If I take your own arguments and ask you to read them. Does that not tell you that government are incapable of handling changes and to take risks. You say that the people knows more about other issues but LENR. Just one single argument for that statement would be a surprise. Why do you not accept that large organizations foster a CYA mentality.
As we talked about the Paris conference I had an email from a health letter I subscribe to. For reasons I do not understand sometimes they send me investment advices. Here is what this newsletter said. I think that is a correct observation. December 3, 2015 The War on Climate Change Means Big Profits for Savvy Investors by Keith Fitz-Gerald Dear *Total Wealth* Investor, More than 30,000 diplomats have converged on Paris, France for what is being called "one of the most important international conferences in history." *"Tackling climate change is a shared mission for mankind," said China's President Xi Jinping, the head of the world's largest carbon emitter. "All eyes are now on Paris."* *"If we act here, if we act now," President Obama added, "if we place our short-term interests over air our young people will breathe... it won't be too late for them." * *"Here in Paris," French President Hollande declared, "we will decide on the very future of the planet." * Perhaps I'm too skeptical for my own good, but that's very similar to what world leaders said in 1997 just before the Kyoto Accords. And *those* have proven to be little more than lip service. Even if 100% of the Kyoto requirements are followed by 100% of the 192 countries that signed them, they will deliver less than 0.020 C in cooling by *2050* despite costing hundreds of billions of dollars. Is that worth it? I have no idea - I'm not a scientific expert. But I do know beyond any shadow of a doubt that trillions of dollars are going to get set in motion no matter what happens in *La Ville Lumière*. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> 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 > >
