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the guide [was] to help people develop techniques to distinguish factual information from that which may be distorted, out-of-date, unscientific or in error".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.

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.

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)

Climate Hustle: Oh Mann...

Movie review, by Denis Rancourt

I finally got to see the feature-length documentary film Climate Hustle (Producer/Director: Chris Rogers, Host/co-writer: Marc Morano, CFACT, 2016). It was released today in 400 cinemas for one day, including in Toronto.

Disclosure: I make two brief appearances in the film, along with some 30 other scientists. I don't believe in dangerous anthropogenic global warming [1]. I have scientist friends who don't believe in dangerous anthropogenic global warming. I have never received any money from the energy industries, and I have never received anything for expressing my views on climate, other than insults and threats.

Hustle is a solid, well crafted, and highly entertaining documentary film that makes extensive use of authoritative sources. Namely, serious scientists who have substantively questioned the agenda-driven global warming bandwagon, and who are willing to say so publicly.

The film is a precious contemporary record of the politicization of establishment science, and also documents how conscientious scientists can come to dissent from a majority view, when too much is too much. The personal story of highly regarded climatologist Judith Curry is simply riveting in that regard, as are others.

The historical 1970s footage of "the coming ice age" frenzy and the depictions of the shrill current alarmists are priceless. And I love the interviewed writer's explanation of the human psychology of alarmism.

Hustle is fast-paced, fun, and thought provoking throughout. The characters are wonderfully human.

The film does give the impression, which can also be detected in the scientific literature, that climate scientists will correct their over zealous departure from objectivity, but it's not at all certain that the main culprits will be purged. In my opinion, the likely scenario is that the science will now go on its merry way and the US-regime global architects will implement what ever they can get away with in the cloud of publicity, institutional and diplomatic deception that they have created [2].

I have three criticisms of Hustle.

The first is the film's use of a graphical illustration tactic that is based on a scientific error. CO2 is not a "trace gas". It is a "minor constituent" of the atmosphere. "Trace" has a precise scientific definition. More importantly, it is irrelevant how little CO2 there is. What matters to global radiation balance is not the small amount of CO2 or of greenhouse-effect gasses, but rather the degree to which the resulting atmosphere is opaque to infrared radiation. That is, the amount of gas must be multiplied by the resonant absorption cross-section of the molecule. The said resonant cross-section of CO2, in the relevant band, is huge, which is why the CO2 effect is "saturated" and increasing the CO2 atmospheric concentration has little impact on surface temperature [3].

Thus, the film's short cartoon segment with coloured cubes representing the gas constituents of the atmosphere is a false representation, based on incorrect logic, or incorrect physics if you prefer. This error is essentially the same misrepresentation that Al Gore used in reverse to suggest that increasing CO2 has a proportionate impact on climate. Hustle correctly has a scientist explain the error in the Al Gore stunt and did not need the coloured blocks. I guess it was just too tempting to leave out, and the host's script was not reviewed for accuracy by a physicist.

Secondly, I dislike the particular and brief ending point that those who will suffer most from the global policies to enforce a carbon economy are the planet's most vulnerable, who do not have clean water and electricity. While this is true, and has been brilliantly documented in Amy Miller's The Carbon Rush, it is nonetheless a cheap shot to go there, equal to Al Gore followers' disingenuous concerns for the planet's vulnerable peoples. The main players opposing carbon trade restrictions have interests other than improving the lives of distant brown populations.

Thirdly, I am concerned about the elephant in the room. While Hustle has convincingly exposed the politicization and complicity of establishment science, a la "slap in the face", it is silent on the true underlying driving forces that are geopolitical and economic in nature and that are comprised of opposing (though unequal) corporate blocks beyond simple citizens and activists [2].

While the film's answer (here) is good, it is far from complete, and addresses only the mechanisms of professional engagement. It does not address the overall movement of a larger system and the real economic battles on national and global scales.

The global finance instruments of the US regime do not gear up to impose a carbon economy out of popular demand, to spread democracy and justice, or to save humanity, nor does all of this simply self-organize spontaneously out of professional self-interests [2]. Possibly the first to signal the global finance reality of the then newfound media phenomenon of climate alarmism was the late historian of science and technology David F. Noble, on a blog that I host [1][4].

The film was a riot that I totally enjoyed.


References

[1] Alexander Cockburn, Dissidents Against Dogma, CounterPunch, 9 June 2007; and The Nation, 25 June 2007; and see Dru Oja Jay, Questioning Climate Politics: Denis Rancourt says the “global warming myth” is part of the problem, The Dominion, 11 April, 2007.

[2] Denis Rancourt, Carbon Reality Check, Dissident Voice, 30 April 2016.

[3] See: Denis Rancourt, Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect, archive.org, 3 June 2011; and video lecture of 21 November 2015.

[4] David F. Noble, The Corporate Climate Coup, Activist Teacher, 1 May 2007.

Judith Curry

Anthropogenic CO2 predicted to postpone the next ice age by at least 100,000 years --Nature article

Commentary by Denis Rancourt


Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is a leading member of the global-warming scientific elite:

"In 2012, he was the lead-author of a report commissioned by the World Bank on possible impacts of a 4 degrees Celsius warming towards the end of the 21st century. This report received a lot of attention worldwide. That same year, Schellnhuber presented the keynote at the gala dinner that opened the high-level segment of the world climate summit COP18 in Doha, Qatar. In the presence of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and UNFCCC's boss Christiana Figueres, a few days later Schellnhuber signed an agreement with the Qatar Foundation to jointly create a Climate change research institute in Qatar - a remarkable step as the country's wealth for decades had been based on exporting fossil fuels." [Wikipedia]

His recent 2016 co-authored paper in Nature contains the conclusions:

"moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years"

and

"our results suggest that anthropogenic interference will make the initiation of the next ice age impossible over a time comparable to the duration of previous glacial cycles."

I would say that those consequences of an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere -- to the extent that the climate models can reliably be used for climate predictions -- are significant benefits to both humans and the planet, which far outweigh any negative consequences that have been projected and imagined.

Whereas it is difficult to establish a causal link between increased CO2 and any specific human suffering or environmental disaster, there can be no doubt that an ice age is a change in climate and that an ice age would be negative for life on Earth.

To be specific, there is a scientific consensus that an ice age would create large population migrations and associated political tensions possibly leading to wars, global loss of forests, a large drop in global mean surface temperature, massive loss of biodiversity over extended regions, collapse of agriculture, heightened threats to endangered species, loss of bees, perturbed migration patterns, and so on.

Few animal species would benefit from an ice age. The exceptions being cold-region animals such as polar bears.

Although fossil fuel extraction is largely motivated by state power and corporate profit, an unintended side affect may be to have postponed the certain environmental mega disaster of the next ice age, if we can believe climate modellers?

I think we should use some of the next thousand years or so to develop democracy and diplomacy tools (plenty of opportunity for development in those areas) just in case the modellers don't have all the details worked out yet and some of that unavoidable cooling starts to kick in sooner than expected. We know it's coming, modellers or no modellers.

Finally! -- The needed politically-driven science will be funded

Science needs competition from opposing views. However, politics drives funded establishment science. That is trivially obvious. Government funding predominantly determines the public research of "independant" university researchers.

In "climate science" there is an overwhelming global alignment towards carbon alarmism, driven by the US desire to deepen its control and exploitation of the economies of India and China and other nations via carbon extortion mechanisms.

As a result, dissenting scientific perspectives are atrophied and the needed competition of ideas and interpretations is crippled.

One of the major scams that has been allowed to propagate via a self-serving scientific establishment is the scam related to "extracting" a mean global surface temperature.

The present warming "pause" may well be an artifact of a continuous-warming data-manipulation scam that no longer is able to survive compatibility with the raw data. I propose that the "pause" is due to a partial rollback of enthusiastic fixing of the data. Maybe time will tell.

Anyway, thanks to a relatively small but now organized political opposition to carbon alarmism, apparently mostly based on US and US-aligned unglobalized domestic interests (domestic oil and shale not yet controlled by the energy giants that must follow US geopolitical machinations), there is now sufficient political opposition that some dissenting science can be encouraged.

Such a project worthy of note was recently announced:

Inquiry Launched Into Global Temperature Data Integrity

This is a needed and brilliantly strategic approach. The coalition of scientists aims to directly examine how their colleagues have been extracting the mean global surface temperature.

As background, the biggest problem is that prestige journals such as Science and Nature and others never require authors to publicly file all their raw data and all their analysis methods. As such, the fundamental premise of scientific verifiability is allowed to be trashed.

The new coalition will attack this fatal flaw in the scientific debate. Let it be transparent!


Links to the climate science essays and articles of the author of this note are HERE.

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.

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.

There you go. That's how peer review works.

This is a typical story about the scam that is peer review:

Royal Society In Trouble Over False Extinction Claim Paper (LINK)

Date: 20/09/2014
Ben Webster, The Times

There is virtually always a significant barrier to publishing a paper that conclusively shows that an earlier published paper was wrong. This is especially true in the high-profile "leading" journals.

Scientific journals have low tolerance for embarrassment.

In addition, the peer review exercise itself is a straight-up conformity filter. It's no wonder Albert Einstein categorically rejected "peer review".

The eminent historian of science and technology David F. Noble referred to the Left's rapprochement with establishment peer-review on the issue of global warming as "Regression on the Left" (LINK).

Climate Science Is Not Settled

We have come to a point where announcing that "climate science is not settled" is breaking news. That should inform us about the degree to which establishment science is an integral part of the propaganda machine of the elite forces that run things. Oh well.

The Wall Street Journal intends to provide reliable information to the highest-level decision makers. As such, it and similar publications are considered the most reliable sources in the mainstream media.

Climate Science Is Not Settled (LINK)

We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin

By

Steven E. Koonin

Sept. 19, 2014 12:19 p.m. ET