[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 36, Issue 11

[Paul Olivier]

Philip,

Why pose the question in this way? Why not design stoves that solve both
short-term issues (human health) and long-term issues (climate change,
ocean acidification)? You make it sound like we have to make a choice
between the two. Is it really so difficult to make stoves that takes care
of both short- and long-term issues? Stop and think about it: how do we go
about designing a biomass stove that only solves long-term issues? If we
design a biomass stove that produces little CO and black carbon in a
kitchen setting, does this not also benefit the environment? Perhaps you
are saying that we should not design biomass stoves at all, since bottled
gas stoves burn cleaner than any biomass stove could ever burn? Why not
subsidize the use of bottled gas to the poor who cannot afford to pay the
full price? Many countries already do this, and the GACC would only have to
encourage and aid developing countries to expand this practice? In the
meantime, we would end up with an abundance of agricultural and forestry
residues that we could easily dispose of by uselessly burning it. Ah, but
this would also impact human health in a significant way. In dry season
here in Vietnam, there are times when the sky is filled with haze from the
burning of forest debris, and if I leave a window open, my house is full of
soot and ash.

By the way, a 1% impact on fossil fuel consumption would be highly
significant. Imagine if we could play a role in making this happen!

Thanks.
Paul


On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:

> 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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>
> >
> or photos of stack emissions are faked
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>  or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-t
> ree-house-bunker/#more-91202<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>
>  or even if US winter temperatures continue to
> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png> .
>
>
>
> I don't like trumped up CAGW claims about what 'it causes
> <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm> '. I don't like trumped up or
> trumped down stove performance results.
>
>
>
> Let's work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> planet of stoves. I know you'll want to help. We all do.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
>
>
> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for 'letters
> after your name' signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130809/8997ed6e/attachment-0001.html<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>or
> even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> > plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> *
> > ***
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> > I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> > planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> > after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> > /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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/<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<http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/environment/Unprecedented+ocean+acidification+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<http://www.kval.com/news/local/Federal-vessel-sets-sail-to-study-ocean-acidification-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/<http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2013/07/26/baby-oysters-in-death-race-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<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/<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<http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Acidification-Eating-Away-at-Life-in-the-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<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>or
> even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> > plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> *
> > ***
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> > I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> > planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> > after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> > /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>or
> even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> >> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png
> >.
> >> ****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> >> I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> >> planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Crispin****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> >> after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge
> and
> >> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >>
> >> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>
> >>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>
> >
> or photos of stack emissions are faked
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>  or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-t
> ree-house-bunker/#more-91202<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>
>  or even if US winter temperatures continue to
> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png> .
>
>
>
> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it causes
> <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm> ?. I don?t like trumped up or
> trumped down stove performance results.
>
>
>
> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
>
>
> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>or
> even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> >>> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png
> >.
> >>> ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> >>> I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to
> the
> >>> planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Crispin****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> >>> after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge
> and
> >>> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Stoves mailing list
> >>>
> >>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>>
> >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>>
> >>>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org<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<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>or
> even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> > plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> *
> > ***
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> > I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> > planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> > after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> > /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org<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<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>or
> even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> >>>> plunge
> <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> >>>> I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to
> >>>> the planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Crispin****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for
> >>>> ?letters after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity,
> >>>> knowledge and /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Stoves mailing list
> >>>>
> >>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>>>
> >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org<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<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<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>
> >
> or photos of stack emissions are faked
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>  or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-t
> ree-house-bunker/#more-91202<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>
>  or even if US winter temperatures continue to
> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png> .
>
>
>
> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it causes
> <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm> ?. I don?t like trumped up or
> trumped down stove performance results.
>
>
>
> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
>
>
> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org<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<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>or
> even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> >> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png
> >.
> >> ****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> >> I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> >> planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Crispin****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> >> after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge
> and
> >> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >>
> >> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>
> >>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org<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<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<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<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<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>>or
> even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> > plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> *
> > ***
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> > I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> > planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> > after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> > /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org<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<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<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<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<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>
> >
> >             or photos of stack emissions are faked
> >
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>
> >             or SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody
> >
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-t
> ree-house-bunker/#more-91202<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>
> >
> >             or even if US winter temperatures continue to plunge
> >
> <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> >
> >
> >             I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it causes
> >             <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?. I don?t like
> >             trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.
> >
> >             Let?s work together and bring some proper science and
> >             engineering to the planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to
> >             help. We all do.
> >
> >             Thanks
> >             Crispin
> >
> >             ^1 For those who do not know what this means, it is
> >             English for ?letters after your name? signifying formal
> >             recognition of capacity, knowledge and /or authority.
> >             Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Stoves mailing list
> >
> >         to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >         stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >         <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<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<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<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<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<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<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/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<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
> **************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>


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

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130810/d98e2579/attachment.html>