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

Tue Mar 4 11:51:20 CST 2008

See my responses below.

David Rezachek

Greg and April wrote:

>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.
>  
>

Many? Fewer? Pretty imprecise terms. Please define. You take the time to 
define consensus, but are perfectly content to throw out even more 
imprecise measurements with no apparent concern.

>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.
>  
>

Some? Allot? (sp?)

What % of people believe it to be a scam? Do some research. Please let 
us know your findings.

>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?
>  
>

Did you make any attempt to find out if there was a consensus? And, if 
so, how the "consensus" was determined? If not, aren't you assuming that 
there is none. Do some research. Please let us know your findings.

>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.
>  
>

Spurious reasoning, at best.

>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.
>  
>

Name one, or two, who have come forward and I will contact them to 
confirm this. Do your research. Please let us know your findings.

>
>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.
>  
>

On what basis do you make this claim? What would establish their 
credibility - agreeing with you?

>
>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 
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>  
>