Jed wrote: "For most sources of energy that is true. The DoE does have top experts in coal, oil, and nuclear power and other conventional energy."
I don't buy the argument that you can be specialized in conventional energy and dead ignorant about anything new. The staff are almost all PhDs, supposedly the best scientists our universities can turn out, what the hell do they learn about science if they are not able to look at anything new? DOE's primary job is to advise the decision makers what to do. How can they possibly do that if they don't keep abreast of developments? Perhaps a few engineers would help if they can't see ITER like power generation will never be economical.
Very few of the prominent "Climate Scientists" have qualifications in climate. I don't think a degree in that subject even existed when they were at school. Any competent person with training in math and statistics can do as well or probably better. Steve McItyre for example. They are just self proclaimed experts. I think the piece of paper has very little to do with their competence.
