Dear Dean ----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Still To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 2:10 AM Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Dear Kevin, Can you imagine a more thorough investigation than the international ISO process that is occurring? # Yes, I certainly can! All that the ISO Process ensures is that a procedure is put in place to ensure that "whatever is being done will be done consistently." If a "garbage stove testing procedure" was submitted for ISO for ISO Approval, it could very well get ISO Approval, and the result would be "consistent garbage stove testing results". # The first sensible step is to develop a scientifically valid testing procedure, which THEN would be submitted for ISO Approval. As long as ISO standards and procedures were followed, such a scientifically valid testing procedure would consistently give scientifically valid results. # So... 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 7:51 PM, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Dean ----- Original Message ----- From: Dean Still To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 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 or photos of stack emissions are faked or SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody or even if US winter temperatures continue to plunge. I don’t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ‘it causes’. 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
