Dear Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] interesting link
List:
Whew - My apologies (as the first coordinator of this list) for this sort
of political-non-stove message.
# 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.
I should have overlooked the first one from the "Depot", maybe.
# I presume you are referring to www.climatedepot.com 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.
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:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
# 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.
# At any rate, I will rebut a few lies at the above "Skeptical Site", as per
your request. :-)
# 1Lie: Consensus Science is not science. It is simply opinion. To quote from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus ,
" Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not
part of the scientific method "
#2 Lie: The www.skepticalscience.com site is sloppy and misleading, and as
such, lacks credibility
The "Lead-in" to their "Denier Message #4" is the message:
" There is no consensus
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 ...". (Petition Project)"
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
http://www.petitionproject.org/ 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:
" 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. "
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?
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?
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."
Point d: When we click on the "Intermediate Level of answers, we see:
" More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively
publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position. "
d:1 What happened to the "97%?
d:2 What happened to the "Climate Experts?"
They go on to say " A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do
you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s,
and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. "
d:3 Now we are down to 82%
Then they go on to say " 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. "
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...
X + Y = 3,146..........................Equation 1
.77X + .975Y = .82 * 3,164......Equation 2
Please check my numerology, but what I get is
X = 1,840 Non-Climatologists
Y = 1,306 Climatologists
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? 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. 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.
# 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.
# So, now I ask you:
1:Have you actually visited the site posted by Ron H,
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
and read any of their comments?
If you have actually visited the site:
2: Please list the names of Scientists on it that you feel are not qualified
to be there.
3: Please list the positions of those with whom you disagree, and show why
you feel they are in substantial error.
Thank you.
Kevin Chisholm
Ron
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin" <[email protected]>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:27:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] interesting link
Dear David
----- Original Message -----
From: "CEDESOL Foundation" <[email protected]>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] interesting link
>I agree with Dean's assessment and position on this issue.
>
> The voluntary carbon market does not depend on governments
# Quite true. However, they do depend on a "Generous Public" who believe that
their voluntary
<snip>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/
