Activist Teacher: Climate stupidity and human survival. Category:Denis G Rancourt

Activist Teacher: Climate stupidity and human survival: By Denis G. Rancourt This article accompanies a 2-hour public lecture I gave at the University of Ottawa on March 27, 2015, entitled …


123

12
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#2d001cc91157

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

 Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

POST WRITTEN BY
Earl J. Ritchie, Lecturer, Department of Construction Management

University of Houston Energy Fellows University of Houston Energy Fellows Contributor

(Photo by Fabrice BEAUCHENE)

(Photo by Fabrice BEAUCHENE)
The claim that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that humans are the cause of global warming is widely made in climate change literature and by political figures. It has been heavily publicized, often in the form of pie charts, as illustrated by this figure from the Consensus Project.
123

123

123

123

123

Category:Denis G Rancourt

Pertaining to Denis G Rancourt and his writings
Denis G. Rancourt was a tenured and full professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He was trained as a physicist and practiced physics, Earth sciences, and environmental science, areas in which he was funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals. He developed popular activism courses and was an outspoken critic of the university administration and a defender of Palestinian rights. He was fired for his dissidence in 2009 by a president who is a staunch supporter of Israeli policy. (See Academic Freedom.ca)

Media in category “Denis G Rancourt”

The following 4 files are in this category, out of 4 total.
Advertisements

Sticking it to the Dismal Science, Varafoukis rearranges the dekhchairs , EROI or Bust

Comment Roger Lewis AUG 30, 2017

Mr. Varafoukis makes the mistake all Economists make. Money is a variable and not good as a measure. Resources are the basis of wealth and Energy is the basis of converting resources into wealth. We face energy constraints because the Energy Return on Energy invested has fallen drastically for conventional Fossil Fuels, whilst we can generate sufficient energy we will struggle to do so at the very high EROI levels we have enjoyed for the 20th Century. Our average EROI in the coming century is unknown but wind power Solar and Hydro together with some Nuclear ( Thorium, SWR) will be probably around 10-15 ( more work needs to be done on this, Steve Keen has started to try to get his head around it, Yannis would do well to chat it through with his Australian Freind)
The point is that Money needs to be rebased to entropic physical realities and pretending that Old Economic Thinking will have any place in the future of our Energy economy realities is magical thinking. What Mr. Varafoukis suggests is nothing more than re arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Mr. Varafoukis in this short piece can be given the benefit of the doubt as to his grasp of horizontalist and Verticalist niceties, ( Basil Moore, http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/08/economic-models-and-political-economy.html) (fundamentally though the whole premise of Mr. Varafoukis´s article is incorrect. Energy and Energy returned on Energy invest will be the determinant of future economic realities and the World can no longer stand by and leave the practitioners of the dismal science to play with the Trainset of Political Economy.

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/08/renewableseroi-why-money-doesnt-cut-it.html

For a Basic reader on Money, Qua Money Try this

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/08/neo-liberalism-billy-no-mates-or-just.html READ MORE

123

AUG 29, 2017 8

The Promise of Fiscal Money

ATHENS – Western capitalism has few sacred cows left. It is time to question one of them: the independence of central banks from elected governments.
The rationale for entrusting monetary policy fully to central banks is well understood: politicians, overly tempted during the electoral cycle to create more money, pose a threat to economic stability. While progressives have always protested that central banks can never be truly independent, because their autonomy from elected officials increases their dependence on the financiers they are meant to keep in check, the argument in favor of removing monetary policy from democratic politics has prevailed since the 1970s.