Richard T. Fowler

Offering Christian and Christ-centered commentary about climate- and energy-related issues.

Obama Approval Gap Finally Starting to Diverge Again; Could Be from Gas & Diesel Prices — A.D. 2015/06/26

As of today, it appears the Obama Gallup Approval Rating gap between “disapprove” and “approve” is finally starting once again to trend apart.

Source :  [Retrieved AD2015/06/26]

Source : [Retrieved AD2015/06/26]


This is the first time since December that there has been significant and sustained divergence between Disapprove and Approve.

I suspect that that both the sustained convergence from late last year to now, and the new divergence, are being driven mostly by gasoline and diesel prices. Perhaps with a bit of prodding, people will begin to understand that these prices are just the tip of the iceberg of Obama’s energy culpability, since he is trying to drive all energy prices even higher through his aggressive CO2 policies, under the banner of “global change” and supported by the triple HOAXES of CO2 “physics”, conservation of energy, and biogenic petroleum.

It should be noted that Obama is getting a lot of help from congressional Republicans who campaigned against his CO2 policy, and are now prepared to let him and the other Democrats do just about whatever they want to with CO2 emissions and energy prices. As far as I’m aware, there has been NO defunding of a single climate or energy policy of his since January, when the new Congress convened.

Without a change in the political assessment of the congressional majority, there’s no reason to expect a change in their climate or energy policies between now and Paris.

The House can bluster about disapproving Obama’s Paris commitments, but unless it’s backed up by action to defund things (which this House has already demonstrated it doesn’t want to do), its bluster is mere posturing to fool conservative constituents. And most of them know exactly what they’re doing.

Any communication with them about these issues should be from the standpoint that we know why they’re doing what they’re doing … and rather than trying to convince them of science that they’ve already made up their mind about without regard to the data fraud … we are putting them on notice that they are to vote our wishes rather than their own beliefs about this, or else we will vigorously oppose their continuation in office.


Deduction and Experiment Are the Products of Science , but Christ Is Its Foundation

If science can be likened to structural engineering, then experiment comprises the walls that it builds; deduction is the roof.

But Christ is the foundation upon which all the other parts are placed.

And Christ stands, inter alia, for righteousness and credibility.

Whenever a researcher[1] reports results (I won’t say scientist, because there are many false scientists who do research), we who are not involved in the research are dependent upon that person to characterize those results accurately. In many cases, we are unable to repeat the work, so we cannot independently verify the results.

This means that the researcher’s credibility underlies all other tests that we may apply to determine the truth or falsity of his conclusions.

It also means that we are always trying to assess credibility, whether we will admit it or not … whether we are aware of it or not. This activity takes up a significant amount of the time spent on what we think of as “science”, and also in other professions.

Assessing credibility is, to say the least, an inexact science.

But, since we have to do it, we muddle through as best we can.

After all, if the foundation of a structure starts to go, what do we expect to happen to everything that’s sitting on top of it?



[1] Research can include experiment and also uncovering records of past work that is relevant.

Four Questions About the Roles of Science and Theology

1. Is science a branch of theology, or is theology a branch of science?

The question implies that they cannot be mutually exclusive, and indeed they cannot, because if properly practiced, they both encompass the subject of the supernatural, and they both encompass natural phenomena.

The answer to the question is that the one which came first is the trunk, and the one which came second is the branch. Theology came first, and science afterward.


2. Now to answer an implied question: how can they be different disciplines, if they both encompass the same set of subjects?

The answer is that they have different foci. Theology seeks foremost the knowledge of God and His supernatural Kingdom, and it seeks knowledge of the natural as a means of better understanding that which is supernatural.

Science, properly practiced, does not ignore the supernatural, because, while its focus is on the natural, it takes note of the fact that the supernatural affects the natural. Therefore, an honest scientist will of necessity (and hopefully also of his own desire) not only acknowledge the existence of the supernatural, but also will attempt to understand, study, and draw conclusions about it.

Any “scientist” who does not do both of these things is a fraud.

There are a lot of “scientific” frauds out there today.


3. To which discipline do we defer on a question, when the two are in conflict?

My answer may surprise you. My answer is that we have to look to the Word for guidance. If neither discipline’s answer to the question is biblically sound, then we defer to neither. And if one is biblically sound and the other is not, we defer to the first — even if that one happens to be science.

Science and theology both seek (and properly so!) answers to the same set of questions, which is the set of all questions. And, if properly practiced, both use exactly the same method to seek such answers. The difference between them is quite simply their area of focus. Each can enter the other’s area of focus whenever necessary, even correcting the other when necessary[1], but they remain primarily focused on their own area. In this way, they can work together for the pursuit of the same ultimate set of answers — i.e., the set of all correct answers.


4. One final question for you. What foundation do each of these two disciplines have in their search for truth on the same set of questions?

It is the same for both: Jesus Christ. I Corinthians 3:11 .



[1] BUT note well that one cannot properly “correct” the other if the first is biblically unsound in its position, and the second is biblically sound.

Why We Should Not Punish Any Pedophile or Killer

Wow, what a question , huh?

I sure didn’t think a week ago that I’d be putting {{up}} a post with that title!

But the question is timely, so here is my answer. It shouldn’t be necessary for me to state this, since I stated it before in so many different ways. But, some people’s ears are so stopped up because they just don’t want to hear the truth, and as a consequence of this, they make up their own “truth” about what I believe, in an unscientific way.

The answer to the question is:

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: [. . .] casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into capacity {{captivity}} every thought to the obedience of Christ ; and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.” From II Corinthians 10:3-6.

Spirit of Truth or Spirit of Error?

Beloved , believe not every spirit , but try the spirits whether they are of God : because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know you the Spirit of God : Every spirit who confesses that Iesous Christos is come in the flesh is of God : and every spirit who confesses not that Iesous Christos is come in the flesh is not of God : and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come ; and even now already is it in the world. [. . .] They are of the world : therefore speak they of the world , and the world hears them . We are of God : he who knows God hears us ; he who is not of God hears not us . Hereby know we the spirit of truth , and the spirit of error.

— from I John 4:1-6

My Philosophy of Debate Moderation

1. When in doubt about the propriety of allowing something to be publicly disclosed, it is better to err on the side of public disclosure.

2. I respect that some people might feel more comfortable airing certain matters over a “private” channel (as private as anything electronic can be these days). I’ve given serious thought to posting either an e-mail address or, in the alternative, a telephone number, on the blog. For personal reasons, I’m leaning toward telephone number, but I need to discuss this with my wife, and she’s otherwise occupied at the moment. After I do so, I will post the final decision below.¬† —- RTF

A Consistent Message — A.D. 2015/05/27

As a Christian who has studied the Bible most of my life , and has received much insight about its meaning through prayer , contemplation , and good-faith effort to understand , I know that the Bible in its original manuscripts is completely self-consistent or internally consistent . I also know that it is completely , 100% true . I do not subscribe to the doctrine that every single passage has a literal truth to it ; some are only metaphorical or figurative . But most passages are both — they have both a literal and a figurative meaning , and both are 100% true and 0% false .

The Lord calls on all of us to be the same way with our own lives , including in all of our actions and in all our statements . Those who’ve been delivered to Christ through the permanent rebirth that is occasioned by their 100% belief with no doubt remaining in their mind or heart (because they have tested the truth of the Word and have found it to be true and good) , have an innate understanding of this above-mentioned expectation of us , since such an understanding is a prerequisite for the deliverance .

One of the main goals of this blog , ab initio has always been to try to spur readers to the next level , i.e. from extensive online talk and analysis and , in many cases , outrage , to constructive and meaningful action in response to the new understanding we’ve developed about the climate and/or energy hoaxes . This is something that has always been sorely lacking in all that I’ve read about the subject at other blogs . (It hasn’t always been absent , but it’s always been lacking¬† or , to put it another way , falling short of the mark .)

This lack is an inconsistency in our messaging . Consistency demands that if we come into a situation with high expectations of those we are critiquing , that we be prepared to follow through with some kind of action if those expectations are not met . For if we were never prepared to do that , what was the point of analyzing and critiquing in the first place ? Surely it wasn’t in the hope of convincing the hoaxers to voluntarily give up their jobs and their ill-gotten gains . Nor was it in the hope that conservative (or conservative-leaning) elected officials will voluntarily take it upon themselves to make these things happen on their own .

No , for the sake of consistency , it could never have been that !

For the sake of consistency , it had to have been no less than this : the formation of one or more organizations (could be PACs , but don’t necessarily have to be) dedicated to the objective of taking actions with the intention of causing those officials to do those things which they would never have voluntarily decided to do absent substantial pressure on them .

There’s More to Being a Climate Realist than Speeding Up Drilling

Climate realists can be defined as those of us who accept that the effect of CO2 on temperature is not settled , and/or is less of an effect than is generally claimed by professional “science” .

Many, if not most , of us also believe that the effect of CO2 is small enough that global temperatures are in fact falling perceptibly even as CO2 levels rise rapidly .

There will be many presidential candidates who will court our vote by :

1) claiming there is misrepresentation about the state of the current knowledge , and
2) affirming that they will support lots more drilling as the solution to the problem .

They may also decide to take a strong position in favor of more new nuclear energy projects .

Now it is obvious that we need more drilling , and will continue to need more drilling for a good length of time . And it is also clear that some more nuclear projects will be needed , if a way can be found to make them happen more economically . But these candidates who adopt this strategy for responding to people’s “climate” concerns are side-stepping the issue .

The real issues are twofold : 1) reversing the fraud , and 2) what the real data imply for our climate and CO2 policies . We should be very careful not to let ourselves get talked out of focusing on these two things . They are the real issue . Drilling is a foregone conclusion for conservative candidates (as well as for fake conservative candidates) . So is more nuclear .

Anyone can support these things even if they still want massive carbon taxes , even if they still want draconian mandatory {{cuts}} in CO2 emissions , even if they still want the research fraud to continue , even if they want a new wave of record subsidies for wind , solar , etc.

So one of the purposes of a strong and well-organized national movement for climate realism is to make sure that conservative (and “conservative”) candidates understand that the things they’ve been offering as solutions are insufficient , and thus , by themselves , are Not Acceptable .

We have to try to make them understand that if that’s all they have or all they want to pursue , they will receive a failing grade from us on climate and energy policies .

If you are a climate realist , please consider leaving a comment indicating whether you agree or disagree , and your reasons . Thank you .

– RT

HSR : High-Speed Ruin

California has begun to construct their massive high-speed rail (HSR) system using federal grants as part of their funding mix .

Their #1 stated goal in constructing and operating this massive system is to ‘mitigate climate change’ .

That being the case , and considering how much their profligate “solution” will affect the rest of us , they should be required to meet a new condition in order to get more federal funding for the “solution” .

The condition is that the Californians should be required to power their HSR system using only wind and solar , and the wind and solar power used must have been produced without any federal subsidies .

If they are held to this standard , they will not be able to run their trains , and they may eventually be forced to admit their error of judgement in claiming to have had a working solution to the problem of energy sustainability — and also to the fake “problem” of CO2 emissions .


Blog Circulation Report — A.D. 2015/05/06

(A brief introductory note : when I speak of ecclesial years below , I start these on the 1st of 3d Month , a/k/a 1 March .)

Thank you, all my supportive readers , for helping give me over 3,000 views in 3 1/2 years including about 2,750 in my only ~11 months of active blogging . I’ve thus far tried to emphasize quality over quantity of ideas , partly due to time constraints . So I wasn’t expecting to have many thousands of views by now , and in fact I was surprised to have found that I’d hit 3,000 so soon .

(To my detractors , you can laugh or mock all you want to , but my goal has always been to optimize , not eyeballs , but the amount of insight and intellectual breakthrough . The two are often in conflict with each other , and I knowingly limit one in order to raise up the other .)

At the present rate of circulation (based on the first two months & six days of the ecclesial year), this year will be a record-breaker for me . This is highly significant because :
1. My current record ecclesial year was EY 2011 (my first year of blogging), even though the blog was online for barely two months of that year .
2. It looks like the present ecclesial year is on track to almost double that record . If that happens , I’ll be over 5,000 total views by the end of the year on 2016/02/29.

Here are a few statistics for any who are interested . (I’m interested , so I’m posting them !) I use visitor-years rather than unique visitors , simply because that’s all that WordPress gives me .


Visitor-months, 2014/06 – 2015/05 : 173 (195 if 5th Month is prorated.)
Cumulative visitor-years since inception : 295


Views by Ecclesial Year (Year starts 1st of 3d Month)

2011 … 1,237 [1]
2012 ….. 760
2013 ….. 165
2014 ….. 487
2015 ….. 458 [2]

1 – Only about two months
2 – Only two months , six days


The following data are since blog inception :

TOTAL VIEWS …………… 3,107
– – Views per Visitor-Year … 10.5

– – Views / Visitor Comment .. 34.9

– – Visitor-Years per
– – Commenting Visitor ……. 26.8

1 – A visitor who comments in more than one year is counted once per year .


The following figures are based on estimated views for the ~11 months the blog was active :
Views/month : 250
Views/week : 58


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: