[Stoves] Prakti two-burner stove features in article on "protecting the poor from climate change policies"

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Dean

 

>I do not see how linking together your two outlier beliefs that stove testing is wrong and climate change is wrong strengthens either case.

The great majority of scientists involved in both fields disagree with you.

 

Topic 1: Climate

 

The end of this month marks at least 17 full years <http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2015>  without a statistically detectable change in the average temperature of the planet. Some say 18 years, some say it is 21.  That is, the temperature of the globe, on average, is the same now as it was in September 1996. 

 

Recently, in the New York Times, International edition, yet another an unsigned article predicting global catastrophe caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions appeared reciting the meme that the temperature of the earth 'continues to rise'. This claim is patently false, as anyone can see by looking at the (multiple) temperature records available on line.

 

My position: It is a better to be an 'outlier' that an outright liar.

 

Topic 2: Stove testing

 

The lab test method used by the UNFCCC and the (different) lab test method referenced in the IWA 2012:11 which, in anonymously edited and undocumented form, is now being promoted as suitable for the ISO but it cannot predict the performance of a stove in use. The claim is made that the method reports the specific fuel consumption and the specific emission rates for CO and PM2.5. It does none of these and what numbers it does produce, have a high coefficient of variation.  There are other test methods available which reasonably predict performance in use, as well as CO and PM2.5 emission rates with much lower coefficients of variation.  

 

My position: It is a better to be an 'outlier' that an outright liar.

 

The beauty of science is that in the end real scientists defer to evidence.

 

I propose that we test a few stoves in typical use by householders and compare three lab test methods: the GACC’s WBT 4.2.2 (not 4.2.3 because it has had its tab in 4.2.2 with the record of changes deleted so we have no idea what formulas have been altered), the EPTP used by Envirofit and the CSI-WHT used by the World Bank.

 

With these three lab tests and the actual emissions and fuel consumption measured using a validated and mutually agreed method, we will be able to report which lab test method gives a performance rating that is the most accurate, which is the outlier and which is the outright liar. Similarly, we can assess the coefficients of variation and assign them to those same categories.

 

Regards

Crispin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140928/012ad1db/attachment.html>