Monday, September 21, 2015

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism --Popular Technology list

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism (LINK)


"A tour de force list of scientific papers..."
- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist

"Wow, the list is pretty impressive ...It's Oreskes done right."
- Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist

"I really appreciate your important effort in compiling the list."
- Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist and Geoscientist

"An excellent place to start to take stock of the scientific diversity of positions on AGW."
- Emil A.Røyrvik, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist

"'s a very useful resource. Thanks to the pop tech team."
- Joanne Nova, Author of The Skeptics Handbook

"I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..."
- John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science

† This resource has been cited over 90 times, including in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.

Friday, September 18, 2015

IPCC authors on the myth of scientific consensus, 2011 summary

Carbon-panic zealots and popular authors vehemently claim that "there is a scientific consensus" and that "the science is settled"; typically, in advancing that the human species itself is at risk.

(These claims are routinely debunked. For example, here, here, here; and on species extinction here.)

Their enthusiasm is of great service to the US Empire that wants to coerce competing independent blocs (BRICS) into accepting carbon instruments that are barely-covert geopolitical instruments.

But here is what major IPCC insiders have said about "consensus" and on the harm of an IPCC structure and culture that imposes consensus in the face of "the range of views" [1]:

5 The issue of consensus

To many, notably including Risbey and Curry in this special issue, the emphasis on consensus is the most troublesome limitation of IPCC assessment processes (for a general critique of the consensus approach to science, see Moore and Beatty 2010). Achieving consensus is, to be clear, one of the major objectives of IPCC activities. Paragraph 10 of the amended Procedures Guiding IPCC Work, for example, states that “In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus” (http://​ipcc.​ch/​pdf/​ipcc-principles/​ipcc-principles.​pdf). The paragraph continues by noting that “for approval, adoption and acceptance of reports, differing views shall be explained and, upon request (by countries participating in the approval plenaries), recorded (in publically available documentation that is maintained by the IPCC Secretariat). Differing views on matters of a scientific, technical or socio-economic nature shall, as appropriate in the context, be represented in the scientific, technical or socio-economic document concerned,” but it is certainly the case that all participants in IPCC assessments would like this to be the exception rather than the rule. To our memory, such documentation has never been required at least so far as SPM’s are concerned.

Drawing the boundaries between consensus and disagreement is an activity which is so subjective that it ipso facto violates restriction #3 (Moore and Beatty 2010). As IPCC, in a search for objectivity in uncertainty assessment, has turned more to describing uncertainty in terms of the characteristics of ensembles of model outcomes, the deficiency in such an approach (its exclusion or limited treatment of systemic, structural uncertainty in models) has become increasingly apparent to the community (Winsberg 2010; Knutti et al. 2008; Goldstein and Rougier 2009). The exercise of subjective judgment in the comparison of ensemble outcomes to observational and paleoclimatic data provides a critically important means to augment the criteria internal to the model world. Indeed, there are examples in IPCC reports of willingness to acknowledge the importance of expert (subjective) judgment, if on a limited basis (e.g., see discussions of climate sensitivity, detection and attribution and climate and weather extremes in WGI report, assessment of response strategies in the WGII report of AR4; see also Knutti and Hegerl (2008) for futher details on the role of expert judgement in estimating climate sensitivity). But more salient is IPCC’s reluctance to fully couple the inevitable process of subjective judgment in a coherent way into its assessments of uncertainty and, absent this coupling, IPCC’s tendency, particularly in SPMs, to resort to emphasizing ensemble means rather than fully describing the range of views. In some cases, neither ranges of views nor are consensus judgments reported, leaving decision makers at a loss. Outstanding examples of the latter include, in addition to the examples of SRES and ice sheets above, authors’ avoidance of any estimates of carbon cycle feedbacks involving tundra or methane hydrate reservoirs; and avoidance of estimations of the degree of implementation of adaptation capacity under particular circumstances. [Emphasis added]

The latter "range of views" is the range admitted via the institutional-self-censorship mechanism of peer-review and citation indices [2][3][4]. It often does not even include these scientific views.


[1] Gary Yohe, Michael Oppenheimer, "Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the intergovernmental panel on climate change—an introductory essay", Article, Climatic Change, October 2011, Volume 108, Issue 4, pp 629-639.

[2] David F. Noble, "Regression on the Left", Climate Guy, May 30, 2007.

[3] Susan Mazur, "Peer Review as Censorship", CounterPunch, February 26, 2010.

[4] Denis G. Rancourt, "Peer-Review Failure in Climate Prof Denis Rancourt", YouTube -- 1000frolly channel, August 23, 2015.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Meet Dr. John Brignell of Number Watch

I just discovered the brilliant work -- on global warming hysteria and medical establishment hype -- of Dr. John Brignell.

Here is the main link to his remarkable Number Watch website:

Here is a small example of his hilarious and effective approach to CO2 panic:

Number Watch website logo

Denis Rancourt on the institutional mechanisms and politics of "peer review" -- video

Source and background links:

Two talks by Dr. Tim Ball -- videos

Two lecture-style talks by Dr. Tim Ball, from 2012 and 2013...

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Carbon politics is domination geopolitics

Carbon politics is domination geopolitics. The US has already started branding itself as "the clean-energy superpower", including at the G7 parade. Next it will continue to attempt to strangle and extort the energy development of the emerging BRICS global economy, using a combination of green blackmail rhetoric, global carbon-economy monetary instruments, military posturing, covert and direct targeted nation destruction, and sanctions.

(And, of course, the same folks always suffer the destructive consequences of these global economic instruments that purport to be intended to "save the planet": The Carbon Rush documentary film trailer.)

Monday, June 15, 2015

My prediction about climate geopolitics of the near future

Here's my prediction about climate geopolitics of the near future.

The US has already started branding itself as "the clean-energy superpower", including at the G7 parade.

Next it will continue to attempt to strangle and extort the energy development of the emerging BRICS global economy, using a combination of green blackmail rhetoric, global carbon-economy monetary instruments, military posturing, covert and direct targeted nation destruction, and sanctions.

This will backfire before it gets much further off the ground. The US will be the loser superpower of the coming decade(s).

Do US-allies (Canada, France, Germany, UK, Australia, etc.) want to sink along?

Recent email exchange with Joe Postma and John O'Sullivan -- some nasty bad false physics

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Denis Rancourt <>
Date: 13 June 2015 at 10:37
Subject: Re: on the mechanism of a planetary greenhouse effect
To: John OSullivan <>
Cc: joe postma

One more comment can be made:

Joe's statements that establishment-science calculations use only an average (I/4) irradiance approach is factually wrong.

Only the ultrasimple models (reviewed in the physical-process introductions/reviews of IPCC reports) that seek only the average global temperature use this approach, such as in my calculation:

Otherwise, in fact, contrary to Joe's baseless assertions, global circulation models (GCMs) use a grid and different local solar irradiance values on the grid points AND they include the diurnal variation of solar irradiation. So, Joe's great discovery that these radiation effects must be included has already been done in hundreds of GCM calculations since the early 1980s.

Here is just one of many many early (here 1984) examples (see page 400):

The point is, the GCMs and the ultrasimple calculations give the SAME answer for the AVERAGE global temperature, as one expects for locally linear responses. So Joe's main concern about a necessary systematic error from taking an average irradiance in order to calculate an average surface temperature does not hold up. It is fiction.

Joe's belief that GCMs don't include spacial and temporal (diurnal) variations in solar irradiation is also complete fiction.

What else can I say? Joe needs to consider a reality check in terms of his misconceptions about these physics calculations. At this stage, it's purely a psychological-barrier problem.


On 9 June 2015 at 16:54, Denis Rancourt <> wrote:

    Hi John,

    I am familiar with these arguments and read the link also, and found these and many more egregious errors in the Slayers book.

    This is a sad and pathetic situation.

    Joe is correct about the simple calculation taking the average rather than doing kinetics of all the variations that occur with a spinning Earth. However, he has not demonstrated that this will give an incorrect average global surface temperature, or even considered under which physical conditions the calculation would be valid versus invalid to obtain the average global temperature.

    Joe also has demonstrated near-zero understanding of the physical mechanism of resonant absorption of infrared followed by isotropic elastic re-emission (greenhouse molecular mechanism in a gas atmosphere). My sense is that he has no idea what all that means. His 2^n glass-panes statements are pure nonsense -- a gas layer is NOT like a glass filter because the gas re-emits isotropically.

    Clearly, Joe is not about to drop his unusual vision of physics.

    Sorry, Joe's stuff is gibberish. Pure and simple. It does a disservice to the community that is critical of the warmist agenda, but a much greater disservice to himself and to those who repeat his stuff.

    You now have my multiply-considered opinion. Do as you will.


    On 9 June 2015 at 15:59, John OSullivan <> wrote:

        Hi Denis,
        I passed your comments onto Joe Postma. He recommends you consider his article, shown in the link below.
        Kind regards,

        John O'Sullivan
        CEO: Principia Scientific International

[Removed privacy error notice.]

        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        From: Joe Postma <>
        Date: 7 June 2015 at 22:11
        Subject: RE: on the mechanism of a planetary greenhouse effect
        To: John OSullivan <>

        Sure, send him this:

        From: John OSullivan [] Sent: June-07-15 11:19 AMTo: JoePostmaSubject: Fwd: on the mechanism of a planetary greenhouse effect

        Hi Joe,

        Would you like to reply directly to Dr Rancourt on his statements against your post?


        John O'Sullivan

        CEO: Principia Scientific International

[Removed privacy error notice]
        ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        From: Denis Rancourt <>
        Date: 6 June 2015 at 23:11
        Subject: on the mechanism of a planetary greenhouse effect
        To: John OSullivan <>

        Hi John,

        In this article

        you state:
        "A climate sensitivity (CS) close to zero flies in the face of not only the alarmist movement, but the generally accepted theory underlying CO2 climate alarm as well – the radiative greenhouse effect."

        Your statement is incorrect. There is BOTH near-zero CO2 sensitivity AND a large net planetary-greenhouse effect on earth. There is no contradiction whatsoever in these two co-existing facts.

        In addition, the view that there cannot be a greenhouse effect in planetary atmospheres is incorrect. Completely incorrect. This false invention does harmful disservice to the denier position.

        Here is how I responded to one such claim recently:

        The whole proposition of an absence of a planetary greenhouse mechanism is gibberish.

        Of course CO2 cools a hot surface by thermal conduction. Of course atmospheric convection cools the surface and thus largely causes the low-altitude lapse rate. These facts do nothing to remove the radiation balance that occurs and that includes the phenomenon of resonant absorption and re-emission of infrared by thus active gases (greenhouse effect).

        Likewise, of course a real greenhouse traps the heated air within the "house", etc. But none of these differences are relevant regarding whether or not resonant absorption and (isotropic) re-emission of infrared plays an important (dominant!) role in increasing mean surface temperature beyond the no-atmosphere value.

        I wanted to tell you my position on that particular claim, which I find extraordinary and unjustified.


Saturday, June 6, 2015

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ...

I want to highlight my recent response to recent comments posted HERE.
--Denis Rancourt

@Doug Cotton:

Doug, on your website ( you are simply describing the known phenomenon of "lapse rate" arising from convective atmospheric cooling with a heated surface in a gravitational field:

This in no way disproves the separate known phenomenon of greenhouse warming of a planetary surface. You cannot disprove something by asserting that something else also occurs. (You also confuse atmospheric temperature gradient with mechanisms establishing the earth-surface temperature.)

The correct calculation of earth's mean surface temperature takes both convective cooling (of the surface) and radiation-balance (including greenhouse effect) into account, as here:

Find a fundamental physics error in the latter calculation, then you will have made a "great discovery".

The small group of deniers that insists that the planetary greenhouse effect mechanism itself does not exist is wrong. Completely wrong. It is the dominant mechanism of earth-surface warming above the no-atmosphere value. There is no doubt about this. The statement of "no warming from a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere" is correctly viewed as crazy and does a disservice to the debate about warming.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...

Sunday, May 24, 2015

The science and geopolitics of climate change -- A talk with Denis Rancourt -- Video

Here is the public presentation I gave as part of Cinema Academica, on March 27, 2015, at the University of Ottawa. The videos were produced by flimmaker Peter Biesterfeld, and his team Ken Billings et al.

Note: An accompanying article (with references) is HERE. The physics article referred to for the radiation balance calculations of global mean temperature is THIS ONE.



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 has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, including in the area of environmental science, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism

Links to his articles and interviews on climate are HERE.

Climate stupidity and human survival

By Denis G. Rancourt [a]

The human animal has an instinct to identify potential dangers and to warn others. It is a built-in survival mechanism of any animal that lives in a group. And it is a strong and constant activity, re-enforced by environmental stressors.

This plays out on several time scales, from the immediate in the case of a potential physical assault, to the weekly in checking the weather forecast, to seasonal in preparing for winter, to life-long in planning for inevitable aging, to leaving good things for our grandchildren...

It is in our fiber to look ahead and to plan ahead, especially in the face of foreseeable or detected dangers.

The whole process can spin out of control when the danger is difficult to perceive yet could be lethal. Think of baboons who are on the lookout for a stalking lion. The slightest shadow movement can make them scream and run for the trees. It's a tense and highly volatile situation.

At this stage in our evolution we are faced with a pathological extension of our collective survival reflex, which is entirely fabricated by our high priests (government funded scientists and talking heads).

If these high priests were not here to tell us that the atmospheric concentration of the minor constituent CO2 is increasing, and that "global mean surface temperature" has increased by some 0.5 C in the last 100 years, then we would never know about these imperceptible causes of our certain eventual collective death as a species.

The priests explain that our certain extinction will occur from a rising sea level and changing regional climates. That these changes will cause mass migrations, ecosystem collapses, agricultural failures, famines, and disease. They also inform us that those who will suffer most are the most vulnerable inhabitants of the planet, as though this were a new feature of the effects of natural disasters.

Therefore, they urge, we must tax carbon emissions, apply cap and trade, and create a global carbon economy to limit CO2 in the atmosphere. And who better to coordinate it all than the World Bank, IMF, and such, given their stellar records in managing equitable development on this little rock. (Or is that economic enforcement of US regime supremacy?)


[a] This article accompanies a 2-hour public lecture I gave at the University of Ottawa on March 27, 2015, entitled "The science and geopolitics of climate change": VIDEO-LINK-Part-1, VIDEO-LINK-Part-2. The physics calculations of radiation balance on Earth described in Part-1 of the talk are from this paper: Rancourt, D.G., "Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect", (3 December 2011) -