Francis Bishops Will Not Take Climate Alarmism Seriously: Deo Gratias! - by Father Reto Nay
Back from the Amazon Synod, San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy, a Francis partisan, participated in an October 30 climate-change seminar. The keynote address was delivered by Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a …More
Back from the Amazon Synod, San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy, a Francis partisan, participated in an October 30 climate-change seminar.
The keynote address was delivered by Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences who was introduced as “top climate scientist” (read: top alarmist).
After the seminar, McElroy was asked which is more important for the Church, the Pro-Life movement or climate alarmism.
McElroy said that “they’re both part of a single fight: the defense of life. You can’t separate those two out.”
Did I hear well? Does this mean that McElroy intends to take climate alarmism as seriously as he takes the Pro-life cause? According to FaithfulShepherds.com, he does not uphold Church doctrine on abortion politics.
Now, he tells us that he will be doing the same with Francis’ climate ideology. Deo Gratias!
The keynote address was delivered by Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences who was introduced as “top climate scientist” (read: top alarmist).
After the seminar, McElroy was asked which is more important for the Church, the Pro-Life movement or climate alarmism.
McElroy said that “they’re both part of a single fight: the defense of life. You can’t separate those two out.”
Did I hear well? Does this mean that McElroy intends to take climate alarmism as seriously as he takes the Pro-life cause? According to FaithfulShepherds.com, he does not uphold Church doctrine on abortion politics.
Now, he tells us that he will be doing the same with Francis’ climate ideology. Deo Gratias!
Wichita Knight
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Regarding the two TIME covers... 40 years ago scientists knew the that increasing CO2 would change the earth, the debate was whether heat would be screened out, making it colder, or heat would be blocked in, making it warmer. It took time, but the debate was resolved. It was like watching a tree being cut down. You know it is going to fall, with great impact, just not sure which direction.
So "scientists", by your own admission, were divided as to whether adding CO2 to the atmosphere would turn the earth into an ice cube or an inferno. Rather extreme conclusions drawn from the same premise, wouldn't you say? Even under the best case scenario which is to assume that the "scientists" were all well intended, the only reasonable conclusion to draw, based on your own presentation, is that …More
So "scientists", by your own admission, were divided as to whether adding CO2 to the atmosphere would turn the earth into an ice cube or an inferno. Rather extreme conclusions drawn from the same premise, wouldn't you say? Even under the best case scenario which is to assume that the "scientists" were all well intended, the only reasonable conclusion to draw, based on your own presentation, is that the reliability of climate science in it's current state is near zero. Certainly not worthy of being used as a basis of reinventing an entire global economy, again, based on your own testimony.
Unless there's something else afoot?
Unless there's something else afoot?