[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 36, Issue 11

[nari phaltan]

Some work on ethanol stove. www.nariphaltan.org/ethstove.pdf

Cheers.


On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:14 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
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Ethanol gel stoves (Philip Lloyd)
>    2. Re: more on ocean acidification (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
>    3. Re: more on ocean acidification (Dean Still)
>    4. Re: more on ocean acidification (revjcsd at juno.com)
>    5. Re: more on ocean acidification (Paul Olivier)
>    6. Re: more on ocean acidification (Paul Olivier)
>    7. Re: more on ocean acidification (Tom Miles)
>    8. Re: more on ocean acidification (Dean Still)
>    9. Re: more on ocean acidification (Kevin)
>   10. Re: more on ocean acidification (Paul Olivier)
>   11. Re: more on ocean acidification (Paul Olivier)
>   12. Re: more on ocean acidification (Tom Miles)
>   13. Re: more on ocean acidification (Dean Still)
>   14. Re: more on ocean acidification (Kevin)
>   15. Re: more on ocean acidification (Paul Olivier)
>   16. Re: more on ocean acidification (Ronald Hongsermeier)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 22:37:50 +0200
> From: "Philip Lloyd" <plloyd at mweb.co.za>
> To: <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Stoves] Ethanol gel stoves
> Message-ID: <003801ce9540$51f50220$f5df0660$@co.za>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> My experience with ethanol gel stoves has not been encouraging.  Most stove
> designs pay no attention to proper mixing of fuel and air, but rely on pure
> diffusion.  As a result, combustion is poor, there is an aldehyde stink,
> and
> pots are blackened.
>
>
>
> However, some of my friends have got the hots for this as a possible
> solution.  Ahah! They say - bioethanol, then stoves, and communities can
> cook cleanly and safely.
>
>
>
> I have several reports of quite large scale experiments in the past (one
> involved 4000 households), but I think the experimental design was weak in
> every case. Does anyone in this group have any reports of sustainable
> success, or alternatively failure and the reasons therefore?
>
>
>
> Happy cooking all round,
>
>
>
> Philip Lloyd
>
>
>
> Energy Institute
>
> Cape Peninsula University of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130809/cb2dc487/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:48:34 -0400
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID: <030801ce9552$94ef9830$becec890$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Ron
>
>
>
> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
>
>
>
> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the 'Skeptical
> Science' playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of AGW. It was a
> document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to the
> compliant as a way to communicate - a style, if you will - of how to handle
> people who were 'off message'.
>
>
>
> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA which
> I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific instructions
> for example to always mention 'climate disruption' as it is harder to
> dispute and refute than 'global warming' now that there isn't any. It
> suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who are
> presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of AGW
> (can't have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human role
> in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date, undetectable.
> The
> instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as 'denying' all human
> influence on the planet then offers various pejorative comparisons that can
> be made so as to cause consternation for the skeptic or those listening to
> them.
>
>
>
> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
> credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> correspondent as 'alone' in their understanding, always insert some mention
> of how settled things are with the 'majority' of 'reputable' scientists and
> so on and on. We have seen it all before.
>
>
>
> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> address the fact that there is no such thing as 'acidifying the ocean' when
> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation so
> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother 'wears army boots'.
> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have noticed
> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.
>
>
>
> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> bailing out.
>
>
>
> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself):
>
>
>
> ".hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed down
> the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
> highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class ticket
> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> about
> human influences on the climate.
>
>
>
> "A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well
> by
> future historians.
>
> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> purchased.
>
>
>
> "Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that currently
> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists
> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> research."
>
>
>
> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
> years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> calling for the peer review, the independent assessment of stove test
> protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> without consequence.
>
>
>
> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors in
> it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The April
> 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.
>
>
>
> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> conceptual relevance.
>
>
>
> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that 'were
> not peer reviewed' even if they were true. How about giving up on trying to
> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere - who knows) and
> put
> your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the Universities
> of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit their protocols
> to competent authorities for independent review?  Actually the WB has its
> project protocols reviewed.well, they should continue to do so.
>
>
>
> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and money
> trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight,
> but
> by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major contribution to
> the field of domestic energy can be attained.
>
>
>
> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the Arctic
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plo
> t-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>
> or photos of stack emissions are faked
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>  or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-t
> ree-house-bunker/#more-91202>  or even if US winter temperatures continue
> to
> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png> .
>
>
>
> I don't like trumped up CAGW claims about what 'it causes
> <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm> '. I don't like trumped up or
> trumped down stove performance results.
>
>
>
> Let's work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> planet of stoves. I know you'll want to help. We all do.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
>
>
> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for 'letters
> after your name' signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130809/8997ed6e/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:15:55 -0700
> From: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID:
>         <CA+tShZu-5qhDhcjgFhA+W=
> Zq+hN68X3ojXt-OcLd_ktQUwHvGw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear All,
>
> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> return to the topic of stoves.
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Ron****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> > straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
> ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> > ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of
> AGW.
> > It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> > the compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to
> > handle people who were ?off message?. ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> > which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> > instructions for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it is
> > harder to dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t
> > any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who
> > are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of
> > AGW (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human
> > role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> > undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> > ?denying? *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> > pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> > the skeptic or those listening to them.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
> > credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> > correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some
> mention
> > of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists
> and
> > so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> > address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
> when
> > the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation
> so
> > it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> > Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have
> noticed
> > by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> > bailing out. ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed
> down
> > the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
> > highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> > grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class
> ticket
> > on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> > about human influences on the climate.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well
> > by future historians.****
> >
> > Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> > purchased. ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> > together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that
> currently
> > disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> > funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous
> scientists
> > that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> > research.?****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
> > years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> > calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove test
> > protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> > believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> > without consequence. ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors
> in
> > it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The
> April
> > 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> > version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> > conceptual relevance.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> > climate science information has been brought forward in articles that
> ?were
> > not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on trying
> to
> > humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who knows) and
> > put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> > Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit
> > their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?
>  Actually
> > the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to
> do
> > so.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and
> money
> > trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight,
> > but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major
> > contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the
> Arctic<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperatu
>
> re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
> 293>or photos of stack emissions are
> >
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI
> >or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> >
> parody<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-se
> cret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> > plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> *
> > ***
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> > I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> > planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> > after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> > /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130809/55453414/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 00:59:52 GMT
> From: "revjcsd at juno.com" <revjcsd at juno.com>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID: <20130810.085952.9142.0 at webmail05.dca.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dr Paul Olivier,
>
> Belatedly I've stumbled onto this current conversation (on ocean
> acidification.)
>
> My current interest, however, revolves around providing my farmer
> parishioners an alternative clean cooking stove to their 3-stone model,
> while creating something of higher value (e.g., biochar) for their heavily
> leached soil.
>
> I wish I could argue as succinctly as you have in your post to my bishop
> and
> fellow clergymen.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Fr Juanito
>
>
>
>
> Please note: message attached
>
> From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:42:01 +0700
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> Ron,
>
> If you want to slap my hand for posting a link from the New York Times on
> ocean acidification, I probably deserve it. I am sorry if it took a lot of
> your time to offer such a magnificent rebuttal.
>
> Check out this article that appeared about 12 hours ago:
>
> http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/08/08/ocean-acidification-center-another
> -example-of-state-leading-the-nation/
> This article appeared on August 6:
>
> http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/environment/Unprecedented+ocean+ac
> idification+from/8607447/story.html
> This one on August 3:
>
> http://www.kval.com/news/local/Federal-vessel-sets-sail-to-study-ocean-acidi
> fication-oysters-218148151.html
> This article on July 26:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2013/07/26/baby-oysters-in-death-rac
> e-with-acidifying-oceans/
> This article appeared on July 25:
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ocean-acidification
> -west-coast-20130725,0,2298023.story
> This article appeared on July 21:
>
> http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130721-politifact-r
> .i.-on-the-surface-senator-whitehouse-right-about-ocean-acidification.ece
> On July 16:
> http://www.livescience.com/38219-oceans-acidifying-with-rising-co2.html
> This article on July 15:
>
> http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/15/south-africas-stance-on-ocean
> -acidification/
>
> Ron, I could go on and on. To deny all of the above is truly hard to do.
> It's as if some of us do not live on the same planet.
>
> But in my mind it all comes down to this: why do we design stoves the way
> we do? If global warming and ocean acidification are not real and are not
> caused by human activity, then why bother with biomass stoves as long as
> fossil fuels can be extracted from the earth at a reasonable price? I just
> returned last week from Malaysia in order to look into the gasification of
> palm kernal shells. This looks quite feasible, even without forming these
> shells into pellets. But bottled gas in relatively rich Malaysia is very
> cheap compared to relatively poor Vietnam, because the Malaysian government
> subsidizes bottled gas. At the same time, Singapore and large parts of
> Malaysia were recently subjected to dangerous levels of smoke from the
> large-scale burning of biomass in Sumatra over a period of several weeks.
> The entire city of Singapore was virtually shut down for a few weeks. Once
> again, why bother with biomass stoves as long as governments are willing to
> subsidize the price of bottled gas? After all, no biomass stove can match
> the safety (low CO and low PM), convenience (the simple twist of a knob)
> and turn-down ratio (1 to 99) of bottled gas.
>
> I design biomass stoves the way I do primarily because I believe something
> should be done about global warming and ocean acidification. Here in
> Vietnam huge quantities of rice hulls, rice straw, coffee husks, pine
> forest debris and many other types of biomass are uselessly burned, while
> many people, especially in urban areas, burn coal and bottled gas to cook
> their food. So ridiculous. At the same time large portions of the Mekong
> (the center of food production in Vietnam) will soon be under water as sea
> levels continue to rise at their current rate.
>
> But replacing bottled gas is not my only goal. Burying biochar is also
> critical in combating global warming and ocean acidification. Here CO2 is
> pulled from the air and locked in the soil for hundreds of years. At the
> same time, there are the many benefits of biochar that I have read about
> from scientists such as Ogawa (AM fungi), Lehmann and Joseph (a member of
> this stove list). Also in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, we have done more
> than 22 biochar studies with biochar from my gasifiers. These studies show
> remarkable numbers with regard to plant and animal growth. Then finally, in
> the city where I live, rice hull biochar is a hot commodity when
> incorporated into potting soils in greenhouses. Why burn biochar when it
> sells at such a good price, especially when it is worth far more than the
> biomass from which it was derived? So I cannot help but conclude that
> stoves that do not burn biochar, but make it, are incredibly important.
> Also, if I were to burn biochar within the reactor of my TLUD, this would
> be such an inefficient exercise, since the distance between the pot and the
> burning biochar would be so great.
>
> No, it makes so much sense to keep the biochar. We can feed biochar to
> pigs, cows and chickens. We then take the solid waste from these animals
> and feed it to BSF larvae. We then take the residue of the larvae and feed
> it to red worms, and finally we take the vermi-compost loaded with biochar
> back to the soil. The biochar passes through the gut of three creatures
> before it gets incorporated into the soil. When we put biochar in a dry
> bedding for pigs and cows, listen carefully, there is no urine or ammonia
> smell. We have virtually odorless pig pens. The pigs play in the bedding
> and even eat it. More than 60 farmers in the area have now adopted this way
> of raising pigs. All of these farmer use biochar. Also there are no flies
> around these pig pens. Antibiotics are no longer used. Not a single piglet
> gets diarrhea.
>
> The pig farmers make rice wine, and the mash gets fed to the pigs. I will
> start supplying gasifiers to these pig farmers for the distillation of
> their rice wine. The burning of low-grade biomass for rice wine
> distillation will stop. The farmers will then be able to make their own
> biochar to incorporate into pig bedding.
>
> Ron, slap my hand, but not too hard. There are the big issues like global
> warming and ocean acidification, and I am proud to be able to play a very,
> very minute roll in helping to solve these problems. Then there are more
> mundane issues like showing a pig farmer how to use eliminate odor and
> disease through the use of biochar. All of these things figure into the way
> I design a stove.
>
> Ron, thanks so much for speaking up in your last email. I value your
> contribution enormously.
>
> Paul Olivier
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Ronal W. Larson
> <rongretlarson at comcast.net>wrote:
>
> > List:
> >
> >    1.   Apologies to Erin, but the conversation re ocean acidification
> has
> > turned enough into stoves topics I feel a need to enter and also support
> > Paul Olivier (who should have his hand slapped for bringing up the ocean
> > and pH subjects).
> >
> >    2.   First about the supposed  outstanding talk by a young unemployed
> > recent chem engineering graduate.  I am pretty sure that his calculation
> > (which I am not going to go through even I were competent to judge in
> > detail) was calculating the *average *pH change in the ocean.  The entire
> > ocean community agrees that that change is small.  All the talk of an 0.1
> > change in pH  (same as 30% change when not in log units) refers to the
> near
> > surface pH.  Calculating an average change is worse than ludicrous.  His
> > picking on one of the world's most well respected ocean scientist
> > (Lubchenko) displays further ignorance.   Why should anyone be surprised
> > that the average ocean *surface* pH changes by 30% when the atmospheric
> > level has changed a little bit more?  (there are huge fluxes each way
> every
> > day)  A great reference on all this is the PNAS paper given today (by
> > mistake?) by Kevin.  Check wiki.  Check a yesterday Skeptical Science
> > article on this at
> >
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Acidification-Eating-Away-at-Life-in-t
> he-Southern-Ocean.html
> >     I see no credentials (claimed or otherwise) for this young guy
> knowing
> > any biology, so his comments on reduced calcium carbonate in certain sea
> > creatures should receive zero credence (especially in the Antarctic)  And
> > one wouldn't expect anything like a peer review at WUWT.   I consider
> WUWT
> > to be the antithesis of sound science.  In my circles, it is considered a
> > joke.
> >
> >   3.   About half or more of the list has an interest in char-making
> > stoves.  So I have to ask why Crispin is out there by himself with the
> > first pat of this following quote from him today.  The entire stove
> > community from what I have seen disagrees with Crispin on this:
> >
> >    *It has so happened that in recent years the emergence of char making
> > TLUD stoves has exacerbated the errors in the simple models used for
> > decades and there are serious consequences for the stove section. Stoves
> > that are really IWA tier 1 performers can get a tier 4 rating for
> something
> > because of defects in the models. "*
> >
> >    My conclusion is this observation would be approved by the vast
> > majority of WUWT followers.  If something related to excess CO2 is
> proposed
> > (such as char going in the ground), then the idea must be bogus, because
> > climate scientists are liars, cheats, free-loaders etc.  Well fortunately
> > that is not the majority view around the world and stove models and
> > performance ratings are doing perfectly fine, with Crispin fighting all
> the
> > way.  Glad to see Crispin bringing this up and hope we can continue this
> > stove-related discussion.
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *4 .  *The above two sentences were followed by these:
> > *      "It is like that with the climate too. To date there are 73 well
> > known, accessible climate models (GCM?s). Not one of them has predicted
> the
> > current 200 month stasis in global temperature (indistinguishable from
> zero
> > change). That means the models are invalidated. The implications are
> pretty
> > serious.*
> > *     *There is no reason at all to conclude that the models are in error
> and
> > "*invalidated" - *and least of all for the relative flatness (for less
> > than 200 months), given every other AGW indicator.  The oceans
> > have continued to warm (and levels rise).  Arctic ice volume is about the
> > same as last year's record low. Record temperature highs greatly
> exceeding
> > record lows.    For decades the annual land temperature rise greatly
> > exceeded the ocean temperature rise.  Why be surprised if it slows for
> > awhile, to let the oceans catch up?
> >
> > 5.  I applaud Cecil's comments.  I didn't think Crispin defended well.
> >  But not enough stove material there except Cecil's last on precaution.
> >  Thanks Cecil.
> >
> > 6. . Lastly,  three additions below in the latest Crispin message.
> >
> > On Aug 8, 2013, at 12:21 PM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <
> > crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Kevin****
> >
> > I thought the young man addressed matters very directly and effectively.
> > There is a comment below from a guy named Bob. Search for ?Somewhere in
> my
> > misspent youth I picked up 3 degrees in chemistry, postdoctoral research
> > and a couple of decades in the chemical industry.?
> >
> >         *[RWL7.    Te the young man - yes he wrote well - but missed the
> > main several points (stated above)    Nothing here on stoves.  I have
> > searched for "Bob" and have no idea what that was about.*
> >
> > ****
> >
> > I haven?t found a chemist yet who supports the ?acid ocean? theory. But
> as
> > Steve asks, why are they so silent? The answer is intimidation or they
> are
> > bored with such a stupid topic.
> >
> >       *[RWL8:  I have not above used the word "denier".  These exemplify
> > denial.   I don't think I could find a published peer reviewed paper that
> > didn't think ocean surface.  pH has been climbing steadily*
> >
> > ****
> >
> > A topic that should follow this into the grave of silence is: ?burying
> > charcoal to help prevent the acidification of the oceans?. We do indeed
> > have a long way to go.****
> >    *[RWL9:  I was going to stay out of this "stove" dialog until reading
> > this.  Truly amazing to say this on a stove list where he insults a**t
> > least **half** of the list!   And most of them are not about to become
> > deniers if I can help it.   I think/hope Crispin indeed has a "long way
> > to go."      Ron*
> >
> >
> >
> > Chemically yours,****
> > Crispin****
> >
> > ** **
> > Dear Crispin****
> >  ****
> > Thanks very much for the URL for the excellent article.****
> >  ****
> > It is amazing what can be deduced using real science. :-)****
> >  ****
> > It is scary that organizations like the UN, IPCC, and NOAA don't have
> > competent people on staff to vet their "Ocean Acidification" statements.
> > When a recent Chemical Engineering Graduate can point out the folly of
> > "jumping on the Ocean Acidification Bandwagon", it should lead us to
> raise
> > the question:****
> > "What else are the UN, NOAA, and the IPCC telling us about AGW that is
> > wrong?"****
> >  ****
> > Best wishes,****
> >  ****
> > Kevin****
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130810/aaaa2759/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 08:29:31 +0700
> From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAOreFvYk1E+fx28RwM8-zPo3fgt5ai82zDNHv5Sj7txUmjW5Uw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Crispin,
>
> You say: there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
> You say: The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human role in global
> warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date, undetectable.
>
> Are you saying the scientific community that sees global warming and ocean
> acidification as real problems are alarmists who have not bothered to do
> good science? Are you saying that your views on global warming and ocean
> acidification represents the views of the majority of scientists studying
> these issues? Are you a climatologist or an oceanographer with hard data in
> hand when you assert these climatologist and oceanographers have been doing
> faulty and alarmist research? Are you saying is that it is perfectly OK to
> go on burning fossil fuels? Why then do we bother to design biomass stoves
> as long as fossil fuels such as gas, oil and coal can be extracted out of
> the ground at a reasonable price and as long as governments are willing to
> offer subsidies to poor people? Why should the GACC bother to promote
> biomass stoves in areas where governments are willing to offer subsidies to
> the poor? Are you saying that we should go on uselessly burning waste
> biomass such as rice hulls, rice straw, sugarcane leaves and pine forest
> debris, and that none of this burning has any real impact on global warming
> and ocean acidification? Instead of uselessly burning this biomass, would
> it not make more sense to use it to cook a meal? Are you also prepared to
> deny the conclusions of all of the research that has been done on
> incorporating biochar into the soil dating back to the early 1990's? Are
> all of these scientists involved in biochar research (such as Ogawa,
> Lehmann, Joseph, Leng and Preston) misguided and misinformed? Exactly how
> much biochar research have you been personally involved in? How many
> growing experiments have you conducted with biochar that enable you to
> assert that incorporating biochar into the soil makes no sense? Have you
> ever published any peer-reviewed papers relating to biochar research? Have
> you ever tried incorporating biochar into pig and cow bedding or into
> chicken litter?
>
> In personal emails to me you have labeled my views on global warming and
> ocean acidification as ridiculous, naive, foolish and misguided babble.
> Please forgive me if I do not take kindly to being put down in such an
> offensive manner.
>
> Thanks so much.
> Paul Olivier
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Ron****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> > straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
> ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> > ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of
> AGW.
> > It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> > the compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to
> > handle people who were ?off message?. ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> > which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> > instructions for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it is
> > harder to dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t
> > any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who
> > are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of
> > AGW (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human
> > role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> > undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> > ?denying? *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> > pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> > the skeptic or those listening to them.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
> > credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> > correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some
> mention
> > of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists
> and
> > so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> > address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
> when
> > the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation
> so
> > it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> > Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have
> noticed
> > by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> > bailing out. ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed
> down
> > the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
> > highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> > grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class
> ticket
> > on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> > about human influences on the climate.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well
> > by future historians.****
> >
> > Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> > purchased. ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> > together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that
> currently
> > disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> > funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous
> scientists
> > that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> > research.?****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
> > years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> > calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove test
> > protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> > believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> > without consequence. ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors
> in
> > it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The
> April
> > 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> > version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> > conceptual relevance.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> > climate science information has been brought forward in articles that
> ?were
> > not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on trying
> to
> > humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who knows) and
> > put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> > Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit
> > their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?
>  Actually
> > the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to
> do
> > so.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and
> money
> > trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight,
> > but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major
> > contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the
> Arctic<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperatu
>
> re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
> 293>or photos of stack emissions are
> >
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI
> >or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> >
> parody<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-se
> cret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> > plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> *
> > ***
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> > I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> > planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> > after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> > /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130810/2f122de8/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 08:41:54 +0700
> From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAOreFvawP8H5aLV7yu_yK0fYK7Ek50O9FVR3E3EDdhh6kpZN2g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dean,
>
> Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean acidification
> and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go about designing
> stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves? Do we place
> all on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we build
> biomass stoves, should these stove be burning or producing biochar? How can
> we design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?
>
> Thanks.
> Paul Olivier
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> > return to the topic of stoves.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> > crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Ron****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> >> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
> ***
> >> *
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> >> ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of
> AGW.
> >> It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> >> the compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to
> >> handle people who were ?off message?. ****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> >> which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> >> instructions for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it is
> >> harder to dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t
> >> any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who
> >> are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side
> of
> >> AGW (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a
> human
> >> role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> >> undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> >> ?denying? *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> >> pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> >> the skeptic or those listening to them.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing
> the
> >> credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> >> correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some
> mention
> >> of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists
> and
> >> so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> >> address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
> when
> >> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation
> so
> >> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> >> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have
> noticed
> >> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> >> bailing out. ****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed
> >> down the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe
> >> was highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists
> and
> >> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class
> ticket
> >> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> >> about human influences on the climate.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated
> well
> >> by future historians.****
> >>
> >> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> >> purchased. ****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> >> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that
> currently
> >> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> >> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous
> scientists
> >> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten
> level
> >> research.?****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past
> 6
> >> years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> >> calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove
> >> test protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can
> be
> >> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and
> not
> >> without consequence. ****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors
> >> in it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The
> >> April 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that
> the
> >> 2010 version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> >> conceptual relevance.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> >> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that
> ?were
> >> not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on trying
> to
> >> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who knows) and
> >> put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> >> Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit
> >> their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?
> Actually
> >> the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to
> do
> >> so.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and
> >> money trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things
> >> overnight, but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a
> major
> >> contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the
> Arctic<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperatu
>
> re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
> 293>or photos of stack emissions are
> >>
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI
> >or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> >>
> parody<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-se
> cret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> >> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png
> >.
> >> ****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> >> I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> >> planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Crispin****
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> >> after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge
> and
> >> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >>
> >> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>
> >>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >>
> >> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> >> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130810/282d5600/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:52:25 -0700
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID: <001801ce956c$43ce6750$cb6b35f0$@trmiles.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
> developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
> yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
> fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
> They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
> relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
> Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
> Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Krusa?,
> Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and O?rjan Gustafsson
> Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
>
>
> DOI: 10.1021/es401599r
>
> Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013
>
> Copyright ? 2013, American Chemical Society
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r
>
>
>
> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Olivier
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
>
>
> Dean,
>
> Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean acidification
> and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go about designing
> stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves? Do we place
> all
> on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we build biomass
> stoves, should these stove be burning or producing biochar? How can we
> design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Paul Olivier
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> return to the topic of stoves.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Dean
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Ron
>
>
>
> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
>
>
>
> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the ?Skeptical
> Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of AGW. It was a
> document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to the
> compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to handle
> people who were ?off message?.
>
>
>
> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA which
> I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific instructions
> for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it is harder to
> dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t any. It
> suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who are
> presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of AGW
> (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human role
> in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date, undetectable.
> The
> instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as ?denying? all human
> influence on the planet then offers various pejorative comparisons that can
> be made so as to cause consternation for the skeptic or those listening to
> them.
>
>
>
> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
> credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some mention
> of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists and
> so on and on. We have seen it all before.
>
>
>
> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean? when
> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation so
> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have noticed
> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.
>
>
>
> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> bailing out.
>
>
>
> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself):
>
>
>
> ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed down
> the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
> highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class ticket
> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> about
> human influences on the climate.
>
>
>
> ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well
> by
> future historians.
>
> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> purchased.
>
>
>
> ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that currently
> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists
> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> research.?
>
>
>
> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
> years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> calling for the peer review, the independent assessment of stove test
> protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> without consequence.
>
>
>
> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors in
> it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The April
> 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.
>
>
>
> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> conceptual relevance.
>
>
>
> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that ?were
> not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on trying to
> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who knows) and
> put
> your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the Universities
> of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit their protocols
> to competent authorities for independent review?  Actually the WB has its
> project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to do so.
>
>
>
> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and money
> trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight,
> but
> by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major contribution to
> the field of domestic energy can be attained.
>
>
>
> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the Arctic
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plo
> t-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>
> or photos of stack emissions are faked
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>  or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-t
> ree-house-bunker/#more-91202>  or even if US winter temperatures continue
> to
> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png> .
>
>
>
> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it causes
> <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm> ?. I don?t like trumped up or
> trumped down stove performance results.
>
>
>
> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
>
>
> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130809/bb453fd4/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:58:26 -0700
> From: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID:
>         <CA+tShZvf7_0uqOXXydqg5OjEDC7nG1b_1xpepJo=
> rJOBF-wdkg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> I think that what I was trying to suggest was that the back and forth
> arguments might have reached a point where the Mom and Pop in the front
> seat of the car have pulled over in a shady spot under a tree and, half way
> to the beach, both suggested in gentle voices to the brood behind them that
> if the kicking continues the day at the beach might have to be postponed?
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dean,
> >
> > Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean
> acidification
> > and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go about designing
> > stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves? Do we place
> > all on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we build
> > biomass stoves, should these stove be burning or producing biochar? How
> can
> > we design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Paul Olivier
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that
> we
> >> return to the topic of stoves.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Dean
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> >> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>  Dear Ron****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> >>> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
> **
> >>> **
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> >>> ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of
> AGW.
> >>> It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted
> to
> >>> the compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how
> to
> >>> handle people who were ?off message?. ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> >>> which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> >>> instructions for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it
> is
> >>> harder to dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t
> >>> any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers
> who
> >>> are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side
> of
> >>> AGW (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a
> human
> >>> role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> >>> undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> >>> ?denying? *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> >>> pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation
> for
> >>> the skeptic or those listening to them.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing
> >>> the credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the
> skeptical
> >>> correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some
> mention
> >>> of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists
> and
> >>> so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> >>> address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
> when
> >>> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation
> so
> >>> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> >>> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have
> noticed
> >>> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> >>> bailing out. ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed
> >>> down the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in
> Europe
> >>> was highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists
> and
> >>> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class
> ticket
> >>> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> >>> about human influences on the climate.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated
> >>> well by future historians.****
> >>>
> >>> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> >>> purchased. ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> >>> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that
> currently
> >>> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the
> science
> >>> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous
> scientists
> >>> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten
> level
> >>> research.?****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past
> >>> 6 years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I
> am
> >>> calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove
> >>> test protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can
> be
> >>> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and
> not
> >>> without consequence. ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors
> >>> in it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet.
> The
> >>> April 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that
> the
> >>> 2010 version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy
> and
> >>> conceptual relevance.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> >>> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that
> ?were
> >>> not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on
> trying
> to
> >>> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who knows)
> and
> >>> put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> >>> Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else
> submit
> >>> their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?
> Actually
> >>> the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to
> do
> >>> so.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and
> >>> money trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things
> >>> overnight, but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a
> major
> >>> contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the
> >>>
> Arctic<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperatu
>
> re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
> 293>or photos of stack emissions are
> >>>
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI
> >or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> >>>
> parody<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-se
> cret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> >>> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png
> >.
> >>> ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> >>> I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to
> the
> >>> planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Crispin****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> >>> after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge
> and
> >>> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Stoves mailing list
> >>>
> >>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>>
> >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>>
> >>>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >>>
> >>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web
> site:
> >>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >>
> >> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>
> >>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >>
> >> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> >> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul A. Olivier PhD
> > 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> > Dalat
> > Vietnam
> >
> > Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> > Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> > Skype address: Xpolivier
> > http://www.esrla.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130809/28a7ad77/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 23:51:43 -0300
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID: <73BE513594FA407080F71A9AAA45B422 at usera594fda0bf>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear Dean
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Dean Still
>   To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>   Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:15 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
>
>   Dear All,
>
>
>   I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> return to the topic of stoves.
>
>   # Good point! To advance "the science of stove testing", would you be
> prepared to support the external review of the various stove testing
> protocols by competent independant authorities?
>
>   Best wishes,
>
>   Kevin
>
>
>
>
>   Best,
>
>
>   Dean
>
>
>   On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Dear Ron
>
>
>
>     I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
>
>
>
>     The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of AGW.
> It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> the
> compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to handle
> people who were ?off message?.
>
>
>
>     There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> instructions for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it is
> harder to dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t
> any.
> It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who are
> presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of AGW
> (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human role
> in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date, undetectable.
> The
> instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as ?denying? all human
> influence on the planet then offers various pejorative comparisons that can
> be made so as to cause consternation for the skeptic or those listening to
> them.
>
>
>
>     The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing
> the credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some mention
> of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists and
> so on and on. We have seen it all before.
>
>
>
>     You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean? when
> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation so
> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have noticed
> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.
>
>
>
>     As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> bailing out.
>
>
>
>     As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself):
>
>
>
>     ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed
> down the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe
> was
> highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class ticket
> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> about
> human influences on the climate.
>
>
>
>     ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated
> well by future historians.
>
>     Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> purchased.
>
>
>
>     ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that currently
> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists
> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> research.?
>
>
>
>       Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the
> past 6 years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now.
> I
> am calling for the peer review, the independent assessment of stove test
> protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> without consequence.
>
>
>
>       For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no
> errors in it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet.
> The April 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that
> the 2010 version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.
>
>
>
>       WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy
> and conceptual relevance.
>
>
>
>       Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect
> of climate science information has been brought forward in articles that
> ?were not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on
> trying to humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who
> knows) and put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA,
> the Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else
> submit
> their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?  Actually
> the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to do
> so.
>
>
>
>       The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and
> money trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things
> overnight, but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major
> contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.
>
>
>
>       It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the
> Arctic or photos of stack emissions are faked or SkS takes in on the chin
> with a Godwins Law parody or even if US winter temperatures continue to
> plunge.
>
>
>
>       I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it causes?. I don?t
> like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.
>
>
>
>       Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to
> the planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.
>
>
>
>       Thanks
>       Crispin
>
>
>
>       1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for
> ?letters after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity,
> knowledge and /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Stoves mailing list
>
>     to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>     stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>     to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
>     for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web
> site:
>     http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   Stoves mailing list
>
>   to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>   stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>   to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
>   for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>   http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130809/2051e136/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:59:20 +0700
> From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID:
>         <CAOreFvZvrDEQ_MTAsCrrVhdzGk3zv=
> KquHcrWSdQ1Kr_f+ykyg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Tom,
>
> Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black carbon? Do
> you do so mainly from the point of view of human health? Or do you have
> other environmental considerations in mind? As you know, many scientists
> maintain that black carbon warms the earth. Are you not going in the
> direction of another contentious issue that some might consider to be
> unrelated to stove design?
>
> Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas should we try
> to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we try to put a lot more
> emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not make sense to develop stoves that
> are low in black carbon and at the same time do not create CO2 from
> non-renewable sources such as coal? Does the GACC ask such broad questions?
> Or does it operate out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like
> black carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to stove
> design?
>
> Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all: no rice
> hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue of any kind. And
> let us suppose that in this barren landscape there is nothing but coal.
> Here I concede that it makes sense to focus attention on developing more
> efficient coal stoves.
>
> Many thanks.
> Paul
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
>
> > Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
> > developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
> > yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
> > fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
> > They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
> > relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
> > Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Tom****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
> > Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Krusa?,
> > Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and O?rjan
> Gustafsson
> > Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP****
> >
> > ****
> >
> > DOI: 10.1021/es401599r****
> >
> > Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013****
> >
> > Copyright ? 2013, American Chemical Society
> > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r****
> >
> > ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> > Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM
> >
> > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Dean,****
> >
> > Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean
> acidification
> > and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go about designing
> > stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves? Do we place
> > all on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we build
> > biomass stoves, should these stove be burning or producing biochar? How
> can
> > we design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?****
> >
> > Thanks.****
> >
> > Paul Olivier****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> wrote:*
> > ***
> >
> > Dear All,****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> > return to the topic of stoves. ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Best,****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Dean****
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> > crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:****
> >
> > Dear Ron****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> > straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
> ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> > ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of
> AGW.
> > It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> > the compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to
> > handle people who were ?off message?. ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> > which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> > instructions for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it is
> > harder to dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t
> > any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who
> > are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of
> > AGW (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human
> > role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> > undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> > ?denying? *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> > pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> > the skeptic or those listening to them.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
> > credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> > correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some
> mention
> > of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists
> and
> > so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> > address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
> when
> > the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation
> so
> > it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> > Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have
> noticed
> > by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> > bailing out. ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed
> down
> > the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
> > highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> > grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class
> ticket
> > on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> > about human influences on the climate.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well
> > by future historians.****
> >
> > Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> > purchased. ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> > together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that
> currently
> > disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> > funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous
> scientists
> > that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> > research.?****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
> > years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> > calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove test
> > protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> > believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> > without consequence. ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors
> in
> > it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The
> April
> > 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> > version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> > conceptual relevance.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> > climate science information has been brought forward in articles that
> ?were
> > not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on trying
> to
> > humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who knows) and
> > put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> > Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit
> > their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?
>  Actually
> > the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to
> do
> > so.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and
> money
> > trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight,
> > but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major
> > contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the
> Arctic<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperatu
>
> re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
> 293>or photos of stack emissions are
> >
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI
> >or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> >
> parody<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-se
> cret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> > plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> *
> > ***
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> > I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> > planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> > after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> > /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> > ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> > ****
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul A. Olivier PhD
> > 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> > Dalat
> > Vietnam
> >
> > Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> > Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> > Skype address: Xpolivier
> > http://www.esrla.com/ ****
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130810/cc7e1de1/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:18:59 +0700
> From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAOreFvatWQdD0OiM85xLTTqBg4mOgJwoS6RvZB-_2EDE58uOhg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dean,
>
> I fully agree that the kicking and fighting in the back seat should stop.
> But please lets us not stop discussing broad issues that impact stove
> design in a fundamental way.
>
> Many thanks.
> Paul Olivier
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Paul,
> >
> > I think that what I was trying to suggest was that the back and forth
> > arguments might have reached a point where the Mom and Pop in the front
> > seat of the car have pulled over in a shady spot under a tree and, half
> way
> > to the beach, both suggested in gentle voices to the brood behind them
> that
> > if the kicking continues the day at the beach might have to be postponed?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Paul Olivier
> <paul.olivier at esrla.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Dean,
> >>
> >> Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean
> >> acidification and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go
> about
> >> designing stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves?
> Do
> >> we place all on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we
> >> build biomass stoves, should these stove be burning or producing
> biochar?
> >> How can we design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> Paul Olivier
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear All,
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that
> >>> we return to the topic of stoves.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Dean
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> >>> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>  Dear Ron****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina,
> speculations,
> >>>> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
> *
> >>>> ***
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> >>>> ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of
> AGW.
> >>>> It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted
> to
> >>>> the compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how
> to
> >>>> handle people who were ?off message?. ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> >>>> which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> >>>> instructions for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it
> is
> >>>> harder to dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there
> isn?t
> >>>> any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers
> who
> >>>> are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side
> of
> >>>> AGW (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a
> human
> >>>> role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> >>>> undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> >>>> ?denying? *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> >>>> pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation
> for
> >>>> the skeptic or those listening to them.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing
> >>>> the credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the
> skeptical
> >>>> correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some
> mention
> >>>> of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable?
> scientists
> and
> >>>> so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at
> all)
> >>>> address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
> when
> >>>> the number of anions is reduced through a process called
> neutralisation
> so
> >>>> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army
> boots?.
> >>>> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have
> noticed
> >>>> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> >>>> bailing out. ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed
> >>>> down the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in
> Europe
> >>>> was highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists
> and
> >>>> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class
> ticket
> >>>> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> >>>> about human influences on the climate.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated
> >>>> well by future historians.****
> >>>>
> >>>> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> >>>> purchased. ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> >>>> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that
> currently
> >>>> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the
> science
> >>>> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous
> scientists
> >>>> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten
> level
> >>>> research.?****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the
> past
> >>>> 6 years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now.
> I
> am
> >>>> calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove
> >>>> test protocols so that they are validated and the results they give
> can
> be
> >>>> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and
> not
> >>>> without consequence. ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no
> errors
> >>>> in it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet.
> The
> >>>> April 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that
> the
> >>>> 2010 version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy
> >>>> and conceptual relevance.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect
> of
> >>>> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that
> ?were
> >>>> not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on
> trying to
> >>>> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who knows)
> and
> >>>> put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> >>>> Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else
> submit
> >>>> their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?
> Actually
> >>>> the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue
> to
> do
> >>>> so.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and
> >>>> money trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things
> >>>> overnight, but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a
> major
> >>>> contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the
> >>>>
> Arctic<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperatu
>
> re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
> 293>or photos of stack emissions are
> >>>>
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI
> >or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> >>>>
> parody<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-se
> cret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> >>>> plunge
> <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> >>>> I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to
> >>>> the planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Crispin****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for
> >>>> ?letters after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity,
> >>>> knowledge and /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Stoves mailing list
> >>>>
> >>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>>>
> >>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >>>>
> >>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web
> site:
> >>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Stoves mailing list
> >>>
> >>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>>
> >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>>
> >>>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >>>
> >>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web
> site:
> >>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> >> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> >> Dalat
> >> Vietnam
> >>
> >> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> >> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> >> Skype address: Xpolivier
> >> http://www.esrla.com/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >>
> >> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>
> >>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >>
> >> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> >> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130810/b7da2859/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:45:53 -0700
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID: <004d01ce957c$1d9b3f80$58d1be80$@trmiles.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> Perhaps you missed the discussion late last year when a major study
> including BC was issued. Tami Bond, one of our number and a co-author, made
> a presentation for us at ETHOS in January. There is no question that BC is
> a
> major concern for ?climate disruption? and health. It is not either biomass
> or fossil fuels. Improvement is needed for both.
>
>
>
> Tami?s notes for her Saturday evening Keynote address including the Dec
> 2012
> study reference are at:
> http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/proceedings2013.html
>
>
>
> The study was, ?A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and
> injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21
> regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
> Study 2010.? Lim et. al December 2012.
>
>
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961766-
> 8/abstract
>
>
>
> Household air pollution from solid fuels is listed in the comparative risk
> assessment as #4 globally. Tami  described the BC impacts of kerosene and
> biomass and the impact of stove design on the evolution of BC and its
> persistence in the atmosphere.
>
>
>
> I will ignore your disparaging remarks about GACC. The reality is that we
> are all GACC. We should be mutually supporting individual and collective
> efforts to  solve the myriad of issues to the extent that we can.
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Olivier
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 7:59 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
>
>
> Tom,
>
> Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black carbon? Do
> you
> do so mainly from the point of view of human health? Or do you have other
> environmental considerations in mind? As you know, many scientists maintain
> that black carbon warms the earth. Are you not going in the direction of
> another contentious issue that some might consider to be unrelated to stove
> design?
>
> Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas should we try
> to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we try to put a lot more
> emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not make sense to develop stoves that
> are low in black carbon and at the same time do not create CO2 from
> non-renewable sources such as coal? Does the GACC ask such broad questions?
> Or does it operate out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like
> black carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to stove
> design?
>
> Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all: no rice
> hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue of any kind. And
> let us suppose that in this barren landscape there is nothing but coal.
> Here
> I concede that it makes sense to focus attention on developing more
> efficient coal stoves.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
>
> Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
> developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
> yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
> fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
> They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
> relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
> Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).
>
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
> Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Krusa?,
> Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and O?rjan Gustafsson
> Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
>
>
> DOI: 10.1021/es401599r
>
> Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013
>
> Copyright ? 2013, American Chemical Society
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r
>
>
>
> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Olivier
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM
>
>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
>
>
> Dean,
>
> Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean acidification
> and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go about designing
> stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves? Do we place
> all
> on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we build biomass
> stoves, should these stove be burning or producing biochar? How can we
> design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Paul Olivier
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> return to the topic of stoves.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Dean
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Ron
>
>
>
> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
>
>
>
> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the ?Skeptical
> Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of AGW. It was a
> document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to the
> compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to handle
> people who were ?off message?.
>
>
>
> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA which
> I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific instructions
> for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it is harder to
> dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t any. It
> suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who are
> presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of AGW
> (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human role
> in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date, undetectable.
> The
> instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as ?denying? all human
> influence on the planet then offers various pejorative comparisons that can
> be made so as to cause consternation for the skeptic or those listening to
> them.
>
>
>
> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
> credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some mention
> of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists and
> so on and on. We have seen it all before.
>
>
>
> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean? when
> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation so
> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have noticed
> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.
>
>
>
> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> bailing out.
>
>
>
> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself):
>
>
>
> ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed down
> the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
> highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class ticket
> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> about
> human influences on the climate.
>
>
>
> ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well
> by
> future historians.
>
> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> purchased.
>
>
>
> ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that currently
> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists
> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> research.?
>
>
>
> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
> years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> calling for the peer review, the independent assessment of stove test
> protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> without consequence.
>
>
>
> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors in
> it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The April
> 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.
>
>
>
> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> conceptual relevance.
>
>
>
> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that ?were
> not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on trying to
> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who knows) and
> put
> your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the Universities
> of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit their protocols
> to competent authorities for independent review?  Actually the WB has its
> project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to do so.
>
>
>
> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and money
> trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight,
> but
> by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major contribution to
> the field of domestic energy can be attained.
>
>
>
> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the Arctic
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plo
> t-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>
> or photos of stack emissions are faked
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>  or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-t
> ree-house-bunker/#more-91202>  or even if US winter temperatures continue
> to
> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png> .
>
>
>
> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it causes
> <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm> ?. I don?t like trumped up or
> trumped down stove performance results.
>
>
>
> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
>
>
> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130809/13bcc4b3/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 22:10:04 -0700
> From: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+tShZse3R-ExuFXkU13uSxU8+1RPjTPvvvxK2O5DExLufpkAQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear Kevin,
>
> Can you imagine a more thorough investigation than the international ISO
> process that is occurring?
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> > **
> > Dear Dean
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking
> stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 9:15 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> > return to the topic of stoves.
> >
> > *# Good point! To advance "the science of stove testing", would you be
> > prepared to support the external review of the various stove testing
> > protocols by competent independant authorities?*
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> > crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  Dear Ron****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> >> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
> ***
> >> *
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> >> ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of
> AGW.
> >> It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> >> the compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to
> >> handle people who were ?off message?. ****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> >> which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> >> instructions for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it is
> >> harder to dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t
> >> any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who
> >> are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side
> of
> >> AGW (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a
> human
> >> role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> >> undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> >> ?denying? *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> >> pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> >> the skeptic or those listening to them.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing
> the
> >> credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> >> correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some
> mention
> >> of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists
> and
> >> so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> >> address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
> when
> >> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation
> so
> >> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> >> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have
> noticed
> >> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> >> bailing out. ****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed
> >> down the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe
> >> was highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists
> and
> >> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class
> ticket
> >> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> >> about human influences on the climate.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated
> well
> >> by future historians.****
> >>
> >> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> >> purchased. ****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> >> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that
> currently
> >> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> >> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous
> scientists
> >> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten
> level
> >> research.?****
> >>
> >>  ****
> >>
> >> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past
> 6
> >> years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> >> calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove
> >> test protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can
> be
> >> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and
> not
> >> without consequence. ****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors
> >> in it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The
> >> April 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that
> the
> >> 2010 version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> >> conceptual relevance.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> >> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that
> ?were
> >> not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on trying
> to
> >> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who knows) and
> >> put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> >> Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit
> >> their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?
> Actually
> >> the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to
> do
> >> so.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and
> >> money trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things
> >> overnight, but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a
> major
> >> contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the
> Arctic<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperatu
>
> re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
> 293>or photos of stack emissions are
> >>
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI
> >or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> >>
> parody<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-se
> cret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> >> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png
> >.
> >> ****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> >> I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> >> planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Crispin****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> >> after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge
> and
> >> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >>
> >> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>
> >>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >>
> >> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> >> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >  ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130809/e24f82f5/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 02:29:20 -0300
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID: <6D2E44CAF5604723B8609481A6C86972 at usera594fda0bf>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear Dean
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Dean Still
>   To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>   Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 2:10 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
>
>   Dear Kevin,
>
>
>   Can you imagine a more thorough investigation than the international ISO
> process that is occurring?
>
>   # Yes, I certainly can! All that the ISO Process ensures is that a
> procedure is put in place to ensure that "whatever is being done will be
> done consistently." If a "garbage stove testing procedure" was submitted
> for
> ISO for ISO Approval, it could very well get ISO Approval, and the result
> would be "consistent garbage stove testing results".
>
>   # The first sensible step is to develop a scientifically valid testing
> procedure, which THEN would be submitted for ISO Approval. As long as ISO
> standards and procedures were followed, such a scientifically valid testing
> procedure would consistently give scientifically valid results.
>
>   # So...  would you be prepared to support the external review of the
> various stove testing protocols by competent independant authorities?
>
>   Best wishes,
>
>   Kevin
>
>
>   Best,
>
>
>   Dean
>
>
>   On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>     Dear Dean
>       ----- Original Message -----
>       From: Dean Still
>       To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>       Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:15 PM
>       Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
>
>       Dear All,
>
>
>       I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked
> that
> we return to the topic of stoves.
>
>       # Good point! To advance "the science of stove testing", would you be
> prepared to support the external review of the various stove testing
> protocols by competent independant authorities?
>
>       Best wishes,
>
>       Kevin
>
>
>
>
>       Best,
>
>
>       Dean
>
>
>       On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         Dear Ron
>
>
>
>         I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina,
> speculations, straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the
> message.
>
>
>
>         The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of AGW.
> It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> the
> compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to handle
> people who were ?off message?.
>
>
>
>         There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the
> USA which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> instructions for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it is
> harder to dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t
> any.
> It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who are
> presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of AGW
> (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human role
> in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date, undetectable.
> The
> instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as ?denying? all human
> influence on the planet then offers various pejorative comparisons that can
> be made so as to cause consternation for the skeptic or those listening to
> them.
>
>
>
>         The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always
> pooh-poohing the credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint
> the
> skeptical correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert
> some mention of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable?
> scientists and so on and on. We have seen it all before.
>
>
>
>         You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at
> all) address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
> when the number of anions is reduced through a process called
> neutralisation
> so it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have noticed
> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.
>
>
>
>         As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country
> is bailing out.
>
>
>
>         As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself):
>
>
>
>         ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted,
> flushed down the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in
> Europe was highjacked by a group of political power craving
> environmentalists and grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized
> their First Class ticket on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by
> abject fear mongering about human influences on the climate.
>
>
>
>         ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be
> treated
> well by future historians.
>
>         Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> purchased.
>
>
>
>         ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up,
> glued together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that
> currently disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the
> science funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous
> scientists that are only good at creating hysteria and performing
> kindergarten level research.?
>
>
>
>           Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over
> the
> past 6 years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now.
> I
> am calling for the peer review, the independent assessment of stove test
> protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> without consequence.
>
>
>
>           For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no
> errors in it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet.
> The April 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that
> the 2010 version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.
>
>
>
>           WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision,
> accuracy and conceptual relevance.
>
>
>
>           Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that
> aspect of climate science information has been brought forward in articles
> that ?were not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up
> on
> trying to humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who
> knows) and put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA,
> the Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else
> submit
> their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?  Actually
> the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to do
> so.
>
>
>
>           The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims
> and money trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things
> overnight, but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major
> contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.
>
>
>
>           It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in
> the
> Arctic or photos of stack emissions are faked or SkS takes in on the chin
> with a Godwins Law parody or even if US winter temperatures continue to
> plunge.
>
>
>
>           I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it causes?. I
> don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.
>
>
>
>           Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering
> to the planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.
>
>
>
>           Thanks
>           Crispin
>
>
>
>           1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for
> ?letters after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity,
> knowledge and /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Stoves mailing list
>
>         to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>         stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>         to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
>         for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web
> site:
>         http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>       _______________________________________________
>       Stoves mailing list
>
>       to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>       stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>       to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
>       for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web
> site:
>       http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Stoves mailing list
>
>     to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>     stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>     to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
>     for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web
> site:
>     http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   Stoves mailing list
>
>   to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>   stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>   to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
>   for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>   http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130810/e718acef/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:13:42 +0700
> From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID:
>         <CAOreFvaJVsgduSCf35Ag_6AeMTBgo4zq6NO5sJ=
> 58On-soeLNQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> See comments below.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
>
> > Paul,****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Perhaps you missed the discussion late last year when a major study
> > including BC was issued. Tami Bond, one of our number and a co-author,
> made
> > a presentation for us at ETHOS in January. There is no question that BC
> is
> > a major concern for ?climate disruption? and health. It is not either
> > biomass or fossil fuels. Improvement is needed for both.
> >
>
> I did not frame the issue in either-or terms. But should we be burning coal
> to cook a meal in areas where biomass is abundant? Should we be trying to
> improve and promote coal stoves in areas where biomass stoves make a lot
> more sense in terms of global warming?
>
>
> > ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Tami?s notes for her Saturday evening Keynote address including the Dec
> > 2012 study reference are at:
> > http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/proceedings2013.html****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > The study was, ?A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and
> > injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21
> > regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of
> Disease
> > Study 2010.? Lim et. al December 2012. ****
> >
> >
> >
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961766-
> 8/abstract
> > ****
> >
> >   ****
> >
> > Household air pollution from solid fuels is listed in the comparative
> risk
> > assessment as #4 globally. Tami  described the BC impacts of kerosene and
> > biomass and the impact of stove design on the evolution of BC and its
> > persistence in the atmosphere. ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > I will ignore your disparaging remarks about GACC. The reality is that we
> > are all GACC.
> >
>
> I asked a question about the policy focus of the GACC with no intention of
> being disparaging. I asked this question because I am left with the
> impression that the main focus of the GACC is the health of a cook as she
> cooks a meal. Hopefully I am wrong. If all poor people in the world could
> afford bottled gas through a series of national or international subsidies,
> would the mission of the GACC be fulfilled? Does the GACC put the use of
> fossil fuels such as coal on the same footing as the use of biomass fuels
> such as rice hulls? Would a clean-burning coal stove in the eyes of the
> GACC be just as acceptable as a clean-burning biomass stove in areas where
> both coal and rice hulls are available? Also what is the policy of the GACC
> with regard to biochar? If biochar is not combusted in a stove but
> incorporated into the soil, would this be understood by the GACC as a huge
> inefficiency in the transfer of heat to a pot?
>
>
> > We should be mutually supporting individual and collective efforts to
> >  solve the myriad of issues to the extent that we can.
> >
>
> I am happy to support whatever makes sense in terms of both human health
> and the health of the environment. What is the position of the GACC with
> regard to global warming, climate change, and ocean acidification, and how
> does their position with regard to these important issues impact their
> choice of the stoves they seek to promote?
>
> Many thanks.
> Paul
>
>
> > ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Tom****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> > Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 7:59 PM
> >
> > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Tom,****
> >
> > Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black carbon? Do
> > you do so mainly from the point of view of human health? Or do you have
> > other environmental considerations in mind? As you know, many scientists
> > maintain that black carbon warms the earth. Are you not going in the
> > direction of another contentious issue that some might consider to be
> > unrelated to stove design?
> >
> > Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas should we
> > try to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we try to put a lot
> > more emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not make sense to develop
> stoves
> > that are low in black carbon and at the same time do not create CO2 from
> > non-renewable sources such as coal? Does the GACC ask such broad
> questions?
> > Or does it operate out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like
> > black carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to
> stove
> > design?****
> >
> > Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all: no rice
> > hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue of any kind.
> And
> > let us suppose that in this barren landscape there is nothing but coal.
> > Here I concede that it makes sense to focus attention on developing more
> > efficient coal stoves.
> >
> > Many thanks.****
> >
> > Paul****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> wrote:****
> >
> > Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
> > developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
> > yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
> > fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
> > They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
> > relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
> > Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Tom****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
> > Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Krusa?,
> > Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and O?rjan
> Gustafsson
> > Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP****
> >
> > DOI: 10.1021/es401599r****
> >
> > Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013****
> >
> > Copyright ? 2013, American Chemical Society
> > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> > Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM****
> >
> >
> > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Dean,****
> >
> > Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean
> acidification
> > and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go about designing
> > stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves? Do we place
> > all on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we build
> > biomass stoves, should these stove be burning or producing biochar? How
> can
> > we design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?****
> >
> > Thanks.****
> >
> > Paul Olivier****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> wrote:*
> > ***
> >
> > Dear All,****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> > return to the topic of stoves. ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Best,****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Dean****
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> > crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:****
> >
> > Dear Ron****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> > straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message.
> ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> > ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of
> AGW.
> > It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> > the compliant as a way to communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to
> > handle people who were ?off message?. ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> > which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> > instructions for example to always mention ?climate disruption? as it is
> > harder to dispute and refute than ?global warming? now that there isn?t
> > any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who
> > are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of
> > AGW (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human
> > role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> > undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> > ?denying? *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> > pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> > the skeptic or those listening to them.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
> > credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> > correspondent as ?alone? in their understanding, always insert some
> mention
> > of how settled things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists
> and
> > so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> > address the fact that there is no such thing as ?acidifying the ocean?
> when
> > the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation
> so
> > it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> > Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have
> noticed
> > by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> > bailing out. ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed
> down
> > the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
> > highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> > grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class
> ticket
> > on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> > about human influences on the climate.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well
> > by future historians.****
> >
> > Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> > purchased. ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> > together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that
> currently
> > disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> > funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous
> scientists
> > that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> > research.?****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
> > years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> > calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove test
> > protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> > believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> > without consequence. ****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors
> in
> > it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The
> April
> > 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> > version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> > conceptual relevance.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> > climate science information has been brought forward in articles that
> ?were
> > not peer reviewed? even if they were true. How about giving up on trying
> to
> > humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ? who knows) and
> > put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> > Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit
> > their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?
>  Actually
> > the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well, they should continue to
> do
> > so.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and
> money
> > trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight,
> > but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major
> > contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the
> Arctic<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperatu
>
> re-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91
> 293>or photos of stack emissions are
> >
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI
> >or
> SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> >
> parody<
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-se
> cret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures
> continue to
> > plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> *
> > ***
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it
> causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?.
> > I don?t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Let?s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> > planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to help. We all do.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ?letters
> > after your name? signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> > /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/****
> >
> >  ****
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/****
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul A. Olivier PhD
> > 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> > Dalat
> > Vietnam
> >
> > Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> > Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> > Skype address: Xpolivier
> > http://www.esrla.com/ ****
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> > ****
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul A. Olivier PhD
> > 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> > Dalat
> > Vietnam
> >
> > Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> > Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> > Skype address: Xpolivier
> > http://www.esrla.com/ ****
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130810/b1246e6e/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:16:40 +0200
> From: Ronald Hongsermeier <rwhongser at web.de>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> Message-ID: <5205F6E8.4000606 at web.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> A couple of the paragraphs you wrote seemed to me to sound either/or to me.
>
> Please consider that the last I heard, enough of China's underground
> _reserves_ of coal were burning annually to equal Germany's entire
> annual energetic output/needs in CO2 equivalents. This is a long term
> problem for the Chinese.  Does it make more sense to use the coal in an
> improved stove or let it burn in the ground under conditions that
> certainly cause lots of BC and really ugly tars? (Please note, the
> question is consciously oversimplified, not as condescension, but to
> jostle thinking!)
>
> When a government as directly oriented as the Chinese is not capable of
> keeping people from independently mining coal, how do you propose to
> help these poor people -- how to convince them it would be better to
> just use biomass?
>
> regards,
> Ronald von Weiherbayernsonnenschein
>
>
> On 10.08.2013 09:13, Paul Olivier wrote:
> > See comments below.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com
> > <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Paul,
> >
> >     Perhaps you missed the discussion late last year when a major
> >     study including BC was issued. Tami Bond, one of our number and a
> >     co-author, made a presentation for us at ETHOS in January. There
> >     is no question that BC is a major concern for ?climate disruption?
> >     and health. It is not either biomass or fossil fuels. Improvement
> >     is needed for both.
> >
> >
> > I did not frame the issue in either-or terms. But should we be burning
> > coal to cook a meal in areas where biomass is abundant? Should we be
> > trying to improve and promote coal stoves in areas where biomass
> > stoves make a lot more sense in terms of global warming?
> >
> >     Tami?s notes for her Saturday evening Keynote address including
> >     the Dec 2012 study reference are at:
> >     http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/proceedings2013.html
> >
> >     The study was, ?A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease
> >     and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor
> >     clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the
> >     Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.? Lim et. al December 2012.
> >
> >
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961766-
> 8/abstract
> >
> >     Household air pollution from solid fuels is listed in the
> >     comparative risk assessment as #4 globally. Tami  described the BC
> >     impacts of kerosene and biomass and the impact of stove design on
> >     the evolution of BC and its persistence in the atmosphere.
> >
> >     I will ignore your disparaging remarks about GACC. The reality is
> >     that we are all GACC.
> >
> >
> > I asked a question about the policy focus of the GACC with no
> > intention of being disparaging. I asked this question because I am
> > left with the impression that the main focus of the GACC is the health
> > of a cook as she cooks a meal. Hopefully I am wrong. If all poor
> > people in the world could afford bottled gas through a series of
> > national or international subsidies, would the mission of the GACC be
> > fulfilled? Does the GACC put the use of fossil fuels such as coal on
> > the same footing as the use of biomass fuels such as rice hulls? Would
> > a clean-burning coal stove in the eyes of the GACC be just as
> > acceptable as a clean-burning biomass stove in areas where both coal
> > and rice hulls are available? Also what is the policy of the GACC with
> > regard to biochar? If biochar is not combusted in a stove but
> > incorporated into the soil, would this be understood by the GACC as a
> > huge inefficiency in the transfer of heat to a pot?
> >
> >     We should be mutually supporting individual and collective efforts
> >     to  solve the myriad of issues to the extent that we can.
> >
> >
> > I am happy to support whatever makes sense in terms of both human
> > health and the health of the environment. What is the position of the
> > GACC with regard to global warming, climate change, and ocean
> > acidification, and how does their position with regard to these
> > important issues impact their choice of the stoves they seek to promote?
> >
> > Many thanks.
> > Paul
> >
> >     Tom
> >
> >     *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >     <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *On Behalf Of
> >     *Paul Olivier
> >     *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 7:59 PM
> >
> >
> >     *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> >     *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> >
> >     Tom,
> >
> >     Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black
> >     carbon? Do you do so mainly from the point of view of human
> >     health? Or do you have other environmental considerations in mind?
> >     As you know, many scientists maintain that black carbon warms the
> >     earth. Are you not going in the direction of another contentious
> >     issue that some might consider to be unrelated to stove design?
> >
> >     Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas
> >     should we try to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we
> >     try to put a lot more emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not
> >     make sense to develop stoves that are low in black carbon and at
> >     the same time do not create CO2 from non-renewable sources such as
> >     coal? Does the GACC ask such broad questions? Or does it operate
> >     out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like black
> >     carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to
> >     stove design?
> >
> >     Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all:
> >     no rice hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue
> >     of any kind. And let us suppose that in this barren landscape
> >     there is nothing but coal. Here I concede that it makes sense to
> >     focus attention on developing more efficient coal stoves.
> >
> >     Many thanks.
> >
> >     Paul
> >
> >     On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com
> >     <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related
> >     reason for developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A
> >     study published yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black
> >     carbon from China is from fossil fuels. A significant portion of
> >     that is from coal burning stoves. They recommend developing more
> >     efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all relevant and identified
> >     as part of the strategic work plan of the Global Alliance for
> >     Clean Cookstoves (GACC).
> >
> >     Tom
> >
> >     Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen,
> >     August Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao,
> >     Martin Krusa?, Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke
> >     Du and O?rjan Gustafsson Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
> >
> >     DOI: 10.1021/es401599r
> >
> >     Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013
> >
> >     Copyright ? 2013, American Chemical Society
> >     http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r
> >
> >     *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >     <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *On Behalf Of
> >     *Paul Olivier
> >     *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM
> >
> >
> >     *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> >     *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
> >
> >     Dean,
> >
> >     Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean
> >     acidification and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we
> >     go about designing stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil
> >     fuel stoves? Do we place all on a equal footing as long as they
> >     are clean-burning? If we build biomass stoves, should these stove
> >     be burning or producing biochar? How can we design a stoves in a
> >     theoretical vacuum?
> >
> >     Thanks.
> >
> >     Paul Olivier
> >
> >     On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:deankstill at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear All,
> >
> >     I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked
> >     that we return to the topic of stoves.
> >
> >     Best,
> >
> >     Dean
> >
> >     On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> >     <crispinpigott at gmail.com <mailto:crispinpigott at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >         Dear Ron
> >
> >         I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina,
> >         speculations, straw men and loose assertions there was nothing
> >         left in the message.
> >
> >         The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read
> >         the ?Skeptical Science? playbook on how to handle skeptical
> >         criticisms of AGW. It was a document put together by the Team
> >         (as you know) and promoted to the compliant as a way to
> >         communicate ? a style, if you will ? of how to handle people
> >         who were ?off message?.
> >
> >         There is actually a new one issued by some political group in
> >         the USA which I read this past week. It is pages long. It
> >         includes specific instructions for example to always mention
> >         ?climate disruption? as it is harder to dispute and refute
> >         than ?global warming? now that there isn?t any. It suggests
> >         ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who are
> >         presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic
> >         side of AGW (can?t have that). The vast majority of CAGW
> >         skeptics concede a human role in global warming, but assert
> >         that it is tiny and to date, undetectable. The instructions
> >         are to try to try to paint skeptics as ?denying? /all/ human
> >         influence on the planet then offers various pejorative
> >         comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> >         the skeptic or those listening to them.
> >
> >         The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always
> >         pooh-poohing the credentials of any author cited, always
> >         trying to paint the skeptical correspondent as ?alone? in
> >         their understanding, always insert some mention of how settled
> >         things are with the ?majority? of ?reputable? scientists and
> >         so on and on. We have seen it all before.
> >
> >         You are quite good at following the party line but it does not
> >         (at all) address the fact that there is no such thing as
> >         ?acidifying the ocean? when the number of anions is reduced
> >         through a process called neutralisation so it is less
> >         alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ?wears army boots?.
> >         Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will
> >         have noticed by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters^1 .
> >
> >         As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after
> >         country is bailing out.
> >
> >         As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself):
> >
> >         ??hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted,
> >         flushed down the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because
> >         Public Policy in Europe was highjacked by a group of political
> >         power craving environmentalists and grubby, funding desperate
> >         scientists who realized their First Class ticket on the Fame
> >         and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> >         about human influences on the climate.
> >
> >         ?A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be
> >         treated well by future historians.
> >
> >         Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could
> >         have purchased.
> >
> >         ?Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued
> >         up, glued together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear
> >         pictures that currently disgraces the scientific community
> >         could have taken place if the science funding had not been
> >         hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists that
> >         are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten
> >         level research.?
> >
> >             Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for
> >             over the past 6 years with respect to stove testing?
> >              Surely everyone knows by now. I am calling for the /peer
> >             review/, the /independent assessment/ of stove test
> >             protocols so that they are validated and the results they
> >             give can be believed. The resistance to this at every
> >             level has been amazing and not without consequence.
> >
> >             For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet
> >             has no errors in it. I compliment whoever is working on
> >             the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The April 2013 version contains
> >             more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> >             version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.
> >
> >             WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for
> >             precision, accuracy and conceptual relevance.
> >
> >             Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or
> >             that aspect of climate science information has been
> >             brought forward in articles that ?were not peer reviewed?
> >             even if they were true. How about giving up on trying to
> >             humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere ?
> >             who knows) and put your energy into demanding that the
> >             GACC, the WB, the EPA, the Universities of Illinois,
> >             Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit their
> >             protocols to competent authorities for independent review?
> >             Actually the WB has its project protocols reviewed?well,
> >             they should continue to do so.
> >
> >             The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid
> >             claims and money trading hands on the basis of them.   We
> >             cannot change things overnight, but by implementing this
> >             rule that you favour so highly a major contribution to the
> >             field of domestic energy can be attained.
> >
> >             It will not matter (here) if there is a record short
> >             summer in the Arctic
> >
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plo
> t-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>
> >             or photos of stack emissions are faked
> >
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>
> >             or SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody
> >
> <
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-t
> ree-house-bunker/#more-91202>
> >             or even if US winter temperatures continue to plunge
> >
> <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
> >
> >
> >             I don?t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ?it causes
> >             <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>?. I don?t like
> >             trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.
> >
> >             Let?s work together and bring some proper science and
> >             engineering to the planet of stoves. I know you?ll want to
> >             help. We all do.
> >
> >             Thanks
> >             Crispin
> >
> >             ^1 For those who do not know what this means, it is
> >             English for ?letters after your name? signifying formal
> >             recognition of capacity, knowledge and /or authority.
> >             Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Stoves mailing list
> >
> >         to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >         stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >         <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> >
> >         to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> >         for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our
> >         web site:
> >         http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Stoves mailing list
> >
> >     to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >     stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >     <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> >
> >     to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> >     for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web
> >     site:
> >     http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Paul A. Olivier PhD
> >     26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> >     Dalat
> >     Vietnam
> >
> >     Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> >     Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> >     Skype address: Xpolivier
> >     http://www.esrla.com/
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Stoves mailing list
> >
> >     to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >     stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >     <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> >
> >     to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> >     for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web
> >     site:
> >     http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Paul A. Olivier PhD
> >     26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> >     Dalat
> >     Vietnam
> >
> >     Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> >     Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> >     Skype address: Xpolivier
> >     http://www.esrla.com/
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Stoves mailing list
> >
> >     to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >     stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >     <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> >
> >     to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> >     for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web
> >     site:
> >     http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul A. Olivier PhD
> > 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> > Dalat
> > Vietnam
> >
> > Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> > Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> > Skype address: Xpolivier
> > http://www.esrla.com/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> > http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> > Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6565 - Release Date: 08/09/13
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/a
> ttachments/20130810/96f907d4/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
> .org
>
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Stoves Digest, Vol 36, Issue 11
> **************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>


-- 
Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road
P.O.Box 44
Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India
Ph:91-2166-222396/220945
e-mail:nariphaltan at gmail.com
          anilrajvanshi at gmail.com

http://www.nariphaltan.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130810/663227ba/attachment.html>