[Stoves] more on ocean acidification

Fri Aug 9 17:48:34 CDT 2013

Dear Ron

I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message. 

The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the 'Skeptical
Science' playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of AGW. It was a
document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to the
compliant as a way to communicate - a style, if you will - of how to handle
people who were 'off message'. 

There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA which
I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific instructions
for example to always mention 'climate disruption' as it is harder to
dispute and refute than 'global warming' now that there isn't any. It
suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who are
presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of AGW
(can't have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human role
in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date, undetectable. The
instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as 'denying' all human
influence on the planet then offers various pejorative comparisons that can
be made so as to cause consternation for the skeptic or those listening to
them.

The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
correspondent as 'alone' in their understanding, always insert some mention
of how settled things are with the 'majority' of 'reputable' scientists and
so on and on. We have seen it all before.  

You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
address the fact that there is no such thing as 'acidifying the ocean' when
the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation so
it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother 'wears army boots'.
Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have noticed
by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.

As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
bailing out. 

As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): 

".hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed down
the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class ticket
on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering about
human influences on the climate.

"A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well by
future historians.

Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
purchased. 

"Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that currently
disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists
that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
research."

Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
calling for the peer review, the independent assessment of stove test
protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
without consequence. 

For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors in
it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The April
2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.

WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
conceptual relevance.

Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
climate science information has been brought forward in articles that 'were
not peer reviewed' even if they were true. How about giving up on trying to
humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere - who knows) and put
your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the Universities
of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit their protocols
to competent authorities for independent review?  Actually the WB has its
project protocols reviewed.well, they should continue to do so.

The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and money
trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight, but
by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major contribution to
the field of domestic energy can be attained.

It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the Arctic
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plo
t-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>
or photos of stack emissions are faked
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>  or
SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-t
ree-house-bunker/#more-91202>  or even if US winter temperatures continue to
plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png> . 

I don't like trumped up CAGW claims about what 'it causes
<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm> '. I don't like trumped up or
trumped down stove performance results.

Let's work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
planet of stoves. I know you'll want to help. We all do.

Thanks
Crispin

1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for 'letters
after your name' signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
/or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130809/8997ed6e/attachment.html>