[Stoves] Marketing and using charcoal-using stoves (formerly "nonmemberenquiry")

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Ron
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Larson 
  To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
  Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 3:40 PM
  Subject: Re: [Stoves] Marketing and using charcoal-using stoves (formerly "nonmemberenquiry")


  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:
  a.  http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINK%20IV/DECEMBER%2008/22.P.WARMING.html

  KC: I tried to review this site, but the above URL doesn't work as posted.
  http://www.urgentagenda.com/PERMALINKS%20IV/DECEMBER%2008/22.P.WARMING.html is the correct link.

  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?)

  KC: Tipler lays out 8 specific points that cast doubt on the scientific validity of Global Warming. You do not address tehm. You simply "write off" Tipler because he is not in the group that the Global Warming Folk approve of. The Little Boy who said that the Emperor had no clothes had no credentials either. He was right and the "experts" approved by the Court were wrong. He simply went with his observation. Please show where Tiplers 8 points are faulted.

  b. http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction

      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". 

  KC: The first mistake is to assume that merely because it is a refutation, that the refutation is valid!! :-) I am a Mechanical Engineer, yet I could not understand what the Refuter said. If Miskolczi was in error, it should be easy to refute him in palpable, and understandable terms. I went to the Realclimate site above, where the paper is refuted, and in the comments, there are a number of "reasonable refutations of the refutation." 

      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? 

  KC: I do not know everything, and there were some things in the  Miskolczi paper that I did not understand. However, I found nothing in it that struck me as being wrong or incorrect. I therefore accepted his basic views and conclusions.

  Where did you come upon his name and why do you trust that source, if different from "landshape"?

  The calibre and competence and the leaning of the person who sent me the paper are irrelevant. The Paper rises or falls on its own merits, rather than the merits of the "messenger."

  c. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WHY_CLIMATE_MODELS_FAIL.pdf

      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.

  KC: You criticize Mr. Gregory because of status and stature, or lack thereof. Is what he says correct or incorrect??? Please show where he is wrong, if he is wrong.

  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.

  KC: We can believe anything we want. The nice thing about "belief" is that we do not need fact and science to support a belief. We are being asked to "believe" in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and some of us do, while some of us don't. It is Belief, not Science. The Icecap Site purports to present Science showing that Anthropogenic Global Warming has serious flaws. 

      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."   

  My statement was poorly phrased, and was in the context of "climate change = Anthropogenic Global Warming." To restate the above in more accurate terms: "I would not be so certain about Anthropogenic Global Warming not being a hoax." That is an accurate statement of my position. I would go further as follows:
  "My present belief is that we are in a period of climate change, and that the Northern Hemisphere will see significant cooling before it sees significant warming."

  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.

  KC: I looked up all your leads, and I can see nothing to justify making charcoal stoves illegal. I can see a number of good reasons why it would be a bad idea to make charcoal stoves illegal.

  This thread has gone off on a climate change tangent, and does not deal with the original request by the person wanting to make stoves.

    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 product to market", you would find general confirmation of my suggested approach, and probably a whole lot more helpful points."

  KC: Crispin designs, makes, builds, and introduces new stoves to the Market. He is much more qualified than I am to make suggestions relating to helping the person introduce his new stove to the Market. 

  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." 

  KC: This statement makes perfect sense to me. Do you disagree with it?

  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. :-)

  KC: Do you agree or disagree with this statement?


    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.    

  KC:  Please do. The Climate Change List would be an excellent forum for such discussions.

      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

  KC: I have not joined the Climate Change List because I am interested in Stoves, Gasification, and Biochar. I feel that discussions of Climate Change on the Stoves List diffuses the Stoves List.  Also, promoting Biochar as a carbon sequestering agent rather than considering the merits of charcoal as a fuel also, in my opinion, misdirects the Stoves List to one being an "Agent of Climate Change", rather than as a way to use biomass for cooking more efficiently.

  I feel that if we can build and disseminatge better stoves, everyone wins. I cannot visualize any circumstance where a more efficient biomass fueled stove can do anything except help the environment and help with your concerns about climate change.

  Best wishes,

  Kevin