[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 14, 11:36 am, Eeyore
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:





Eeyore wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

"Brian Leyland, MSc , FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, an Electrical and
Mechanical Engineer specialising in power generation and power
systems, now a power industry consultant."

Why the hell shouldn't they have an energy expert on their panel ?

**Because it's about CLIMATE SCIENCE, not power generation. The two are
unrelated.

You would disenfranchise certain scientists because of their area of
specialisation ?

Answer me this: if this group is sincere in its effort to propogate
the "truth" and challenge the "nutters", how does a nuclear engineer,
a power generation and distribution specialist, or the like, enhance
that effort?

Why would he detract from it ?

Um, bias? Um, not wanting to bite the hand that feeds him?

Why do you think they're not fit to comment ?

Nice try, but I asked first.

Why is it necessary for EVERY SINGLE group that attempts to discredit
AGW as an issue to have representation by energy companies? How does
this enhance their position? What expertise do power engineers bring
to the table in a debate about climate that isn't available elsewhere?
Is that expertise necessary in determining the "truth" about AGW?