Editor's Note:
This reply is in reference to this letter from Noah Toly.
Dr. Toly,
It is clear that you have some serious concerns over what I have written, and that you are writing because you fear the damage I may unintentionally inflict upon the gospel testimony of ref21 and by extension, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. With that said, allow me to suggest a few lines of clarification that could lead to a clearer understanding of what I have written.
A problematic approach. You suggest that I succumb to the same problem as the “Afternoon Googler” who pontificates upon subjects of which they are not experts. You say, “unless he [that’s me] is credentialed with a terminal degree in atmospheric physics. . . his argument can be turned back upon itself.” But have I unwittingly defeated myself?
If you go back and read the article, you will notice that I do not pontificate on the science of global warming/climate change at all. Indeed, I am no expert on these issues, and it would be a bit rash for me to appear in print offering a definitive position on what is a complicated issue. I was more interested in why people will sit down over their morning coffee and listen to Matt Lauer worry about the polar ice caps but would never listen to Hawkings tell them that their understanding of cause and effect has been undermined by information loss in black holes. Both global warming and the black hole paradox are theoretical science, but one has captured the attention of popular culture while the other has not. My article asked why this is. It did not, as you say, imply that “widespread concern for global warming runs contrary to validity.” I asked, “Why is there widespread concern for global warming” without reference to its validity or lack thereof. Your “five reasons to the contrary” notwithstanding, there is a difference.
Typical Evangelical. Your email (not the letter, but the email that introduced it), refers to me as “evangelical, habitual, malaptive, and compulsive.” I actually don’t know what “malaptive” means (though I doubt it was a compliment), but as to the others, I can’t help but think you have read into my article something which you have experienced elsewhere and at which you bristle. I have little doubt that some Christians equate global warming with liberal propaganda, and they give the science the kind of same hearing that I give the neo-Nazis and white supremacists of the world (i.e. none). I can’t help but think you’ve confused me with those that equate reformed theology with conservative politics, the kind that thinks Bill Clinton was the anti-Christ and that Reaganonimcs trickled down from Sinai. But such ideology was lacking from my article. I am of the opinion that its author could have concern for anthropogenic climate change, or he could think that climate change has nothing to do with human activity, or he could believe that the climate is not changing, and still write the same article.
I wrote about why the scientific theory has received a wide hearing, not whether or not the science is reliable. I used the popularity of global warming as a starting point, did not discuss the science, did not cast a vote in one direction or the other as to its believability, and think you have read a bit too much in between the lines.
Jeremy Smith
