a.ashfield <[email protected]> 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. They are dead ignorant about cold fusion. It is likely they are not so ignorant about other new discoveries. As everyone here knows, there is widespread bias against cold fusion. A great deal of misinformation about it spread by opinion makers such as Nature magazine, Scientific American and even Wikipedia. The DoE experts are affected by society and they share this bias. That is not surprising. Many scientists outside the DoE also share in it. This is why there are no corporations or universities developing cold fusion. Michael Melich was talking to a top DoE official. He asked: "Why do you put the editor of Nature in charge of US energy policy?" I do not think the guy answered. He was reportedly miffed. > The staff are almost all PhDs, supposedly the best scientists our > universities can turn out . . . They are necessarily the very best, but they are in the top tier. For that matter so are the editors at Nature and the administrators at the APS. Yet we know they are completely ignorant of cold fusion. Smart people often believe stupid things. History is full of examples. > . . . what the hell do they learn about science if they are not able to > look at anything new? I expect they look at other things, but not cold fusion. - Jed
