Kevin, List +2 ccs Kevin:
Thank for proving my point. Let me try again. This chain started this week with Jim Jetter, describing what he will be reporting on ALL stoves. He will reporting new efficiency quantities E2 (no char value) and E3 (only char value), to go with the previous E1(both). I approved. You produced a chart only dealing with E2 (no char value). I corrected your chart and wondered why you left out E1 and E3. You continue to prove my supposition that is because you are a climate denier . Yes, it is true that I push this E3 issue because I am a "climate believer". But also because of the soil improvement value of char becoming biochar. So you are harming the Paul Olivier (soil) position, when you admire his ppt and approach, but want to (apparently) only report E2. To repeat, there is no atmosphere-soil conflict with wanting a stove report to include E3 (E1 already being there). I also like reporting E2, since it supports the need for E3. I still have no idea what you and Crispin (also a climate denier) want to modify in what Jim Jetter proposes. My suspicion remains on motivations when you say below: "Stoves" and "AGW" are two very separate issues... " I ask again, what do you and Crispin want to see reported by Jim? Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin" <[email protected]> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]>, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected]>, "jetter jim" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 8:44:26 AM Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal Dear Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves ; Kevin Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal List. Cc Kevin Sorry, no apologies on this one. # I did not ask for an apology. I was simply commenting on what I feel is your inappropriate approach to dealing with issues. The issue on the table is whether char-making stoves have an important connection to AGW. # No. This is the Stoves List, and the issues is how biochar relates to stoves. Since you and a few others disagree and continue to try to distance the two topics, # "Stoves" and "AGW" are two very separate issues, and there may, or may not, be an overlap. If there was no AGW Issue, there would still be Stoves. I feel it is very important to understand the issues of each separately, so that "areas of overlap" can be discovered and used most advantageously. "Stoves" and "AGW" should rise or fall on their own merits. It is very wrong to evaluate Stoves only INSIDE the context of AGW, in that the results of such evaluations may, and probably will be, be misleading or incorrect OUTSIDE the context of AGW. Please do not lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of Stoves is cooking and/or heating. I think it valid to ask if it is because you/they are a climate denier? # Firstly, please define specifically what you mean by "climate denier". Secondly, if "True Science" is employed in "Stove Testing", then a "Climate Denier"(?) and a "Climate Believer"(?) should get identical results. Alternatively, should there perhaps be two Stove Testing Protocols... one for "Climate Believers"(?) and one for "Climate Deniers"(?)? ( Kevin and I have had off- list discussions, but he is free to say otherwise anytime on his AGW views.) # We may have had off-list discussions, but when I searched my files, I could not find them. Would you be kind enough to reference them by date, and by relevance to the issue at hand? Additionally, while you are searching your files, I would kindly ask you to find evidence to justify your statements, or issue a public retraction as called for in my posting to the Stoves List on 4/24/2013 at 11:31 AM ADT, as follows: ===> (RWL) 3. Many of us have been promoting char-making stoves for individual (not societal) non-energy reasons that you also state need not be considered - able to save money through sale or use of the char - save time and money by using closer non-wood fuels - cleaner kitchen (and neighborhood outdoor-air) environment, so lower health-related costs - save time by less fire tending # I think it is about time for you to make a Public Retraction. Please show the List where I said that the above factors do not need to be considered, or retract your erroneous statement. I would comment that I have supported Paul Oliver with his Proposal to utilize char making stoves in Vietnam. I am 100% supportive of the use of char making stoves where they are appropriate and where the Customer wants them. Equally, I am 100% against char making stoves where they are inappropriate and when they do not best serve the Customer's needs. I await your Public Retraction of your erroneous statement.. <=== To me it is important to try to educate deniers, and analyze their reasons for denial. I just can't comprehend such a view in 2013. # Perhaps you, as a "believer"(?) cannot understand the concerns of "deniers"(?) because you have a fixed belief that you your beliefs are the only ones that are correct. If your "beliefs" are based on "Consensus Science", rather than "Real Science", your "beliefs" may be faulted. The late Margaret Thatcher had a strong view about consensus. She called it: "The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects." # Scientific Truth has no need for "consensus." Kevin Ron On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:05 AM, "Kevin" < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> Dear Ron I would suggest that your approach, as presented below, is some combination of an Ad Hominum Attack, and an un-scientific witch hunt. The Bioenergy lists should be a source of Truth and Fact, based on Science, but you persist in tainting Stove and Agricultural issues involving char with AGW, Carbon Credit, Climate Change, and "Denier" considerations. You could become a "Friend of Biochar" if you worked toward understanding how biochar can be used to advantage by Farmers and Growers, in that if Farmers and Growers find out how to use biochar economically, it will be used on a widespread basis in Agriculture. Your AGW interests will then be advanced by "Market Pull". If you disagree with the views of List Members, please do so by refuting their views with palpable evidence showing why you feel they are wrong, and not with ad hominum attacks. Thank you. Kevin Chisholm <blockquote> ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves ; Paul Olivier Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal Paul and list: Thanks for a very complete response. This is to hope Crispin will respond fully. If so, I ask him three more to add to yours a. why he has chosen to NOT join the sister biochar lists, given the heavy emphasis there as well in char-making stoves. b. whether much of his knowledge on biochar has come from WUWT. If not what source (i am asking for a few specifics -not generalities) has he for his statement below <blockquote> <blockquote> There have been many claims made for biochar which, based on what I read and hear from people who read much more broadly, that don’t stand up to close scrutiny. </blockquote> c. Does he see the connection I do between his being a "climate denier" and being a skeptic on biochar? Ron On Apr 21, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Paul Olivier < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> See comments below. On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> Dear Jeff Thanks for that contribution. The point of Paul’s description is that in the circumstances where he is, it works. It works on several levels and it will probably continue to work for a long time. The scenario was discussed on this list several times before, going back years, but there was nowhere that all the ingredients were present. One of the things that makes the rice hull char attractive is the existence, on a big scale apparently, of land that benefits from the addition of the char, and growing of crops that benefit from it. There have been many claims made for biochar which, based on what I read and hear from people who read much more broadly, that don’t stand up to close scrutiny. </blockquote> Crispin, I take issue with this statement. The biochar research that I have been involved with (that is, biochar from my gasifiers) has been done in three different countries, and it involved seven universities. More than 20 experiments have been carried out, and in none of these experiments did biochar have negative effects. Contrary to what you might believe, this research does stand up to close scrutiny. These people are not just reading about biochar, but they are actually doing biochar research. I know many of these researchers, and they are not engaged in deceit. They are trying to help poor farmers understand the benefits of biochar. <blockquote> The same holds for permaculture </blockquote> What's wrong with permaculture? <blockquote> and improved stove and lots of things, so there is nothing ‘special’ about char, it is just that people get enthusiastic about something and wish it were universally true. </blockquote> Crispin, it is hard for me to believe that you actually wrote this! How do you know that that there is nothing special about biochar? Is this your field of expertise? Have you actually been involved in biochar research? I strongly suggest that you read the following: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Agronomy_Carter%20et%20al%202013%2002%2017.pdf http://www.lrrd.org/public-lrrd/proofs/lrrd2501/chha25008.htm http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/2/siso23032.htm http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24026.htm http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24039.htm http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24034.htm https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Biochar%20utilization%20in%20Rice%20crop%20on%20Tuk%20Vil%20Luvisol.pdf http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/11/leng24199.htm If you really want to understand the benefits of biochar, please read this book: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Johannes%20Lehmann%2C%20Stephen%20Joseph-Biochar%20for%20environmental%20management_%20science%20and%20technology.pdf The people who wrote and edited this book are not charlatans. They are not deceitful. They are as good in their science as anyone could possibly be. Crispin, the moment you start doing biochar research of your own, then you might have something serious to say in this regard. <blockquote> No problem, we can live with filters on information to sift out what is beneficial and in what circumstances the claims how true. Independent investigation will support it if it is. </blockquote> Then do the independent investigation yourself. <blockquote> As I understand if, the Japanese have being doing this the longest and they are very circumscribed about what claims are made for biochar. </blockquote> Some of the best biochar research was done by the Japanese (Ogawa et al) back in the early 90's. They showed how biochar positively impacts the growth of AM fungi. This is explained in the book by Lehmann and Joseph. <blockquote> It is particular soils, particular crops and particular treatment of the char (temperature, species) that are in combination, what gives improved results. This theme constantly appears in the literature. As has been pointed out, just randomly putting char into soil can have negative consequences – it depends on the soil conditions. The last thing we need is a case of the char causing more harm than good while claims are made that it is improving things. The stove community should be working with agricultural trials experts. I read in the past that adding rice hull ash to rice fields is beneficial – maybe because the silica is extra-available, don’t know. Not my field. </blockquote> If this is not your field, then on what authority do you base your statements about rice hull biochar or rice hull ash? Again, I challenge you: do the research, as Preston, Leng and Shackley have done. What upsets me here is that I know well some of the people who have been conducting research with rice hull biochar. They know agriculture quite well, they have impeccable scientific credentials, and they, unlike you, are experts in this field. Then you come along, without any basis in fact, and question their research as not being scientific. Wow! <blockquote> I am just glad we have a working example of using gas and char that makes economic sense. </blockquote> It only makes economic sense, Crispin, if biochar plays a positive role in promoting plant and animal growth. If biochar does not play a positive role, we might as well burn it. Thanks. Paul Olivier <blockquote> Regards Crispin _______________________________________________ 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ </blockquote> -- Paul A. Olivier PhD 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong Dalat Vietnam Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam) Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam) Skype address: Xpolivier http://www.esrla.com/ </blockquote> <blockquote> _______________________________________________ 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ </blockquote> _______________________________________________ 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ </blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote> _______________________________________________ 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ </blockquote> </blockquote> _______________________________________________ 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://stoves.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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
