Dear Dean

Do you, as an Individual, " ... support the external review of the various 
stove testing protocols by competent independent authorities?

Best wishes,

Kevin
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dean Still 
  To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
  Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 12:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification


  Dear Kevin,


  In the ISO process, which will take several years, hundreds of experts from 
around the world will be proposing many different approaches to testing. There 
are national tests in China and India. Who knows, it's possible that a field 
based approach like the Controlled Cooking Test may be used?


  The "external review of the various stove testing protocols by competent 
independent authorities" is taking place on an incredibly wide scale that is 
beyond the influence of individuals. 


  Best,


  Dean


  On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:

    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/







------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/

Reply via email to