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

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.

Friday, September 23, 2016

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

(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


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.


Suggested links from Climate Change LIES:

How Big Oil Benefits From Global Warming Alarmism…/how-big-oil-benefits-from-global-w…/

Rockefeller's (Standard Oil) fund…/rockefellers-behind-scr…/

WWF vast pool of oil money:…/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil…/

BP, Greenpeace, and the big oil jackpot:…/bp-greenpeace-big-…

Gulf of Mexico spill BP is largely invested in Wind Energy:…

Solar Manufacturers Owned by Oil Companies…

Chevron sinking $300 million a year into alternative energy:…/

Top ten big oil initiatives in clean tech:…/top-ten-big-oil-company-green-i…/
(alternate link)

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

The BBC, Greenpeace, and BP

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.)


[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",, September 16, 2015.

Update / 2016-10-12:

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.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Review of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

2014 book by Alex Epstein

Review by Denis G. Rancourt

Alex Epstein's The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is an engaging and thought provoking read, no matter which side of the issue you prefer. There have already been many thorough and positive reviews in the major mainstream media. Alex asked me to write a review, knowing my penchant for independent critical thought. It's just like Alex to do that. After reading the book, I decided to do it because the book offers a lot and therefore provides an platform for my additions.

Alex has a great ability to understand and interpret the science, technology, economics, and statistics that he describes, and an equally great ability to explain it all in plain yet intellectually compelling prose. He has gathered excellent factual material to support his arguments. Merely sifting through the many clear graphs and figures is already an education.

The only physics error I found was Alex's insistence that "a resource is just matter and energy transformed via human ingenuity to meet human needs ... with unlimited potential to be rendered valuable by the human mind." Actually, a resource is not just matter and energy. A resource also has entropy and every reaction in the universe increases entropy, or disorder. The entropy principle only locally appears to be violated thanks to the constant energy from the sun, thus allowing life itself for a certain limited time. The chemical energy released on burning fossil fuel cannot be recovered without recapturing it from the sun, until the sun itself burns out. Within the limit of present biology and technology, the said recapture would take a very long time compared to the time needed to burn all the planet's fossil fuels. The same is true of nuclear, where radioactive nuclides take even longer to make, on the life-times of stars and galaxies. For fusion, cold-fusion mythology aside, the expenditure needed to locally recreate conditions analogous to those inside the sun is prohibitive. And so on. For all practical purposes, this is a one-time burn. The crux of Alex's corrected point, therefore, is that humans have the possibility to live well as long as the sun is around. I would agree with that but I would say that good life is more dependent on political structure (and the dysfunctional excesses of politics) than on the human mind's ability to invent technology. I don't agree with the sentiment that there is even a scintilla of danger that the Green mythology of untouched nature could drive humanity into a cave-age era if entrepreneurs don't have the freedom to frack or extract coal (more below).

Alex's documented and blistering criticisms of environmental thought leaders are well deserved and would be embarrassing for those thought leaders if they prized reason instead of smugness. After reading Alex's book, I'm starting to think of the expression "environmental thought leaders" as an oxymoron, up there with "the department of justice". Alex also provides a psychological basis for our cultural susceptibility to the Green paradigm that is anti-development. He makes a good attempt at explaining why we allow ourselves to be swayed by manipulative slogans promising attainable global bliss via harmony with nature.

The book does a great job of explaining that alternative energy (wind and solar) is a fantasy at best and will not replace fossil fuel any time soon. Alex spells out the requirements for a global energy resource and the reasons that alternatives cannot meet these criteria. Alex's explanations helped me to formulate my own version, expressed as a general rule: Since some 87% or so of energy used, which powers all of machine activity, is fossil fuel (not to mention hydro and nuclear), therefore 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, per quantum of energy produced. "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.

While the book is an excellent contribution to the public debate, Alex does not tell a sufficiently realistic story about the sociopolitical forces in play; and his evidence-based foundational premise for concluding that "using fossil fuels is a moral imperative" is incorrect.

Let me start with the said premise. Alex correctly points out that there is a historical correlation between increased fossil fuel use and many global average welfare indicators, such as life expectancy and reduced liabilities from disease and natural disasters. Of course it's true that humans are able to safely inhabit more of the planet and in greater numbers because of technology that uses fossil fuel energy as the dominant energy source. That proposition cannot reasonably be disputed. Alex rigorously drives this point home (no pun intended).

But Alex takes it one step too far by concluding that, since a lot of accessible and concentrated energy makes our present world and its 7-billion-person occupancy possible, then more energy use can only improve our lives, including the lives of those most in need; such that the most energy we can use is what we should do, and we should thank the entrepreneurs that make more possible.

Alex pushes it to the limit and argues that more energy must imply better human lives, that the world can only be better off if more of the most accessible energy is used. Alex sees inevitable positive spinoffs from increased use of the most economically advantageous energy resources. The narrative is convincing and optimistic but incorrect.

For example, a world with more war will intensely use more of the most readily available energy but it will not be a safer and more habitable world. The US is amply demonstrating this point in our era, with its destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria... and the continuous waves of nightmares it produces in Latin America.

Cuba's recent "greener revolution" that occurred when it was cut off from the USSR oil supply and food imports (following the collapse of the USSR) is another example. The country had to become more self-reliant, without fossil fuel and its many benefits. It developed distributed farming, and public health increased from the additional mobility and neighbourly cooperation [1]. All this under the US blockade. Even today, despite economic differences, energy consumption disparity (one-eighth of US per-capita energy consumption), tropical disease, the continued US blockade... the US and Cuba have virtually the same life expectancy at birth, 79.3 and 79.1, respectively (2016). Using another measure, Cuba has an infant mortality rate of 4.6 per 1000 live births per year, whereas the US rate is 5.9 (2015).

But there is way more to a healthy and meaningful life than life expectancy at birth and national energy consumption. I don't agree with Alex that happiness is measured by one's amount of leisure time and the ability to use energy (travel to exotic places) in one's leisure. I don't even agree that the goal in life is to be "happy". I think a satisfying and meaningful life comes from self-knowledge, community and culture, and that Western "high energy" lifestyles tend to isolate and fragment. Meaning is tied to depth of connection, to oneself and to the community. The variables locally controlling depth of connection (and its dynamics from liberation struggle) are too numerous and disparate for an energy-use trend to be found or to have any value in social policy discussions.

In other words, Alex did not convince me that on an anthropocentric standard we benefit from more accessible energy. If the goal is to help those most in need, then Western countries can dramatically achieve that at very little expense, without needing to increase global energy production [2]. In any case, I would argue that those "most in need" are peoples whose nations have been disrupted by interventions from colonizers who had mastered accessible energy. That is certainly the case with Canada's aboriginal peoples [3].

But  this makes little difference to me because, likewise, the environmentalists have not convinced me that energy use in itself is negative or that more use will be harmful [4].

I find both arguments (Alex vs CO2 alarmists) to be simplistic and beside the point. Whether nations will destroy all natural habitats or only most natural habitats or put aside areas for nature reclamation is a question of real (and unjust) politics, which has nothing to do with CO2. Likewise, whether a global carbon economy is imposed, and the degrees to which it is imposed, will depend on power struggles that have nothing to do with saving the planet. Domestic carbon taxes also have nothing to do with saving the planet. And the US domestic freedom of domestic companies to extract shale oil and gas will depend on domestic power struggles that are overlaid with the global agendas.

The present war in Syria and its many regional and global repercussions will determine shale freedom in the US more than any marketing campaign or thought leader could ever achieve.

I don't like imperialism. I don't like war. And I don't like the infantile blabbering of "climate-conscious scientists". The real world is where nation states put most of their resources: War, intelligence, and geopolitical maneuvering. Everything else is a derivative, including our entire public discourse, including the entire fabrication about CO2-driven climate catastrophe [4].

Alex is not saying it this way, but I agree with him that more freedom is better. More players, less monopolies, more opportunity, less top-layer constraints, more democracy.

As it stands, a strong US domestic energy sector would mess up US strategic energy machinations that have been the foreign policy for many decades, not to mention the privileged status of the energy mega-corporations. The US world-dominance model is centrally based on controlling foreign access to finite energy reserves, and ensuring that oil is purchased in US dollars. Meanwhile domestic US entrepreneurs go and develop fracking, thereby multiplying and distributing world energy reserves and creating domestic interference in global price fixing. Additionally, where new independent entrepreneurs emerge and are successful, new political influence emerges, which is not always welcome. But fracking freedom is on the verge of happening. The world is changing. Eurasia is forming. A multipolar world is emerging. Saudi Arabia will crack from its need for cash; and cut production for a higher oil price. US nationalism is a natural response to the shifting world. I would predict that the US domestic economy will be "made great again", in order to compete more fairly. And, hopefully, this needed renewal will produce electable US national leaders worthy of trust.

Having said that, if I had to pick a strategy to liberate fracking, I would sell freedom, not human value based on material resources. And I would take on the true enemies of freedom, which both nurture and feed on the climate religion. A free-market is anti-war. I would fight for rules that protect a free market, which is also free of collusion and coercion.


[1] See: The Power of Community - How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (film), Faith Morgan (Director), The Community Solution (USA), 2006.

[2] See: David Lester, The Gruesome Acts of Capitalism, Arbiter Ring Publishing, Winnipeg, 2005. ISBN 1-894037-20-0.

[3] See: Lawyer Bruce Clark - Canada's Genocide (video), Peter Biesterfeld (Director), Ontario Civil Liberties Association, 2016.

[4] Denis G. Rancourt, The Climate Religion, Dissident Voice, September 15, 2016; and links HERE.