Berlin Conference Panel 3: Addressing the Scientific Challenges of The New Paradigm
July 14—Under Michael Grundlich’s moderation, the third panel of the Schiller Institute Berlin conference on Sunday, July 13, addressed Lyndon LaRouche’s conception of what a scientific method of inquiry should be. The panel also presented a challenging and humorous critique of current policies which are driven by false scientific dogma, especially in the field of energy.
Schiller Institute Science Advisor Jason Ross, the keynote speaker, went through evidence of the uniqueness of the human species' pathway of evolution compared to all other forms of known life. Humanity has been able to increase exponentially its demographic potential through the use and development of fire, sciences such as chemistry, and the developing mastery of electricity and nuclear power. Ross outlined a few fields where the new frontiers of science are, such as fusion energy; a solution to the Plank-Einstein contradiction; understanding how galaxies move and the universe expands, etc. He then quoted from Lyndon LaRouche on how “information theory,” precursor to modern AI, has replaced scientific teaching in schools and destroyed education, and on the subject of “metaphor,” which LaRouche adopted from the art of poetry as a “crucial feature of those thought-processes bearing upon the geometrical fundamental of physical science.”
Ross then announced a series of classes, starting next week, to learn how to think scientifically, going through the thought-process of Plato, Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann and LaRouche.
Ross was followed by Prof. Franco Battaglia, former professor of physical chemistry at the University of Modena, who was connected from Italy. Prof. Battaglia showed how “No energy transition is occurring or is going to occur.” First, Battaglia showed that solar energy is the energy of the past, when, before fossil energy sources were discovered, humanity depended on the sun, and most were slaves. He said that the dream of 100% non-fossil fuels, pursued by the EU, is a chimera. Prof. Battaglia showed a chart of daily energy demand in an Italian city, which is representative of all cities in the world. Energy demand peaks at 7:00 pm, when solar panels produce zero electricity. This peak demand must be satisfied with fossil and nuclear sources, eventually with hydroelectric. He then showed that the costs of solar energy per Kwh produced is much higher than nuclear power. Finally, he compared solar and fossil energies with the bicycle and the car. People like to use the bike, which consumes no gasoline, but it works only for short distances, with good weather and good physical condition. The car, in contrast, can always be used. Battaglia’s proposal was that governments should scrap all subsidies to solar plants.
Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss, speaking for his colleague Prof. H.J. Luedecke, demolished the fiction of climate emergency. He demonstrated that 1. Climate change depends on the activity of the sun, and 2. it is impossible to decrease CO₂ amounts in the atmosphere. He also warned against the “time-bomb” represented by CO₂ storage schemes.
Prof. Weiss contended that current climate emergency claims are supported by no scientific measurement. Out of 3000 papers based on measurement, zero of them have found any evidence of significant influx of CO₂ on climate. The atmosphere is a recipient that tends to constantly balance inflows and outflows. If CO₂ is taken away, it will be recovered from the oceans. As to CO₂ storage projects, called “carbon capture and storage,” the high pressure needed to store CO₂ is of 200-300 bar, such that no stone could resist to. In case of a pipeline leak, CO₂ would come to the surface and build a 7-meter—high layer which could kill every form of life. CO₂ storage is such a weird idea, that prof. Weiss raised the suspicion that perhaps someone has pushed it as the best way to achieve population reduction.
From nuclear fission to nuclear fusion: Dr. Robert Lechner-Schobel, from Austria, ran a slide-show as a quick introduction to fusion power, the energy of the future that fulfills LaRouche’s concept of energy flux-density. He said there are two kinds of fusion energy: the “hot one’ and the ”cold one." Whereas there are 45 projects worldwide on the former, the latter, also called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, exists already but must be further explored.
Lyndon LaRouche’s scientific discovery in economics was presented by EIR Ibero America editor Dennis Small.
Small listed several of LaRouche’s major economic forecasts, starting from the one on August 15, 1971, to Lyn’s famous “Typical Collapse Function” curve, or “Triple Curve,” which prophetically forecast the collapse of the financial system in 2008. He then went into a comparison between Nicholas of Cusa’s demonstration of the “subjectivity” of science and LaRouche’s correlation of applied creativity in scientific discoveries with the increase of relative potential population-density. LaRouche’s “Triple Curve” function is still useful today to explain why the system has taken a path of self-destruction recently, with the decision to expand a bubble of privatized money into unprecedented dimensions. The system must be urgently put into bankruptcy reorganization, as LaRouche demanded.
The last speaker in the panel was a young farmer from Kenya, Jasper Machogu, who has founded an organization called Fossil Fuels For Africa. He explained why Africa needs to use its fossil resources to develop agriculture and won’t allow anyone to prevent that. African farmers need fertilizers, as they now use them much less than their colleagues in Europe or in China. This is the key reason for the lower yield of African crops. Then, an increase in water use, mechanization, and industry is required in order to process their own food products. Finally, there is a need to produce cement, steel, etc for other industrial activities required to support a self-sufficient agriculture. He praised the Schiller Institute for its fight in defense of African interests.
In the remaining short time for the discussion, one question on the safety of nuclear power was raised from the audience, which both Weiss and Lechner-Schobel answered. Whereas the latter emphasized fusion as the solution to radioactive waste, Weiss pointed to advanced methods for significantly reducing the waste, mentioning as an example Bill Gates’ natrium reactor project.
Prof. Battaglia was asked by the moderator to comment on the fact that, whereas Europe tries to reduce CO₂ emissions, in the rest of the world they grow. Battaglia exposed the insanity of the EU target for zero emissions, which will never be achieved.
Finally, Jason had a few words on the damage done to science by climate ideologues and activists, who claim they speak “in the name of science.” To remedy that, we should not be defensive and react by referring to “traditional” science, as tradition can be good or bad, but rather resume “classical” science, about which he will have more to say in the upcoming international seminar series that begins next week.