[Stoves] Off-topic again: Ron fails to define service standard and goals for "better biomass stoves"

[Ronal W. Larson]

Crispin - and list (who were presumably inadvertently omitted)

	See below


> On Dec 17, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Ron you are going to have to explain to us what a ‘denier’ is and why you call people that.

	[RWL1:  With this type of question, I almost always turn to Wiki first.  https://www.google.com/search?q=denier&oq=denier&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i60j0l3.3279j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=climate+denier <https://www.google.com/search?q=denier&oq=denier&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i60j0l3.3279j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=climate+denier>
Their first two sentences (when I looked only for the words “climate denial”) say:

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is part of the global warming controversy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy>. It involves denial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial>, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian> views which depart from the scientific opinion on climate change <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change>, including the extent to which it is caused by humans <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change>, its impacts <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming> on nature <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature> and human society <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_society>, or the potential of adaptation to global warming <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_to_global_warming> by human actions.

	 I have emphasized the parts I expect you to disagree with.  I support those especially.

	What parts of this do you find incorrect - that you feel Wiki has got wrong?  That are not the common usage of the term(s) under discussion?

>  
> Apart form being offensive because of the obvious intention of linking people with denying the Holocaust, you have never given us your personal list of qualifications or attributes for those you obviously don’t like.
	[RWL2:  same source says on this “Holocaust” question:  “ Terms related to denials have been criticized for introducing a moralistic tone, and potentially implying a link with Holocaust denial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial>.[44] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#cite_note-O.E2.80.99Neill_Boykoff_2010-44>[49] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#cite_note-Anderegg_Prall_E152-49> There have been claims that this link is intentional, which academics have strongly disputed.[50] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#cite_note-VerbalWarming-50> The usage of "denial" long predates the Holocaust, and is commonly applied in other areas such as HIV/AIDS denialism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism>: the claim is described by John Timmer of Ars Technica <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Technica> as itself being a form of denial.
	Personally,  I personally see no connection between the terms “climate change denial”and  “the Holocaust” - and am wondering why you bring this in?  I dispute your allegation that Wiki (or me or anyone I know) had any “obvious intention”.  Exactly who are accusing here?

	As to attributes I dislike,  the first two that come to mind are those I have emphasized in the quote from Wiki:   “… unwarranted.”” and “…depart from the scientific..”   Somewhat akin to the second is failure to provide citations related to personal beliefs that are treated only as fact, but which are in dispute.  

	While on this topic of citations, where should I go to get your point of view on “deniers” explained clearly?  And what term is less offensive to describe the Wiki characteristics they have used in their explanation?

  	Asking “believers” (like me) questions about what the term “denier” means is a fourth.  I can go on, but hope my point is made.  Remember there is not a single scientific society in the world that has NOT endorsed the concept of anthropogenic causation of global warming.  You and Nikhil are in a tiny world of your own.  (Apologies to Nikhil if he can show me in his writings why he is not a denier.)   I am of the belief that your position in the small “denier” community influences your views on stove and fuel attributes - especially related to coal-burning stoves - which I repeat have no place on this list - per rules set out 20 years ago.  Your early and continuing opposition to giving any credit for the charcoal produced in stove operation (classifying such intentionally produced char as “waste”) has been particularly disturbing.  (Fortunately handled skillfully by those in charge of these decisions at EPA and the ISO process;  that char efficiency data is still available in stove test results.)  
	I can think of no other reason for this technical push on char-making stove on your part other than that you are in the denier (coal-supporting) camp.  Sorry.  Hope you can give another explanation.

>  
> You have also used the term ‘climate denier’. I think if you are going to insult people you should explain that one too. I have never met anyone who denies that the Earth has a climate, so it just sounds stupid.
	[RWL3:  Just shorthand.  I always mean the next, if I have used this.  Apologies to anyone was not knowing that I meant the following.  There was no intent to insult - only to label and explain why their beliefs on certain subjects should not be ignored, but should be actively challenged - which I doing in this response.
>  
> You may as well toss in a definition of ‘climate change denier’ because I have also never met anyone who denies that the climate changes so it sound equally stupid.
	[RWL4:  That, as defined by Wiki above,  is what I meant.  Anyone besides Crispin not know my meaning when I use any of the three “denier” terms on this list?
>  
> Please share with us your inner meanings.
	[RWL5:  I think all/most are captured by the full Wiki entry (I have only skimmed, because the term seems so clear to me).   But I can also recommend the Skeptical Science site (https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php <https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php>) and many others on this topic should anyone not yet know the common meaning of the term “climate change denier”.   
	I am told that some fitting in the Wiki definition are proud of the term “denier” and welcome the appellation; those might have a chance of changing their “denial” mindsets - but that is maybe only wishful thinking.   I add this to prove that not all deniers take the term hatefully.
	
	Ron
>  
> Thanks
> Crispin
>  
>  
>  
> or "better biomass stoves"
>  
> List, Nikhil, and ccs:
>  
>             It is way past my usual bedtime, so just two comments.   
>  
>             a)  I believe this to definitely be “on topic”, so think it deserves to go to the whole list - as Nikhil seems to approve of my doing.
>  
>             b)   Nikhil accuses me of calling him a “denier”.  I carefully and intentionally did not do so.  But observe his response near the end:  
>                         “The only connection I see between stoves and CO2 is that technologies that increase kg CO2 output per kg input of carbonaceous fuel are a boon to people as well as climate.”
>             Anybody else think that sounds like a denier talking?
>  
> Ron

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161217/ea76e286/attachment.html>