Dear All, I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we return to the topic of stoves.
Best, Dean On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Ron**** > > ** ** > > I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations, > straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message. **** > > ** ** > > 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’. **** > > ** ** > > 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’ *all* 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.**** > > ** ** > > 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. **** > > ** ** > > 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 Letters1.**** > > ** ** > > As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is > bailing out. **** > > ** ** > > As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): **** > > ** ** > > “…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.**** > > ** ** > > “A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well > by future historians.**** > > Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have > purchased. **** > > ** ** > > “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.”**** > > ** ** > > 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 *peer review*, the *independent assessment* 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. **** > > ** ** > > 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.**** > > ** ** > > WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and > conceptual relevance.**** > > ** ** > > 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.**** > > ** ** > > 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.**** > > ** ** > > It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the > Arctic<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>or > photos of stack emissions are > faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>or > SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law > parody<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or > even if US winter temperatures continue to > plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>. * > *** > > ** ** > > I don’t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ‘it > causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>’. > I don’t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.**** > > ** ** > > 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.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks > Crispin**** > > ** ** > > 1 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.**** > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
