Why Lyndon H. LaRouche is Not a good source of scientific information on global warming
Categories:
On my left Lydon La Rouche, his front groups and a handful of climate skeptics financed by big oil = on my right thousands of scientists from all over the world. hmmm. who to believe?
excerpt from:
"The LaRouchite Secret Elite Synthesis"
Though often dismissed as a bizarre political cult, the LaRouche organization and its various front groups are a fascist movement whose pronouncements echo elements of Nazi ideology.[1] Beginning in the 1970s, the LaRouchites combined populist antielitism with attacks on leftists, environmentalists, feminists, gay men and lesbians, and organized labor. They advocated a dictatorship in which a "humanist" elite would rule on behalf of industrial capitalists. They developed an idiosyncratic, coded variation on the Illuminati Freemason and Jewish banker conspiracy theories. Their views, though exotic, were internally consistent and rooted in right-wing populist traditions.
A former Trotskyist, Lyndon H. LaRouche , Jr., founded the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) in 1968 as an offshoot of the radical student movement. But in the early 1970s, LaRouche engineered a political about-face, using cult pressure tactics to consolidate his grip over the NCLC and initiating a campaign of physical attacks on Communists and Black nationalists, which cut his followers off from the Left. The result was a fascist organization with some unique strengths: a dedicated, full-time cadre of several hundred members, a high proportion of intellectuals with advanced training, familiarity with leftist theory and organizing, and inside information about radical organizations and leaders.
During the 1970s and 1980s, the LaRouchites built an international network for spying and propaganda, with links to the upper levels of government, business, and organized crime. The LaRouchites traded information with intelligence agencies in the United States,South Africa, East Germany, and elsewhere. Their dirty tricks record included harassment campaigns against the United Auto Workers and the United Steelworkers of America in the 1970s. In 1980, they branded George Bush an agent of the Trilateral Commission to help Ronald Reagan win the Republican presidential nomination, and in 1984, they helped Jesse Helms retain his U.S. Senate seat by gay-baiting his opponent. During the 1980s, the LaRouchites raised an estimated $200 million through legal and illegal fund-raising and fielded thousands of candidates for political office in every region of the country. Seeking the George Wallace vote, the LaRouche candidates usually ran in Democratic primaries.[2]
The LaRouchites generally operated under front groups such as Food for Peace and the Schiller Institute, and put out such publications as New Solidarity (later The New Federalist) and Executive Intelligence Review.
In 1976 LaRouche's original electoral arm, the U.S. Labor Party (USLP), published a conspiracist attack on President Jimmy Carter, claiming he was a tool of secret international elites. The Liberty Lobby criticized the report for failing to mention the role of Jewish bankers, and soon LaRouche publications picked up the theme.[3] The Liberty Lobby and the LaRouche group soon began to cooperate closely on projects. When some groups on the right criticized the Liberty Lobby for working with ostensible leftists, meaning the USLP, the Liberty Lobby defended the relationship in 1981: "No group has done so much to confuse, disorient, and disunify the Left as they have. . . . The USLP should be encouraged, as should all similar breakaway groups from the Left, for this is the only way that the Left can be weakened and broken."[4]
...
Also, unlike some neonazis, the LaRouchites vilified the environmental movement and nature romanticism while praising high-technology projects such as nuclear power. But here, too, the LaRouchites were partly repackaging earlier conspiracy theories. Their attacks on the Club of Rome, an ecology and population control group, echoed a 1974 article in the rightist American Mercury entitled "The Curious Club of Rome," which asked whether the group was "merely a bunch of boring pedants and doom- sayers, or is it a sinister cabal aiming for world control?"[11]
In 1989, LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for mail fraud conspiracy, based on illegal and manipulative fund-raising practices, as well as tax evasion....
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche
La 'who'
Never heard of the person before, i do find however that the effort to belittle any who raise points against 'greenhouse concepts' is so belligerent, hence the post i made concerning apparent "cognitive dissonance' affected upon many who aggressively support such 'greenhouse ideologies' with such 'unscientific' attitudes.
It seems that indoctrination of belief in a concept, as is tried in relation to 'greenhouse warming' concepts, produces irrational behaviors, with unreasonable aggression in those who consider the 'belief' to be threatened. But little real justification for their belief or any comprehension of the realities beneath the situations our society presents.
There is a problem, it is just NOT involving any supposed 'greenhouse effect'.
See link http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
As the basis of the formation of Cognitive Dissonance in any population, the initial step is to produce 'experts', 'talking heads' whose 'fame' is more by constant mention than ability or deed. These 'experts' produce scenarios of 'danger, doom and woe' if their words are not heeded.
You see the style and platform of imposing nomenclature, names for 'processes' that are 'specialised', used within the 'special area' of knowledge known to the 'experts, in a manner of 'seeming' to be scientific', but are only covering contents of little validatable 'science'. That is why only the 'experts' are platformed to be the ONLY Ones to listen to. Such a label seen about is "Polar Amplification". The attempt is to try to produce an attitude of a 'closed shop' and only the OPINIONS of these few are platformed as 'relevant'. This returns to the 'history' trailing behind the 'greenhouse concepts', its failures within the arena of SCIENCE and motion into the arena of Politics.
Another example is the production of 'Anti Communist' sentiments, which where garnered in the 1950s USA, with the institutionalisation of processes to combat 'dangerous communism and its practitioners'. The internet is good at allowing such activity, hence the number of inconspicuously censored sites where 'unwanted' comment is removed, accompanied by ridicule of the author, as the censorship cannot be justified simply by quotation of the 'belief' system platformed.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Member of the Public, Australia.
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
refute
This is complete hogwash. LaRouch doesn't run indy media.
Stop freeping here. Get a blog.
There is little SCIENCE in the entire "Global Warming' farce.
It seems that indoctrination of belief in a concept, as is tried in relation to 'greenhouse warming' concepts, produces irrational behaviors, with unreasonable aggression in those who consider the 'belief' to be threatened. But little real justification for their belief or any comprehension of the realities beneath the situations our society presents.
There is nothing but a few thousand individuals (does not the UCS have ~ 100,000 members?) presented as 'a consensus of scientists' but all these 'individuals' give is opinion. Scrutiny of that opinion is presented as 'unscrupulous activity'. Perhaps life has until now been too 'easy' for 'climatologists'.
Oil is no only used for fuel, apart from eating it, Humanity has become near totally reliant on 'fossil' derivatives for everything from hosiery to carpet, cloths to cars, and furniture to homes. Look for the word 'synthetic' and begin to realise.
Realise also that the passenger vehicle is a minority fuel user. The combustion of gasoline/petroleum is the minority process. The internal combustion of petroleum is NOT in any manner a majority process. The development of bio-fuel oil mix with fossil fuel oil will drive combustion to compression based designs such as that of "Diesel" based engines, and Turbines, as used in everything from Electricity generation, shipping, with extension into trains and trucks and even into passenger vehicles. Less fuel combusted for more power generation will see reduced emissions.
The situation is that ALL the other products derived from fossil oils will STILL be needed, so the diffraction of fossil oils WILL continue, and so there WILL be fossil oil based fuel products, but maybe not in the same volume, which will be supplemented with bio-fuel oil volume and be combustible in present technology engine designs near immediately often with little alteration.
As to the supposed 'climate change' link, to quote from a link I have given often enough:-
["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead, they are concentrated into four time intervals."]
["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred. For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."]
["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today."]
***["Our modern climate represents a very short,]***
***[ warm period between glacial advances."] ***
The seas have never risen in a uniform manner, and have been in an overall 'rise' for thousands of years. So the seas will rise by '40 cm' (~15.5 inches) in 100 years, is 'beach erosion' by this process at all relevant? No it is not. You can document sea level alterations in a more direct manner by looking at now submerged 'permanent human infrastructure'. This is predominately in the Mediterranean region and covers the last 5000 years.
First, consider the extract from an outline of the 'greenhouse effect':-
-----
[" CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat (outgoing infrared radiation). (Incoming sun rays are in the ultraviolet spectrum.) Without this layer of insulation, the "natural greenhouse effect', temperatures on Earth would be about -17degree Celsius. Thus, increased CO2 in the inner atmosphere (or troposphere, ~6 miles up) is exaggerating the natural greenhouse effect and increasing heat trapped in the troposphere."]
-----
-: then realise that
(1) The first mistake in the 'greenhouse concepts' is that 'HEAT' (the measure of the average KINETIC ENERGY of the atoms molecules of the sample' cannot be trapped, it cannot escape to the Vacuum of space to begin with once it is generated.
This is WHY the 'quoted version' of the 'greenhouse effect' has mentioned that: - ["Over the past several decades the troposphere has actually swollen by several hundred feet due to the warming and thermal expansion of the air."]
-: as the PRESSURE (related to the average KINETIC VELOCITY of the molecules/atoms of the sample) is increasing. Realise that the only constraint OF the atmosphere is GRAVITY.
(2) This is NOT insulation, "Heat", measured on a scale as a 'temperature', is the average kinetic energy of the molecules/atoms of the sample, and is unable to leave the biosphere to open space. The KINETIC VELOCITY of the molecules/atoms comprising the atmosphere is the expression of the KINETIC ENERGY they possess. This can only leave the atmosphere if the MOLECULES/ATOMS actually LEAVE.
The mistake with 'greenhouse science' is to link with attempts to present PHOTONIC REEMITTENCE by these molecules as 'blackbody radiation' then infer a 'temperature' from the 'readings'. However, the energy reemitted as Secondary Photons after interaction of a molecule and incident Photon is infact the realisation of the energy involved in AND released by the interaction as NOT being 'converted to heat', that is increasing the kinetic velocity of the molecule.
At this point the 'greenhouse theory' is immediately **REVERSING** the known SCIENCE of the situation, and this WAS known in the THREE FAILED attempts in the 20th Century to have validated the 'greenhouse concepts'. It should have been very clear at least after the THIRD FAILURE. As such, satellites are NOT taking a temperature reading of the atmosphere OR the surface, these 'measurements' are of RADIATION and the Photons OF this radiation that are escaping the Photonic cascade, representing energy that was NOT converted to kinetic energy, and cannot be VALIDLY regarded as a providing a 'measure of temperature'.
Also note figure 1vs.jpg again in:- http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
-: and note WHY only energy in the lower third of the UV Spectrum, and also the upper and lower Visible spectrum (consumed by Photosynthesis) becomes surface incident. Note also the H2O is constrained below its ice and condensation altitudes by GRAVITY.
There is a problem, it is just NOT involving any supposed 'greenhouse effect'.
See link http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
Lastly, there are still some trying to infer, as has been 'tried on' in the recent past, to allude that perhaps I suffer from "Cognitive Dissonance" as I simply do not 'believe', and also raise points the 'few' find impossible to counter with their 'science'.
As the basis of the formation of Cognitive Dissonance in any population, the initial step is to produce 'experts', 'talking heads' whose 'fame' is more by constant mention than ability or deed. These 'experts' produce scenarios of 'danger, doom and woe' if their words are not heeded.
You see the style and platform of imposing nomenclature, names for 'processes' that are 'specialised', used within the 'special area' of knowledge known to the 'experts, in a manner of 'seeming' to be scientific', but are only covering contents of little validatable 'science'. That is why only the 'experts' are platformed to be the ONLY Ones to listen to. Such a label seen about is "Polar Amplification". The attempt is to try to produce an attitude of a 'closed shop' and only the OPINIONS of these few are platformed as 'relevant'. This returns to the 'history' trailing behind the 'greenhouse concepts', its failures within the arena of SCIENCE and motion into the arena of Politics.
Another example is the production of 'Anti Communist' sentiments, which where garnered in the 1950s USA, with the institutionalisation of processes to combat 'dangerous communism and its practitioners'. The internet is good at allowing such activity, hence the number of inconspicuously censored sites where 'unwanted' comment is removed, accompanied by ridicule of the author, as the censorship cannot be justified simply by quotation of the 'belief' system platformed.
The 'thousands of scientists' are only a 'drop in the bucket' of the ~500 MILLION tertiary degree (or equivalent) holders alive in the word today, and there is NO 'closed shop' in this matter, the materials involved are common and the knowledge is near 'common' level.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Member of the Public, Australia.
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
The above "story" is lies by a disinfo agent
He or she is being paid to fill up space in the online forum to waste the time of readers and to confuse them.
He or she is being paid a bit of beer or cigarette money to obfuscate the truth.
The claims in this story are unsubstantiated. Whoever wrote it is spewing forth words without anything to back them.
In addition, and most importantly, he or she is not addressing the issues. He or she is not talking about the policies or the alternatives. The issue at stake is the future of human society in Australia and in every country. Rather than address these key issues, he or she prefers to attack an individual rather than what the individual is saying.
He or she does not exhibit any grasp of economics or knowledge of who is controlling our so-called political leaders.
The public knows what makes sense. The public knows that anti-terror laws are actually pro-state-terror laws. The public knows that the new IR laws are actually pro-proverty laws.
The public that their living standards are falling. The public knows that Iraq has been destroyed for no good reason.
And you write a confusing and opaque posting that does not address any key issues, but rather attacks an individual without substantiation. You write a posting that does not have any concern for the future of the human race.
And I can hardly imagine that you're being paid a whole lot for your trouble either.
Well, enjoy yourself, Mr Disinfo.
Post new comment