[Stoves] more on ocean acidification

Sun Aug 11 03:39:18 CDT 2013

Dear Kevin,

Yes, but can we review after the ISO committees gather and make their
decision?

Best,

Dean

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> **
> Dear Dean
>
> Do you, as an Individual, " ...* support the external review of the
> various stove testing protocols by competent independent authorities?*
> **
> *Best wishes,*
> **
> *Kevin*
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 10, 2013 12:46 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
> Dear Kevin,
>
> In the ISO process, which will take several years, hundreds of experts
> from around the world will be proposing many different approaches to
> testing. There are national tests in China and India. Who knows, it's
> possible that a field based approach like the Controlled Cooking Test may
> be used?
>
> The "*external review of the various stove testing protocols by
> competent independent authorities" is taking place on an incredibly wide
> scale that is beyond the influence of individuals. *
> *
> *
> *Best,*
> *
> *
> *Dean
> *
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:29 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:* 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 <deankstill at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 9:15 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that
>>> we return to the topic of stoves.
>>>
>>> *# Good point! To advance "the science of stove testing", would you be
>>> prepared to support the external review of the various stove testing
>>> protocols by competent independant authorities?*
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Dean
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
>>> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Dear Ron****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
>>>> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message. *
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
>>>> ‘Skeptical Science’ playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of AGW.
>>>> It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
>>>> the compliant as a way to communicate – a style, if you will – of how to
>>>> handle people who were ‘off message’. ****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
>>>> which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
>>>> instructions for example to always mention ‘climate disruption’ as it is
>>>> harder to dispute and refute than ‘global warming’ now that there isn’t
>>>> any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who
>>>> are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of
>>>> AGW (can’t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human
>>>> role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
>>>> undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
>>>> ‘denying’ *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
>>>> pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
>>>> the skeptic or those listening to them.****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing
>>>> the credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
>>>> correspondent as ‘alone’ in their understanding, always insert some mention
>>>> of how settled things are with the ‘majority’ of ‘reputable’ scientists and
>>>> so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
>>>> address the fact that there is no such thing as ‘acidifying the ocean’ when
>>>> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation so
>>>> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ‘wears army boots’.
>>>> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have noticed
>>>> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
>>>> bailing out. ****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> “…hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed
>>>> down the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe
>>>> was highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
>>>> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class ticket
>>>> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
>>>> about human influences on the climate.****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> “A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated
>>>> well by future historians.****
>>>>
>>>> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
>>>> purchased. ****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> “Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
>>>> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that currently
>>>> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
>>>> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists
>>>> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
>>>> research.”****
>>>>
>>>>  ****
>>>>
>>>> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past
>>>> 6 years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
>>>> calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove
>>>> test protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
>>>> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
>>>> without consequence. ****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors
>>>> in it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The
>>>> April 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the
>>>> 2010 version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy
>>>> and conceptual relevance.****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
>>>> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that ‘were
>>>> not peer reviewed’ even if they were true. How about giving up on trying to
>>>> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere – who knows) and
>>>> put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
>>>> Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit
>>>> their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?  Actually
>>>> the WB has its project protocols reviewed…well, they should continue to do
>>>> so.****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and
>>>> money trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things
>>>> overnight, but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major
>>>> contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the
>>>> Arctic<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>or photos of stack emissions are
>>>> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>or SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
>>>> parody<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures continue to
>>>> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> I don’t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ‘it causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>’.
>>>> I don’t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> Let’s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to
>>>> the planet of stoves. I know you’ll want to help. We all do.****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Crispin****
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for
>>>> ‘letters after your name’ signifying formal recognition of capacity,
>>>> knowledge and /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>>
>>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>
>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>
>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/attachments/20130811/bb71cfb8/attachment.html>