[Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, no future.

[Greg and April]

I think that some clarification should be made.

1)    While many people will agree that GW is a possibility, fewer people 
will agree on it's source, and that is where allot of the disagreement 
happens.

2)    When some scientists say " there is a Consensus that it is due to 
anthropologic sources ", that is where the allot of people disagree and 
start talking about it being a scam.

3)    First of all let's look at the word Consensus:

Merriam-Webster's says:


1     a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, 
based on reports.from the border - John Hersey>
       b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus 
was to go ahead>
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief.

What I want to know, is how the heck do they know it's a Consensus?

Did they do some kind of poll among all the scientists of the world?
If they did, I never heard about it.

How do they know there is a consensus about GW if they didn't?

It's simple, they don't know, they are assuming there is one, and that is 
where another part of the scam issue comes in.

If they are assuming that there is a consensus - they really know that they 
are assuming it, so they are lying by saying there is a consensus without 
actually having any proof that there actually is.

If they are going by that so called 'list' of prominent scientists that 
signed their name, there have been a number of scientists that have come 
forward saying that their name was added to that list without their 
knowledge.


In a nut shell, there are many things about the "Consensus of scientists" 
that screams scam, and that's why there are allot of skeptical people out 
there.


The IPCC, is hardly a very credible group and is as much political lobbing 
group as it is science, and has a record of disregarding, what ever they 
think is minor issue or to hard to model - and as such more than just a few 
people take anything they say with a large dose of salt.


Now if you really want to get down to details, I will grant that it is the 
consensus of the IPCC scientists that GW is a major problem, and that it's 
anthropologic in nature - but that is all I'll grant.


Greg H.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification" 
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 7:51
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, 
no future.


> Dear Kenn
>
> I think you shot yourself in the foot, big time, in a most
> unprofessional and amateurish manner.
>
> "Consensus Science" was employed to conclude that Global Warming was
> real, yet you are implying that Global Warming is a scam.
>
> Then, "...with almost all knowledgeable people...", you are drawing upon
> a "Consensus Science" format to conclude that Peak Oil is a scam also.
> You can't have it both ways. Is Consensus Science valid or not??? You
> are inferring that Consensus Science was wrong in the case of Global
> Warming, yet, in the very same breath,  you are inferring that Consensus
> Science is right in the case of Peak Oil.
>
> (I think that even you will have to admit that the calibre of the
> Consensus Science employed  in the IPCC Report is very much more
> credible than an unknown body of "...almost all knowledgeable people..")
>
> Making definite, strong, somewhat demeaning, hurtful and insulting
> statements based on mere inference, and an evaluation protocol that is
> internally flawed, is not Professional, is not Scientific, and is
> neither polite nor gentlemanly.
>
> What it is, is ignorant, boorish, and incompetent behaviour.
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
>
>
> Kenn Johnsen wrote:
>> Almost all knowledgeable people........just like the global warming
>> scam......there is a consensus, the debate is over.......
>>
>>
>> Den 04/03/2008 kl. 12.28 skrev MMBTUPR at aol.com:
>>
>>
>>>          from          Lewis L Smith
>>>
>>> The debate over peak oil is about geology and engineering ; it is
>>> not about
>>> demand.
>>>
>>> Almost all knowledgeable people agree that an all-time physical peak
>>> is
>>> coming. They just disagree about when. Some say it has already
>>> occurred, as in
>>> 2004. Others             [ Exxon/Mobil ] say that it wont come until
>>> 2032.
>>>
>>> If great enough, a fall in demand [ or the rate of growth of
>>> demand ] for any
>>> reason which you might imagine, could slow up the rate of extraction
>>> of crude
>>> oil and hence postpone the date of the peak, but such a fall is not
>>> going to
>>> eliminate the peak or affect the probability that it will arrive
>>> someday
>>> within somebody's planning horizon.
>>>
>>> Because of the lead-times characteristic of the energy sector of the
>>> World's
>>> economy, these differences of opinion are important, especially to
>>> people who
>>> have to plan, permit, build and put into operation projects for
>>> exploration
>>> and development, fossil fuels, renewable energy et cetera.
>>>
>>> At least, that is the way it looks to most of the disputants.
>>>
>>> Cordially ###
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **************
>>> It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &amp;
>>> Finance.
>>>      (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gasification mailing list
>>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org