[Stoves] Marketing and using charcoal-using stoves (formerly " nonmemberenquiry")
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Thu Jan 1 13:40:04 CST 2009
Tuesday, Kevin sent a note starting: < I found a note from you that I missed previously. ...>. This is a partial response to that (a response to mine of 21 Dec.)and another from Kevin re charcoal-using stoves on 29 Dec (response to mine of 23 Dec.) On his page 3 of the latest, in response to my request to do so, Kevin provides four sources of his information of climate topics. I reject these references as superficial and his position as wrong. Details behind my conclusions for his four sources are:
RWL: This is a climate-related rambling anecdotal response by one non-expert (Dr. Frank Tipler, extensive wiki material available) to questions asked by another non-expert denier blogger (William Katz, apparently mostly a novelist). Neither apparently have ever produced any published peer-reviewed climate material.
RWL questions for Kevin - Do you really believe these two have the proper credentials to be believed (meaning peer-reviewed climate material in recognized journals). What is there possible in their backgrounds to make you offer them as experts on climate hoaxes? How did you find their work? (what Google terms did you use in your search?)
RWL: This site describes an analytical (no computer modeling) set of climate predictions (concluding that there is minimum CO2 impact) by a Hungarian climatologist (Ferenc Miskolczi). At RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi , I found a lengthy refutation, which starts:
"The whole theme of the analysis as something that undermines current AGW practice is wrong. Dr Miskolczi's modelling is of a gray-body atmosphere (no spectral lines or shapes). No GCM or practical climate study would use such an assumption, or use any gray-body theory due to Milne. A gray-body model is sometimes used for teaching purposes to convey concepts".
RWL: The website "landshape" has emphasis on numerology and no expertise on climate topics. RWL questions for Kevin - What did you do to check out the validity of Miskolczi's theory? Where did you come upon his name and why do you trust that source, if different from "landshape"?
RWL: This pdf is a self-published critique of an apparently-OK climate paper. The author is Ken Gregory, who received a BS in Mechanical Engineering in 1978. I can find no other Gregory paper. He wrote representing a Canadian group www.friendsofscience.org (and Gregory's short report appeared in a sister denier group and has been widely quoted in the denier literature). I looked up "Friends of Science" and could not find Gregory there. But I found what appeared to be a reasonable Scientific Advisory Board - all presumed climate experts. But googling for them, it was apparent this is another of many interlocked similar denier groups. I looking up Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Chris de Freitas, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Dr. Tim Patterson, and Dr. Tim Ball at http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam. There is also useful information at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/
RWL questions for Kevin: How did you check out this story? Do you believe that the Gregory paper's main theme - that solar input is important - is not recognized by all climate modelers? And that all IPCC models include even the smallest known annual solar variations? If you believe the Gregory conclusion is new - and has adequately compared the incremental influence of CO2 (30+% increase in 50 or so years) - please give a citation or two.
d. http://icecap.us/ RWL question: What was I supposed to learn from this citation, not already covered by your #3 cite? I assure readers that they should disbelieve the site's statement that it is not a denier organization
RWL summation on your four citations - I found these to be extremely weak justifications for your sentence:
a.. "I would not be so certain about climate change not being a hoax" .
Rather, to me you have proven that are a denier - well beyond being a doubter. I believe a more accurate statement of your position is: "I am certain about climate change being a hoax."
Hence, I have concluded that you will go out of your way to defend this view including being unwilling to look up my leads on charcoal-using stoves, avoiding my questions and answering questions I never asked. I will therefore only continue this dialog if you answer my new questions above. If you do, I will get back to answering such statements you have made as:
1. "* Regrettably, I cannot give you a specific URL detailing teh process, but I am sure that if you did a search along the lines of "how to bring a new proiduct to market", you would find general confirmation of my suggested approach, and probably a whole lot more helpful points."
2. "* Wood stoves fueled with wood from "over-harvested forests" will be just as bad as charcoal stoves fueled by charcoal made from wood from overharvested forests."
3. * The Stove Manufacturer should be sure what Business he wants to get into: Does he" want to sell stoves or does he want to save the climate? It is much easier to sell stoves. :-)
4.. "** ..At the present, I believe we are in a period of Climate Change that is heading for cooling rather than warming..."
This list should understand that my failure to address these and similar statements is personally bothersome. I know I need to spend some of my time confronting climate deniers - but I have already exceeded my quota with Kevin. I now see no hope of a reasonable conversation on on either climate topics or charcoal-making stoves. However, I would be glad to answer any question about either topic from any other stove list member.
Again - Apologies to those who see this as off topic; to me, charcoal-using stove and climate topics are intimately connected. I felt this reply was needed here, as Kevin has refused to join our sister list "biochar-climatechange at yahoogroups.com" - even after pushing to have the climate topic separated from biochar at yahoogroups.com. Ron
More information about the Stoves