Richard T. Fowler

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

Monthly Archives: May 2015

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 lackingĀ  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 .


%d bloggers like this: