[Stoves] Offtopic: From throwing citations to phrasing propositions (Re: Ron, Andrew)

[Traveller]

Dear Ron:

Two nights ago you summarized your objections to my behavior on this list:

        "a.  Essentially no messages that advance stove science (the word
science being used here intentionally)
        b.  Negative comments about especially GACC (Global Alliance for
Clean Cookstoves) and especially its CEO (Radha Muthiah)- about which/whom
I have seen no evidence he knows much.
        c.  Negative comments on Hillary Clinton, whose work on stoves has
been wonderful - and I never saw mentioned during the campaign
        d.  Nonsense statements about DALY?s - a standard method in the
health community for addressing health impacts of all kinds - and
especially stoves  (My last message listed all the acronyms in this world -
with cites.)"

I was hoping you would substantiate your objections, and am hoping you are
working on those. My responses in the meantime (I have put N in front of
your list items):

Na: What is "stove science"? Combustion? What fuels, used with what stoves,
how, where, by which groups and in what contexts, for what purposes? I
don't think "stove science" can be advanced without some firmness on these
parameters. If you can't advance it, it is not my fault. You must have done
something in the last 30  years; please tell us what the objectives were
and what has been achieved, by whom, for whom. Not in the lab but in real
life. Even a number for trees saved.

Nb: It's not my fault if you haven't seen evidence of what I know of GACC
or its CEO. I would be glad to invite her for a coffee and cake if she
gives me a 10% kickback. GACC is a fine-wine-dine-and-shine party, a
masquerade ball.

Nc: Hillary's work on stoves was mentioned during the campaign; you just
didn't know where to look. (Breitbart
<http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/29/the-dirty-story-behind-hillary-clintons-clean-cookstoves-campaign/>,
where else? :-)) Shaking foreign governments down for money for private
activities is not an official duty for the US SOS. I leave it to academia.
Anyway, she can now register as lobbyist and mint money by the minute, like
Bob Dole has shown. I wrote here about how UN Foundation gave money to
Clinton Foundation. Incest in Washington - who'dd'a thought?? Hill famously
didn't bake cookies; enough of stoving.

Nd. DALYs are NOT a "standard method" for anything. The whole enterprise
was cooked up by Murray and Lopez at Hahavahd - you have to accept that
this is how we refer to the college up the river and up the street from
mine - and WHO (WHO know not a thing about cooking except budget
proposals), then transferred to IHME - for the purposes of assessing
"Disease Control Priorities". I am yet to identify one national government
in the world that uses such cockamamie for budgeting. DALYs are worth
throwing around like balloons at parties. The whole exercise of using DALYs
"for addressing health impacts of all kinds - and especially stoves" is an
utterly baseless, confusing assertion.

Ah. Glad to get that out of the way. For you to complain that I am negative
and then to validate your statement about DALYs and all that jazz is just a
waste of time. It has zero information value.


****
You and I have - what, some 20+ - years of friendship on this list and the
Shell Foundation HEH list (which ended on 9/11, unless California Cowboys
went to Twin Towers measuring indoor and outdoor air pollution and their
health impacts).

Andrew is correct -- you and I are of no use to this list if you just
accuse me of being negative to the Queens of Chappaqua and Washington, DC.
(Why name names, friend?)

In fun,

Nikhil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161210/3dc67f44/attachment.html>