Richard T. Fowler

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

Monthly Archives: June 2015

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

%d bloggers like this: