Denis Rancourt and Tony Heller agreeing on climate, by skype on December 20, 2019

TONY HELLER's social-media-account content of critical examination of climate science and politics is on Twitter and YouTube:
https://twitter.com/Tony__Hellerhttps://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1

And Tony is now on BitChute:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/tonyheller/

And this is Tony's web-site:
https://realclimatescience.com/

DENIS RANCOURT mentioned three of his research articles.

One about forest fires:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303446052_Anatomy_of_the_false_link_between_forest_fires_and_anthropogenic_CO2

One about geopolitical propaganda thrusts of early 1990s:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332182416_GEO-ECONOMICS_AND_GEO-POLITICS_DRIVE_SUCCESSIVE_ERAS_OF_PREDATORY_GLOBALIZATION_AND_SOCIAL_ENGINEERING_Historical_emergence_of_climate_change_gender_equity_and_anti-racism_as_State_doctrines

One about radiation-physics calculations of planetary temperature:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336851499_Radiation_physics_constraints_on_global_warming_CO2_increase_has_little_effect

Links to all Denis' climate things are here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2014/02/denis-rancourt-on-climate-science.html

That "tipping point' is nonsense featured on Climate Depot

Physicist challenges his fellow greens: ‘Dear True Environmentalists: Fight Corporate Criminality, not Atmospheric Gases’ – Denounces climate ‘industry of doomsday’

Read the Full Article

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt: "The new 'tipping point' theory is not unlike the deluge of the Old Testament, which followed an accumulation of human depravity, except that no god is postulated, and building the Ark requires a centralized and globally restructured economy, handled by overarching elite private institutions, of course. War, disease, hunger … are all defeated under the same umbrella, death itself eventually."

Dear True Environmentalists: Fight Corporate Criminality, not Atmospheric Gases

by Denis Rancourt / October 3rd, 2019

Published at Dissident Voice.

Dear true environmentalists: I am with you.¹
Corporate pollution and releasing of toxic substances should be treated as a criminal act, with full power to seize assets for reparations, actual reparations, not just punitive fines.
I would apply the same standard of prosecution to the “medical”/pharma² and agri-food industries,³ also.
However, the planet and biosphere are not at risk of imminent collapse, and certainly not from CO2.
The “imminent collapse” fabrication serves powerful manipulators, and necessarily diverts us away from attaining actual democracy and fairness.  In the words of Chomsky:⁴

For example, suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effect has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover—with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there just are no other alternatives around right now.

Rather than accept fascism or totalitarianism, corporate and finance criminality can best be fought from a position of realistic perspective regarding the end of the world, sober analysis of means regarding leverage for change, and focused political targeting against corporate rule without accountability.
History of imbedded doomsday narratives
All societies are dominance hierarchies, and all large, human dominance hierarchies have hired high-priests that construct and maintain the State doomsday narrative. These high-priests constantly instruct us on required beliefs and behaviours that minimize the deleterious effects of the alleged impending catastrophe. The behavioural instructions fan everything from diet, to hygiene, to dress code, to physical activity, to work ethics, to attitudes and morals, to child rearing, to political positions, to deference to experts, and so on.
It would be delusional to believe that this structural feature of society is any different than it ever was. In present Western society, the high-priests are the “scientists”, which include the medical doctors and all the “experts”.
This does not mean that science itself is not a valid and rigorous method to test and eliminate hypotheses and theories. It only means that establishment scientists are hired high-priests, notwithstanding the rare exceptions that prove the rule. It also does not mean that scientists never tell the truth. It only means that establishment scientists never harm or rebel against the dominance hierarchy, except by accident or solely in appearance.
These days, there is an industry of scientists that indulge in generating, testing and ameliorating ever more creative doomsday predictions, which are hoped to be of utility to the bosses. The said utility is often termed “societal relevance”. As an eminent example, we have the theory of a “tipping point” towards irreversible total collapse of the ecosphere, often referred to as a “species mass extinction”. The notion of a tipping point has also been advanced for planetary climate, wherein, in the absence of any non-human cause, one crosses into a global climate regime of constant extreme weather and flooded continents.
Whereas past planetary transformations have been related to game-changers, such as the advent of photosynthesis, the calming of tectonic (volcanic) activity, and so forth, and whereas the known recurring climate catastrophe of ice ages is believed to be driven by variations in solar insolation, the new “tipping points” spontaneously occur from the gradual changes of increased modern human or industrial activity, including: habitat destruction, burning of fossil fuel, population growth, and dispersal of toxic substances.
The new “tipping point” theory is not unlike the deluge of the Old Testament, which followed an accumulation of human depravity, except that no god is postulated, and building the Ark requires a centralized and globally restructured economy, handled by overarching elite private institutions, of course. War, disease, hunger … are all defeated under the same umbrella, death itself eventually.
The accompanying calls from establishment icons are often shrill.  In the words of Prince Charles, in 2009:⁵,⁶

If we do nothing, the consequences for every person on this earth will be severe and unprecedented – with vast numbers of environmental refugees, social instability and decimated economies: far worse than anything which we are seeing today … We have 100 months left to act.

While the leader of the most warring nation on earth, President Barack Obama, concluded in his 2015 State of the Union speech:⁷

No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.

The role of scientists
The scientists follow and are often not more contained than Prince Charles or President Obama:

Earth is rapidly approaching a tipping point. Human impacts are causing alarming levels of harm to our planet. As scientists who study the interaction of people with the rest of the biosphere using a wide range of approaches, we agree that the evidence that humans are damaging their ecological life support systems is overwhelming. We further agree that, based on the best scientific information available, human quality of life will suffer substantial degradation by the year 2050 if we continue on our current path. Science unequivocally demonstrates the human impacts of key concern: Climate disruption – more, faster climate change than since humans first became a species. …⁸
We maintain that humanity’s grand challenge is solving the intertwined problems of human population growth and overconsumption, climate change, pollution, ecosystem destruction, disease spillovers, and extinction, in order to avoid environmental tipping points that would make human life more difficult and would irrevocably damage planetary life support systems.⁹
But today, for the first time, humanity’s global civilization—the worldwide, increasingly interconnected, highly technological society in which we all are to one degree or another, embedded—is threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems. Humankind finds itself engaged in what Prince Charles described as ‘an act of suicide on a grand scale’, facing what the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington called a ‘perfect storm’ of environmental problems. The most serious of these problems show signs of rapidly escalating severity, especially climate disruption. But other elements could potentially also contribute to a collapse: an accelerating extinction of animal and plant populations and species, which could lead to a loss of ecosystem services essential for human survival; land degradation and land-use change; a pole-to-pole spread of toxic compounds; …¹⁰
The loss of biodiversity is one of the most critical current environmental problems, threatening valuable ecosystem services and human wellbeing. A growing body of evidence indicates that current species extinction rates are higher than the pre-human background rate, with hundreds of anthropogenic vertebrate extinctions documented in prehistoric and historic times.¹¹

In fact, there is no science of a “tipping point” for earth biodiversity or for earth climate. No such testable theory has been elaborated. The entire notion of “tipping point” is hypothetical and tenuous. It is a product of bias to presume that a large and complex system (planet) would be susceptible to “tipping” rather than extraordinarily stable against internal superficial changes.  A recent paper describes how one might begin to define concepts or measures that would allow even discussing the topic of “tipping point” intelligently, for realistic ecological systems.¹²
Furthermore, even among scientists, still getting their bearings, there is persistent disagreement as to whether species extinction rates are higher in recent decades. A critical review concludes:¹³

Net species gains or losses should be assessed with respect to common baselines or reference communities. Ultimately, we need a globally coordinated effort to monitor biodiversity so that we can estimate and attribute human impacts as causes of biodiversity change. A combination of technologies will be needed to produce regularly updated global datasets of local biodiversity change to guide future policy. At this time the conclusion that there is no net change in local species richness is not the consensus state of knowledge.

Reality check
There is a large structurally imbedded industry of doomsday narrative. In addition, individuals are reared in a dominance hierarchy and therefore constantly seek messaging about fitting in. The result is that we adopt the State religion. Even if the State is occupied by an exploitative elite, we continue to uphold and follow any State religion that has been sufficiently implanted.
In this case, the State religion is that we are cared-for by mother earth but that our bad behaviour is poisoning mother earth and that we are therefore all at risk, unless we adopt the new stringent conditions that should be imposed globally. Non-believers should be rooted out and isolated. We should demand that all our peers and our representatives do what is proscribed by the State religion.
Meanwhile corporate criminality, while dressed in the colours of the State religion, will continue at an accelerated rate, and our minds and bodies will continue to be occupied.³
I say no. To escape this trap, we must realize that the planet is, well, a planet, with huge response capabilities; that the planet is far more resilient and robust than we imagine.
Habitat destruction and industrial practices are grotesque, and these cause real and significant harm to human communities and ecosystems — more so even than actual wars in the present era … although not more so than so-called economic sanctions and exploitative nation financing.  In contrast, “warming” itself cannot hurt the biosphere or humans, nor is the planet at risk of “collapse” from all the criminal practices. That is fabricated nonsense.
Our joint efforts should be on justice, attaining actual democracy, the elimination of criminal behaviour, extortion and exploitation, enforcement of reparations, enforcement of corporate transparency and accountability…
The problem is human behaviour against humans and nature, organized by an occupied dominance hierarchy, and the solutions are political; nothing to do with CO2, methane or anything else in the atmosphere.

1. “Questioning Climate Politics: Denis Rancourt says the ‘global warming myth’ is part of the problem” by Dru Oja Jay, The Dominion, 11 April 2007. []
2. “Cancer arises from stress-induced breakdown of tissue homeostasis” by Denis Rancourt, Research Gate, December 2015, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1304.7129. []
3. “GEO-ECONOMICS AND GEO-POLITICS DRIVE SUCCESSIVE ERAS OF PREDATORY GLOBALIZATION AND SOCIAL ENGINEERING: Historical emergence of climate change, gender equity, and anti-racism as State doctrines” by Denis Rancourt, Research Gate, April 2019, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26897.89449. [] []
4. “Undertanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky”, by Noam Chomsky, edited by Peter Mitchell and John Schoeffet, The New Press, NY, 2002; at page 388, in Chapter 10 “Turning Point – Based on discussions in Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland in 1994 to 1996 and 1999”, ISBN 1-56584-703-2. []
5. As quoted in “Apocalypse Now! Fear and Doomsday Pleasures” by Erik Swyngedouw, Capitalism Nature Socialism, Volume 24, 2013 – Issue 1, pages 9-18. []
6. “Climate change must be tackled before global poverty, says Prince Charles” by Andrew Alderson in Santiago, The Telegraph, 10 March 2009. []
7. “Obama: No greater threat to future than climate change” by Madison Park, CNN, 21 January 2015. []
8. “Introducing the Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support” by Anthony D Barnosky et al., The Anthropocene Review, 2014, 1: 78. []
9. “Avoiding collapse: Grand challenges for science and society to solve by 2050, by Anthony D. Barnosky, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Elizabeth A. Hadly, Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 4: 000094, doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000094. []
10. “Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?” by Ehrlich, P.R. and Ehrlich, A.H. (2013) Proc R Soc B, 280: 20122845. []
11. “Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction” by Ceballos et al., Sci. Adv., 2015, 1: e1400253. []
12. “Unifying Research on Social–Ecological Resilience and Collapse” by Graeme S. Cumming and Garry D. Peterson, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Review| Volume 32, ISSUE 9, P695-713, September 01, 2017. []
13. “Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity” by Andrew Gonzalez et al., Ecology, 97(8), 2016, pp. 1949–1960. []

Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is a researcher for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. He has published more than 100 articles in leading scientific journals, on physics and environmental science. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. Denis can be reached at denis.rancourt@gmail.com. Read other articles by Denis.

Two recent video interviews of Denis Rancourt, in which the climate topic was unavoidable

There Is No Climate Emergency

Denis Rancourt, PhD
Physicist, Environmental Scientist
Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association
https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=1ChsRsQAAAAJ

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:

• Judith Curry (Georgia Institute of Technology)
• Richard Lindzen (MIT)
• Hendrik Tennekes (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute)
• Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics)
• Craig D. Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change)
• Roger A. Pielke Jr. (University of Colorado Boulder)
• Yuri Izrael (Russian Academy of Sciences; a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001-2008)

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.

Broad-ranging radio conversation about science, with Denis Rancourt

Interesting 2012 on-air live discussion on CHUO 89.1 FM in Ottawa...

Climate comment starts at 48m30s.

Here it be:

"Dr. Denis Rancourt goes it alone critiquing science and science popular education propaganda"

(Alternate link of sound file on Archive.org)

CHANGE OF NAME FOR THIS BLOG

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.

The Climate Religion

By Denis G. Rancourt

Primordial religions have always been about avoiding the calamities of climate: drought, fire, disease, war... But religion has also always been more that an individual alleviation of insecurity and guilt. It has been a stabilizing force of society's dominance hierarchies.

Monarchs have always had symbiotic relations with organized religion, and that is no accident. Rulers gain perceived legitimacy, while the church-maintenance class gains high relative social status and privilege. In recent history, one might even argue that the downfall of the USSR was facilitated by a suppressed church.

Clearly, if a system can combine individual-identity-creating beliefs with the impression that the state is vital in defending those beliefs against outside threats, then one has a powerful entity that is directed and centralized, as long as it can all be maintained. A current example is Israel's remarkable success (as a strong and influential entity), against the a priori odds.

What to do in a secular and multi-cultural empire, to prevent dissolution?

In this regard, the author Michael Crichton, among many who followed [1], in 2003 made a key observation to the Commonwealth Club [2]:

"I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths."

The empire needs a religion of choice for its large middle and managerial class, where money and materialism do not suffice, and are not sufficiently cemented to identity. And it must be a religion that the state and political class can be seen to champion and defend.

The state religion enterprise is vital to survival and is well finances, directly and indirectly, via the public purse of course.

Climate "science" certainly fulfills the criteria for acceptance as the new state religion. There is no lack of public funding for climate researchers in all areas, from policy to economics to biology to medicine to even climatology, who devise ways for society to avoid "climate liability". This army of protectors of humanity are the (now proverbial) "97%", who don't expressly denounce the climate change god.

The degree to which professional scientists find it difficult to resist wearing the certified climate-change glasses is easy to see for anyone who is looking. For example, my critical review of forest-fire science [a].

The priests and vicars are the above-noted "scientists". But the bishops and cardinals are the elite science-policy leaders and world-finance directors.

Developing-world nations who seek a reprise from all-out exploitation must pledge allegience to the climate-change god.

As I have noted recently in response to the disclosure that "Soros paid Al Gore millions to push ‘aggressive US action’ on global warming" [3]:

"Don't worry CO2 activists, the global financiers and the dominant US hegemony want exactly the same thing you do. They want a multi-trillion dollar global carbon economy that they manipulate, and they want to use it to confine and tax the emerging competing economies (BRICS), enforceable by military intervention if needed 'to save the planet'."

The finance-sector exploitation of "climate change" was highlighted in 2007 by the renowned late historian of science and technology David F. Noble, in his article "The Corporate Climate Coup" [4].

Many free thinkers are deeply irked by this new state religion with global ambitions. We are irked by human stupidity, and we are irked at how easily the citizens of modern societies are corralled into the latest project to direct humanity for the benefit of a few manipulators.

One hopeful nucleus of resistance are the libertarian-minded entrepreneurs who have managed to claim a stake in fracking. Without them, I don't know how much more insane this ride could be.

Against the religion of climate change, common sense and logic seem to have no weight whatsoever.

For example, nothing could be clearer than the following. As a general rule, given that some 87% or so of energy used is fossil fuel, then the true (no public subsidy) cost of any "alternative" is a fair proportional measure of the fossil-fuel expenditure needed to create and maintain the said "alternative". This means that "alternatives" burn more fossil fuel than the fossil fuel technologies themselves. It ain't rocket science. Logic beats bias. "Alternatives" burn more fossil fuel than conventional energy. But it does not matter, because "religion".

Furthermore, the fact that there can be public subsidies at all is largely due to the technological ability to harness mechanical work cheaply via fossil fuels, including the ability to militarily maintain global inequality.

Even the 2012 environmentalist's nightmarish horror documentary film of Amy Miller, The Carbon Rush, has not slowed the advancing religion [5].


Endnotes

[a] Denis G. Rancourt, Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2, Research Gate, 2016-05. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2059.6087. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303446052_Anatomy_of_the_false_link_between_forest_fires_and_anthropogenic_CO2

[1] David F. Noble, Regression on the Left, Climate Guy, 2007-05-30. http://climateguy.blogspot.ca/2007/05/regression-on-left.html; Alexander Cockburn, Is global warming a sin?, CounterPunch, 2007-04-28. http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/04/28/is-global-warming-a-sin/

[2] Michael Crichton, Remarks to the Commonwealth Club: Environmentalism is a religion, 2003-09-15. Hawai'i Free Press, 2016-04-22. http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/2818/Crichton-Environmentalism-is-a-religion.aspx

[3] Michael Bastasch, Soros paid Al Gore millions to push ‘aggressive US action’ on global warming, The Daily Caller, 2016-08-17. http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/17/soros-paid-al-gore-millions-to-push-aggressive-us-action-on-global-warming/

[4] David F. Noble, The corporate climate coup, Activist Teacher, 2007-05-01. http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2007/05/dgr-in-my-article-entitled-global.html

[5] Amy Miller, The Carbon Rush (film), 2012, Wide Open Exposure Productions. http://wideopenexposure.com/the-carbon-rush

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He practices various areas of science (environmental geochemistry, soil science, spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, materials science) which have been funded by a national agency, has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, (Research Gate profile), and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.

Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2

Here is my latest article, published moments ago on Research Gate.

Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2

By D. G. Rancourt, PhD
Research Gate, May 2016
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2059.6087

Summary: In this critical review of the scientific literature about fire, I describe how the false notion of a link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2 was ignited in 2006 by a fatally flawed article promoted in the science-trend-setting magazine Science, and spread like wildfire through the scientific literature and beyond, driven in part by high winds of climate modelling extravagance, while fortunately leaving large unburnt patches. There is no evidentiary basis for such a link. On the contrary, established knowledge about forest fires leads to the conclusion that dedication to teasing out such a link is preposterous: In the present circumstances starting in approximately 1900, the dominant effect is direct human impacts on land use, which causes global fire occurrences to be dramatically less than from the known long-term natural cycles (modern fire deficit). No special circumstances or regions have been correctly identified where forest fire behaviour can be attributed to CO2. Canada’s recent Fort McMurray fire is no exception. The claimed 7 g mean birth weight loss arising from mothers’ general exposure to CO2-driven southern California wildfires, like all such claims, is a product of statistical and conceptual overenthusiasm. I use concepts from the animal-behaviour scientific literature to explain how some scientists and their followers can get so carried away.

Read the entire article HERE.

Backed up here: https://archive.ph/gAjLs  

Denis Rancourt - Réchauffement planétaire et géopolitique des États-Unis

Denis Rancourt interviewé par Nonibeau Gagnon-Thibeault, le 5 février 2016.

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

Source and background links:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/05/climate-stupidity-and-human-survival/

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.

Part-1:


Part-2:



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?)

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

[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", archive.org (3 December 2011) - https://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffect

Ottawa event March 27 — The science and geopolitics of climate change - A presentation by Dr. Denis Rancourt

The science and geopolitics of climate change

— A presentation by Dr. Denis Rancourt

Friday, March 27, 2015
7 PM (doors open at 6:30 PM)

University of Ottawa

Montpetit building, Room 203 (MNT 203)
 

Denis Rancourt will present a critical analysis about the science and geopolitics of climate change.

This will include descriptive overviews of:

• the physics of planetary warming
• planetary processes of carbon fluxes
• the politics of science funding
• social and systemic mechanisms of opinion
• national and UN drivers towards carbon management
• global and local consequences of carbon management
• planetary forces of destruction
• the nature of effective resistance

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, in the areas of spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, and environmental science. He has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.

My position on climate change

I have come to conclude that there are geostrategic and global-finance forces that drive the push to implement a global "carbon economy".

See: Denis Rancourt, Carbon Reality Check, Dissident Voice, 30 April 2016.

Scientists are not the tail that wags the carbon-politics dog. Generally, in addition to direct IPCC machinations, establishment scientists are salaried professionals who are biased in the same way that embedded journalists are biased in war reporting.

I am against global warming alarmism, and against the proposition that climate change is a dominant threat to humanity or to the environment, which I believe is a preposterous proposition. Habitat destruction is caused by habitat destruction. Large-scale human misery is caused directly by human economic and geopolitical violence.

Like all groundless myths that align popular thought for the benefit of an oligarchy, this particular myth should be exposed and denounced.

In this case, exposing the myth is a self-image threat to some, a career threat to others, and a financial or legitimacy threat to certain institutions and corporations: eco-lobbyists, careerist scientists, carbon economy parasites and predators...

I reject the argument that "it is positive to support the proposition of a dominant threat from climate change irrespective of whether it is true or not". Supporting the 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.

Climate science is a "Zombie science"

Climate science is a "Zombie science" (LINK)

By Denis G. Rancourt

Denis Rancourt on climate science and on climate politics

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He practices various areas of science (environmental geochemistry, soil science, spectroscopy, condensed matter physics, materials science) which have been funded by a national agency, has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, (Research Gate profile), and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.

For a very brief statement see Dr. Rancourt's "My position on climate change", including the relevance to climate activism.

If you are new to Dr. Rancourt's ideas on this topic, START HERE:
>> 2007 Dominion Magazine interview "Questioning Climate Politics"

Next, Dr. Rancourt's articles and views about climate science include the following (and the 2007 essay by David F. Noble):

• 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. And on ResearchGate: HERE.
•  
•  
• 2006 article "Global Warming is Causing Extinction of the Political Species": LINK.
• 2007 essay "Global warming: Truth or dare?": LINK.
• 2007 David F. Noble's important essay "The Corporate Climate Coup": LINK.
• 2007 Dominion Magazine interview "Questioning Climate Politics": MAIN-LINK (Alternate links LINK1, LINK2)
• 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. And see "Scientific consensus fetishism in climate politics": LINK.
• 2014 essay "Climate science is a 'Zombie science'": LINK. 
• 2014 book:  Denis Rancourt's views are discussed in "Science and Political Controversy", by David E. Newton, ABC-CLIO, CA, 2014, ISBN 978-1-61069-319-6, in Chapter 3 "Perspectives", in the essay by A.J. Smuskiewicz "The Corruption of Climate Science By Leftist Politics", on pages 154-157.
• 2015 lecture "The science and geopolitics of climate change": VIDEO-Part-1, VIDEO-Part-2. 
• 2015 YouTube clip from lecture: "Peer-Review Failure in Climate Prof Denis Rancourt": video.
• 2015 article: "Climate stupidity and human survival": LINK.
• 2016 article: "Carbon Reality Check": LINK. 
• 2016 article: "Climate Hustle: Oh Mann..." (critical movie review): LINK.
• 2016: Two brief appearances in the documentary film Climate Hustle, at 51m44s and 1h05m30s, released on May 2, 2016. 
• 2016 interview: "Power Hour: Dr. Denis Rancourt on The True Physics of CO2", with Alex Epstein, Center for Industrial Progress, May 10, 2016: LINK. 
• 2016 article: "Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2": DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2059.6087
• 2016 article: "The Climate Religion": LINK.  
• 2016 book review: "Review of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels": LINK. 
• 2016 article: "Proof that alternatives burn more fossil fuel per generated energy quantum" LINK. (also HERE)
• 2016 commentary: "Why do BP and Shell serve the strategic policy and propaganda initiatives of global finance?": LINK. 
• 2016 article: "The CO2 God Controls Environmental Disasters, Not": LINK. 
• 2016 article: "Beware Anti-“Pseudo-Science” Agitation": LINK. 
• 2017 blogpost: "Can't leave scientists alone with science": LINK. 
• 2018 blogpost: "My explanation of the global-warming 'pause' or 'hiatus'": LINK.
• 2018: My views are discussed in Marc Morano's book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change" (RegneryPublishing, 2018), for example, on pages 131-132. 
• 2019: “Geo-Economics and Geo-Politics Drive Successive Eras of Predatory Globalization and Social Engineering: Historical emergence of climate change, gender equity, and anti-racism as State doctrines”, by Denis G. Rancourt, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, OCLA Report 2019-1, April 2019, http://ocla.ca/OCLA_Report_2019-1/
• 2019: A petition against climate nonsense in municipal politic. "There is no evidence for a "climate emergency". Stop the nonsense.", http://chng.it/WHYjVY6q85 
• 2019 article: "From Dollar Hegemony to Global Warming: Globalization, Glyphosate and Doctrines of Consent" interviewed by Colin Todhunter. LINK. LINK. LINK.
• 2019 Vlog video: "There Is No Climate Emergency - by Denis Rancourt", LINK. 
• 2019 Vlog video: "Please stop with the climate believer slogans - by Denis Rancourt", LINK
• 2019 Two recent featured video interviews of Denis Rancourt, in which the climate topic was unavoidable, LINK
• 2019 article: "Dear True Environmentalists: Fight Corporate Criminality, not Atmospheric Gases", Dissident Voice, 3 October 2019. LINK. And on Climate Depot: HERE.  
• 2019 interview: "Greta Thunberg is 'The Face of Foreign Intervention' in 2019 Canadian Federal Election - Pundit", Sputnik International, 24 October 2019. LINK. 
• 2019 article (big-picture social analysis view of climate propaganda): "Dear Young Progressives: The White-Supremacist Anti-Immigration Anti-Political-Correctness Free-Speech Fascists Are Your Friends ---- Tectonic Shifts Unnerve Both Factions of the USA Ruling Elite", Dissident Voice, 21 November 2019. LINK. 
• 2019 video-interview: "Denis Rancourt and Tony Heller agreeing on climate (20 December 2019)", on BitChute. LINK. And on YouTube: LINK.
• 2020 video-interview: "I tried: Denis Rancourt and Stephen Wells argue climate physics" of 17 January 2020, on YouTube: LINK.
• See other and recent blogposts on my climate blog: LINK. And on my climate Facebook group: LINK.

2012 European cable TV interview/debate: 



Two-part 2015 lecture at the University of Ottawa:
Part-1:


Part-2:


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.
• 2012 CHUO 89.1 FM radio interview with Dr. Denis Rancourt: LINK. (General discussion about science, climate comment starts at 48m30s.)