[Stoves] more on ocean acidification

Sat Aug 10 00:10:04 CDT 2013

Dear Kevin,

Can you imagine a more thorough investigation than the international ISO
process that is occurring?

Best,

Dean

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> **
> Dear Dean
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 9:15 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
> Dear All,
>
> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> return to the topic of stoves.
>
> *# Good point! To advance "the science of stove testing", would you be
> prepared to support the external review of the various stove testing
> protocols by competent independant authorities?*
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130809/e24f82f5/attachment.html>