[Stoves] Climate Change Disappear from USEPA website

Mon May 8 00:28:55 CDT 2017

Dear Nikhil

Small correction:

>“Just how much of the computed 0.8 C average decadal GMST increase is attributable to manmade activities?”

That should read “0.8˚C over the past 160 years”.

For those who follow such things, the Northern Hemisphere average temperature dropped 1.0˚C in April 2017. The global number was down 0.5˚C. The anomaly is still positive but I don’t think it is going to last long.  That is why we are spending so much time creating new-technology clean-burning space heating stoves that cook well.

It’s gonna get cold:

Sunspots
[cid:image005.jpg at 01D2C79A.555AA2E0]

Cycle 25 is expected to be really weak:
[cid:image006.jpg at 01D2C79A.555AA2E0]

Regards
Crispin in sub-zero Waterloo

This is a grossly misleading subject line, Darpan.

The Washington Post headline only claims that "<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/04/the-epa-is-reviewing-its-climate-change-website-these-scientists-say-it-was-already-accurate/>The EPA climate website taken down for review was accurate, scientists say".<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/04/the-epa-is-reviewing-its-climate-change-website-these-scientists-say-it-was-already-accurate/>

That's an allegation by some scientists. The review will probably confirm that the scientific information provided was accurate. Or that it was accurate but incomplete, or but accurate, complete, and still misleading as to policy implications.

Review of science need not be limited to scientists. Not when there are economic and political implications and scientists take sides. (In the Supreme Court litigation on GHG regulations, scientists took both sides. )

From what I remember of the EPA website, all the scientific information there was secondary or tertiary, and can be obtained at many other places. I have my doubts about whether EPA, a regulatory - and hence, a political - agency should have anything to do with climate change in the first place. Its "Endangerment Finding" and "Social Cost of Carbon" are sterling examples of politics, not science.

Science thrives on reviews and re-reviews. I remember back in 2001, George W. Bush White House asked for a review by the National Academy of Sciences, in particular, "Is IPCC process politicized?

Such gross stupidity. Asking scientists, "Are you political tools?" got the answer the White House deserved, "No, IPCC process is not politicized".

In fact, the review (about 20 pages) was a masterpiece of political writing,with wonderful hedging and acknowledging of uncertainties, if not disputes among scientists. (Such disputes are avoided by simply not acknowledging them. So what is not written in reviews can be as important as, or more important than, what is written.)

Same with newspaper stories. Here, Calderia says"he’s never heard of any climate scientist objecting to any information on the website. "

So what? Scott Pruitt as a lawyer wants a review; it's his obligation and prerogative.

The reporters mention the archived EPA website claiming "“humans are largely responsible for recent climate change” but that Scott Pruit "has publicly stated that he does not agree that human activity is a “primary contributor” to current climate change."

By IPCC definition, climate change is a multi-decadal phenomenon, and manifests itself in many ways, GMST average over multiple decades being one such.

EPA - or IPCC, for that matter - does not have a point measure for "recent" or "current" climate change. IPCC 2014 said that GMST increase since 2000 was not statistically significant. On the other hand, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere keeps on increasing and we have had both extreme temperature highs and other weather events.

Just how much of the computed 0.8 C average decadal GMST increase is attributable to manmade activities? There is no number, just the mantra "largely responsible for."

And remember, as in the case of PM2.5 emission rates from cookstoves and purported health risks, i) emissions do not mean damage, ii) attributability is not causality, and iii) the attributable is not necessarily preventable.

Washington Post went opinion-shopping to market its biases. Huber's complaints are ridiculous; people have to protect their health not according to EPA's promulgations on climate change but by all other

Oh, well. Climate change is a political phenomenon. I will be happy if "Social Cost of Carbon" is declared to be zero. I can compute it so for a few million dollars. Just like EPA scientists and contractors did for their numbers.

EPA is singularly responsible for intellectual confusion about the extent of damage, attributability, and preventability. A review of EPA's climate and stove operations was long overdue.

While Trump unleashes a nuclear winter.

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(India +91) 909 995 2080
Skype: nikhildesai888

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 03:02:33 +0530
From: Darpan Das <darpandasiitb at gmail.com<mailto:darpandasiitb at gmail.com>>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves

Article from Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/04/the-epa-is-reviewing-its-climate-change-website-these-scientists-say-it-was-already-accurate/?utm_term=.356e8311389a

Regards
Darpan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170507/d7fee6ab/attachment-0001.html>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170508/b8ebc8e8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13103 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170508/b8ebc8e8/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19019 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170508/b8ebc8e8/attachment-0001.jpg>