<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE type=text/css>P {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19258"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear Ron</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>This thread started off being relevant to Stoves.
Basically, it was relevant to Stove Design, Development and Marketing because
the presence of "Climate Change Funding", and the availability of such funding
could drive Stoves in a direction where attainment of Climate Change Funding was
the variable being optimized, rather than making better stoves and finding
better ways to get them to the End Users.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>In doing further research after posting the e-mail below,
I was appalled to find that the 97% figure quoted in <A
href="http://www.skepticalscience.com">www.skepticalscience.com</A> that you
referred the Stoves List to below as being an authoritative source for
"Consensus is grossly deceitful, far worse than I suspected.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>1: Were you aware of the article at <A
href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/gmu-on-climate-scientists-we-are-the-97/">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/gmu-on-climate-scientists-we-are-the-97/</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>or</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>2: the article on which it was based at </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><A
href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/">http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/</A> ?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The sad story can be summed up in a quote from this latter
URL:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>" <FONT face="Times New Roman">This number will prove
a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a
2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at
the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the
researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of
just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.
The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.</FONT>
"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>That is not even "Consensus Science"... that is sick,
perverted, incompetent, outright deceit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I would like to move this thread to the Biochar-policy
list so that it doesn't waste the time of serious Stove Developers. The Stoves
List does not benefit from crappy deception, the likes of which seems to abound
in the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial> <A
href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm">http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm</A>
site which you presently seem to hold in high regard.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Kevin Chisholm</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=kchisholm@ca.inter.net href="mailto:kchisholm@ca.inter.net">Kevin</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:17
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] interesting
link</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear Ron</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rongretlarson@comcast.net
href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:46
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Stoves] interesting
link</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">List:
<BR><BR> Whew - My apologies (as the first coordinator of
this list) for this sort of political-non-stove message. </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4># This is not a political message. It addresses the point raised by
others on the Stoves List concerning carbon credit payments as a support
toward financing the development and/or sale of stoves. Clearly, the
presence of large "carbon credit payments" that would actually reach the
Developer/Consumer Level would indeed have a benefit in increasing the
number of appropriately improved stoves actually reaching the End User. If
this is true, then the opposite is also true... no carbon credit payments
will reduced penetration of the market for improved stoves. The point I
am making is that any stove (or Biochar) related operation that is staking
its future on the availability of significant carbon credit payments is
building its venture on very shakey ground. Rather, the venture should
provide improved products or services that will enable success on its own
merits, and if carbon credits continue to be available, the venture could do
even better and could be even more successful.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> I
should have overlooked the first one from the "Depot", maybe.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4># I presume you are referring to </FONT><A
href="http://www.climatedepot.com"><FONT
size=4>www.climatedepot.com</FONT></A><FONT size=4> If so, then this seems
to suggest that as a present "believer", you are not interested in seeing
other opinions that might disrupt your present views.<BR></FONT><BR>I
ask Kevin (again) to rebut (ie point out any single lie in) consensus
material found at denier message #4 (out of >100) found at:</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR><A
href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm">http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4># Where have you asked this of me previously? I have not seen such a
request, and I have been following this thread carefully, looking for a
reply to my posting of 6/23/2012 at 10:58 PM ADT, which I have not seen
yet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4># At any rate, I will rebut a few lies at the above "Skeptical Site",
as per your request. :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4># 1Lie: Consensus Science is not science. It is simply opinion. To
quote from <A
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus</A> ,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>" Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument,
and it is not part of the </FONT><A title="Scientific method"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"><FONT
size=4>scientific method</FONT></A><FONT size=4> " </FONT></DIV><FONT
size=4></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT face=Arial>#2 Lie: The <A
href="http://www.skepticalscience.com">www.skepticalscience.com</A> site is
sloppy and misleading, and as such, lacks
credibility </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT face=Arial>The "Lead-in" to their "Denier Message
#4" is the message:</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT face=Arial>" <FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman">There is no consensus<BR><SPAN><SPAN>The Petition
Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There
is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide
will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's
atmosphere ...". (<A href="http://www.petitionproject.org/"
target=_self>Petition
Project</A>)</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT>"</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT face=Arial>The "Petition Project" contains the names
of 31,487 American Scientists, of whom 9,029 are PhD's. ( Note: I accept
what is said at <A
href="http://www.petitionproject.org/">http://www.petitionproject.org/</A> as
being true, and have not counted the signatures or verified that there are
the names of 9,029 PhD's on the list.) Skepticalscience (SS) then
states:</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT face=Arial>" <FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">97% of climate experts agree humans are causing
global warming.</FONT> " </FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"></FONT><FONT
size=4>Point a: The first question is: Who are the "Climate Experts"
that SS is referring to? Is this just a number out of mid-air? Why
are we to trust the opinion of nameless SS
Scientists? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>Point b: Are these Scientists on the payroll of the IPCC, or are they
working on Grants that depend on their continued support of teh IPCC
Position?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>Point c: If 97% of "Climate Scientists" support the IPCC position,
and 31, 487 American Scientists don't, dows this mean that there are 31, 478
/ 3% = 1,049,267 American Scientists? :-) Of course not! SS "muddies
the water" by quoting an unknown body of what they term "Climate Scientists"
Clearly, Anthropologists, Geologists, Physicists, Chemists, Biologists,
Engineers, Astronomers, etc can indeed have valid opinions and do competent
science relating to "Climate Science" even though tehy were not formally
trained as a "Climate Expert."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>Point d: When we click on the "Intermediate Level of answers, we
see:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>" <FONT size=3>More specifically, around 95% of active climate
researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus
position.</FONT> "</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<FONT size=4>d:1 What happened to the "97%?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4> d:2 What happened to the "Climate
Experts?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>They go on to say " <FONT size=3> A survey of 3146 earth
scientists asked the question <EM>"Do you think human activity is a
significant contributing factor in changing mean global
temperatures?<STRONG>"</STRONG></EM> (</FONT><A
href="http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf"
target=_self><SPAN style="COLOR: #0046aa"><FONT size=3>Doran
2009</FONT></SPAN></A><FONT size=3>). More than 90% of participants had
Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered
yes. </FONT> " </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4> d:3 Now we are down to 82%</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>Then they go on to say " <FONT size=3>Of scientists who were
non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In
contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate
change responded yes.</FONT> "<BR>I recall from High School Algebra that if
we have two unknowns, X = Number of Non-Climatologists, and Y= Number of
Climatologists, we need two equations to sort out how many are in each camp.
Correct me if I am wrong, but...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>X + Y = 3,146..........................Equation 1</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>.77X + .975Y = .82 * 3,164......Equation 2</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>Please check my numerology, but what I get is </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>X = 1,840 Non-Climatologists</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>Y = 1,306 Climatologists</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>So, they are putting the opinions of 3,164 Scientists up against
those of 31,478. That works out to 82% of their 3,146 " Scientists", 2,597,
holding a "Consensus" that over-rules 31,478 other Scientists. Some
"Consensus", wouldn't you say? <U>But wait, it gets worse... 2,597/(31,478+
2,597) = 7.62% of the Scientists involved in this Data Base SUPPORT the IPCC
AGW Position, but 92.37% REJECT the IPCC AGW position.</U> If the 31,478
American Scientists have such a low opinion of the IPCC, imagine how low the
"support percentage" would be if the inputs from Scientists from other parts
of the World were included.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4># So, after analyzing the first few lines of the SS site, I am left
with the conclusion that it is slipshod, unscientific, misleading,
irresponsible, and devious, and accordingly, see no point in going further.
Tricks like they employ give Science a bad name.</FONT></DIV><FONT
size=4></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4># So, now I ask you: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>1:Have you actually visited the site posted by Ron H,
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4> </FONT><A
href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore#.T-VJ6M92ky8.facebook"><FONT
size=4>http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore#.T-VJ6M92ky8.facebook</FONT></A> <FONT
size=4>and read any of their comments?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>If you have actually visited the site:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>2: Please list the names of Scientists on it that you feel are not
qualified to be there.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>3: Please list the positions of those with whom you disagree, and
show why you feel they are in substantial error.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>Thank you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4>Kevin Chisholm</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4><BR></FONT>Ron<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR id=zwchr>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><B>From:
</B>"Kevin" <kchisholm@ca.inter.net><BR><B>To: </B>"Discussion of
biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><BR><B>Sent:
</B>Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:27:52 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: [Stoves]
interesting link<BR><BR></DIV>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
size=4 face=Arial>Dear David </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Arial>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>From: "CEDESOL Foundation" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:lists.cedesol@gmail.com" target=_blank><FONT
face=Arial>lists.cedesol@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
<</FONT><A href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"
target=_blank><FONT
face=Arial>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:31 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Subject: Re: [Stoves] interesting
link</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Arial><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Arial>>I agree with Dean's assessment and position on this
issue.<BR>> <BR>> The voluntary carbon market does not depend on
governments</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=4># Quite true. However, they do depend on a "Generous
Public" who believe that their voluntary</FONT></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<snip><BR></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Stoves mailing
list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change
your List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<BR>http://www.bioenergylists.org/<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Stoves mailing
list<BR><BR>to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<BR>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change
your List Settings use the web
page<BR>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR><BR>for
more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
site:<BR>http://www.bioenergylists.org/<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>