[Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latestimprecise reporting of facts.

[Kevin]

Dear Andrew
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ajheggie at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latestimprecise 
reporting of facts.


> On Wednesday 20 July 2011 20:59:22 Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>> Best regards to all you patient readers,
>
> Wow that's some diatribe Crispin, I don't know where you get the time.

"Diatribe" is defined as: -noun: a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, 
attack, or criticism:

Crispin's response was not a "diatribe", in that there was no bitterness or 
abusiveness. He simply stated his views and positions, with very good 
independant support, where he disagreed with Ron's positions and beliefs. It 
was very helpful and generous of Crispin to take the time to provide such a 
clear and logical statement of his position.

>
> I don't think the subject of climate change is pertinent to this list,
> though of course pollution from combustion of biomass in stoves is.

AGREED!! This is the STOVES List.... NOT the Climate Change List. The 
"Biochar Policy List" is already well set up to deal with all climate change 
issues dealing with biochar.

> Production of biochar or plain ole charcoal probably is in that there's
> the likelihood people will do it if they perceive a benefit.

EXACTLY!! The purpose of a Stove is "cooking and heating."  If a Customer 
wants a Stove for cooking and heating, then a stove that "wastes" fuel by 
producing excess charcoal is an inferior stove. However, if the Customer 
wants a stove for cooking/heating AND biochar, then such a stove would be an 
excellent stove. It is very wrong, in my opinion, to attempt to force a 
Customer who wants a stove for cooking/heating, to buy a stove that produces 
biochar, when he does not want the biochar.
>
> BTW Just because you speak longer and louder doesn't mean you are right,

Crispin did a "point by point" rebutal of Ron's posting. That is why 
Crispin's posting was long.

> my personal belief is that mankind has materially altered the planet by
> various means of polluting it, not least of which is fossil fuel burning.

It is the personal belief of many others that the climate change we are 
seeing is NOT primarily from Anthropogenic Activity, but rather, that it is 
fundamentally a naturally occurring phenomenon. Beliefs are just that... 
beliefs. Beliefs are not necessarily facts, although sometimes they are true 
and factual. "Consensus Science" is not "Science."

> I also believe it has now become a significant change for the worse

Certainly, change will be disruptive. Many people will suffer, but also many 
people will benefit from climate change. I have not seen a balanced analysis 
showing if the net result of Climate Change is negative, neutral or 
positive.

and
> all means to conserve fuel should be used to address this, so we should
> have some common agreement on that.

Conserving fuel can be a good thing, and regardless of whether there is a 
climate change situation, and regardless of whether the fuel conservation 
activities would impact on climate change, fuel conservation can be a very 
good thing. However, it is clearly a waste for the Customer to spend $2 
worth of time, labor,effort, and nuisance to save $1 in fuel.

I also think it is very wrong for us in the Developed World to tell people 
that they should burn more wood in their stoves just so that they can 
produce biochar they don't want. Let the Customer decide if it is to his 
advantage to produce biochar.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm
>
> AJH
>