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

[Kenn Johnsen]

There is one such claim in the video the global warming swindle.



Den 04/03/2008 kl. 21.51 skrev David Rezachek:

> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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