<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><br><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Crkspin, cc List<br><div><div><br></div><div> I respond, lest folks think I don't have the will to do so; See below</div><div><br></div><div>On Aug 9, 2013, at 4:48 PM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Dear Ron<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div> <b>RWL1: You wrote quite a bit considering "nothing left". I write for the opposite reason. I was trying to make two only points, which you seem to have missed since there is limited comment on either below. You'd help me a lot by giving an example of each of these four Larson-personal descriptors above. I certainly don't want any assertions to be loose. Which statement was a straw man? The ad homina was?? The speculation that was wrong was?</b></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b> My first point was that your WUWT buddy and you (and Kevin) seem to believe that reduced ocean surface (repeat surface) alkalinity is a myth. I think the numerous cites from Paul O should have given you some pause. What is your present position on that (surface ocean pH decrease of 30%) topic?</b></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b> Second, I was trying to make the point that you rejection of char-making stoves was non-sensical and unsupported - probably based on your climate denier position. If not a climate denier, what should we call you? Do you take the position that char-making stoves are generally worthless? Or if not, why should reporting a stoves production of char not be encouraged?</b></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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’.</span></div></div></div></blockquote> <b>RWL2: Sorry - can you give a cite for the "Team" (which I don't know and didn't know I was a part of)? And a cite for their "playbook? or "document"? Presumably a reference can be found at WUWT? The ocean surface acidity cites within the SkS article I recommended you found unconvincing for what reason?</b></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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.</span></div></div></div></blockquote> <b>{RWL3: I have decided not to search for something as vague as "some political group".</b></div><div><b> I hadn't realized that folks who find that the human role is "undetectable" should not be considered "deniers". What term is appropriate for those who hold your "undetectable" view?</b> </div></div></blockquote> In my lexicon, skeptics admit to seeing something "detectable"<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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. </span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div> <b>{RWL4: I have re-read my piece, and fail to find this pooh-pooh charge being there. Can you quote something I wrote? What did you find in error in the SkS cite I gave - which was exactly on the surface pH question under discussion? I sometimes find a reasonable question from a skeptic. Never from a denier.</b><br><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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>.</span></div></div></div></blockquote> {RWL5: <b>The point of my piece was that it was ridiculous to compute anything about average ocean pH level shifts. That is well know to be tiny - and no scientist I know cares about that answer</b><b> The issue is what is happening to the pH of ocean surface (repeat surface) waters, on which subject I hope you will comment - including the negative impact today on some species in some waters. Is it your position that all (repeat all) such reports are "peer-revewed bunk". Or does this somehow relate to "boots"? Yes I have a PhD, and Ihope you will now provide an example where I have used this on any of the half-dozen Tom Miles lists where I mostly write. Or, if you are not referring to me (which could be assumed from your first sentence), then who specifically? Or is this observation one that applies to all scientists (as reported recently in several publications on the strategy of deniers to cast doubt on all scientists - as a good way to cast doubt on AGW. If you don't know the studies I mean, let me know. Been in the news a lot recently - and you give a great example of anti-science baloney below.</b></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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.<o:p></o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; "> <b>[RWL6: Your arguments would be stronger if you provided citations. One such country is?]</b></span></div><div><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px; "><b><br></b></span></font></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself):<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">“…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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">“A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well by future historians.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have purchased.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">“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.”</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div> <b>[RWL7: Maybe in your circle, Fred needs no last name. But it would probably help me and other list readers to analyze both he and you better. Note these 4 sentences relate exactly to my point #5 Clearly deniers are being given the guidance that they should downplay the work of not only a few climate scientists, but all of them. Please do not keep Fred's name secret. I'll bet he has a lot more to teach us/ ]</b></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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.</span></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote> <b>[RWL8: I saw a lot of good work at the GACC meeting in March - professional evaluators included. Please re-read the several responses by Dean Still to Kevin today. Dean is very close to this process and I trust him. This answer applies to next sentence too. Your reason for believing no independent review?</b></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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.</span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote> <b>[RWL8a: And your proof of this is what?</b><br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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.</span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div> <b>[RWL9: I admit to a strong need to rebut what I consider nonsense on any climate topic, even when it is claimed to be "true". As do you (re rebuttals) , obviously. My reason for answering is to make sure list readers know that there are rebuttals to what deniers tell us. This is especially true on stoves topics, where I see stoves as having a strong climate impact. Very sorry you (and most deniers) don't. In my circles, back when I was called a scientist, a rebuttal was always expected if you said something someone didn't understand or disagreed with. It was not considered very good form to use words as in your first sentence.</b></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">How about giving up on trying to humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere – who knows </span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">[</span><b><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> RWL 10 - you could find out with a google search, I'll bet. Nice ad </span><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px; ">hominem</span></font><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> try though. I am questioning your beliefs on AGW and stoves. I would trust your work in some areas</span></b><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">] ) </span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> 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.</span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote> <b>[RWL11: Sorry you feel I am only in this to "humiate and marginalize". As I said above in #9, this is about having dialog on something (in this dialog two topics) very important to me. I regret that you don't take this as a further chance to justify your positions (both of which are very important to the future of cookstove development). I repeat that Dean has said this review is happening now and I saw same in Phnom Penh. I find it surprising that you apparently think that this group of at least 6 well-known stove groups is doing poor work. Did you leave out EPA intentionally? It also has had no interactions with "competent authorities"? </b><b> I am confused on how you feel about the WB. Good work or nor? </b><b>Remind us of where we should go to see your positions clearly stated.]</b></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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. </span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div> <b>[RWL12: Pretty strong general denunciation. Examples? The only published one I see getting a lot of press is that by EPA's Jim Jetter - that looked very complete to me. Jim or not Jim? Somewhere else we can go to confirm your accusations? Someone who agrees with you? (in print)</b></div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> 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.</span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote> <b>[RWL13: This sounds like a compliment - but I have no idea what "rule" you are talking about. Whenever I ask such a question of you, I never get an answer - and this one sounds interesting..</b><br></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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" style="color: purple; ">Arctic</a> or photos of stack emissions are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI" style="color: purple; ">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" style="color: purple; ">parody</a> or even if US winter temperatures continue to <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png" style="color: purple; ">plunge</a>.</span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>RWL14 These are really weird cites (none - repeat none - having anything to do with anything Paul O or I have said):</b></div><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>14a. Re "arctic" (a WUWT cite to a WUWT subset)> I hope you can find an explanation on why this site shows no annual data for either volume or ice thickness. Volume of minimum i(September) ice has declined by 75%. Google for "Neven sea ice"<br><div> </div><div> 14b Re "faked": See <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galileo-movement-fuels-australia-climate-change-divide">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galileo-movement-fuels-australia-climate-change-divide</a>. I consider this a perfect example of denier techniques. SA's rebuttal is better than anything I could write.</div><div><br></div><div> 14c. Re " Godwin's Law Parody: Mysterious. Godwin was new to me I found this at a wiki site: "<b style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.1875px; ">Godwin’s Law</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.1875px; "> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.1875px; ">was formulated by Mike Godwin in the 1990s and states:</span></div><table class="cquote" style="font-size: 13px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 19.1875px; margin: auto; border-collapse: collapse; border-style: none; position: static; z-index: auto; "><tbody><tr><td><div style="padding: 4px 50px 8px; position: relative;"><span style="position: absolute; left: 10px; top: 10px; z-index: 1; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 36px;">“</span><span style="position: absolute; right: 10px; bottom: 2px; z-index: 1; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); font-size: 36px;">”</span><i><b>As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nazi" title="Nazi" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Nazis</a> or <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler" title="Adolf Hitler" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Hitler</a> approaches one.</b></i></div></td></tr></tbody></table> I guess Crispin was disappointed that no-one had yet called him (a self-acknowledged denier) a Nazi. I don't think that, and see no connection at all between the words climate denier and Nazis. I do have to wonder why he found it necessary to bring this into a discussion on ocean surface temperatures and char-making stoves. Does the Godwin law apply primarily to utterances by mainly climate deniers themselves? Or is this ad hominem?<br><div><br></div><div> 14d Re. "plunge" This WUWT site opens to a figure purportedly showing temperature declines in the US only (- not global) for a decade After half an hour looking I couldn't find any words to go with the figure - which looks pretty suspicious to me, given data from especially Jim Hansen showing global temperature climbs decade by decade. Crispin - a better cite?</div><div><br></div><div> <b> RWL Summary </b> Further proof that deniers use high selective data and that the WUWT site is a joke - believed as gospel by (I think) all deniers.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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" style="color: purple; ">causes</a>’. I don’t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; "><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> <b>RWL15: Crispin: This "causes" site is the most stupid (others - </b></span><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><b>please</b></span></font><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><b> </b></span><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><b>confirm by looking it up</b></span></font><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><b>) site you have ever sent me to. What do you find educational (or even funny) about this really amateurish one (presumably recommended by WUWT?)? Is </b></span><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><b>there any AGW <u>cause</u> data at all that you believe? </b></span></font></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; "><b>b. There is zero connection with the causes sentence (has nothing on stoves) and the next on testing. Should I detect a coupling through the loaded word "trumped"?</b></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><b> <br></b><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; "><b>c. Re stove testing You have given close to zero explanation on why you continue to be down on char-making stoves - and very little even on stove testing details. I see that you have today give more on stove testing - but I have spent too much time rebutting this one. I may get to your latest, but not for a while. I remain convinced that you are down on char-making stoves because support for them would conflict with your belief that AGW is (quoting) "undetectable". For newcomers, this is not a new observation from me - and it applies generally to anyone denying AGW.</b></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><b> </b></div><div><b><br></b><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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.</span></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote> <b>RWL16. With apologies, I don't think you and I better try to work together. My reasons are given in the above. My being described as you have in your first sentence, I shouldn't think you would trust much from me, either. This long response is written for the benefit of others on the list - but I sure would like answers to the questions above (and that I don't expect). I will continue to work with others. I am not at all convinced that you have any interest re char-making stoves. Char-using - yes. Coal using - yes. Char-making - no.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b> Ron</b><br> <br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt; "><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Thanks<br>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><div style="margin: 0mm 0mm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><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.<o:p></o:p></span></div></blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<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">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">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>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>