"I think we probably share the view that the 'energy comparison' section is poorly written and sourced." - we can agree on that, but i would make the point that we should make the best of what we have until better information/models become available.

"my problem with the AGA document is that it's very misleading and should not be included for that reason"  - my answer is that the document does not really contain errors but contains some spin as you would expect from the manufacture however the spin is obvious and most people would be able to extract useful information from it despite its flaws. I would argue that reference 3 is also misleading as the data models presented there are to simplistic and will mislead people so using you own argument if you exclude reference 5 then you should also exclude reference 3. Energy models are inherently complex beasts and very simple representations such as 3 contribute nothing but confusion to the debate.

"Your complaint about a supposed 'Green rant' indicates that you do not have a neutral view" - you are reading to much into that comment. Its a response to the fact that the media that I read seems to be full of half baked green ideas which don't add up either from a technical or a mathematical point of view. As a trained engineer I am only interested in arguments that make sense from a technical view not fantasy land arguments that seem to require 1+1 to = something other than 2!

If you read the comment is fee website where Monobiot writes you will see something like 5 to 7 pages of comment on his article almost all critical about his article. The most common one was that he was not comparing like with like. Monobiot makes a lot of interesting points ( I have just read his book HEAT) but when it comes to technical details he is out of his depth and frequently gets things wrong. Read the site for more detail.  

"But do you not see the difference between marketing spin by AGA, and reliable, referenced data?" - yes of course - so provide some - I dont think this article cirrently contain any. It contains information but i dont think is very good information. 

"For example, you have plucked a figure of 30 years out of somewhere" its either in that article or another one on the AGA or Rayburn web sites. When considering some of the costs you have to remember that AGA last a very long time 
so costs and gains have to be considered over a longer time scale than you would for a cheap chinese electric oven which would have to be replaced 3-4 times over the same period.

"conventional ovens is worse than dismal" - I don't agree that that has been proven, the indications are that it is not very good in some circumstances but i think that dismal is to hard a term and yet to be proven. You cant consider thenal devices such as a AGA without considering how they are used. For instance consider 2 AGA , a 2 oven model in a single person household and a 4 Oven model in a nursing home. The first would be a disaster preparing maby only one hot meal a day, while the other would be on the go 24x7x365. Both are AGA, the first setup would be crazy, the second is a market that actually buys large numbers of AGA and they are commercial institutions for the most part, they are run by hard nosed managers and yet they buy tons of AGA why is that if they are as bad as you say? What do you know that all these hard nosed money pinchers don't? I suspect that answering the question for the AGA is very much more than straight KwH

BYW I dont have an AGA or expect to ever own one - I am interested in engineering soultions to global warming ( real solutions not 10:10 stuff) but i dont understand why this whole "lets bash teh AGA" thing that seems to be going on at the moment is coming from?

"Could you perhaps list this annual expenditure for clarity?" you should address that question to the authors of the article I dont know?