We are told that there is a scientific consensus on the cause of climate change. Pope Francis published his new encyclical on the subject and also talks about a scientific consensus. What should the average layperson believe?

Jay Richards has written a helpful piece with the title, “When to Doubt a Scientific Consensus.” He reminds us from the history of science “that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd.” So when do we accept what scientists say, and when should we be skeptical? He describes twelve tests. Let me mention three of them.

First, we should be skeptical when different claims get bundled together. With climate change there are actually four claims: the earth is getting warmer, human emissions are the cause, it’s going to be catastrophic, and we have to transform society and world economies to deal with it. The first one is generally accepted. There has been a warming trend since 1850. But that doesn’t mean that humans are the primary cause. Even if they are, the last two claims should be open to lots of debate and discussion.

Second, we should be skeptical when ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate. You have probably heard the legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. If you question climate change these days, you will be labeled a global warming denier on par with a Holocaust denier.

Third, we should be skeptical when consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists. A true scientific consensus takes time and should take place in an open discussion where various scientific studies are given an opportunity to prove or disprove a theory. For more than a decade, we have heard that “the time for debate” is over and that the “science is settled.” That would come as a surprise to the many climatologists who completely disagree.

Should we doubt the climate change scientific consensus? Jay Richards gives a dozen good reasons why we should.

The story earlier this month was that the Treasury Department was planning to take Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill. An unnamed woman would replace him on the money. The most recent announcement is that his image won’t disappear completely but remain in a secondary way.

The announcement from the Treasury Department created a small stir. It would have been a huge controversy if it weren’t for the ignorance of most Americans of the contribution of Alexander Hamilton.

He fought alongside George Washington as a colonel, and provided advice to Washington as a member of his staff. Even later Hamilton continued in that role when Washington served as our first president. Hamilton wrote three-fifths of the Federalist Papers along with James Madison and John Jay. His writings on judicial review were important in the formation and functioning of the first Supreme Court.

We should also mention his other writings. Alexander Hamilton was also a journalist, and helped found the New York Evening Post. You know it today as the New York Post.

These reasons should be enough reasons he is on our money. But the most important reason is that Alexander Hamilton was the nation’s first Treasury Secretary. Most people credit him with saving the country from its first debt crisis and establishing a national bank.

His place is history should be secure, but we now are told he should be replaced by a woman. Here are a few women who have been mentioned. Alice Paul, Phillis Wheatley, Deborah Sampson, Sylvia Rivera, Lydia Maria Child, and Sojourner Truth are not exactly household names. A few other women you might have heard about are Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Here is a possible test. The woman to replace Hamilton should have at least read the 85 Federalist Papers he wrote and know something about judicial review and the banking system Alexander Hamilton helped create. Few (if any) of these proposed nominees could pass that simple test. I am not ready to replace America’s first Treasury Secretary who also wrote a majority of the Federalist Papers with someone who never even read the Federalist Papers.

If you have been to a movie recently, you probably were watching a remake or a sequel like Jurassic World or Mad Max. We are in the midst of nearly 30 movies that could be described as remakes or sequels. There are more to come. And don’t forget the franchise operations like James Bond, Mission: Impossible, X-Men, and Hunger Games.

Charlie Jane Anders asks, “Why does Hollywood keep rebooting the same movie properties over and over again? It’s not just because studios want fans of those franchises to be happy. It’s because the movie business is about supply and demand.” She quotes from Scott Feinberg who reminds us that: “The film business, like any other, operates in a market of supply and demand. So while we critics often complain about the supply side, we ought to consider the demand.”

Derek Thompson writing in The Atlantic provides a history lesson. “In 1950, movies were the third-largest retail business in the America, after grocery stores and cars.” In the 1950s, 60 percent of the country went to the cinema. That was an audience bigger than today’s Super Bowl. Americans used to buy 20-30 tickets. Today they buy about four.

Back then; six major studios dominated the landscape. They could do basically whatever they wanted and could be sure of making money. They also owned their own theater chains and controlled the means and distribution of their cinematic product. Today a film producer no longer can guarantee a weekly audience.

Thompson concludes that: “Sixty years ago, audiences went to the movies reflexively. Now we go to the movies mostly to see things we recognize—actors, stories, and crusaders wearing costumes.” We are certain to see more of Ironman, Spider-Man, X-Men, and all of the Avengers.

I think this also opens the door for smaller, creative film producers (including Christian film producers) to break out of this mold and tell interesting and inspiring stories that will draw people to the theater or to DVDs they produce.

The latest story about scientific fraud illustrates how political and cultural bias can influence even reputable scientific journals. The complete story can be found in the Wall Street Journal under the title “Scientific Fraud and Politics.” The case in point is the paper by graduate student Michael LaCour that was published and then retracted by the journal Science.

The journal published his stunning findings because LaCour found that a 20-minute conversation with a house-to-house canvasser could convert huge numbers of opponents of same-sex marriage into supporters. The trick according to the paper was for the canvasser to explain that he or she is gay and to tell personal stories.

The paper was an immediate media sensation and one of the most talked about political science papers in years. And some gay rights activists working on the Ireland referendum decided to change their approach based upon his research.

The problem is the entire paper is a fake. Other graduate students tried to replicate his results and could not. Then they discovered unusual statistical irregularities. When asked for the raw data, he said he deleted it. Sounds like he used the Hillary Clinton strategy.

The bigger question is why reviewers at Science accepted his paper at face value. Did they really think that talking to a person at their front door for a few minutes would change their minds? If so, why aren’t Mormon missionaries having a greater success in their door-to-door outreach? Anyone who has ever been in a conversation or debate with someone on social issues knows that rarely does a short conversation bring about the remarkable changes Michael LaCour claimed in his paper.

He is guilty of scientific fraud, but the editors and reviewers at Science are probably guilty of political bias. I wonder if most of them wanted to believe that a short conversation was all that was necessary for people to convert to a pro-homosexual position on same-sex marriage. It made for a good story, until they were forced to retract it.

With all that is happening in our world, it is easy to be discouraged. Warren Cole Smith and John Stonestreet wrote their book, Restoring All Things, to encourage you and show how God and His people are engaged in fulfilling His promise to restore all things. Restoring is just one of the “re” words that John Stonestreet talks about. There are other words like redemption, reconciliation, and resurrection along with renew, repent, and restore.

When he was on my radio program, he talked abut the feeling we may have that Christians are on the wrong side of history, especially when it comes to issues like homosexuality. He acknowledges that it is easy to confuse this cultural moment with what is the ultimate story of the world. God is still in control.

The church and the gospel message have the answers to the social problems we face. In the area of poverty, government has spent trillions and 50 years later still has not won the war on poverty because it focused on the wrong problems. John Stonestreet in his National Review essay says that “it was like trying to win a football game by defending the other team’s cheerleaders.”

On the issue of abortion, we should be encouraged and use the pro-life success as a model for addressing other social issues. Look at the success of the pregnancy care movement and innovative programs like “Save the Storks.”

He also talked about the power of cultural imagination. While more than two dozen states were passing marriage amendments defining marriage, the number one TV show was “Will & Grace.” It did more to change minds about homosexuality than many of these political successes. Politics is downstream from culture.

America’s prison system is also broken. The goal seems to merely get bad people off the streets. It doesn’t seem dedicated to putting good people back into society. That is why he encouraged our listeners to learn more about restorative justice by visiting the websites of Prison Fellowship and Justice Fellowship.

If you want to be encouraged, you need to read about how God is “restoring all things.”

After the attack on America on 9/11, Stephen Coughlin was brought into the government to research and present information on Islam and especially about Sharia law. His presentations were so effective, that the special operations community dubbed them “Red Pill” briefings. This was a reference to an iconic scene in the movie, “The Matrix.” Neo is given a choice of taking the blue pill and going back to his reality or taking the red pill and see that world as it really is.

Sadly, the forces of “political correctness” eventually prevailed, and Stephen Coughlin was sent packing and the “Red Pill” briefings in the government ended. But he has continued to speak out on what he has discovered and has collected the material in his new book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

He explains the religious foundation of Islam. One foundational principle is the Islamic doctrine of abrogation. Earlier chapters (known as surahs) in the Qur’an are replaced or abrogated by later chapters. When Muhammad was in Mecca, he was a prophet and spoke of peace. When he was in Medina, he was a warrior and spoke of war and jihad.

He also explains the philosophical underpinnings of groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. He provides ample footnotes to illustrate the connection between Islam and terrorism. And he provides documents that show the detailed plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate into government and American society.

His goal is illustrated by the subtitle of the book. It is time to pull away the blindfold and see the threat of Islam as it really is. Government policies and political correctness may be blinding members of the military and personnel in the Department of Homeland Security to the real threat we face.

We must reject the blue pill. It’s time for all of us to take the red pill and see the world as it really is.

Many of the governors and former governors running for the presidency are pointing to their economic success as an important credential. Rick Perry, for example reminds potential voters that when he was governor, Texas created more than thirty percent of all the new jobs in the country. It was also in the top three in job creation. He credits low taxes and a light regulatory touch for the booming Texas economy.

Apparently the editors at the Wall Street Journal agree with these claims. They cite the Tax Foundation that ranks the Texas business climate in the top ten. And they point to the number of people and businesses that have moved to Texas because of that business climate.

We shouldn’t be surprised that some liberal economists are ready to question these claims or at least try to explain them away. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argues that government policies in Texas have nothing to do with the booming economy. He attributes the success in Texas to geology, geography, and housing.

First let’s look at geology. Yes, Texas has lots of oil and gas. It has benefited from the fracking boom. But as one commentator on my radio program reminded us, the oil and gas industry only accounts for 13 percent of the economic output.

Second is geography. Krugman also attributes a Texas economic success to mild winters and air conditioning in the summers. I’ve lived in many states (like California, Oregon, and Virginia) that also have mild winters, and they don’t have the really hot summers of Texas, which I might conclude would be a negative.

Third, Krugman says Texas has cheap housing. That is true. John Goodman writes in “How Liberals Live” that wherever leftwing politics dominates the middle class is squeezed. To live in many cities outside of Texas, you need to earn sometimes two or three times the median family income just to survive.

During this campaign season, I encourage you to investigate the claims and counterclaims made by politicians and pundits.

“Proper Bible reading begins before we open the book.” That is how Tony Reinke begins his blog post on “4 Things to Remember When Reading the Bible.” The material is adapted from his book, Newton on the Christian Life.

In a pair of sermons “On Searching the Scriptures,” pastor and hymn-writer John Newton explains how four elements should inform our approach to the Bible. The first is sincerity. We should “submit both our sentiments and our practices to be controlled and directed by what we read there.” We should read God’s Word in order to learn His will for our lives and to live our lives according to His will.

A second element is diligence. We are to be like miners who search the Scriptures in order to mine its truth. We should engage in frequent reading as well as meditation on God’s Word. By applying these first two principles, we will avoid wasting our lives.

“Third, we must approach the Bible with humility.” We go to God’s Word for it to instruct us. We should be students willing to learn what God will teach us. Reverence and humility before God’s Word are necessary foundations for us to learn and then apply the eternal truth found within it.

Fourth, we should approach the Bible in prayer. We should have sincerity, diligence, and humility. But prayer is also another important element in how we approach God’s Word. One of John Newton’s hymns captures this spirit of prayer: “Thou art coming to a King, Large petitions with thee bring; For his grace and power are such, None can ever ask too much.”

Tony Reinke reminds us in his blog and book that we can learn many valuable lessons from Christians (like John Newton) who learned from God’s Word in the past and lived a life that we should emulate. We should read the Bible with sincerity, diligence, humility, and prayer.