<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Crispin,<br><br></div><div>You say: <span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">there is no such thing as ‘acidifying the ocean’ </span></div>
You say: <span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">The
vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human role in global warming,
but assert that it is tiny and to date, undetectable.<br><br></span></div><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span><div class="gmail_extra">Are you saying the scientific community that sees global warming and ocean acidification as real problems are alarmists who have not bothered to do good science? Are you saying that your views on global warming and ocean acidification represents the views of the majority of scientists studying these issues? Are you a climatologist or an oceanographer with hard data in hand when you assert these climatologist and oceanographers have been doing faulty and alarmist research? Are you saying is that it is perfectly OK to go on burning fossil fuels? Why then do we bother to design biomass stoves as long as fossil fuels such as gas, oil and coal can be extracted out of the ground at a reasonable price and as long as governments are willing to offer subsidies to poor people? Why should the GACC bother to promote biomass stoves in areas where governments are willing to offer subsidies to the poor? Are you saying that we should go on uselessly burning waste biomass such as rice hulls, rice straw, sugarcane leaves and pine forest debris, and that none of this burning has any real impact on global warming and ocean acidification? Instead of uselessly burning this biomass, would it not make more sense to use it to cook a meal? Are you also prepared to deny the conclusions of all of the research that has been done on incorporating biochar into the soil dating back to the early 1990's? Are all of these scientists involved in biochar research (such as Ogawa, Lehmann, Joseph, Leng and Preston) misguided and misinformed? Exactly how much biochar research have you been personally involved in? How many growing experiments have you conducted with biochar that enable you to assert that incorporating biochar into the soil makes no sense? Have you ever published any peer-reviewed papers relating to biochar research? Have you ever tried incorporating biochar into pig and cow bedding or into chicken litter?<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">In personal emails to me you have labeled my views on global warming and ocean acidification as ridiculous, naive, foolish and misguided babble. Please forgive me if I do not take kindly to being put down in such an offensive manner.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thanks so much.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Paul Olivier<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-CA"><div><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Dear Ron<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations, straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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’. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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’ <i>all</i> 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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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 Letters<sup>1</sup>.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is bailing out. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN">“…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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN">“A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well by future historians.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN">Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have purchased. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN">“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.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"><div><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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 <i>peer review</i>, the <i>independent assessment</i> 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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and conceptual relevance.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293" target="_blank">Arctic</a> or photos of stack emissions are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI" target="_blank">faked</a> or SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202" target="_blank">parody</a> or even if US winter temperatures continue to <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png" target="_blank">plunge</a>. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">I don’t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ‘it <a href="http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm" target="_blank">causes</a>’. I don’t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">Thanks<br>
Crispin<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><sup><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">1</span></sup><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:rgb(31,73,125)">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>
<a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" target="_blank">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Paul A. Olivier PhD<br>26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong<br>Dalat<br>Vietnam<br>
<br>Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)<br>Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)<br>Skype address: Xpolivier<br><a href="http://www.esrla.com/" target="_blank">http://www.esrla.com/</a>
</div></div>