<DrumBeat: April 7, 2008 The Oil Drum How Realistic is EIA's US Domestic Oil Supply and Demand Forecast?>

176 comments on EROI Post - A Response from Charlie Hall

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Charles Barton on April 3, 2008 - 9:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Charles, I also worked at ORNL too. Among the ecologist I worked with were Jerry Olsen and Robert V. O'Niell. Perhaps you meet them while you were at ORNL. Both Jerry and Bob were very fine scientist, and I have mentioned Jerry in my blog. I learned a lot from both of them. One of the things I learned was echologists have a different approach to energy than nuclear scientists. I doubt that either would have offered themselves as experts on nuclear energy. I judged your qualifications on the basis of your CV, which did not reflect the sort of expertise on energy related topics that I would expect. Working at ORNL does not in itself qualify you as an energy expert in my book.

If you worked in the ORNL Environmental Science Division before 1977, you might also have also known my father.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on April 4, 2008 - 6:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I would point out that simply being a nuclear scientist does not make one an overall energy "expert", as no expertise is evident in hydro, wind, solar, geothermal or other commercially viable energy source. Perhaps if you had been less abrasive, you would have been given more consideration. Don't assume everyone who doesn't think the same way as you right this minute is 'incompetent'.

UPDATE: Now I see that you are a "retired counselor" who worked in the "Communications and Media" industry. That gives us a basis for considering your 'contributions'.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on April 4, 2008 - 7:12am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"That gives us a basis for considering your 'contributions'."

No it doesn't. If any of us really WANTS to find a way to discredit someone's comments, we will surely find a way to do so. Sorry Will, but it's bad money after bad.. it just perpetuates the 'oh, yeah?' level of the conversation..

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on April 4, 2008 - 10:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes. Shall we all submit our CV here for the privilege of posting? That would cut down on the comments nicely. Let us judge each comment on its merits.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on April 4, 2008 - 1:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You missed the point completely. The 'basis for consideration' on this topic is that of a layman for Charles. YMMV.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on April 4, 2008 - 2:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No, Will.
You did the same thing he did. You Question the validity of his point of view by pointing out his professions and pointing towards his age (retirement) to insinuate his fitness to be part of the conversation. It doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what he has been doing with Dr Hall, and continues to. Two wrongs don't make a right.

'Lay-people' (a term that means Non-clergy, of course, while the implication is clear enough) are welcome to challenge experts, as far as I'm concerned.. you can be intelligent and more importantly curious- without carrying the right degree or credentials. We are all invested in this as it is our future.

Sorry to continue on this point, but to me, it is central to keeping a productive conversation. Try to break the cycle of Ad-homs, ok?

Bob

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will Stewart on April 4, 2008 - 5:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

> You did the same thing he did. You Question the validity of his point of view by pointing out his professions and pointing towards his age (retirement) to insinuate his fitness to be part of the conversation.

I made no such insinuation about age; the fact that it has meaning to you describes your perspective, not mine.

> It doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what he has been doing with Dr Hall, and continues to.

And have you called him on it, or are you just picking on me?

>'Lay-people' (a term that means Non-clergy, of course, while the implication is clear enough)

Good grief, a 'layman' means someone who is not an expert in a the field in question. I have no idea what implication you refer to.

> are welcome to challenge experts, as far as I'm concerned.. you can be intelligent and more importantly curious- without carrying the right degree or credentials.

Curious is one thing; caustic without merit is another. If its fine for you, then why bother responding here? Many others are obviously repulsed by his acidic style, just read the comments following his posts.

You are obviously free to give considerable weight to the opinions of any schmuck with a keyboard; don't expect the rest of us to be undiscerning.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on April 4, 2008 - 7:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"..have you called him on it, or are you just picking on me?"

No. I'm just picking on you. I made the point that I thought both were wrong. Yes, I didn't like his style at all.. so why perpetuate it?

I don't expect any of us to be undiscerning, but if 'Counselor' and 'Media Whatever' is what you're trying to discern by, it makes your critique look as shallow as his did.

Heil Bob, Thought Nazi

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

176 comments on EROI Post - A Response from Charlie Hall

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version