Scientific Criticism Of Bishop McElroy

By THOMAS P. SHEAHEN

The name of Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego has come back into the news, as he is to be elevated to the rank of cardinal in August. McElroy incurred considerable controversy in early 2020 when he made a statement implying that climate change was just as important as abortion. There ensued criticism from many quarters in the American hierarchy, but before long Covid-19 took away the spotlight. Two years later, that was forgotten — until his new promotion.
In a speech on February 6, 2020, Bishop McElroy presented (in one section) a succinct and clear argument against abortion:
“More than 750,000 unborn children are directly killed in the United States every year. At one time there was bipartisan support for erecting policies that made abortion rare. Now that commitment has been eviscerated in the Democratic Party in a capitulation to notions of privacy that simply block out the human identity and rights of unborn children. Even in an age when sonograms testify with the eloquence of truth and life itself that children in the womb are genuinely our brothers and sisters, our daughters and sons, the annihilation of their humanity in perception and in fact continues . . . many in the Church consider abortion to be the preeminent political imperative at stake in 2020.”
He followed that with statements about projected climate change:
“. . . Existing trajectories of pollutants being placed in the atmosphere by human activity, if unchecked, will raise the temperature of the earth in the coming decades, generating catastrophic rises in human exposure to deadly heat, devastating rises in water levels and massive exposure to a series of perilous viruses. In addition, there will be severe widespread famines, droughts and massive dislocations of peoples that will cause untold deaths, human suffering and violent conflict . . . as a consequence, the survival of the planet, which is the prerequisite for all human life, is at risk.
“Against the backdrop of these two monumental threats to human life, how can one evaluate the competing claims that either abortion or climate change should be uniquely pre-eminent in Catholic social teaching regarding the formation of Americans as citizens and believers?”
McElroy then states four major points, the second of which is:
“The death toll from abortion is more immediate, but the long-term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger and threatens the very future of humanity.”
Bishop McElroy’s point is that climate change and abortion should be ranked equally.
The single key undeniable fact in this entire quote is the very first sentence:
More than 750,000 unborn children are directly killed in the United States every year.
All the observations that follow are a blend of information gathered from many sources, and Bishop McElroy’s judgment about their importance and how to balance the issues.
In particular, the large paragraph about the dangers of climate change is entirely a report about the opinion of others, not about observed scientific facts. Contrary to the popular assertion of “consensus,” there is in fact an ongoing scientific debate about the mechanism and importance of carbon dioxide (CO2) influencing the Earth’s climate.
Claims that increasing CO2 will cause major changes in temperature are not supported by actual measurements; satellite data shows quite clearly that, in the presence of a 50 percent increase in CO2 over recent centuries, the temperature has increased only 1oC. A cornerstone rule of science is that data trumps theory; even Einstein conceded that a single experiment could prove his theory of relativity wrong. It is wrong to elevate any theory over the plain evidence of observed data.
The words of Bishop McElroy are entirely a statement about the output estimates from computer programs. The fact that many other people from various disciplines have likewise believed the outputs of such computer programs is no guarantee of their validity. Computer models are only as good as their initial assumptions and input data; they do not create any real scientific information, but only compute one particular analysis that is programmed into the machine. And all computer scientists remember the aphorism “Garbage in equals garbage out.”
The long-range forecasts about famine and violence are entirely a product of exuberant media coverage of press releases from the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. Inside each of the 1000+ page IPCC reports are cautious tables of data and frequent statements warning against exaggeration of results, which the media have repeatedly ignored in their rush to promote alarm.
In a communication to scientists 35 years ago, Pope St. John Paul II famously said: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” Scientists responded, “Who, us? Idolatry? What’s that?” The ancient Hindu definition of idolatry is “confusing your model with the real thing.” Nowadays, computer programmers write models that try to simulate reality, but everyone who has ever written a model knows its limitations; in particular, long-range predictions are notoriously wild. (Weather predictions stop at less than a week.) The stark reality facing science today is that believing in a computer model that predicts the future many years out is just plain idolatry.
In 1972 an elaborate computer-modeling study named “The Limits to Growth” was issued, and predicted all sorts of famine and war a century or more ahead. That alarming report led the UN to implement urgent population-control measures. However, when Fr. Robert Brungs, SJ, and others examined the inner workings of the computer model carefully, they discerned the hidden faults. Consequently the Catholic Church soon denounced “The Limits to Growth” because of its cavalier disdain for human dignity. In fact, that entire computer model was a case of mathematical chaos, but chaos wasn’t recognized until 1984.
Not so in the present day. Thousands of individuals in leadership roles, from prime ministers through clergymen and corporate leaders who attend the World Economic Forum, have accepted uncritically the headlines from the synopsis of the summary of the overview, without ever examining the actual IPCC reports — where they would have found words to assuage the imaginary fears promoted by the media. Those leaders are planning to divert vast amounts of spending from real human needs into mitigating climate change — all because of their idolatry toward computer programs.
Bishop McElroy equates abortion and climate change as “. . . two monumental threats to human life. . . .” Wrong! Abortion is an actual daily occurrence, and the staggering numbers worldwide are a valid “data point” which international policy (including Church policy) ought to address. Global warming is an output from a computer terminal, a guess about the distant future.
Unlike the media, real scientists have no trouble telling the difference between theory and data. We would like to hope that real leaders within the Catholic Church would be able to distinguish between a terrible crime and a computer estimate. The real world has no use for idolatry.

• + + (Physicist Thomas P. Sheahen is the author of Everywhen: God, Symmetry and Time [EnRouteBooks: 2021] and Emeritus Director of ITEST [Institute for Theological Encounter with Science & Technology].)