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

2006 article: Global Warming is Causing Extinction of the Political Species

Global Warming is Causing Extinction of the Political Species

by Prof. Denis G. Rancourt

Caucus - The Political Magazine of the Students, University of Ottawa, Vol.6, Issue 3, February-March 2006, page 10 (LINK)

A CASTRATED ANIMAL loses its territo¬
rial and reproductive drives to become pri¬
marily concerned with its consumption. En¬
vironmentalism is being used to neutralize
citizens that would normally be politically
engaged in proportion to the magnitude of
current problems. Mainstream treatment of
global warming, from media reports to Dis¬
covery Channel documentaries to Canada’s
Two Tonne Challenge, and its measurable
influence on public opinion and concerned
citizen involvement are records of an effec¬
tive program of indoctrination, away from
direct challenges to concentrated and insti¬
tutionalized power and towards personalized
involvement that is in harmony with capi¬
tal’s undemocratic control of the economy
and resources.

Consciousness regarding environmental
problems leads to a large array of reactions
on a multidimensional continuum that in¬
cludes at least two end points: to concentrate
on one’s own consumer and lifestyle choices
and to encourage others to do the same, to
treat the problem from the perspective of
individual psychology, or to act politically
to remove the power structures and institu¬
tions that are the societal root of the prob¬
lem. While it is true that ecological lifestyle
choices and effective political commitment
are not necessarily contrary; just as one can
be a meat-eater and a dedicated environmen¬
tal activist, or a vegan vegetarian enrolled in
an MBA program; environmental conscious¬
ness can be and is manipulated away from
any consequential attack on the status quo.
The apolitical variety of environmental in¬
volvement is strongly encouraged by capital
and its government shadow, via everything
from foundation funding to media coverage
to government programs to responsible cor¬
porate citizen endorsement, etc.

And let us be clear, the status quo is a
world run by profit-driven investors and
corporations, backed by military might, that
are by far the main destructive forces on the
planet. If we shed our privileged perspective
for a moment and let go of the absurd notion
that the greatest threat to humankind is glo¬
bal warming and associated climate changes,
we might see the Empire and its satellites for
what they are, we might see war crimes and
exploitation on a scale that would perturb
even a global circulation model theorist.

The best measure of these crimes is not
anthropogenic C02 emission. There are
more graphic statistics than that. There are
real and immediate regional and continen¬
tal-scale environmental consequences that
are best measured by their impacts on life,
human life in particular since we inhabit
every environment. These include: the
effects of economic sanctions on national
populations, declared and undeclared wars
of occupation, US state-sponsored terror¬
ism (most other terrorist networks pale in
comparison), the effects of capital mobility
(in both First and Third Worlds), the effects
of First World financed corruption, the ef¬
fects of capital exploitation via national
debts, the effects of First World imposed
economic structural adjustments, the effects
of forced market, work-force, and resource
access on the terms set by capital (i.e., so-
called globalization), the consequences to
native inhabitants of being in the unfor¬
tunate situation of living on resource-rich
territories, the effects of television, mass
media, and advertising on the human spirit
and on family and community, etc. These
translate into traditional environmental
measures such as: depleted uranium pol¬
lution on regional scales (ugly stuff' if you
plan on having a family in the next thou¬
sand years), chemical industry accidents
in populated areas, deforestation and as¬
sociated water table losses, agri-business
impacts on soil depletion, water pollution,
food safety, habitat destruction, ecological,
biological, and societal consequences of
human pharmaceutical use, etc.

Communities based on the quality of
human connections, not serving corporate
greed or manufactured dreams of wealth,
fame, and immortality, and tied to the needs
of others and their dependence on a shared
environment, are sustainable and environ¬
mentally sound. The environmental move¬
ment itself is an expression of this vital
human thrust but, as informed First World-
ers, we cannot simply behave as though an
ideal world of collaborating communities
of sensitive individuals were possible under
the present regime of madness. We need to
force our governments and corporations to
stop destroying the web of such communi¬
ties that spontaneously wants to create itself.
We have a responsibility to risk as much as
we can in being as effective as possible in
dismantling the power structures that will
otherwise turn our planet into an illusion
of heaven for few and a real hell for every¬
body.

The enemy is not individual stupidity or
any human trait. The enemy is the very real
network of exploitation and mind control
that we have allowed to take root in our so¬
ciety. We must take it out, action by action,
reaching deeper and deeper with every new
tactic and strategy. We must be as conscious
of our mental and political environments as
we have become knowledgeable of atmos¬
pheric chemistry. Let us be environmental at
home and political - far beyond voting and
postcards to MPs - at work. Consider that
we are at war. This is a war, literally. It is
insane. It could destroy the planet. It’s time
to be radical; to uproot the cancer of undem-
ocratically controlled investment capital and
to disallow capital and military invasions.

Radicals needed. Environmentalists go
home.

Geopolitics of CO2 alarmism

By Denis Rancourt (PhD)


My guess at the underlying big-picture forces that determine the CO2-alignment of Western institutions (science, education, media, congress, finance...).

I think the entire climate "debate" is underpinned by competing forces in the failing USA-based global-dominance structure.

On the pro-carbon-economy side are the USA globalists (global finance, America-first globalization). These guys and their USA finance-military-dominance-complex partners want three things: (1) strengthen and anchor the USA-dollar-based global economy using an embedded global carbon-economy scheme, (2) use the carbon-economy scheme to control/limit the increasing easy access of petro-energy to developing and competing economies (China, BRICS...), and (3) use the carbon-economy scheme to control/limit energy revenues to competitors (Russia, Venezuela...).

On the anti-carbon-economy side are the USA global profiteers (militarily-protected corporations given access via intimidated and sold-out local elites) who are frustrated by the global-financier gang and who could maximize their operations without global-finance-management interference.

The reason that the balance of influence appears to be shifting towards the anti-carbon-economy side is because the carbon-economy scheme is too far fetched to actually work. The driving force of the impetus for national and continental development, in Eurasia in particular, is simply too strong, and energy too accessible, for any USA globalization scheme to hope to be on top.

Geopolitical reality is sinking in. The USA is forced to abandon the carbon-economy toddler and turn to the usual crass blow by blow approach.

Recent USA energy-market sanctions against Russia are a good example. These sanctions are the opposite of "globalization" and are a major geopolitical gamble. They are intended (1) to open Europe to expensive USA boat-shipped liquified natural gas, and (2) to deprive Russia of vital gas revenues.

Both intended consequences are harmful to Europe. Therefore, the unavoidable risk to is that Europe will fragment its economic interests and align more with Eurasia, thus accelerating the loss of USA supremacy.

Geopolitical reality is such that the carbon-economy experiment will die, and the world will be increasingly multipolar rather than overwhelmingly USA-led.

Classic Corbett (James), vintage 2009

Reminded by this LINK.

Rand Paul cutting through the climate bullshit like a hot knife through butter (video)

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

By Denis Rancourt, PhD

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

Warmism is a creation of globalism. It is also a powerful instrument of the globalists. Downfall or resetting of globalism (i.e., exploitation by a US-based global elite: IMF, UN, etc.), to the benefit of nationalism (US and other) and national democracy is what wins the war against the baseless CO2-alarmism mantra.

 

In that sense, the war against CO2-alarmism is being fought in the real war theaters (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen) where world public and diplomatic opinion is increasingly rejecting globalist war and regime-change agendas. The war machine and its industry is understood, more and more, to be a real threat against freedom (both national and individual), to the extent that the dominant war machine (USA and NATO) is shown to fail and to produce disastrous blowback for the allied partners. National sovereignty (independence from globalist hegemony) is a threat to globalism. Therefore these real battlefields will, in the long term, determine if we are completely ruled by the globalist mind rot that is maintained by their service intellectuals. 

 

 

Carbon Reality Check

By Denis Rancourt

"No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change."
-- Barack Obama, leader of the US global dominance regime, Nobel Peace Prize laureate. (Any questions?)

The current world energy sources are like this:

Let that sink in.

Now imagine what that means in terms of physical infrastructure and organization of the world economy.

Given this evident reality, any carbon management plan can only be for actual reasons other than halting world development or significantly altering the use of fossil fuels.

Carbon management plans can never stop energy use or significantly divert the economy towards more expensive sources than the ones currently available and into the foreseeable future.

Such plans (the "carbon economy" legal and financial instruments) are advanced and promoted for other reasons, practical reasons, such as:

• altering the competitive landscape of different energy providers, favoring some while disadvantaging others

• geopolitical machinations, such as limiting or taxing the emerging powers, under military threat enforcement eventually

• strengthening the global finance instruments controlled by the US regime (World Bank, International Monetary Fund)

• possibly securing the US dollar as the carbon trading unit, thus artificially maintaining the US regime's currency

• providing governments with a guaranteed tax base tied to the real economy rather than fluctuating markets

• benefiting privileged sectors of the economy, tied to developed countries, such as financial speculation corporations and high technology sectors of energy production, carbon sequestration, resource monitoring, planetary monitoring, and so on

• providing a useful diversion for Western public opinion, and misdirecting middle class civil discontent towards acceptable and usable demands

There you have it. These are possible underlying motives of the global push towards carbon management. The alleged "saving the planet" motive is a delusion that the dominant global oligarchy does not share with gullible propaganda consumers.

The underlying battles are real and are tied to competing corporate, finance, and geopolitical entities.

The shale sector is presently a wild frontier that does not want to be suppressed whereas big oil is happy to be "green".

BRICS is emerging and will surpass the US constellation but not without a vicious fight that already includes carbon management pressures and wars for energy reserves and pipeline routes.

"Climate change" is the perfect pretext that energy reserves should be in the hands of the dominant US energy corporations and their financiers, which allegedly alone have the required technologies of efficiency and the capital leverage to develop alternative technologies...

And so on. That is the game behind the media show that is visible and that is blaring the carbon-induced-human-extinction scenario.

I've been making the obvious point for over ten years [1] that the global corporate-finance web of energy extraction and use will not and cannot be restructured to reduce CO2, never mind the fantasy of affecting global mean surface temperature via CO2 management.  In the latter regard, I have outlined the basic science itself: The physics of the planetary radiation balance [2]. My contributions to these various debates are listed here.


References

[1] Alexander Cockburn, Dissidents Against Dogma, CounterPunch, 9 June 2007; and The Nation, 25 June 2007.

[2] 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.

Related article: Denis Rancourt, "Climate Stupidity and Human Survival", Dissident Voice, 26 May 2015.

Denis Rancourt - Réchauffement planétaire et géopolitique des États-Unis

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

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.

Carbon politics is domination geopolitics

Carbon politics is domination geopolitics. The US has already started branding itself as "the clean-energy superpower", including at the G7 parade. Next it will continue to attempt to strangle and extort the energy development of the emerging BRICS global economy, using a combination of green blackmail rhetoric, global carbon-economy monetary instruments, military posturing, covert and direct targeted nation destruction, and sanctions.

(And, of course, the same folks always suffer the destructive consequences of these global economic instruments that purport to be intended to "save the planet": The Carbon Rush documentary film trailer.)

My prediction about climate geopolitics of the near future

Here's my prediction about climate geopolitics of the near future.

The US has already started branding itself as "the clean-energy superpower", including at the G7 parade.

Next it will continue to attempt to strangle and extort the energy development of the emerging BRICS global economy, using a combination of green blackmail rhetoric, global carbon-economy monetary instruments, military posturing, covert and direct targeted nation destruction, and sanctions.

This will backfire before it gets much further off the ground. The US will be the loser superpower of the coming decade(s).

Do US-allies (Canada, France, Germany, UK, Australia, etc.) want to sink along?