Not exact matches
For many of us, fighting the good fight of faith meant proving to
skeptics that young earth creationism was scientifically sound, that the Battle of Jericho was an historical fact, and that believing in God was a perfectly rational and
reasonable thing to do.
But it's not so nutty if some of the
skeptics are referring to lessons such as those in Animal Farm, where the pigs ask
for reasonable sacrifice in the beginning which keeps getting larger and by the end the animals are seen to have been better off with the humans.
The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change,
for instance, has sometimes made conclusions based upon the «balance of the evidence» The ideological climate
skeptics, (to be distinguished from
reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.»
The scientists presuppose
skeptic fodder produced by science is bad
for society, a
reasonable position.
The pattern
for those «
skeptics» is one of starting out with what sems like a
reasonable question, then not accepting the explanations, degenerating into denial, libertarian fantasies, and conspiracy theories while asserting counterfactuals, before their politeness finally expires and moderation kicks in.
And I think it is the basis
for something of a
reasonable criticism from «
skeptics» of the «realist» position in the climate wars.
On the one hand, he says that any
reasonable person should've been skeptical two years ago due to valid points raised by
skeptics (despite these points having been dealt with by mainstream climate science
for * years *).