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

Tue Mar 4 14:51:59 CST 2008

I'll tell you what.

Send me the names of one, or two, who have come forward saying that 
their name was added to that list without their knowledge and I will 
contact them to confirm this.

If you are right, I will apologize for this.

OK?

David Rezachek

Greg and April wrote:

>No where did I say that I had proof of anything having to do with global 
>warming not happening, or that peak oil doesn't exist.
>
>You are starting to put words in my mouth ( creating not just one but two 
>strawman arguments ) and I would like an apology for that.
>
>
>Greg H.
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "David Rezachek" <rezachekd001 at hawaii.rr.com>
>To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification" 
><gasification at listserv.repp.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 11:43
>Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world order, 
>no future.
>
>
>  
>
>>No. I think I get your entire point.
>>
>>Everyone else needs to do the research to provide you with conclusive
>>proof. Even if they could, it doesn't matter because you believe that it
>>is wrong.
>>
>>There is no need for you to do any research or provide any proof because
>>you believe you are correct.
>>
>>So let's share the effort and start with this.
>>
>>"... 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.
>>
>>Later, I will ask you for your well-researched and documented study
>>debunking global climate change and the second one debunking peak oil.
>>
>>I look forward to receiving this information.
>>
>>Does any of your proof exist? I personally doubt it.
>>
>>Will I have to wait until the oil fields refill or sea level rises by 1
>>meter or more to receive any of your factual information? I think that
>>it's quite likely.
>>
>>David Rezachek
>>
>>
>>
>>Greg and April wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Your missing the entire point of the words I chose on purpose.
>>>
>>>
>>>My saying many, some, fewer ect...., without any specifics is the same as
>>>saying Consensus of scientists without supporting the evidence.    I have 
>>>as
>>>much proof of many, some, fewer ( and so on ), as those that say a 
>>>Consensus
>>>of scientists.
>>>
>>>You want proof?    Fine, show me the proof that a consensus of scientists 
>>>is
>>>real, and not made up to try to impress people.    What are the hard 
>>>numbers
>>>of scientists that believe in AGW vs. those that do not?
>>>
>>>Greg H.
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "David Rezachek" <rezachekd001 at hawaii.rr.com>
>>>To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
>>><gasification at listserv.repp.org>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:51
>>>Subject: Re: [Gasification] Corrupt government, conspiracy, new world 
>>>order,
>>>no future.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>    
>>