Dear Kevin, Yes, but can we review after the ISO committees gather and make their decision?
Best, Dean On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> >> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<[email protected]> >> *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 <[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/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/
