In a televised interview with Australian climate science sceptic columnist Andrew Bolt, Laframboise speculates that some IPCC authors were chosen because
they agreed with the orthodoxy, rather than because they might be good at their jobs.
The government funded scientific community calls those who don't
agree with their orthodoxy, deniers, and punishes them (no grants).
Not exact matches
A theologian who is an Episcopalian, Lutheran, or Baptist (at least a high church Baptist) might
agree with all his stated «limits of Catholic
orthodoxy.»
A significant trend within the postliberal movement
agrees with Hauerwas and Marshall that the best way to a generous
orthodoxy heads in a Catholic direction.
There is such a thing as creedal, Christian
orthodoxy, ALL Christian churches (* every * single one of them) at LEAST
agrees with the first ecumenical creed, if not
with all four.
While only the «de fide» category ever had any formal
agreed designation, they did perhaps, through their setting of parameters, allow for a freer debate
with less risk of raising concerns about
orthodoxy.
And I continue to
agree with Richard John Neuhaus (and Cardinal Manning) that when
orthodoxy becomes a matter of private judgment, the point has already been lost.
I do
agree with some of Radical
Orthodoxy's critique of the ideology that has dominated much of Western social science.
Even if every environmentalist and climate campaigner
agreed with me that we need a radical reappraisal of our present «growth at all costs»
orthodoxy (hint: they don't), that still wouldn't mean the only alternative to business - as - usual is some anarcho - primitivist dystopia.