[Stoves] Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Josh

 

I too hope you will consider the source: Burt Rutan.

 

Dear Ron

 

When you can’t beat the science, beat the messenger. (It sometimes works).

 

 



 

I notice, Ron that the rate of natural warming in the first period is faster
than the second which also appears natural. You omitted to mention that the
globe has been warming naturally for three centuries at the same rate
(0.7°C/century) during the whole period covered by this chart. The 8000 year
trend however, is down, as is probably well known from many studies and
temperature reconstructions.

 

Dear Andrew

 

If you cannot control the contributors you might consider not allowing
personal attacks. Netiquette usually requires that contributors refrain from
making obvious personal attacks. While this group has been pretty loose, I
feel it has reached the stage where it has become the habit of bullies to
dry to attack the person of other contributors.

 

Ron in particular seems unable to control his invective when he sees
something for which he has is no other ready response. He and Paul O
continuously try to make their views on AGW part of what is usually a
discussion about stoves. While carbon funding is part and parcel of some
stove programmes, that context is rarely included. It is obvious that the
intent of the personal attacks is intimidation into silence. As I cannot be
intimidated, it is not working and will not work. 

 

Thus we are left the possibility of implementing some sort of censure for
those who choose a non-academic pattern of discourse . Either the topic is
banned, or misbehaviour and uncivil conduct is banned. 

 

As it is entirely possible that emotions could run just as high over
technical issues regarding measurements and ratings, stove classification
and the levering of financial advantage, all issues with a potential to be
poorly understood by some participants, the suggestion I am making is that
if people want to continue to discuss ‘climate issues’ outside the biochar
list which was established as a place for that (apparently – I do subscribe
to sites with broader interests) then I see little choice but to impose
external discipline where self-discipline is apparently lacking.

 

As with climate data, the raw data from stove tests stands on its own.
People are free to interpret it any way they like, but when it comes to
making claims for performance, the ordinary rules of chemistry, physics and
mathematics apply. Beliefs and personalities do not carry weight in a
formula.

 

May we all please concentrate on developing better stoves and test methods
based on a good understanding of first principles.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/4d7fa5ab/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20960 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130822/4d7fa5ab/attachment.jpg>