Wednesday, December 28, 2016

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.

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

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Real reason for US establishment enthusiasm for green energy found in Podesta emails

Starting at 15m18s in this Empire Files report:




Quite simply, "pay for play" is a corrupt systemic gateway to all the most lucrative scams that can be dreamed up, with interested support from "science": pharmaceuticals, genetically modified food crops, carbon-economy instruments, green-energy "solutions"...

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

The CO2 God Controls Environmental Disasters, Not

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

In my recent article “The Climate Religion”, I argued that “climate change”, the widespread belief that atmospheric CO2 controls climate and climate events, satisfies the defining criteria of a state religion. Professor Paul Brown responded to my article in his article entitled “The Religion of Climate Change Denial”. This is my reply to Professor Brown.
CONTINUE READING HERE.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Why do BP and Shell serve the strategic policy and propaganda initiatives of global finance?

Q: 
(published with permission)

Dr Rancourt:

I find your writings and your interviews to have a unique perspective with regard to the global warming/climate change mania that seems to have gripped the country (and certainly Europe). Especially so with regard to your taking a very broad based view----like this global warming craziness is part of something much larger. (I share this sentiment.)

I have a question and possibly in your busy schedule you can find the time to answer or point me in the right direction for some clarity with regard to this:

I have been perplexed and frustrated by the seemingly counterintuitive reaction that many large petroleum companies (BP, Shell, etc) seem to have.  They appear (in their PR, web sites, position statements) to be going along with/agreeing with the premise that fossil fuels are
1)immoral and
2)we need to transition away from them asap, etc etc.

You would think they would champion (and in fact scream form the rooftops!) many of the ideas expressed by Alex Epstein in his book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”. (I just read your very interesting review.)

Can you point me in the direction of any articles which might explain this reaction on the part of the large petroleum companies? (Might they actually benefit from excessive regulation/taxation/expenses of litigation, in the sense that they can absorb such costs more effectively than their smaller competitors, thereby excessive regulation/taxation/litigation in their industry actually benefits them by elimination of many of their smaller competitors?)

Thank you for your time.  Please feel free to call me if more convenient for you.

Most sincerely,
Peter Guske PT

A:

Hi Peter,

My sense is that the energy mega-corporations are an integrated and inseparable part of the US-based system of global finance, which is itself integrated with the US industrial-military apparatus. The military is the real physical threat that keeps most countries in line and subservient to global financial and corporate predation and to the obligatory use of the US dollar in trade. (The US prints the dollar at will.) Likewise, military sales to client "allies" is a major wealth transfer mechanism, such as from Saudi oil revenues, while the energy mega-corporations play their role and have on-site knowledge and control.

This structure implies that the said energy mega-corporations will always support the strategic policy and propaganda initiatives of the overall US-based energy-finance-military system of global occupation. Clearly, the said strategic initiatives includes legitimizing and installing a global so-called carbon economy.

This global carbon economy, including its national and sub-national carbon tax implementations (all management layers are to be integrated), is a bold new model for global coercion and taxation; which will be controlled by the same finance elite that has so effectively prevented national economic liberations, under the guise of "free-trade" efficiency and development.

The big plus is that Western populations and the Western state service intellectuals (including scientists) have enthusiastically invested in what can only by called The Carbon Religion. All humanitarian and environmental good will has been reduced to atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the impending fireball earth. Incidental (on the global scale) incentives for "green technologies" are part of the propaganda (see this).

Of course there are somewhat-competing US blocks. Exxon Mobil has more of an interest in developing US continental energy resources and may want to monopolize shale. It also probably has a different array of mega-finance connections. This reflects the competing Democratic and Republican corporate alliances: The former is more "globalist" while the latter is more traditionally "empirist". You only need to follow how continental pipeline routes change with Democrat/Republican and Liberal/Conservative (Canadian satellite state) election results...  Exxon appears not to like the idea of submitting to global carbon rules that are overly controlled by competitors?

Furthermore, it should also be said that BP and Shell may be attempting to reduce consumer guilt at the gas tank. It's easier to buy "green" gasoline, and from a company that is committed to "going green". The consumer effect may be less in Exxon territory.

Just my tentative thoughts.

See the list of links to my articles about climate HERE.

Cheers,
--Denis


Suggested links from Climate Change LIES:

How Big Oil Benefits From Global Warming Alarmism
http://www.forbes.com/…/how-big-oil-benefits-from-global-w…/

Rockefeller's (Standard Oil) fund 350.org:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/…/rockefellers-behind-scr…/

WWF vast pool of oil money:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/…/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil…/

BP, Greenpeace, and the big oil jackpot:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.ca/…/bp-greenpeace-big-…

Gulf of Mexico spill BP is largely invested in Wind Energy:
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do…

Solar Manufacturers Owned by Oil Companies
http://www.ehow.com/list_7358409_solar-manufacturers-owned-…

Chevron sinking $300 million a year into alternative energy:
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/oil-companies-prom…/

Top ten big oil initiatives in clean tech:
http://www.globe-net.com/…/top-ten-big-oil-company-green-i…/
(alternate link)

Watts exposes Dana Nuccitelli as having a "big oil" vested interest:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/…/dana-nuccitellis-vested-inter…/

The BBC, Greenpeace, and BP http://bit.ly/1HBjl02

Monday, September 19, 2016

Proof that alternatives burn more fossil fuel per generated energy quantum

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

I provide a proof that alternative energy production technologies (wind, solar, ocean energy, biofuels, etc.) necessarily burn more fossil fuel, per quantum of energy generated, than the energy production technologies that directly burn fossil fuel. 

(Note: Hydro-electricity is "renewable" but it is not an "alternative" energy.)

If this were not the case, or if there was a realistic potential for this not to be the case, then alternatives could be more economical on a true-coast basis and would be experiencing a consequential surge in development and implementation, without disproportionate (per energy quantum) public investment.

Whereas, the global reality looks like this:


(toe = Ton of Oil Equivalent)

The increases in the insignificant alternatives are tied to disproportionate government investment, incentives, and subsidies, which transfer artificially high costs to citizens and users. As soon as government commitments are reduced or terminated the sector crashes [1].

Here is the said proof.

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 is true because a large fraction of the said true cost is to buy the mechanical (machine) work to entirely manufacture and maintain the alternative technology.

The said mechanical work is needed for every aspect of the production, from mining and transporting ore (or raw material), to making materials from the ore, to making components from the materials, to assembly of the components, to computer design (having built the computers), to feeding and clothing and housing and transporting all the workers involved... (i.e. labour costs), to installing the technology, and to maintain the technology. Operational life-time and disaster installation-replacement must also be counted, as part of "maintenance".

Maintenance costs are significant. Here are a few provocative pictures that illustrate the point:



The required said mechanical work is energized by the available energy sources. Since 87% or so of energy used, which powers all machine activity, is fossil fuel (not to mention hydro and nuclear), therefore the said mechanical work is mostly energized by burning fossil fuel.

Since the true cost of alternative energy produced is higher than the true cost of fossil fuel energy produced, since true cost is a measure of available energy consumed in producing the energy, and since available energy is mostly (87%) from fossil fuels, it follows that alternative technologies burn more fossil fuel than the fossil fuel technologies themselves, per quantum of energy produced.

This is not surprising since virtually all human-directed work performed on the planet (to build and maintain everything), beyond the small contribution of work directly from human and domestic-animal muscle power, is energized by conventional high-density energy sources. Every societal transformation imaginable, from growing food to building cities to transportation... uses concentrated and transportable energy.

Inescapably, alternatives burn more fossil fuel than conventional energy. This will be true until the high costs in energy for total-cycle manufacturing and maintaining of alternatives is paid for using energy produced by alternatives.

The above proof relies on the link between true cost and underlying full-process energy consumption. The said link is a reality. Without energy to perform work, raw resources are useless and do not become technology.

The above proof is compelling enough that anyone who alleges having found specific circumstances in which a particular alternative technology does not burn more fossil fuel than fossil fuel technology, per quantum of energy produced, should have the onus to prove the alleged exception resulting from the exceptional circumstances. That discovery and demonstration of principle will not need government subsidies.

(There is already an army of paid university professors who could put their minds to the said discovery and demonstration, if they believed it was useful to do so, rather than writing articles about projected liabilities from not putting their minds to this task.)


Endnotes

[1] E.g.: "UK solar power installations plummet after government cuts", The Guardian, April 8, 2016; "EY report : Attractiveness of UK renewables plummets as government withdraws support earlier than expected", EY.com, September 16, 2015.

Update / 2016-10-12:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/12/the-truth-about-energy-subsidies-solar-gets-436-times-more-than-coal/


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.