[Stoves] more on ocean acidification

Fri Aug 9 22:18:59 CDT 2013

Dean,

I fully agree that the kicking and fighting in the back seat should stop.
But please lets us not stop discussing broad issues that impact stove
design in a fundamental way.

Many thanks.
Paul Olivier

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Paul,
>
> I think that what I was trying to suggest was that the back and forth
> arguments might have reached a point where the Mom and Pop in the front
> seat of the car have pulled over in a shady spot under a tree and, half way
> to the beach, both suggested in gentle voices to the brood behind them that
> if the kicking continues the day at the beach might have to be postponed?
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>wrote:
>
>> Dean,
>>
>> Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean
>> acidification and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go about
>> designing stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves? Do
>> we place all on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we
>> build biomass stoves, should these stove be burning or producing biochar?
>> How can we design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Paul Olivier
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that
>>> we return to the topic of stoves.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Dean
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
>>> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  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-plot-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-tree-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.****
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>>
>>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>
>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul A. Olivier PhD
>> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
>> Dalat
>> Vietnam
>>
>> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
>> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
>> Skype address: Xpolivier
>> http://www.esrla.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>

-- 
Paul A. Olivier PhD
26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
Dalat
Vietnam

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130810/b7da2859/attachment.html>