense. It is changing because we are changing it, and when we call it a hoax, we are ruining the planet for ourselves.
Let’s hope Greg the Geologist’s link convinces you then. This link definitely backs up extensive data refuting the myth of global warming and climate change and disputing your so-called facts:
Ronnie, congratulations! You have shown a video which illustrates the Dust Bowl! We took history, and we have seen the videos of this depression era weather anomaly – which as far as I know, was a phenomenon of North America.
For those who respond better to videos and podcasts, here is a guy who takes on the myths surrounding climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZB1YtQtHjE
Just look at this guy’s shirt to get a clue where he’s coming from….ha, ha, ha..Cimate change has been happening since the beginning of time and as that last video illustrated it was worse centuries ago…First, global warming and they weren’t getting anywhere with that so now it’s “climate change” next the “ice age” and so forth..The Left the “sky is falling’ is actually falling apart.
If you will stake the future of the world on a guys T-shirt, then I have no more to say.
I stake the future on truth and not climate changing hoaxes and agendas. The sky is not falling and the radical climate and environmental alarmists are being debunked as they have before.
bohemond, please don’t speak for me or for others. None of what you say about me is true, and its also not true for the vast majority of people who understand that humans are causing climate change. I just want to remind you that bearing false witness against your neighbor is prohibited according to the Ten Commandments.
YFC may I remind you that sodomy is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance
“Sodomy” doesnt cause climate change and it doesn’t cause the sin of lieing.
Tom is absolutely spot on. Never is a reasoned scientific opposition to man made climate change ever allowed by government or the church. It’s very sad and dishonest.
Catholic leadership refuses to meet with any dissenting voice on man made climate warming … if in fact there is a meaningful causation. So, when they refer to experts, they only mean those who confirm their existing “positional bias”.
… Yet, on matters of Church Morals, the same Church leaders have no problem “opening the dialogue” and welcoming pro-abortion and contraceptive secular promoters into Church Synods and Academies.
…. this is what we’re dealing with, pre-determined outcomes that only gather supportive voices … which is completely contrary to Reason.
Tom, if there were legitimate “dissenting voices”, they wouldn’t need to resort to ad hominem attacks to make their point. They wouldn’t have to call us socialists, hoaxers, one world government types, sodomists, not faithful catholics, people who want us to be “subservient to the state”, faux theorists, and scammers.
The killing of an innocent life, even if the number of killings reach the tens of millions, cannot be separated from the earth’s temperature increasing three degrees. I never saw the inextricable connection until Bishop McElroy pointed it out.
Climate change denial is really about greed and the desire of the wealthy to establish an oligarchy in the USA. Notice that the wealthy deniers are not buying property on the coastlines and are unloading their properties near the coasts. Also, notice how many of the uber rich are into the survivalist mentality. If they thought climate change was not real, they would not be doing these things.
J Muir,
I’ve not heard that. However, it’s standard behavior among the upperclass rich to protect and preserve their wealth. I would think that any rumor, especially one that is well financed and politically connected, would tend to scare away the rich except for those directly involved in speculation.
Why are we letting our government and others monkey with the weather. They are a big part of the problem playing God.
Almighty and Heavenly Father save us from our pride and arrogance before it’s too late. Please Lord continue to expose the evil in this plan, so we can make decisions based only on facts and the truth. Amen.
Ann, please understand that everytime you drive a car, turn on your heater or air conditioner, or burn logs in your firepleace…YOU are monkeying with the weather.
I’m growing weary of the nonsense coming from Bishop McElroy. First of all, Republicans are not “climate-change deniers.” Everyone knows that the climate has been changing since the Earth’s creation. Second, it’s incorrect to call carbon dioxide a “pollutant.” Animals exhale carbon dioxide and plants use it to make oxygen in photosynthesis. Historical data shows that carbon dioxide levels correlate poorly with temperature and polar ice thickness. There is no “crisis level.” You cannot talk about climate change unless you’re willing to consider sunspots, volcanism, population density in cities, increased energy use per capita, and increased local humidity from human activities. Carbon dioxide levels are easy to calculate, easy to measure, and thus easy to tax. That’s what this is all about – redistribution of wealth. When I hear someone like the bishop say we need to “change political structures,” that’s a signal to me that he wants to suspend the US Constitution and to join in a one-world communist government. Abortion, however, is the deliberate murder of a human being. We haven’t even come to agreement on whether a warmer climate would be harmful to humans. It’s been warmer a thousand years ago, and we emerged from it just fine. Linking the two issues is intellectually dishonest, and I hope all Catholics can see through this charade.
Is it POSSIBLE that you are wrong, Mr. Bugiada? Can I just ask you, because if you are wrong, you are asking us to doom civilization itself. You posit that this is all about redistribution of wealth. What would climate scientists have to gain by redistributing wealth. They are already reasonably well off by global standards. What would they have to gain by saying things they don’t really believe? In case you are any reader is in need of a refresher about the DATA concerning climate change, here is a good place to start: https://climate.nasa.gov
Of course it’s possible that Mr. Bugiada and I (a working scientist) are wrong about this. But non-scientists may not catch the distinction between observations / data vs interpretation / theory. AGW or Climate Change(TM) is a theory, thus subject to scientific scrutiny. Isn’t it possible that’s wrong? Computer models (theoretical projections, based on many variables) are notoriously subject to fine-tuning input variables to get the output you want. Many theories have been proven inadequate, and I suspect this is one of them. I’d need to be convinced that what we observe in the data is outside the range of natural variation, and I’m not convinced of that. Historical records suggest that the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were warmer than today. Also there seems to be some manipulation going on, which raises my suspicions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU
Climate change deniers dumping beach front properties!!! So that’s who Al Gore bought his Montecito beach mansion from!
Warmists should carefully and honestly read Mr. Marc Morano, Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, then humbly apologize to Greta Thunberg for deceiving her.
I’m a “warmist” now? Gosh that makes me feel so cozy!
Some facts: China’s factories produce 140% CO2 compared against US levels. Another way of stating this,
for every 100 molecules of CO2 produced by the US, China produces 140 molecules. Under the terms of the
Paris Accord (thankfully ended by Pres. Trump), The US had to cut its factory emissions by 20%. China had to do NOTHING according to the Paris Accord. Also, now Asia is really ramping up, and that means India, Indonesia, etc, are increasing their factory outputs, thus driving up CO2. So please, stop the lectures about the need for the US to do this, or that. China and Asia, the main CO2 producers, are not changing at all. And finally, CO2 is NOT the main cause of “Climate Change” – that is due to the many Solar variables, like the Malenkovic cycles. At present, the Sun is going into a quiet period, which means cooler temperatures. So it is quite possible, that “global warming” is near an end.
Just as a reminder of what “climate change” is really about,a mere 14,000 years ago (like yesterday, geologically), the North American continent was covered with an ice sheet, 2 kilometers thick. Suddenly, it melted, and the Great Lakes emerged. How did this happen, Global Warmists, when there were no factories about? All of the facts given above are correct. Look them up, and please do a little studying, educate yourselves…please!
Joe, I completely agree that China has to be brought into the solution to the climate situation. You are correct, they are the biggest produce of CO2, but we are the biggest per capita producer of CO2. I urge everyone interested in the China issue to read this very recent article about the subject, as well as the related links contained in it: https://time.com/5711951/us-china-climate-change-environment/
YFC: So “China has to be brought into the solution”. That’s nice, so courteous, so polite. That solves the problem, Correct? NO, NOT. China absolutely REFUSES to be brought into the solution, as does Asia. Their history is one of refusal to any accountability to the US. China takes our patented processes,uses this info to manufacturer goods in their plants, and then ships them to the US. So, are they going to pay attention to your sweet request to cut CO2 emissions from their power plants? NO, NOT!
And if you bring up the per capita facts, you will doubly ensure they will not change! And that is why the Paris Accord must be ended, as the President stated again. So YFC! Tell us! Why must the US cut CO2 emissions, when the world’s No. 1 CO2 producer, China, will not? And why does China have complete freedom (under the Paris Accord) to continue producing CO2, as in the past?
China is doing more than you realize, apparently. Hillary Clinton got them to the table, and they now recognize that the way forward is through renewable carbon-free energy. I’ve been there. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Have you? Or are you just watching Faux News?
Why should the US do something? Because we can. Because we care. Because we can be lead by example. Because we can be responsible citizens. Because we can provide the world with the technology to make it happen. Because I don’t want to fry in the fires and dorwn in the hurricanes coming our way.
No, right now, I’m looking at weak, vague, untrue, Faux comments.
14,000 year cycles happen. Yup! What we are witnessing isnt a 14,000 year cycle, but more like a 14,000 DAY TREND since the start of major carbon burning starting with the industrial revolution and accelerating even til today. SInce the 1950’s explosion in the use of cars and air conditioning and jet travel, there hasn’t really been a cycle, it’s been an upward trend in measured CO2 in the atmosphere and measured temperature increase, and along with them, reduced polar ice, more fires, more fierce storms, etc. This is not a ten thousand year trend, this is a trend happenning over decades.
Are you really serious, “Your Fellow Catholic,” that we are seeking to “doom civilization itself?” You’re sounding like the Chief Climate Scaremongeress Greta Thunberg. If the Vikings were to attempt to cross the North Atlantic today in their small wooden ships they would be taking their lives into their hands! They were brave sailors and fighters, but they weren’t crazy. A thousand years ago, when the planet was warmer, they named the island “Greenland” because it was green, not covered with glaciers like today. They named Newfoundland “Vineland.” Not too many grapevines grow there now. England had a thriving wine industry. Today, the only English wines you see on the list are Ports, which do well in a cooler climate. By “wealth distribution,” I wasn’t talking about enriching climate scientists, I meant the transfer of wealth from the United States to international organizations like the UN. If you read the text of the Paris Accords, you’ll see that it talks mostly about money transfers. Also, China and India, which are the chief emitters of greenhouse gases, aren’t mentioned at all. If you really care about civilization, maybe you should be looking at other things that are killing people NOW. What about war, tuberculosis, HIV, hunger, lack of clean drinking water, economic stagnation, lack of access to affordable energy, and lack of affordable healthcare? Don’t you think we would get more bang for the buck by addressing these bigger problems? Maybe, instead of looking at NASA data, you should be reading Bjorn Lomborg instead.
Thanks for the “what about”-isms! All of those things together won’t equal what we are facing with climate change.
Horrible problems, to be sure. We didn’t look at HIV and say “What about TB?” We didn’t look at lack of affordable health care and say, “what about drinking water?” No, we one by one have been and are tackling EACH of those issues. HIV is in retreat, as is TB, and every one of the problems you mentioned, with the possibl exception of clean drinking water and economic stagnation. At least in the US, the Affordable Care Act brought affordable care to more Americans than ever, despite Republican efforts to nip it back to its roots and “reform and replace” it with some unknown plan that it never put forth.
(On those problems, thinking of the horrible lead in the water in Detroit suburbs etc, is a shame, when we’ve used modern methods to bring clean drinking water to millions in Africa. On economic stagnation: We’ve had nearly 40 years of Reagen Trickle Down Economics in which every administrtation – Dem And Republican – have lowered taxes for the wealth who have gotten proportionately wealthier decade since. Meanwhile, minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, and things like home prices and education have skyrocketed.
We can solve ALL of these problems. Solving climate doesn’t mean ignoring HIV or health care, or whatever else. But we can’t solve ANY of these problems if we ignore them or pretend they don’t exist.
Yes YFC, you live in a one party state where the ruling party can’t even keep the lights on, half the state is in flames and you have record number of homeless in feces lined streets. Yet you expexct the rest of us to believe that your side will solve “climate change” or any other problem… ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha… yeah, more government is the answer.
Thank you behemond. I wish California’s leaders would work on fixing the problems going on today as our Lord says for God can take care of tomorrow. Control is the end game for those in charge. Getting and keeping power.
Their solutions are they control and God is no where in the picture. This should scare every Catholic in California.
The smoke of Satan has entered many government offices and court rooms in the state and through out America. We should not be voting for anyone who wants to remove God from our country.
If fossil fuel is so disastrous,and climate change man made, why are the worst offenders and biggest users of jet fuel the “elite” who go about the world ranting and raving about it while having big steak dinners at exclusive hotels when they expect the “little guy” to tighten his belt and lose his coal mining job while they tax the middle class out of existence. Do what you expect others to do or shut up. No one is listening any more. Your hypocrisy is showing too much. If you want to get rid of carbons footprints, first get rid of your own.
Not a bad point, Anne TE. What is mostly being asked is a change in priorities and resources at the regional and national levels. Sure, turning off lights, using the car less, and eating less meat helps…but without sustained regional national and international change, we can do nothing. That car…you can’t make it more fuel efficient yourself. But California can. Unfortunately Trump fights is every step of the way.
In regard to Ramanathan, follow the grant money. He’s not $tupid.
It’s interesting that you, “Your Fellow Catholic,” accuse me of a classical Leftist logical fallacy (whataboutism) when all I was doing was contrasting an imaginary problem (deaths due to global warming) with real problems (deaths from war, hunger, disease, etc.). Dire consequences for the climate have been predicted for the last 50 years, and none of those predictions have come true. You can only cry “Wolf!” so many times before nobody believes you anymore. It seems that no matter what the calamity predicted, the solution is always the same: higher taxes, more regulation, and less freedom. I’m sorry, but slowing the economy and throwing millions out of work just to support an unproven hypothesis won’t work. These are real people with real families and real jobs. It’s a shame that the Pope and many of his cardinals and bishops are weighing in on this. Their focus should always be on saving souls, and not involving themselves in politics.
If you are opposed to taxes, why aren’t you up in arms over Trump’s tax (he calls it a tarriff) on solar panels? Are you in favor of those taxes?
I’m not crying wolf – I’m crying for our people and our planet.