[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 36, Issue 11
Philip Lloyd
plloyd at mweb.co.za
Sat Aug 10 04:44:50 CDT 2013
Paul Oliver says " But in my mind it all comes down to this: why do we
design stoves the way we do? If global warming and ocean acidification are
not real and are not caused by human activity, then why bother with biomass
stoves as long as fossil fuels can be extracted from the earth at a
reasonable price?"
The impact that a biofuel stove might have on global CO2 levels is
absolutely minimal - even if 3 billion people were each burning a ton a year
in biofuel stoves it would have around 1% impact on the 35 billion tons
being emitted by fossil fuel consumption, so global warming is a very poor
justification for working on clean stoves. However, the impact of indoor
air pollution on lost years of life is very real - see the WHO reports. If
you can fix that problem, you are addressing something here and now, not
some hypothetical tragedy that may never come to light.
A reduction in ocean alkalinity may be occurring, but that should not divert
this community from the job of finding sustainable solutions to immediate
problems.
Keep cooking clean!
Philip Lloyd
-----Original Message-----
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
Sent: 10 August 2013 10:16
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Stoves Digest, Vol 36, Issue 11
Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Ethanol gel stoves (Philip Lloyd)
2. Re: more on ocean acidification (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
3. Re: more on ocean acidification (Dean Still)
4. Re: more on ocean acidification (revjcsd at juno.com)
5. Re: more on ocean acidification (Paul Olivier)
6. Re: more on ocean acidification (Paul Olivier)
7. Re: more on ocean acidification (Tom Miles)
8. Re: more on ocean acidification (Dean Still)
9. Re: more on ocean acidification (Kevin)
10. Re: more on ocean acidification (Paul Olivier)
11. Re: more on ocean acidification (Paul Olivier)
12. Re: more on ocean acidification (Tom Miles)
13. Re: more on ocean acidification (Dean Still)
14. Re: more on ocean acidification (Kevin)
15. Re: more on ocean acidification (Paul Olivier)
16. Re: more on ocean acidification (Ronald Hongsermeier)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 22:37:50 +0200
From: "Philip Lloyd" <plloyd at mweb.co.za>
To: <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: [Stoves] Ethanol gel stoves
Message-ID: <003801ce9540$51f50220$f5df0660$@co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My experience with ethanol gel stoves has not been encouraging. Most stove
designs pay no attention to proper mixing of fuel and air, but rely on pure
diffusion. As a result, combustion is poor, there is an aldehyde stink, and
pots are blackened.
However, some of my friends have got the hots for this as a possible
solution. Ahah! They say - bioethanol, then stoves, and communities can
cook cleanly and safely.
I have several reports of quite large scale experiments in the past (one
involved 4000 households), but I think the experimental design was weak in
every case. Does anyone in this group have any reports of sustainable
success, or alternatively failure and the reasons therefore?
Happy cooking all round,
Philip Lloyd
Energy Institute
Cape Peninsula University of Technology
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
ttachments/20130809/cb2dc487/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:48:34 -0400
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID: <030801ce9552$94ef9830$becec890$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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/a
ttachments/20130809/8997ed6e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:15:55 -0700
From: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID:
<CA+tShZu-5qhDhcjgFhA+W=Zq+hN68X3ojXt-OcLd_ktQUwHvGw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
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-temperatu
re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
293>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-se
cret-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/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
ttachments/20130809/55453414/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 00:59:52 GMT
From: "revjcsd at juno.com" <revjcsd at juno.com>
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID: <20130810.085952.9142.0 at webmail05.dca.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dr Paul Olivier,
Belatedly I've stumbled onto this current conversation (on ocean
acidification.)
My current interest, however, revolves around providing my farmer
parishioners an alternative clean cooking stove to their 3-stone model,
while creating something of higher value (e.g., biochar) for their heavily
leached soil.
I wish I could argue as succinctly as you have in your post to my bishop and
fellow clergymen.
Thank you.
Fr Juanito
Please note: message attached
From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:42:01 +0700
-------------- next part --------------
Ron,
If you want to slap my hand for posting a link from the New York Times on
ocean acidification, I probably deserve it. I am sorry if it took a lot of
your time to offer such a magnificent rebuttal.
Check out this article that appeared about 12 hours ago:
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/08/08/ocean-acidification-center-another
-example-of-state-leading-the-nation/
This article appeared on August 6:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/environment/Unprecedented+ocean+ac
idification+from/8607447/story.html
This one on August 3:
http://www.kval.com/news/local/Federal-vessel-sets-sail-to-study-ocean-acidi
fication-oysters-218148151.html
This article on July 26:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2013/07/26/baby-oysters-in-death-rac
e-with-acidifying-oceans/
This article appeared on July 25:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ocean-acidification
-west-coast-20130725,0,2298023.story
This article appeared on July 21:
http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130721-politifact-r
.i.-on-the-surface-senator-whitehouse-right-about-ocean-acidification.ece
On July 16:
http://www.livescience.com/38219-oceans-acidifying-with-rising-co2.html
This article on July 15:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/15/south-africas-stance-on-ocean
-acidification/
Ron, I could go on and on. To deny all of the above is truly hard to do.
It's as if some of us do not live on the same planet.
But in my mind it all comes down to this: why do we design stoves the way
we do? If global warming and ocean acidification are not real and are not
caused by human activity, then why bother with biomass stoves as long as
fossil fuels can be extracted from the earth at a reasonable price? I just
returned last week from Malaysia in order to look into the gasification of
palm kernal shells. This looks quite feasible, even without forming these
shells into pellets. But bottled gas in relatively rich Malaysia is very
cheap compared to relatively poor Vietnam, because the Malaysian government
subsidizes bottled gas. At the same time, Singapore and large parts of
Malaysia were recently subjected to dangerous levels of smoke from the
large-scale burning of biomass in Sumatra over a period of several weeks.
The entire city of Singapore was virtually shut down for a few weeks. Once
again, why bother with biomass stoves as long as governments are willing to
subsidize the price of bottled gas? After all, no biomass stove can match
the safety (low CO and low PM), convenience (the simple twist of a knob)
and turn-down ratio (1 to 99) of bottled gas.
I design biomass stoves the way I do primarily because I believe something
should be done about global warming and ocean acidification. Here in
Vietnam huge quantities of rice hulls, rice straw, coffee husks, pine
forest debris and many other types of biomass are uselessly burned, while
many people, especially in urban areas, burn coal and bottled gas to cook
their food. So ridiculous. At the same time large portions of the Mekong
(the center of food production in Vietnam) will soon be under water as sea
levels continue to rise at their current rate.
But replacing bottled gas is not my only goal. Burying biochar is also
critical in combating global warming and ocean acidification. Here CO2 is
pulled from the air and locked in the soil for hundreds of years. At the
same time, there are the many benefits of biochar that I have read about
from scientists such as Ogawa (AM fungi), Lehmann and Joseph (a member of
this stove list). Also in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, we have done more
than 22 biochar studies with biochar from my gasifiers. These studies show
remarkable numbers with regard to plant and animal growth. Then finally, in
the city where I live, rice hull biochar is a hot commodity when
incorporated into potting soils in greenhouses. Why burn biochar when it
sells at such a good price, especially when it is worth far more than the
biomass from which it was derived? So I cannot help but conclude that
stoves that do not burn biochar, but make it, are incredibly important.
Also, if I were to burn biochar within the reactor of my TLUD, this would
be such an inefficient exercise, since the distance between the pot and the
burning biochar would be so great.
No, it makes so much sense to keep the biochar. We can feed biochar to
pigs, cows and chickens. We then take the solid waste from these animals
and feed it to BSF larvae. We then take the residue of the larvae and feed
it to red worms, and finally we take the vermi-compost loaded with biochar
back to the soil. The biochar passes through the gut of three creatures
before it gets incorporated into the soil. When we put biochar in a dry
bedding for pigs and cows, listen carefully, there is no urine or ammonia
smell. We have virtually odorless pig pens. The pigs play in the bedding
and even eat it. More than 60 farmers in the area have now adopted this way
of raising pigs. All of these farmer use biochar. Also there are no flies
around these pig pens. Antibiotics are no longer used. Not a single piglet
gets diarrhea.
The pig farmers make rice wine, and the mash gets fed to the pigs. I will
start supplying gasifiers to these pig farmers for the distillation of
their rice wine. The burning of low-grade biomass for rice wine
distillation will stop. The farmers will then be able to make their own
biochar to incorporate into pig bedding.
Ron, slap my hand, but not too hard. There are the big issues like global
warming and ocean acidification, and I am proud to be able to play a very,
very minute roll in helping to solve these problems. Then there are more
mundane issues like showing a pig farmer how to use eliminate odor and
disease through the use of biochar. All of these things figure into the way
I design a stove.
Ron, thanks so much for speaking up in your last email. I value your
contribution enormously.
Paul Olivier
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Ronal W. Larson
<rongretlarson at comcast.net>wrote:
> List:
>
> 1. Apologies to Erin, but the conversation re ocean acidification has
> turned enough into stoves topics I feel a need to enter and also support
> Paul Olivier (who should have his hand slapped for bringing up the ocean
> and pH subjects).
>
> 2. First about the supposed outstanding talk by a young unemployed
> recent chem engineering graduate. I am pretty sure that his calculation
> (which I am not going to go through even I were competent to judge in
> detail) was calculating the *average *pH change in the ocean. The entire
> ocean community agrees that that change is small. All the talk of an 0.1
> change in pH (same as 30% change when not in log units) refers to the
near
> surface pH. Calculating an average change is worse than ludicrous. His
> picking on one of the world's most well respected ocean scientist
> (Lubchenko) displays further ignorance. Why should anyone be surprised
> that the average ocean *surface* pH changes by 30% when the atmospheric
> level has changed a little bit more? (there are huge fluxes each way
every
> day) A great reference on all this is the PNAS paper given today (by
> mistake?) by Kevin. Check wiki. Check a yesterday Skeptical Science
> article on this at
>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Acidification-Eating-Away-at-Life-in-t
he-Southern-Ocean.html
> I see no credentials (claimed or otherwise) for this young guy knowing
> any biology, so his comments on reduced calcium carbonate in certain sea
> creatures should receive zero credence (especially in the Antarctic) And
> one wouldn't expect anything like a peer review at WUWT. I consider WUWT
> to be the antithesis of sound science. In my circles, it is considered a
> joke.
>
> 3. About half or more of the list has an interest in char-making
> stoves. So I have to ask why Crispin is out there by himself with the
> first pat of this following quote from him today. The entire stove
> community from what I have seen disagrees with Crispin on this:
>
> *It has so happened that in recent years the emergence of char making
> TLUD stoves has exacerbated the errors in the simple models used for
> decades and there are serious consequences for the stove section. Stoves
> that are really IWA tier 1 performers can get a tier 4 rating for
something
> because of defects in the models. "*
>
> My conclusion is this observation would be approved by the vast
> majority of WUWT followers. If something related to excess CO2 is
proposed
> (such as char going in the ground), then the idea must be bogus, because
> climate scientists are liars, cheats, free-loaders etc. Well fortunately
> that is not the majority view around the world and stove models and
> performance ratings are doing perfectly fine, with Crispin fighting all
the
> way. Glad to see Crispin bringing this up and hope we can continue this
> stove-related discussion.
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *4 . *The above two sentences were followed by these:
> * "It is like that with the climate too. To date there are 73 well
> known, accessible climate models (GCM?s). Not one of them has predicted
the
> current 200 month stasis in global temperature (indistinguishable from
zero
> change). That means the models are invalidated. The implications are
pretty
> serious.*
> * *There is no reason at all to conclude that the models are in error
and
> "*invalidated" - *and least of all for the relative flatness (for less
> than 200 months), given every other AGW indicator. The oceans
> have continued to warm (and levels rise). Arctic ice volume is about the
> same as last year's record low. Record temperature highs greatly exceeding
> record lows. For decades the annual land temperature rise greatly
> exceeded the ocean temperature rise. Why be surprised if it slows for
> awhile, to let the oceans catch up?
>
> 5. I applaud Cecil's comments. I didn't think Crispin defended well.
> But not enough stove material there except Cecil's last on precaution.
> Thanks Cecil.
>
> 6. . Lastly, three additions below in the latest Crispin message.
>
> On Aug 8, 2013, at 12:21 PM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Kevin****
>
> I thought the young man addressed matters very directly and effectively.
> There is a comment below from a guy named Bob. Search for ?Somewhere in my
> misspent youth I picked up 3 degrees in chemistry, postdoctoral research
> and a couple of decades in the chemical industry.?
>
> *[RWL7. Te the young man - yes he wrote well - but missed the
> main several points (stated above) Nothing here on stoves. I have
> searched for "Bob" and have no idea what that was about.*
>
> ****
>
> I haven?t found a chemist yet who supports the ?acid ocean? theory. But as
> Steve asks, why are they so silent? The answer is intimidation or they are
> bored with such a stupid topic.
>
> *[RWL8: I have not above used the word "denier". These exemplify
> denial. I don't think I could find a published peer reviewed paper that
> didn't think ocean surface. pH has been climbing steadily*
>
> ****
>
> A topic that should follow this into the grave of silence is: ?burying
> charcoal to help prevent the acidification of the oceans?. We do indeed
> have a long way to go.****
> *[RWL9: I was going to stay out of this "stove" dialog until reading
> this. Truly amazing to say this on a stove list where he insults a**t
> least **half** of the list! And most of them are not about to become
> deniers if I can help it. I think/hope Crispin indeed has a "long way
> to go." Ron*
>
>
>
> Chemically yours,****
> Crispin****
>
> ** **
> Dear Crispin****
> ****
> Thanks very much for the URL for the excellent article.****
> ****
> It is amazing what can be deduced using real science. :-)****
> ****
> It is scary that organizations like the UN, IPCC, and NOAA don't have
> competent people on staff to vet their "Ocean Acidification" statements.
> When a recent Chemical Engineering Graduate can point out the folly of
> "jumping on the Ocean Acidification Bandwagon", it should lead us to raise
> the question:****
> "What else are the UN, NOAA, and the IPCC telling us about AGW that is
> wrong?"****
> ****
> Best wishes,****
> ****
> Kevin****
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a
ttachments/20130810/aaaa2759/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 08:29:31 +0700
From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID:
<CAOreFvYk1E+fx28RwM8-zPo3fgt5ai82zDNHv5Sj7txUmjW5Uw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Crispin,
You say: there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
You say: The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human role in global
warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date, undetectable.
Are you saying the scientific community that sees global warming and ocean
acidification as real problems are alarmists who have not bothered to do
good science? Are you saying that your views on global warming and ocean
acidification represents the views of the majority of scientists studying
these issues? Are you a climatologist or an oceanographer with hard data in
hand when you assert these climatologist and oceanographers have been doing
faulty and alarmist research? Are you saying is that it is perfectly OK to
go on burning fossil fuels? Why then do we bother to design biomass stoves
as long as fossil fuels such as gas, oil and coal can be extracted out of
the ground at a reasonable price and as long as governments are willing to
offer subsidies to poor people? Why should the GACC bother to promote
biomass stoves in areas where governments are willing to offer subsidies to
the poor? Are you saying that we should go on uselessly burning waste
biomass such as rice hulls, rice straw, sugarcane leaves and pine forest
debris, and that none of this burning has any real impact on global warming
and ocean acidification? Instead of uselessly burning this biomass, would
it not make more sense to use it to cook a meal? Are you also prepared to
deny the conclusions of all of the research that has been done on
incorporating biochar into the soil dating back to the early 1990's? Are
all of these scientists involved in biochar research (such as Ogawa,
Lehmann, Joseph, Leng and Preston) misguided and misinformed? Exactly how
much biochar research have you been personally involved in? How many
growing experiments have you conducted with biochar that enable you to
assert that incorporating biochar into the soil makes no sense? Have you
ever published any peer-reviewed papers relating to biochar research? Have
you ever tried incorporating biochar into pig and cow bedding or into
chicken litter?
In personal emails to me you have labeled my views on global warming and
ocean acidification as ridiculous, naive, foolish and misguided babble.
Please forgive me if I do not take kindly to being put down in such an
offensive manner.
Thanks so much.
Paul Olivier
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:48 AM, 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-temperatu
re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
293>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-se
cret-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/
>
>
>
--
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/a
ttachments/20130810/2f122de8/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 08:41:54 +0700
From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID:
<CAOreFvawP8H5aLV7yu_yK0fYK7Ek50O9FVR3E3EDdhh6kpZN2g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
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-temperatu
re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
293>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-se
cret-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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
ttachments/20130810/282d5600/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:52:25 -0700
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID: <001801ce956c$43ce6750$cb6b35f0$@trmiles.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).
Tom
Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Krusa?,
Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and O?rjan Gustafsson
Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/es401599r
Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013
Copyright ? 2013, American Chemical Society
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Olivier
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
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-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.
_______________________________________________
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/a
ttachments/20130809/bb453fd4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:58:26 -0700
From: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID:
<CA+tShZvf7_0uqOXXydqg5OjEDC7nG1b_1xpepJo=rJOBF-wdkg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
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-temperatu
re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
293>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-se
cret-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/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
ttachments/20130809/28a7ad77/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 23:51:43 -0300
From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID: <73BE513594FA407080F71A9AAA45B422 at usera594fda0bf>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Dear Dean
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Still
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
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 or photos of stack emissions are faked or SkS takes in on the chin
with a Godwins Law parody or even if US winter temperatures continue to
plunge.
I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it causes?. 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
ttachments/20130809/2051e136/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:59:20 +0700
From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID:
<CAOreFvZvrDEQ_MTAsCrrVhdzGk3zv=KquHcrWSdQ1Kr_f+ykyg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Tom,
Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black carbon? Do
you do so mainly from the point of view of human health? Or do you have
other environmental considerations in mind? As you know, many scientists
maintain that black carbon warms the earth. Are you not going in the
direction of another contentious issue that some might consider to be
unrelated to stove design?
Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas should we try
to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we try to put a lot more
emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not make sense to develop stoves that
are low in black carbon and at the same time do not create CO2 from
non-renewable sources such as coal? Does the GACC ask such broad questions?
Or does it operate out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like
black carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to stove
design?
Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all: no rice
hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue of any kind. And
let us suppose that in this barren landscape there is nothing but coal.
Here I concede that it makes sense to focus attention on developing more
efficient coal stoves.
Many thanks.
Paul
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
> Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
> developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
> yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
> fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
> They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
> relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
> Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).****
>
> ** **
>
> Tom****
>
> ** **
>
> Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
> Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Krusa?,
> Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and O?rjan
Gustafsson
> Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP****
>
> ****
>
> DOI: 10.1021/es401599r****
>
> Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013****
>
> Copyright ? 2013, American Chemical Society
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r****
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
>
> ** **
>
> 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-temperatu
re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
293>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-se
cret-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/
>
>
>
--
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/a
ttachments/20130810/cc7e1de1/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:18:59 +0700
From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID:
<CAOreFvatWQdD0OiM85xLTTqBg4mOgJwoS6RvZB-_2EDE58uOhg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
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-temperatu
re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
293>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-se
cret-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/a
ttachments/20130810/b7da2859/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:45:53 -0700
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID: <004d01ce957c$1d9b3f80$58d1be80$@trmiles.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Paul,
Perhaps you missed the discussion late last year when a major study
including BC was issued. Tami Bond, one of our number and a co-author, made
a presentation for us at ETHOS in January. There is no question that BC is a
major concern for ?climate disruption? and health. It is not either biomass
or fossil fuels. Improvement is needed for both.
Tami?s notes for her Saturday evening Keynote address including the Dec 2012
study reference are at:
http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/proceedings2013.html
The study was, ?A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and
injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21
regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2010.? Lim et. al December 2012.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961766-
8/abstract
Household air pollution from solid fuels is listed in the comparative risk
assessment as #4 globally. Tami described the BC impacts of kerosene and
biomass and the impact of stove design on the evolution of BC and its
persistence in the atmosphere.
I will ignore your disparaging remarks about GACC. The reality is that we
are all GACC. We should be mutually supporting individual and collective
efforts to solve the myriad of issues to the extent that we can.
Tom
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Olivier
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 7:59 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Tom,
Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black carbon? Do you
do so mainly from the point of view of human health? Or do you have other
environmental considerations in mind? As you know, many scientists maintain
that black carbon warms the earth. Are you not going in the direction of
another contentious issue that some might consider to be unrelated to stove
design?
Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas should we try
to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we try to put a lot more
emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not make sense to develop stoves that
are low in black carbon and at the same time do not create CO2 from
non-renewable sources such as coal? Does the GACC ask such broad questions?
Or does it operate out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like
black carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to stove
design?
Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all: no rice
hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue of any kind. And
let us suppose that in this barren landscape there is nothing but coal. Here
I concede that it makes sense to focus attention on developing more
efficient coal stoves.
Many thanks.
Paul
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).
Tom
Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Krusa?,
Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and O?rjan Gustafsson
Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/es401599r
Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013
Copyright ? 2013, American Chemical Society
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Olivier
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
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-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.
_______________________________________________
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/
--
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/a
ttachments/20130809/13bcc4b3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 22:10:04 -0700
From: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID:
<CA+tShZse3R-ExuFXkU13uSxU8+1RPjTPvvvxK2O5DExLufpkAQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
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-temperatu
re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
293>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-se
cret-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/a
ttachments/20130809/e24f82f5/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 02:29:20 -0300
From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID: <6D2E44CAF5604723B8609481A6C86972 at usera594fda0bf>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Dear Dean
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Still
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Dear Kevin,
Can you imagine a more thorough investigation than the international ISO
process that is occurring?
# Yes, I certainly can! All that the ISO Process ensures is that a
procedure is put in place to ensure that "whatever is being done will be
done consistently." If a "garbage stove testing procedure" was submitted for
ISO for ISO Approval, it could very well get ISO Approval, and the result
would be "consistent garbage stove testing results".
# The first sensible step is to develop a scientifically valid testing
procedure, which THEN would be submitted for ISO Approval. As long as ISO
standards and procedures were followed, such a scientifically valid testing
procedure would consistently give scientifically valid results.
# So... 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 7:51 PM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
Dear Dean
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Still
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
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 or photos of stack emissions are faked or SkS takes in on the chin
with a Godwins Law parody or even if US winter temperatures continue to
plunge.
I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it causes?. 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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
_______________________________________________
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/a
ttachments/20130810/e718acef/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:13:42 +0700
From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID:
<CAOreFvaJVsgduSCf35Ag_6AeMTBgo4zq6NO5sJ=58On-soeLNQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
See comments below.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
> Paul,****
>
> ** **
>
> Perhaps you missed the discussion late last year when a major study
> including BC was issued. Tami Bond, one of our number and a co-author,
made
> a presentation for us at ETHOS in January. There is no question that BC is
> a major concern for ?climate disruption? and health. It is not either
> biomass or fossil fuels. Improvement is needed for both.
>
I did not frame the issue in either-or terms. But should we be burning coal
to cook a meal in areas where biomass is abundant? Should we be trying to
improve and promote coal stoves in areas where biomass stoves make a lot
more sense in terms of global warming?
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Tami?s notes for her Saturday evening Keynote address including the Dec
> 2012 study reference are at:
> http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/proceedings2013.html****
>
> ** **
>
> The study was, ?A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and
> injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21
> regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
> Study 2010.? Lim et. al December 2012. ****
>
>
>
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961766-
8/abstract
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Household air pollution from solid fuels is listed in the comparative risk
> assessment as #4 globally. Tami described the BC impacts of kerosene and
> biomass and the impact of stove design on the evolution of BC and its
> persistence in the atmosphere. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I will ignore your disparaging remarks about GACC. The reality is that we
> are all GACC.
>
I asked a question about the policy focus of the GACC with no intention of
being disparaging. I asked this question because I am left with the
impression that the main focus of the GACC is the health of a cook as she
cooks a meal. Hopefully I am wrong. If all poor people in the world could
afford bottled gas through a series of national or international subsidies,
would the mission of the GACC be fulfilled? Does the GACC put the use of
fossil fuels such as coal on the same footing as the use of biomass fuels
such as rice hulls? Would a clean-burning coal stove in the eyes of the
GACC be just as acceptable as a clean-burning biomass stove in areas where
both coal and rice hulls are available? Also what is the policy of the GACC
with regard to biochar? If biochar is not combusted in a stove but
incorporated into the soil, would this be understood by the GACC as a huge
inefficiency in the transfer of heat to a pot?
> We should be mutually supporting individual and collective efforts to
> solve the myriad of issues to the extent that we can.
>
I am happy to support whatever makes sense in terms of both human health
and the health of the environment. What is the position of the GACC with
regard to global warming, climate change, and ocean acidification, and how
does their position with regard to these important issues impact their
choice of the stoves they seek to promote?
Many thanks.
Paul
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Tom****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 7:59 PM
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
>
> ** **
>
> Tom,****
>
> Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black carbon? Do
> you do so mainly from the point of view of human health? Or do you have
> other environmental considerations in mind? As you know, many scientists
> maintain that black carbon warms the earth. Are you not going in the
> direction of another contentious issue that some might consider to be
> unrelated to stove design?
>
> Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas should we
> try to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we try to put a lot
> more emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not make sense to develop stoves
> that are low in black carbon and at the same time do not create CO2 from
> non-renewable sources such as coal? Does the GACC ask such broad
questions?
> Or does it operate out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like
> black carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to
stove
> design?****
>
> Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all: no rice
> hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue of any kind. And
> let us suppose that in this barren landscape there is nothing but coal.
> Here I concede that it makes sense to focus attention on developing more
> efficient coal stoves.
>
> Many thanks.****
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:****
>
> Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
> developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
> yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
> fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
> They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
> relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
> Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).****
>
> ****
>
> Tom****
>
> ****
>
> Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
> Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Krusa?,
> Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and O?rjan
Gustafsson
> Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP****
>
> DOI: 10.1021/es401599r****
>
> Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013****
>
> Copyright ? 2013, American Chemical Society
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM****
>
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
>
> ****
>
> 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-temperatu
re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
293>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-se
cret-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/
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
>
>
--
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/a
ttachments/20130810/b1246e6e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:16:40 +0200
From: Ronald Hongsermeier <rwhongser at web.de>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Message-ID: <5205F6E8.4000606 at web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Dear Paul,
A couple of the paragraphs you wrote seemed to me to sound either/or to me.
Please consider that the last I heard, enough of China's underground
_reserves_ of coal were burning annually to equal Germany's entire
annual energetic output/needs in CO2 equivalents. This is a long term
problem for the Chinese. Does it make more sense to use the coal in an
improved stove or let it burn in the ground under conditions that
certainly cause lots of BC and really ugly tars? (Please note, the
question is consciously oversimplified, not as condescension, but to
jostle thinking!)
When a government as directly oriented as the Chinese is not capable of
keeping people from independently mining coal, how do you propose to
help these poor people -- how to convince them it would be better to
just use biomass?
regards,
Ronald von Weiherbayernsonnenschein
On 10.08.2013 09:13, Paul Olivier wrote:
> See comments below.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com
> <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Perhaps you missed the discussion late last year when a major
> study including BC was issued. Tami Bond, one of our number and a
> co-author, made a presentation for us at ETHOS in January. There
> is no question that BC is a major concern for ?climate disruption?
> and health. It is not either biomass or fossil fuels. Improvement
> is needed for both.
>
>
> I did not frame the issue in either-or terms. But should we be burning
> coal to cook a meal in areas where biomass is abundant? Should we be
> trying to improve and promote coal stoves in areas where biomass
> stoves make a lot more sense in terms of global warming?
>
> Tami?s notes for her Saturday evening Keynote address including
> the Dec 2012 study reference are at:
> http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/proceedings2013.html
>
> The study was, ?A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease
> and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor
> clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the
> Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.? Lim et. al December 2012.
>
>
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961766-
8/abstract
>
> Household air pollution from solid fuels is listed in the
> comparative risk assessment as #4 globally. Tami described the BC
> impacts of kerosene and biomass and the impact of stove design on
> the evolution of BC and its persistence in the atmosphere.
>
> I will ignore your disparaging remarks about GACC. The reality is
> that we are all GACC.
>
>
> I asked a question about the policy focus of the GACC with no
> intention of being disparaging. I asked this question because I am
> left with the impression that the main focus of the GACC is the health
> of a cook as she cooks a meal. Hopefully I am wrong. If all poor
> people in the world could afford bottled gas through a series of
> national or international subsidies, would the mission of the GACC be
> fulfilled? Does the GACC put the use of fossil fuels such as coal on
> the same footing as the use of biomass fuels such as rice hulls? Would
> a clean-burning coal stove in the eyes of the GACC be just as
> acceptable as a clean-burning biomass stove in areas where both coal
> and rice hulls are available? Also what is the policy of the GACC with
> regard to biochar? If biochar is not combusted in a stove but
> incorporated into the soil, would this be understood by the GACC as a
> huge inefficiency in the transfer of heat to a pot?
>
> We should be mutually supporting individual and collective efforts
> to solve the myriad of issues to the extent that we can.
>
>
> I am happy to support whatever makes sense in terms of both human
> health and the health of the environment. What is the position of the
> GACC with regard to global warming, climate change, and ocean
> acidification, and how does their position with regard to these
> important issues impact their choice of the stoves they seek to promote?
>
> Many thanks.
> Paul
>
> Tom
>
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 7:59 PM
>
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
> Tom,
>
> Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black
> carbon? Do you do so mainly from the point of view of human
> health? Or do you have other environmental considerations in mind?
> As you know, many scientists maintain that black carbon warms the
> earth. Are you not going in the direction of another contentious
> issue that some might consider to be unrelated to stove design?
>
> Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas
> should we try to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we
> try to put a lot more emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not
> make sense to develop stoves that are low in black carbon and at
> the same time do not create CO2 from non-renewable sources such as
> coal? Does the GACC ask such broad questions? Or does it operate
> out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like black
> carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to
> stove design?
>
> Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all:
> no rice hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue
> of any kind. And let us suppose that in this barren landscape
> there is nothing but coal. Here I concede that it makes sense to
> focus attention on developing more efficient coal stoves.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Paul
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com
> <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>> wrote:
>
> Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related
> reason for developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A
> study published yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black
> carbon from China is from fossil fuels. A significant portion of
> that is from coal burning stoves. They recommend developing more
> efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all relevant and identified
> as part of the strategic work plan of the Global Alliance for
> Clean Cookstoves (GACC).
>
> Tom
>
> Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen,
> August Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao,
> Martin Krusa?, Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke
> Du and O?rjan Gustafsson Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
>
> DOI: 10.1021/es401599r
>
> Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013
>
> Copyright ? 2013, American Chemical Society
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r
>
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM
>
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 Letters^1 .
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6565 - Release Date: 08/09/13
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
ttachments/20130810/96f907d4/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
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://www.bioenergylists.org/
------------------------------
End of Stoves Digest, Vol 36, Issue 11
**************************************
More information about the Stoves
mailing list