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'.

"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..

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.

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

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

> 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.

"..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