Thursday, March 01, 2007

Sitemeter reveals all....

Sitemeter has some neat features for a blog running Rabett. Eli being a hare of all seasons does not worry about sock-puppets much (Don't no anonyone go calling himself Ethon now), but he does watch where links are coming from and going to in order to keep his ears on the pulse of the INTERTUBES. Recently he noticed a bunch of links coming from Coby Beck's A Few Things Illconsidered where Coby dealt with Diplom Beck's complete misreading of early CO2 mixing ratio records. If you don't want to go read either post, the measurements were real, but they also were about as irrelevant as measuring CO2 at the top of a smokestack and thinking that it would be representative of the atmosphere. If that does not make sense for you, go read the posts or Charles Keeling's history of the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements.

So the ever industrious Mr. B went googling "Beck CO2" and found that the LaRoucheies had bit on Warwick Hughes' favorite CO2 myth (maybe not, but who has the guts to go look?)

Feb. 22, 2007 (EIRNS)—The historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the basis for greenhouse gas reduction, is a fraud. Research by a Freiburg, Germany professor, Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the IPCC construed and concocted the pre-1957 CO2 record from measurements on recently drilled ice cores, ignoring over 90,000 direct, accurate measurements by chemical methods from 1857 to 1957.
Now how does one explain LaRouche to someone who has not had the pleasure. Truth is, if you want to remain friends you don't, because the whole thing is a headache inducer. If you want a massive case of cognitive dissonance feel free to google, but if you want simple brain damage, listen to the great man himself March 7

5 comments:

guthrie said...

So far, LaRouche looks like a fuckwit.

In the same issue of his delusional magazine, there is some entity called Laurence Hecht claiming that orbital influences are what have caused the past 2 million years of changing climate.

(http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_1-9/2007-9/pdf/06_709_sci.pdf)

Of course.
But they do not explain the last 50 years.
Said entity then chooses to list a bunch of anomalous weather events from the past few years, ignoring that it is widely believed that AGW will lead to more of these events. THey also spend the next few pages summarising Milankovitchs research and its conclusions, never mind that it is long scale hundreds of thousands of years stuff that is also out of date with regards to the last 50 yers of climate change.

Then as for LaRouche himselsf, there is this delightful essay:

http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2007/3407_globalization.html

"What they're headed for, is a world empire, a world empire of a type which is modeled on what happened when Byzantium collapsed as an imperial force, around A.D. 1000. At that point, the Venetian financier oligarchy took control of the European Norman chivalry, and ran what was called a medieval (ultramontane) system, which was based on attacking Islam and also on anti-Semitism, back during the period of 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries.

What you're looking at is an apparently stateless system like that in medieval Europe under the Crusaders and the Venetian oligarchy. Today Venice is still a factor—the Venetian oligarchy; but, the key thing is the Anglo-American or the Anglo-Dutch liberal financial oligarchy,*[1] which is now running the world. It's crazy, but it's running the world."


Now, I'm not exactly a historian, but I've read a fair bit, and I do not recognise anything in the above paragraphs with respect to medieval European history as being based in reality.

Yet entertainingly enough, in the same article, he recognises the dangers of globalisation with respect to national sovereignty, or rather the lack of it which globalisation encourages. But he seems to still want some variety of free market capitalism, without realising that globalisation is the apotheosis of free market capitalism.


So is LaRouche liberal or a conservative?
I'm not USA'ian, so cannot tell.

EliRabett said...

Actually he's a chocolate covered M&M

Anonymous said...

M_au_na Loa

Mona is Lisa's first name.

They're often confused -- each is prominent in her own way.

EliRabett said...

Mauna culpa. Changed

Yves said...

Hello,

According to Larouche, Jaworowski is "Beck's collaborator". Quite funny, since J. published his viewpoints more than 15 years ago, first along with Segalstad in 1990, then in Larouche's "21st century" in 1997. At odds with at least my personal definition of "collaborator", or did Beck published his stories even earlier ?

Guthrie:
I think the following Wiki article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche
presents fairly well Larouche's viewpoints; "liberal" on some points (I would rather say heavily interventionist in economy, even from my French viewpoint), and conservative to far-right in others (more exactly some kind of hyper-orthodoxy comparable with the Catholic fundamentalists). So he is quite unclassifiable, as many cult leaders I think.
About his scientific ideas, he seems to cling to some kind of idealist view, and to reject any theory or understanding principle which invokes random, chaos, evolution... But, since he doesn't accept any observation being left unexplained, he feels obliged to fill the blanks with his own... science.

Best

Yves