Sure, that is absolutely right. But I’m not a detractor. Finding myself agreeing with liberals on war, or conservatives on a lack of fear of future weather patterns doesn’t mean I think either is more credible on the whole.PeterG wrote:These objections to the scientific consensus/so-called scientific consensus apply equally to its detractors. Show me a source of information about climate change—regardless of its stance on the subject—and I will show you significant issues on which we and that source would profoundly disagree. It is not at all clear to me that these detractors share my core beliefs to a greater extent than non-detractors do, or that detractors have retained more credibility than non-detractors.RZehr wrote:Boot, when we have scientist telling us that the world is a production of evolution we tune them out. When "they" say that we are the same as monkeys, that homosexuality is okay, a fetus is fine to kill etc., we no longer assume their science is good and credibility once shot is awfully difficult to resuscitate.
I’m not saying the scientist are wrong at all in their calculations. I am completely unequipped to evaluate that in any meaningful way. Maybe they are right, we Christians ought to be experts on and have a responsibility to know about things above not things below. But I know that God is sovereign and if sea levels do rise, well I’ll just claim Genesis 9:11. Our confidence isn’t in any climate past, present or future.
It’s really difficult to accurately evaluate something on its merits when we are completely unable to do so.PeterG wrote: A scientific argument should be evaluated on its own merits, in its own terms, and the general failure to treat climate change in this way is disheartening (though not surprising).
The difficulty is that we are being asked to accept & believe something that we cannot verify one way or another.