Thursday, March 13, 2014

My position on climate change


I am against global warming alarmism, and against the myth that climate change is a dominant threat to anything, whereas exposing this myth is potentially a threat to indoctrinated eco-lobbyists, careerist scientists, and carbon economy parasites and predators.

I reject the argument that it is positive to support this myth of a dominant threat from climate change, irrespective of whether it is true or not. Supporting this myth provides a pretext for soft, ineffective, and counter-productive politics of "change", and supports the hegemony that is actively seeking to broaden and enforce a carbon economy that is not and will never be democratically controlled.

The way to fight habitat and ecological destruction is to fight habitat and ecological destruction. The way to fight injustice is to fight injustice. CO2 is not leverage for activists, it is a manipulation.

A list of my work in this area is HERE.

-- Denis Rancourt

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He practiced various areas of science (environmental geochemistry, soil science, spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, materials science) which were funded by a national agency, has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Dr. Tim Ball's new book "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science"

http://www.stairwaypress.com/bookstore/the-deliberate-corruption-of-climate-science/

Dr. Tim Ball's new book "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science" has just been released.

300 or so pages of analysis of the historical development of climate science itself, and some of its main players. Fascinating.

(Available from the publisher, and from amazon.com.)

Relevant radio interview featuring Dr. Tim Ball is here: LINK.

Relevant lawsuit: Dr. Ball is being sued in a defamation lawsuit pursued by Dr. Michael Mann: LINK.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

An error in "logic" that both skeptics and warmists make: Wrongly assuming linearity of response


Regarding the effect of CO2 alone, a small ("trace") amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere does dramatically affect mean global surface temperature and does significantly contribute to establishing the present base level of mean global surface temperature, but a large increase (doubling or ten-fold) in CO2, in addition to the small present amount, does not significantly change the global surface temperature.

This is because of the physical phenomenon of optical saturation in the infrared resonance of the CO2. [See detailed physics calculation and references HERE.]

In other words, the "logic" that a small amount can't have a large effect because it is a small amount is wrong. The physics is unambiguous on this point.

Likewise, the "logic" that a large increase must have a large effect because it is a large relative change in concentration is wrong.

For example, by analogy, a small amount of a very toxic substance can kill you but doubling the lethal dose will not kill you more. That's saturation.

The quantity-of-causal-agent-to-magnitude-of-the-effect ratio depends on the causal mechanism at play, and is often not linear. Linearity cannot be assumed.
Climate papers and media interviews by Dr. Denis Rancourt are listed HERE.


Sunday, February 23, 2014

Climate science is a "Zombie science"




By Denis G. Rancourt

Denis Rancourt on climate science

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He practiced various areas of science (environmental geochemistry, soil science, spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, materials science) which were funded by a national agency, has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism

Dr. Rancourt's articles and views about climate science include the following:
  • A rigorous physics calculation of radiation balance on Earth, showing that several factors are much more important than CO2 in determining mean global surface temperature: LINK, PDF
  •  
  •  
  • 2007 essay "Global warming: Truth or dare?": LINK.
  • 2007 Dominion Magazine interview "Questioning Climate Politics": LINK. (alternative LINK)
  • 2010 essay "Some big lies of science": LINK.
  • 2010 essay "CO2 emission from fossil fuel burning is not more than from breathing": LINK
  • 2010 essay "Is the burning of fossil fuel a significant planetary activity?": LINK.
  • 2011 essay "On the gargantuan lie of climate change science": LINK
  • 2013 essay "Wrongheadedness of scientific consensus fetishism in climate politics": LINK.
  • 2014 essay "Climate science is a 'Zombie science'": LINK.

2012 European cable TV interview/debate: 





2010 YouTube cfact interview:





Radio interviews of Denis Rancourt with climate experts:
  • 2011 CHUO 89.1 FM radio interview with Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert: LINK
  • 2011 CHUO 89.1 FM radio interview with Professor Richard Lindzen: LINK.
  • 2012 CHUO 89.1 FM radio interview with Dr. Bob Carter: LINK.
  • 2012 CHUO 89.1 FM radio interview with Dr. Tim Ball: LINK.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Thank you Judith A. Curry!


Judith A. Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is doing us all a great favor by stepping into the public arena with her blog (Climate Etc.) and blasting all the bad politico-science gibberish of the IPCC.

Her style and sting are priceless.

Here is just one example of her remarks on the small matter of the on-going 15-year global temperature "hiatus", as avoided in characteristic style by the IPCC in its latest bible of wisdom. After a detailed summary of what the IPCC said (did not say) on the "hiatus", this (from the September 30, 2013 "IPCC’s pause ‘logic’" blogpost at Climate Etc.):

My original intention for this thread was to go through and try to map the IPCC’s logical argument.  I quickly got dizzy owing to seemingly unwarranted assumptions and incomplete information (such as: did the climate models use the correct external forcing for the first decade of the 21st century, or not?).  I was then going to illustrate how any reasonable propagation of uncertainty of individual assertions/arguments through their main argument would produce much lower confidence in their overall conclusions.  For example, they seem to have eliminated high CO2 sensitivity as a problem.   Not to mention high confidence in increasing trend following 2012 (this high confidence comes right after blowing the prediction of the previous decade).  And of course not to mention the relevant journal articles that didn’t get mentioned.

Apart from these obvious flaws, reading that text and trying to follow it is positively painful.  Can someone remind me again how and why all this is supposed to be useful?

Refreshing. Finally, we have a public scientist willing to take on her colleagues head on, on their own turf, from the position of an active researcher with impeccable credentials.

Why are there so few such individuals in science?! Why has it taken decades for establishment science to start spawning more of these much needed internal critics. And why did we have to wait for the IPCC and its gravy wagon followers to embarrass themselves to this degree before more than a few scientists start being concerned about the reputation of climate science?

There is not enough negative feedback against politically organized science. That seems clear. All those who said nothing and/or went along should be penalized with funding reductions.

Sunday, September 15, 2013

The Gold Effect -- Of possible use in the analysis of climate politics?

From Wikipedia: The Gold Effect is the phenomenon in which a scientific (often medical) idea is developed to the status of an accepted position within a professional body or association by the social process itself of scientific conferences, committees, and consensus building, despite not being supported by conclusive evidence. The effect was described by Professor T. Gold in 1979.[1] The effect was reviewed by Drs. Petr Skrabanek and James McCormick in their book "Follies and Fallacies in Medicine".[2] The Gold Effect is used to analyze errors in public health policy and practice, such as the widespread use of cholesterol screening in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.[3]

In their book, Skrabanek and McCormick describe the Gold Effect as: "At the beginning a few people arrive at a state of near belief in some idea. A meeting is held to discuss the pros and cons of the idea. More people favouring the idea than those disinterested will be present. A representative committee will be nominated to prepare a collective volume to propagate and foster interest in the idea. The totality of resulting articles based on the idea will appear to show an increasing consensus. A specialised journal will be launched. Only orthodox or near orthodox articles will pass the referees and the editor."

Refences

  1. Jump up ^ Lyttleton RA : The Gold Effect. In: Lying Truths. A critical scrutiny of current beliefs and conventions. Duncan R, Weston-Smith M, Eds. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1979, pp. 182-198.
  2. Jump up ^ Skrabanek P and McCormick J. Follies and Fallacies in Medicine. Third Edition. Tarragon Press, Whithorn. 1998. pp. 54-55.
  3. Jump up ^ Hann A and Peckham S. Cholesterol screening and the Gold Effect. Health, Risk & Society, vol. 12, 2010, pp. 33-50. DOI: 10.1080/13698570903499608