Monday, May 8, 2017

Andrew Weaver (BC Green MLA, and climate scientist): Unprincipled in both politics and science (or irresponsibly ignorant?)

Andrew Weaver

In this his recent article, Dimitri Lascaris makes a reasoned criticism of the Green political leader Andrew Weaver: "The problem with Andrew Weaver: A fellow Green raises concerns about B.C. party’s leadership and direction, Opinion by Dimitri Lascaris, ricochet, May 8, 2017".

In the article, as a side-show we see the immoral elite Greens (Weaver and federal leader Elizabeth May) at work in a disgusting display of undemocratic behaviour working against justice and human rights in the world.

Equally interesting is Mr. Lascaris' complement about the climate science work of Dr. Weaver, a well cited academic scientist who has made his successful research career commenting on model forecasts of climate when CO2 is increased.

Mr. Lascaris should not be too quick to positively evaluate scientific things he knows little about, not even with the help of quotes from Naomi Klein.

Take one of Dr. Weaver's (2nd author) most cited paper in a high-profile journal for example: "N.P. Gillett et al. Detecting the effect of climate change on Canadian forest fires. Geophysical Research Letters, 2004, vol. 31, L18211".

The said paper is garbage, and has done more harm than good to the science of climate and forest fires. I describe the many misleading and fatal flaws in the paper in detail in my critical review of the field: "Rancourt, D.G., Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2, Research Gate (May 2016), 18 pages. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.2059.6087", starting at page 7.

Therefore, no, Dr. Weaver's behavioural flaws are not at all saved by his science work. He has acted as an unprincipled politician in both his politics and his science.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

March for Science: Warmists Out in the Cold

Career scientists who have built their careers by stacking up warmism peer-reviewed papers (emphasis on "peer") suddenly find themselves out in the cold.

Some of theses establishment scientists have decided to participate in an irrelevant public display to give the impression of pushing back against funding cuts aimed against the structural scientific bias of warming alarmism, instead of using their professional and institutional channels within the governance structure. Pathetic.

For decades they sleep walked into whatever funding programs were offered by government, without a peep, and now the thought that warmism will be exposed to have been a scam (when the species is not extinguished by their research being terminated) makes them uneasy enough to join the protest culture. Historic.

March for Science? This is embarrassing. Establishment scientists are mostly morons and many are not afraid to show it.

A slogan from the Toronto march: "What do we want? Science. When do we want it? After peer review."

Useful imbeciles. That would require, among other things, not wanting any of Albert Einstein's science. Just saying.

They might as well have chanted: "What do we want? Government-funding-directed junk-justifications produced by careerists. When do we want it? After we are certain that it follows the dogma and does not make anyone look bad."

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Who is Daniel J. Levitin?

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Who is Daniel J. Levitin, and why is he saying false things about me?

Mr. Levitin is a university professor, a psychologist, and the author of the 2016 book "Weaponized Lies: How to Think Critically in the Post-truth Era".

Wikipedia states the following about Mr. Levitin's book: "His interest in writing the guide [was] to help people develop techniques to distinguish factual information from that which may be distorted, out-of-date, unscientific or in error".

Therefore, Mr. Levitin presents a goal of wanting to be factual and accurate, and of not misleading.

In an article he penned on April 4, 2017, entitled "It’s time to stop letting so-called “experts” comment on subjects they know nothing about", Mr. Levitin had this to say about me:

Scientists like myself are partly to blame here. When one of our own goes on TV or in front of the press and starts making false claims, we don’t stand up and denounce them. We figure it’s not our personal problem. But it is. In this age of overwhelming untruth, pseudo-expertise is a problem that has to become every individual’s responsibility.

Nowhere is this more clear than among the climate-change deniers—almost entirely pseudo-experts—who contradict ample scientific evidence and lend support to devastating public policies. The list of leading climate-change deniers includes Denis Rancourt, who holds a PhD in physics and is an expert in magnetic field theory; Freeman Dyson, another physicist; Harrison Schmitt, a geologist; and Myron Ebell, who has a master’s in political theory and no advanced research degree. What about the people who hold PhD’s in—you know—climate science? Among this group, according to a number of studies published in peer-reviewed journals, 97% agree or more that climate change is real and man-made.

Thus, Mr. Levitin makes false statements and misleads by omission, as follows.

I will mostly leave aside Mr. Levitin's device of casting scientific questioning of CO2-alarmism as "climate-change denial" because that is simply wrong for an intellectual alleging to be concerned with truth. Everyone agrees that there are transitions beween different regional and global climate regimes in the history of our planet. Here is proof that I certainly do: "Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2".

Mr. Levitin states that I am "an expert in magnetic field theory" (sic). I know what a "magnetic field" is. I know what a "theory" is. But I don't know what "magnetic field theory" is. There are "field theories" in several areas of physics, but "magnetic" is not one of them. If it is, then I don't know about it, so I could not possibly be an expert in it as asserted by Mr. Levitin.

If Mr. Levitin had taken the care to examine my public Google Scholar page, he would have immediately noticed that my most cited paper is in an area of theoretical spectroscopy, which is evidence of my ability to understand resonant scattering of infrared radiation from so-called greenhouse gases. He would have noticed that my second most cited paper is in environmental science "Nanogoethite is the dominant reactive oxyhydroxide phase in lake and marine sediments", in which I was the research director. And he would have noticed that many of my most cited papers are in environmental science, including carbon cycling in sediments and soils, related to aquatic sediments, soil evolution, environmental bacterial reactions, hydrothermal fluid input into sea water, and so on.

Alas, Mr. Levitin did not see or chose not to mention any of that, but instead characterizes me as a "physicist" (solely on the basis of my 1984 PhD) in the fictitious area of "magnetic field theory". In contrast, Mr. Levitin characterizes himself on his website as a "scientist, musician, author and record producer", quite a universal man despite having obtained his PhD in one specialized field.

I think that Mr. Levitin was trying to make the incorrect point that I am not qualified to comment about climate, and that I should not be a "leading climate-change denier". Well, the only way to establish whether I am qualified to comment about climate is to examine the substance and scientific value of my actual work about climate.

But wait. Is Mr. Levitin qualified to judge my calculations about the physics of radiation balance applied to the planet earth? Did Mr. Levitin dismiss my calculations on the basis that they were made public and discussed openly with leading climate scientists rather than published in a scientific journal: "Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect"?

If Mr. Levitin dismisses scientific work by an appeal to authority (of scientific journals), or by an appeal to majority view (his quoting of the "97% consensus"), is that not in opposition to his book about the need for independent thought?

An equally interesting question, which Mr. Levitin might consider pondering moving forward, is "How many in the alleged '97%' understand and can practice the physics of planetary radiation balance?" Although, my evidence is anecdotal, I would confidently assert "not many".

More importantly, Mr. Levitin misleads his readers by omission. He concentrates on climate "deniers" that he incorrectly implies are not qualified to comment, but he leaves out any mention of the many "deniers" who are well-established formally-trained climate scientists. Here are examples of a few from many he could have mentioned:

I would suggest to Mr. Levitin that he reset his ability to seek and communicate truth. If he has some time, he could practice by analyzing the arguments recently (March 29, 2017) presented to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:

Denis Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, on physics and environmental science, and writes social theory articles. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism, and a regular contributor to Dissident Voice. His articles and interviews about the science and politics of climate linked here.

How to win the war against CO2-alarmism and the link to actual war

By Denis Rancourt, PhD
Dr. Ball makes some very good and valid points but I do not agree with his main conclusion that winning the war against CO2-alarmism is about clear and tactically informed communication regarding underlying basic science in a historical perspective.

Rather, the "war" is mainly one that involves government, corporate (including media), and professional-career overarching driving forces. These forces exploit resonances with individual psychology but no amount of clear communication about the science can change that.

The way to win the war is via cultural transitions where the establishment science enterprise is seen for what it is (part of the establishment order dominated by globalism) and thus loses all credibility on questions of globalist policies.

This is achieved a la Trump, in the same way that victories in the areas of political correctness have been achieved. The new radicalism that is youthful anti-feminism (anti-academic-dominance-of-what-a-woman-is, led by young women vloggers), the MRM (men's rights movement), the anti-CO2-alarmism movement putting priorities on good jobs and middle-class security instead of elite-class globalism, and so on. Those are the cultural movements that win the war against elite globalist management.

These movements are connected to the emerging phenomena of Brexit, Trump, anti-immigration, Frexit, Finexit, Libertarianism, … and to the emergence of the multi-polar world (emergence of Eurasia, BRICS, …), with the increasing threats to the global US-petro-dollar. 

Warmism is a creation of globalism. It is also a powerful instrument of the globalists. Downfall or resetting of globalism (i.e., exploitation by a US-based global elite: IMF, UN, etc.), to the benefit of nationalism (US and other) and national democracy is what wins the war against the baseless CO2-alarmism mantra.
In that sense, the war against CO2-alarmism is being fought in the real war theaters (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen) where world public and diplomatic opinion is increasingly rejecting globalist war and regime-change agendas. The war machine and its industry is understood, more and more, to be a real threat against freedom (both national and individual), to the extent that the dominant war machine (USA and NATO) is shown to fail and to produce disastrous blowback for the allied partners. National sovereignty (independence from globalist hegemony) is a threat to globalism. Therefore these real battlefields will, in the long term, determine if we are completely ruled by the globalist mind rot that is maintained by their service intellectuals. 


Saturday, April 1, 2017

Best evidence that "climate science" is a scam

These days, the phrase "climate science" in-effect means the dominant science-establishment position that an industrial-era CO2-driven global warming is having or will have large negative consequences.

The best evidence that "climate science" is a scam is the full recent congressional deposition of leading catastrophic-warming guru Michael E. Mann, giving his best arguments as to why everyone should take the "97% consensus" seriously.

These are the man's best arguments... There is no substitute for the full video:

Pathetic really. Mann is his own worst enemy.

His errors in logic, not to mention his utter lack of tact and self-restraint, were flagrant.

His argument that science is not just an in-group of careerists since the leading journal Nature looks for new things to report, and since scientists have vigorous debates about commas, is straight out of a land where history does not repeat itself, and where the best world is the one that works best for Mann.

In fact, if Nature was about science, then it would (1) accept papers that refute what it publishes, and even actively seek out such papers, (2) force all authors to publicly disclose all their raw data and treatment algorithms for others to examine, (3) abandon its "popularity among leaders in the field" review practice, and (4) publish rather than block critical reviews of its content. Nature, like many journals, is a for-profit publication that is a parasite on institutional funding.

Scientist like Mann who rely on the fallacy of appeal to authority and who cannot bring themselves to present their strongest evidence in a cogent and respectful manner, do not deserve to be funded, as they provide no useful service to humanity.

Hopefully, there are too many independent thinking scientists (3% or so) in the USA for the government and its agencies to continue this insane and useless careerist exercise of exploiting the collective-fear-mobbing reaction of our human nature.

Repeated false-fear mobbing is costly to a society and has to have rational constraints. An adjustment was in order.

Someday soon, the petro-dollar will crash and there will be no room for the luxury of scam science. There is a dangerous degradation of middle-class USA and that needs to be addressed to avoid a collapse of the empire. The crazy fluff of the urban professional classes cannot be sustained much longer because it causes dangerous brain rot. Just look at the chaos of USA foreign policy and the USA's apparent structural inability to recognize its real long and middle-term vulnerabilities. Students and thinkers are drowning in a sea of stupidity.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016


I started this blog in May 2007 and called it "Climate Guy", after I had published my essay "Global Warming: Truth or Dare?" on another blog and after the said essay received some attention, both in the US Senate (and public TV) and in the mainstream media.

Today I changed the name of this blog to "Denis Rancourt on Climate".

Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Denis Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, on physics and environmental science, and writes social theory articles. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism, and a regular contributor to Dissident Voice.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Reality versus Western-propaganda lala land

Economic geologists have a way of reminding us that we live on a PLANET. Here, by discovery of the latest quantified US reserve pocket (link below); this one enough to power the enter US for 3 years.

The fantasy of thinking that economic interests can be tamed to limit atmospheric CO2 on a multifaceted developing planet is wonderlandesque. In fact, the whole carbon-economy propaganda scheme is meant to benefit Western geopolitical and elite finance interests, with pay-offs down to every Western local government and propagandist, including collaborating scientists and green technology fronts.

USGS Estimates 20 Billion Barrels of Oil in Texas’ Wolfcamp Shale Formation