Dear Kevin, Can you imagine a more thorough investigation than the international ISO process that is occurring?
Best, Dean On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Dear Dean > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Dean Still <[email protected]> > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 9:15 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification > > Dear All, > > I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we > return to the topic of stoves. > > *# Good point! To advance "the science of stove testing", would you be > prepared to support the external review of the various stove testing > protocols by competent independant authorities?* > > Best wishes, > > Kevin > > > > 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/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
